PAGENO="0001" GOV0 DOt~ EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES HEARINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 4769 A BILL TO AMEND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, SO AS TO MAKE ITS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURE HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, AND 12,1967 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor CARL D. PImKINs, Chairman S U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 82-132 WASHINGTON 1967 C~ PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman EDITH GREEN, Oregon FRANK ThOMPSON, JR., New Jersey ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan HUGH L. CAREY, New York AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California SAM GIBBONS, Florida WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York LLOYD MEEDS, Washington PHILLIP BURTON, California CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio ALPHONZO BELL, California OGDEN R~ REID, New York EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon MARVIN L. ESCH, 1\Iichigan EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania JAMES C. GARDNER, North Carolina WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin SPECIAL SD13COMMITTEE~ ON LABOR FRANK THOMPSON, Ja., New Jersey, Chairman JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan HUGH L. CAREY, New York JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York 3 OHN BRADEMAS, Indiana WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio OGDEN R. REID, New York JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon JAMES C. GARDNER, North Carolina II PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held in Washington, D.C.: Page May 1, 1967 1 May 4, 1967 31 May 5, 1967 61 May 8, 1967 115 May 9, 1967 167 May 12, 1967 205 Text of bill H.R. 4769 1 Statement of- Arredondo, Domingo, chairman, United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, Rio Grande City, Tex 104 Chavez, Cesar, director, United Farm Workers Organizing Commit- tee, AFL-CIO, Delano, Calif 62 Cohelan, Hon. Jeffery, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 169 Fields, Ogden W., Executive Secretary, NLRB 147 Gonzalez, Hon. Henry B., a Representative in Congress from the Stateof Texas 171 Haughton, Prof. Ronald W., Wayne State University 115 Holland, Hon. Elmer J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania 167 Huertá, Mrs. Dolores, director of negotiations, UFWOC, AFL-CIO,. Delano, Calif 81 Itliong, Larry, assistant director, United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, Delano, Calif 108 Lyons, Mack, chairman, DiGiorgio Ranch Committee, Arvin, CaliL - 91 Mayer, Arnold, legislative representative, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, AFL-CIO 31 Meany, George, president, AFL-CIO 2 O'Connell, Richard, secretary, National Council of Farmers Coopera- tives 240 Padilla, Gilbert, director of organization, United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, Rio Grande City, Tex 99 Potter, Frank A., Director, Office of Farm Labor Service; accompanied by James E. Goodgion, administrative assistant 20 Quinn, Msgr. William J., Chicago director, Bishops' Committee for Spanish-Speaking, Chicago, Ill.; Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch, director, Religious Action Center, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, representing the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism; and Rev. Isaac Igarashi, director of eastern regional office, Division of Christian Life and Mission, National Council of Churches 41 Reuther, Walter, president, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agri- culture Implement Workers of America, International Union, AFL-CIO; accompanied by Jack Conway 174 Serda, Joe, chairman, Ranch Committee, Sierra Vista Ranch, Delano, Calif Triggs, Matt, assistant legislation director, American Farm Bureau Federation 205 Wirtz, Hon. W. Willard, Secretary of Labor 18 `It PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.: Fields, Ogden W., executive secretary, National Labor Relations Page Board, prepared statement of 147 Haughton, Prof. Ronald W., Wayne State University: Exhibit A.-Letter to Hon. Edmund G. Brown, Governor of California, dated July 14, 1966 121 In the matter of the factfinding procedure, the DiGiorgio Corp., Borrego Springs and Delano, Calif., Properties, et al. (enclosure) 122 Exhibit B-Memorandum: re organizing campaign procedures applicable at the properties of the DiGiorgio Corp 125 Exhibit C.-Organizing campaign procedures applicable to Arvin 125 Exhibit D.-Agreement 125 Exhibit E.-In arbitration proceedings between United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, and DiGiorgio Fruit Corp 127 Exhibit F-Agreement between United Farm Workers Com- mittee, AFL-CIO, and DiGiorgio Fruit Corp 128 Exhibit G.-Release of Arbitrators Sam Kagel and Ronald Haughton in the arbitration between the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO, and DiGiorgio Fruit Corp 138 "Land of Promise-If You're Lucky," article in the California Farmer, March 18, 1967 219 Neigh, Rev. Kenneth G., general secretary, Board of National Mis- sions, United Presbyterian Church, USA, prepared statement oL - 46 Potter, Frank A., Director, Office of Farm Labor Service: Changes in wage rates, field labor costs, and prices for selected California crops (table) 27 Reuther, Walter P., president, International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aerospace & Agriculture Implement Workers of America (UAW), and the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, pre- pared statement of 186 PAGENO="0005" APPENDIX STATEMENTS AND LETTERS FROM PROPONENTS OF H.R. 4769 Allen, Steve, founding member, National Advisory Committee on Farm Page Labor, statement by 249 American Newspaper Guild in convention assembled July 24-28, 1967, Ottawa, Canada, resolution adopted by 263 Coates, Barbara J., interim director, migrant ministry, Oregon Council of Churches, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated August 9, 1967 266 Dechant, Tony T., National Farmers Union, letter to Chairman Perkins, House Education and Labor Committee, dated May 10, 196L 254 Department of Migrant Ministry, January 20, 1966, and the Administra- tive Committee of the Ohio Council of Churches, March 22, 1966, resolu- tion adopted by 266 Florida Christian Migrant Ministry, statement of 266 General Assembly of the Iowa Council of Churches, the board of directors of the Iowa Catholic Conference, and the Catholic Rural Life Conference, interfaith resolution adopted by 267 General Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, policy statement of 231 Hartmire, Rev. Wayne C., Jr., director, California Migrant Ministry, Los Angeles, Calif., letter to Chairman Thompson, dated August 18 1967~. - 269 Helstein, Ralph, president, United Packinghouse, Food, & Allied Workers, statement of 255 International officers, International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, statement by 250 Jensen, Everett J., general secretary, Washington Northern Idaho Council of Churches, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated August 9, 1967 - - - - 265 Mealey, Margaret, executive director, National Council of Catholic Women, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated July 7, 1967 260 Mitchell, Clarence, director, Washington Bureau, NAACP, telegram to Chairman Thompson, dated May 10, 1967 260 Moore, Carlos, legislative director, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warchousemen, & Helpers of America, statement by 260 National Consumers League, statement by 261 Official Church Bodies on Policy, compiled by the migrant ministry, NCC, representative actions 252 Smith, Fay H., associate secretary, Illinois Council of Churches, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated August 9, 1967 (enclosures) 267 Central Illinois Conference of the Methodist Church, resolution adopted by 268 Collective bargaining rights for farmworkers and support of the Del- ano, Calif., farmworkers strike, resolution on 268 Unitarian Universalist Association, general resolution 258 Vizzard, Rev. James L., S.J., letter to Hon. James G. O'Hara, a Represent- ative in Congress from the State of Michigan, dated May 9, 1967 263 News release (enclosure) 264 Workers Defense League, testimony of 264 V PAGENO="0006" VI CONTENTS STATEMENTS AND LETTERS FRoM OPPONENTS OF ILR. 4769 Abernethy, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the State Page of Mississippi, statement of 292 Bullock, C. K., legislative director, New York Farm Bureau, Glenmont, N.Y., letter to Congressman Frank J. Horton, dated May 19, 1967_ 270 Burrows, Fred W., executive vice president, International Apple Associ- ation, Inc., letter to Chairman Thompson, dated May 16, 1967, enclosing a letter from one of its members 270 Clark, Ross B., secretary-manager, Mid-South Milk Producers Association, Memphis, Tenn., letter to Chairman Thompson, dated June 28, 1967_ 273 Corey, Fred P., executive vice president, National Apple Institute, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated May 17, 1967 273 Creuziger, Charles M., statement on behalf of the Vegetable Growers Association of America 274 Frederick County Fruit Growers' Association, Inc., statement of, including a memorandum of the Virginia Employment Commission 288 Gathings, Hon. E. C., a Represesentative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, statement of 294 Heiney, John, executive vice president, National Council of Agricultural Employers, statement by~ 276 Imming, Bernard J., secretary, United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association, statement by 278 Johnson, Marion I., president, Wayne County Growers & Processors, Inc., Marion, N.Y., letter to Congressman Frank J. Horton, dated May 19, 1967 279 Lederer, Robert F., executive vice president, American Association of Nurserymen, Inc., letter to Chairman Thompson, dated June 2, 1967~ 280 Miller, J. J., executive vice president, Agricultural Producers Labor Committee, statement by 280 Moore, Lewis H., L. H. Moore Canning Co., McAllen, Tex., letter to Congressman de la Garza, dated May 30, 1967 287 Norton, E. 1\'I., secretary, National Milk Producers Federation, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated June 27, 1967 287 Vandenbord, Eugene J., first vice president and treasurer, Dairymen's League Co-operative Association, Inc., letter to Chairman Thompson, dated June 29, 1967 290 Williams, Cecil, Jr., executive vice president, Agricultural Council of Arkansas, statement of 290 Young, J. Banks, National Cotton Council of America, letter to Chairman Thompson, dated May 19, 1967 291 PAGENO="0007" EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES MONDAY, MAY 1, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITrEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chair- man of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, Carey, Ford and Reid. Also present: Peter W. Tredick, counsel; and Jeunesse M. Zeifman, clerk. (Text of H.R. 4769 follows:) [HR. 4769, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, so as to make its provisions applicable to agriculture Be it enacted by the Senate and Honse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2(3) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, is amended by striking out the following phrase: "as an agricultural laborer, or". SEc. 2. Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows: `(f) It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry, or an employer `engaged in agriculture, to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry, or as agricultural laborers, with a labor organization of which such employees are members (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act as an unfair labor practice) because (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been established under the provisions of section 9 of this Act prior to the making of such agreement, or (2) such agreement requires as a condition of employment, membership in such labor organization after the seventh day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later, or (3) such agreement requires the employer to notify such labor orga- nization of opportunities for employment with such employer, or gives such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified applicants for such employ- ment, or (4) such agreement specifies minimum training or experience qualifica- tions for employment or provides for priority in opportunities for employment based upon length of service with such employer, in the industry or in the par- ticular geographical area: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall set aside the final proviso to section .8(a) (3) of this Act: Provided further, That any agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 9(c) or 9(e)." SEc. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect sixty days after the date of enactment. 1 PAGENO="0008" 2 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. Ti~oi~IPsoN. The subcommittee will be in order. Our schedule this morning called for Secretary of Labor Wirtz to testify. He has been unavoidably detained at a meeting at the White House and he is going to make an effort to be here. We shall proceed first with the Honorable George Meany, the presi- dent of t'he AFL-CIO. The Chair has a brief opening statement. Mr. Meany's testimony will open the hearings on H.R. 4769. The purpose of this bill is to grant to agricultural laborers the right to organize and bargain collectively under the National Labor Rela- tions Act. A history of how agricultural labor was excluded from coverage under the Wagner bill is a book in itself. I think it is important, how- ever, that we look at I-hR. 4769 in the light of the legislative history of the National Labor Relations Act. As originally conceived and written, the act would have applied to agricultural labor. When wide opposition to the bill as a whole arose, the bill managers deleted its applicability to agriculture to minimize the controversy. In defending their action on the floor of the House, they argued that the exclusion was necessary for the survival of the bill but promised that once the bill was passed, Congress would re- turn "to take care of the farmworkers." That promise was never kept. Today, after 32 years of waiting, the farm labor movement has taken matters into its own hands. Since September 1965, the farm- workers, by striking, picketing, and boycotting, have attempted to gain for themselves what the Congress denied them in 1935: the right to organize and bargain collectively through a certified union. Their efforts have met with some success recently, but the price has been high-for the growers, for the laborers, and for the public. The legislation proposed by Mr. O'Hara, of Michigan, that we are considering would extend to the farm industry the stabilizing mecha- nisms of the National Labor Relations Act. It would allow labor rela- tions in agriculture to be handled in the manner which has proven successful in other industries by permitting employees to organize and to bargain through their elected representatives. It would elimi- nate the present need to resort to strikes and work stoppages merely to get to the bargaining table. In short, in my judgment, it would re- place chaos with law. Mr. Meany, you are indeed welcome. We are delighted, as always, to have you here this morning. I wish you would feel free to proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF GEORGE MEANY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDER- ATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OP INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZA- TIONS Mr. MEANY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I am here representing the AFL-CIO. I am appear- ing as a spokesman for more than 13% million workers whose right to organize and bargain collectively is protected by law-and who want these same conditions extended to the country's agricultural workers. I would like to emphasize the strong interest of labor and of the public in the bills you are considering-H.R. 4769, introduced by PAGENO="0009" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES 3 Congressman O'Hara~ of Michigan, and the identical bills submitted by Congressmen 1-holland, Cohelan, Burton, and Gonzalez. Let me begin with a broad generality which can be documented in detail. It is this: The men, women, and children who work for wages on American farms have been excluded from the whole range of social reforms achieved in this country over two generations. For example: Though they suffer more than any other group from recurring pe- riods of unemployment, they are not eligible for jobless benefits any- where, except in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Though agriculture is among the most hazardous occupations, they are fully covered by workmen's compensation in only five States and Puerto Rico; and in more than half the States, none of them are pro- tected at all. Though their wages are the lowest of any group in the labor force, until last year they were specifically denied inclusion under the wage- hour law; even now, coverage applies to fewer than 30 percent, and the wage floor when it reaches its maximum will be 30 cents an hour lower than for others. Though they have no other means to provide against old age, or for their families if they die or become disabled, they are largely outside the scope of the social security system. If we look closer, the details get worse, Child labor-outlawed everywhere else-is still common in agri- culture. Free public schools-supposedly available to all American chil- dren-are often unavailable to the children of migrant agricultural workers. Even the basic State and local welfare services are often out of reach, because of arbitrary residence requirements which migrant workers cannot meet. All of these are abuses that cry out for correction. And there is still another, which we are specifically discussing today: Farmworkers who seek to improve their lot through the accepted pattern of organizing for the purpose of collective bargaining find that they are denied both the protection of law and access to the Federal Government's adminis- trative machinery. Not only are farmworkers denied the help of all the other laws enacted to benefit workers; they are even denied the effective right to help themselves. Let me offer my own analysis of how this shocking situation cle- velopecl-ancl I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that "shocking" is an understatement. First of all, the Congress, and the country as a whole, have for a long time been sensitive to the importance of the agricultural industry and to the problems of farmers. So has the labor movement. The AFL-CIO has supported every maj or bill designed to help farmers- even when its opponents argued that farm subsidies were against our interests because they raised prices. We supported these farm bills because we have never looked for bargains at the expense of some other group, or against the national* interest. However, this general solicitude for the farmers-stimulated h~r the selfishness of many big farm operators-caused the Congress, and PAGENO="0010" 4 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES the various State legislatures, to exempt farmers from obligations carried by other employers. Thjs was a mistake-or, rather, a whole series of mistakes. As I have noted, the result has been disastrous for farmworkers. And instead of helping the average farmer, it has squeezed him harder than ever. To understand this-as I am sure you understand it, Mr. Chair- maii-the agricultural industry must be looked at the way it is today, not the way it was yesterday. I used to read about farm life when I was a boy growing up in a suburban area of the city of New York. There were even what we would call family farms left in that area in those days. And many senior Members of the Congress grew up on the kind of farms I used to read about. It seemed to be a simple life and a good life. There was the farmer and his wife and their children. And there was the "hired man," or maybe several of them, who lived on the farm, and ate at the family table; who taught the boys how to handle the team, how to hoe, and how to whittle-family retainers, as permanent as the barn or the well. It was a pretty picture. I am not sure how true it was then but I know it's not true now. Yet it was this picture, I am convinced, that was most influential in excluding farmworkers from the legal protections that were being won by other workers. It is a shame to spoil this pretty picture with facts, but here are a few more. For one thing, half of all the farms in the United States employ no farm labor at all. A mere 2.7 percent of the farms pay half the farm wages; and 6 percent of the farms account for 76 percent of the wage bill. These are 1959 figures, the latest available. However, despite the changes of recent years, there is no evidence to suggest that these proportions have shifted in any significant way. Now let's look at the farm labor force. In 1965-again I am using the most recent figures-some 3 million Americans earned wages for farm work. But for more than a third of them it was incidental. Fewer than 2 million worked longer than 25 days. Only about 650,000 were employed for more than 150 days. As of October 1966, the average cash hourly wage for domestic farmworkers was $1.18. In the South, which provides half the em- ployment, the average was 95 cents an hour. The highest mainland rates were on the Pacific coast-an average of $1.57. The best sec- tional average, translated into full-time employment-which few farmworkers enjoy-still comes out to a poverty-level income. That pretty picture I mentioned a few moments ago has to suffer another revision. Of the nearly 2 million farmworkers who were employed more than 25 days in 1963, hardly one-fourth were provided with housing- and the housing was almost always primitive or worse. Less than 12 percent were given food grown on the farm. Fewer than 10 percent received wood or other fuel. Only 7 percent were served one meal a day. This is today's version of the farm "hired man" who figured in the tales we read as boys. That kind of "hired man" is a myth. PAGENO="0011" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 5 Maybe he really did exist in the past. Maybe he still existed as late as 1910 to 1914, when hourly wages for farm labor were 67 percent of the average factory wage, and there were fringe benefits on the farm and none in the factories. But by 1965, the average hourly rate for farmworkers was only 3~ percent of the factory rate, and the fringes had all gone over to the other side. Perhaps that "hired man" wasn't really a myth, but ]ust a species that is now extinct, like the dinosaur. The same can be said for the picture of the farm operator as a benevolent employer. Over the years, agricultural workers who tried to organize-and there were many attempts-found themselves faced with firings, blacklists, yellow-dog contracts, even arrest on trumped- up charges. And these same tactics are used against them today. In the eyes of most farmworkers, for good reason, the benevolent farmowner is also extinct. But farm labor is not extinct. These workers are very much alive, and in the last few years they have proved it. They are so alive that in many parts of the country they have organized, despite their lack of legal protection enjoyed by other workers; and they have made it clear that they are determined to be full-fledged members of American society. That is right and proper for them-and we in the AFL-CIO are doing all we can to help them. It is right and proper for America, for it is just as un-American to discriminate on grounds of occupation as it is on grounds of race. But, also, as I suggested earlier, it is right and proper-and eco- nomically helpful-to the farmers, themselves, to the family farmers whose welfare is of greatest concern to the Congress and the country. It is not the family farmer, the small farmer, the traditional sym- bol of American independence and self-reliance, who exploits the farmworker. He doesn't have any workers to exploit. Thanks to the tremendous advances in farm machinery, the small farmer and his sons-and, perhaps, with a mutual assistance pact among his neighbors-can sow and tend and reap his own crops. He is threatened, not by higher wages and better conditions for farm labor, but by the perpetuation of low wages and miserable conditions. For in effect, he is placing his own return, his own standard of living, in competition with the exploited workers hired by the corporation farmers, the factories in the fields. I cannot improve on the calm, direct words of the National Ad- visory Commission to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and I quote: The farm family will not earn favorable returns on its own labor when hired labor is chronically cheap. . . The opportunity for family farms to compete and to earn satisfactory returns for their labor will be enhanced if wages and work- ing conditions for hired farm labor compare favorably with those in industry. That is also the position of t:he AFL-CIO. I have already indicated some of the steps that need to be taken. There must be a complete and final end to those provisions in Fed- eral and State law which deny to farmworkers the protection and the benefits enjoyed by all other workers. Measures must be devised to overcome residence and other require- ments that prevent farmworkers and their children-migrant work- PAGENO="0012" 6 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES ers, in particular-from full access to schools, medical facilities, and other community resources they so badly need. But the bill before you, we think, is the most important of all. It offers no subsidies to farmworkers. It carries with it no ap- propriations. It is not special legislation; on the contrary, it is a bill to do away with special legislation. It offers one simple proposition: That farmworkers have the same right as all other workers to organize and bargain collectively. Surely, there is nothing revolutionary about this. But anyone who listened seriously to some of those who have consistently opposed this concept would imagine that the revolutionaries were at the gates. One of the more restrained objections that has been raised, over the years, to extending the National Labor Relations Act to agriculture is that its administration would be impossible. Farmworkers move around too much, according to this argument. They work irregular periods of time for many different employers. But as 1H.R. 4769 and its companion bills demonstrate, there is an easy and established solution to this problem-the same solution that works so well in the construction industry, where the work schedules are in the same pattern. So this objection is not valid at all. Then there is another, even less rational argument, that goes some- thing like this: "We couldn't stand a strike at harvest time." Well, it has been argued in the past that a steel mill can't stand a strike when it's time to pull the furnaces, and a construction job can't stand a strike when there's only 2 weeks before the first snow, and the auto industry can't stand a strike during the model changeover. But all those industries are organized, and all of them have had strikes, and all of them are doing all right. They and many others are paying far better wages and making much more money than the average farm employer. Beyond this, 1 resent the implication that trade union organization and strikes go hand in hand. It simply is not so. Yes, there will be strikes if an employer resists to the bitter end any and all of the proposals offered by the union. But an employer who does this is not basically against the proposals; he is against the union. In reality, he is the. one who is on strike. The same has been true of the farrnworkers' strikes during the last year, only more so. Primarily, these have been strikes, not over wages and working conditions, but for the fundamental right to bargain collectively. No worker in interstate commerce has had to strike for that right since 1935, for the right to organize has been established by law and has been enforceable by law. Simple justice, we contend, would extend that right to farmworkers as well. Indeed, the pre~Tention of such fruitless and disruptive strikes was a major purpose of the original National Labor Relations Act. The act established *a procedure through which workers could make their own decision, legally and peacefully. Only a month or so ago, I joined- with representatives of the National Association of Manufacturers-in celebrating the 25 millionth vote in a representation election. Not a single one of these 25 million votes was cast by a farmworker to estab- lish bargaining rights with the farm employer, becau~ fftr1nwTorkGr~ are denied this basic, democratic right. PAGENO="0013" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 7 The continued denial of that right is an affront to the farmworkers and to the American principle of equal justice under the law. Its con- tinuance will lead to more strikes by farrnworkers who have no other recourse. Its continuance will help to perpetuate the shocking poverty- even degradation-of the men and women, and shamefully the children, who harvest so much of the food and fiber upon which the Nation depends. This bill will not cure all the ills or all the injustices that afflict farm- workers. But it is a beginning, and I urge you to give it your prompt approval. Mr. THoMPsoN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meany. I have heard you testify a number of times, but I must say that I think this is the most constructive, forceful, and interesting testimony that I have heard in a long time. It is absolutely amazing that all these years have gone by and the farmworkers still don't have the right to organize under the NLRA. There are a lot of people, you know, in Congress who think that having very young children harvest crops and travel with their fam- ilies as migrant workers is good for them because of the sun and fresh air. That was raised 2 years ago when we included the few farm- workers that we did under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. MEANY. Yes. Mr. THo~soN. I would say that on the basis of the little experience that we have had with farms in New Jersey that your statistics with respect to the number of farms and the percentage of total farm wages paid are conservative. You say that 2.7 percent of the farms pay half of the wages and 6 percent pay 76 percent of all farm wages. In the dairy industry in New Jersey, according to up-to-date statis- tics, in 1958 there were 2,506 dairy producers in New Jersey. In 1966 the number was down to 1,451, and I would suspect that since these statistics which were the only ones available to you are so old it is likely that probably fewer than 6 percent of the farms pay 76 percent of all the wages. There has been a large decline in the number of farms and in particular in the number of family farms. We are aware that the AFL-CIO is doing all that it can to help these workers organize. I wonder if you could just give us a bit of detail about what you have done? Mr. MEANY. Well, in 1959 the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO decided that we had to do something constructive to try to help the farmworkers, and, of course, from our point of view the best way to help them was to organize them. Now, we realized that if we spread ourselves all over the country with so many areas to cover and so many workers involved there would not be much chance of success so we decided to concentrate on California. We set up all the machinery out there, sent our organizers out and we did interest the workers but the conditions under which they worked, the nature of the work, made it difficult to get permanent members organizations. In the area in California, we would get maybe 20,000 workers to sign up with the union and a few months later they would be gone and we would not see them for another 6 months or so. About 3 or 4 years after this program started, and this program was quite expensive, I mean from our point of view we put in quite a bit PAGENO="0014" 8 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES of money out there, I reported to the Executive Council that from the very simple trade union approach we were not having any success, we were not organizing workers into permanent unions. The opposition of the employers was strong; the opposition of the banking fraternity in California that owns many of these farms was strong and even the State government was not very helpful. We, of course, had this bracero situation, the workers coming up from Mexico and being herded in there. All in all, from the strict trade union point of view, after about 4 years of experience we were not setting up a permanent union. How- ever, I told the Executive Council and produced some figures to show that while we were not getting new members we were doing something that was very, very important from a trade union point of view; we were raising the wages of the farmworkers because the typical defense of the farm employer would be to add a few cents more. This went on time and time again so that the wages were raised considerably and the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO said, well, if that is what is happening even if we don't get another member we are going to con- tinue our efforts. The cash outlay that we put in California up until a month or two ago from 1960 to date amounted to $1,450,000. This is cash that we sent out there to help these people. We furnished legal counsel and I can say that we are very happy because even though we have not achieved a permanent organization as yet, we have been instrumental in improving the conditions of these people; their wages have gone up little by little until they do have the best wages in the agricultural farms in the country. However, in the last 8 or 9 months, we have made a breakthrough in organization. We do have a going organization; it is headed up by a man by the name of Ceasar Chavez, a Mexican-American, who is doing a real good job, and they have even had some successful strikes. They have signed up for a collective bargaining contract with the DiGiorgio Co. Now, it would be a tremendous hell) to these workers and we feel that if we build up the conditions in California that they will surely spread to the other areas of the country. It would be a tremendous help to these workers to get a decent working condition if they have the same rates as the other workers in the country insofar as the national law is concerned. Now, I am familiar with this situation. I can recall working in the legislation in the State of New York handling all sorts of labor legis- lation, and a good deal of it we were successful in passing. New York was, I think, in the forefront of the more liberal States in the Union. But as a matter of just plain commonsense accepting the legislative conditions we automatically eliminated the farmer from every bill we ever wrote to help them, not because he didn't need the help, not because he didn't have the same problems as other workers, but simply because it was impossible with the state of mind of the legislators, especially those from the rural areas-it was impossible to pass any kind of legislation. Unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, all the protec- tive and remedial laws that went to other workers were denied to larmers and the argument was that your farmer was your neighbor PAGENO="0015" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 9 down the road and he and his son run the farm and you could not saddle him with all these laws which would cause him to be compelled to do paperwork and all this sort of thing and it just was not necessary. Now, whether that was true or not at that time, I am not ready to say, but, as I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that type of farm is gone. I have seen some of these complexes out on the west coast and in the Southwest and also in your home State in southern New Jersey. I have seen some of these things and these are agricultural factories; they have no relation to the old farmer and his hired hand. They employ thousands of workers. Mr. THOMPSON. They have a stability, too, in the sense that they are factories; they have an almost permanent work force. Mr. MEANY. Yes. They don't have the same seasonal problem that the old farmer had. Mr. THoMPsoN. For the most part, the agricultural worker is not under the act because he moves, he is ineligible to register and vote in most areas, and he, therefore, cannot help himself. He has virtually no protection. It is interesting to note, as I mentioned to you earlier, the decline in the number of dairy farmers in New Jersey. We have a great prob- lem there now but this will reinforce your statistics or your statement that the farmowner is not threatened by higher wages and working conditions. In 1958 our dairy farmers were getting $5.38 a hundred- weight for their milk. In 1966, they are getting $5.41, an increase of only 3 cents. In the meantime, the cost of their hay went from $3.83 a hundred pounds to $4.61, and for alfalfa hay from $41.50 a ton to $49; all of this with just a 3-cent increase. Interestingly enough, and this does reinforce your statement, the hourly rates paid by farmers in 1960 on dairy farms was $1.16 an hour. In 1966 it is $1.39 `an hour-that little increase which is minuscule in comparison with the rise in fringe benefits and increases by indus- trial workers, thanks to the fact that they are organized. Mr. O'Hara, would you like to comment? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reiterate your statement about Mr. Meany's presentation. As a matter of fact, I am a little bit hesitant to expand upon Mr. Meany's statement because I think that he has said the things that need to be said in a better way than I could. Mr. Meany has very forcefully stated the reasons for the introduc- tion of this legislation. If I were to suggest any one thing as the princi- pal effect of this legislation, if it should be adopted, it would be to regularize the methods by which farm organizations are recognized. In other words, I think the outstanding characteristics of this legis- lation would be to end a lot of uncertainty and turmoil with respect to farm labor and conditions of their employment. After all, was that not really the principal reason for the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act? That is, to provide some system imposing restraints upon the employer and upon the employee organi- zation with respect to their methods of gaining recognition or giving recognition and the terms and conditions under which they bargained and worked out their agreements? We provided a regular method of doing so and we substituted that for turmoil. I think that would be the effect of this legislation on the farmer. We would substitute order and a definite way of doing things PAGENO="0016" 10 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES for the kind of rough and tumble uncertainty and turmoil which now exists. Would you not say, Mr. Meany, that would be the principal effect of this legislation? Mr. MEANY. The history of the industrial strife and industrial prob- lems bears that out because, as you know, before they passed the Na- tional Labor Relations Act there had been an exhaustive investigation by Congress and the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, and the record is dozens of volumes of sworn testimony and the testimony was about war. All of those records-and I have gone through them-is a story of a war. Well, now we do have our problems and we do have strikes here and there and when we get to the time we don't have strikes, then I think we are really in trouble; not that I advocate strikes, no labor leader worthy of his salt wants to strike, but you have got to have that right. As a result of the report of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, Congress enacted the first Wagner Act and the purpose of it~ as I said at the time, was to bring equality in the strength of employer and em- ployee compelling recognition of unions and the right to collective bargaining and, of course, with certain obligations on the unions. Now, the record of the 1920's, as I say, and the early 1930's was a record of war where great corporations in this country spent millions of dollars, hired agencies for no other purpose but to deny to their workers the right to get together and present their case as a group as to what their conditions of work and their hours and their wages should be. So, surely, the National Labor Relations Act, no matter what else anyone might say about it, they cannot say it did not bring some order out of what was chaos before and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this would not carry on the same way in the agricultural industry. Mr. THOMPSON. Would the gentleman yield for an observation? It is fascinating to know that the resistance to such legislation as Mr. O'Hara is proposing comes from many of the farmers themselves, the principals. They don't want the worker to have the right to bargain collectively and to cooperate with other workers. Yet the farmers use cooperatives for all sorts of purposes: for the marketing of their prod- uce, for the purchasing of machinery, and for the purchase~ of their electricity. It is sort of a unilateral thing. They want to cooperate but they don't want their worker to have that same right. Mr. O'}IARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct my aLtention to Mr. Meany's comments about the hired man. I agree with your analysis of the typical situation of the hired man being the reason that the farmer is not included in the first place, and I similarly agree that the situation has changed a good deal since the days of the Wagner Act. I do think the hired man under the cir- cumstances you described still exists to an extent; that is, in effect, as part of the family, eating at the family table and so forth. I would not like to deny that still exists, but it is not at issue in this legislation. Mr. MEANY. That family hired man would not be affected by this legislation at all. Mr. O'HARA. Exactly. The argument about whether that still exists to any extent is not really at issue in this legislation. PAGENO="0017" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 11 Mr. MEANY. You see, when we spea.k of the farmer in respect to this legislation, we really mean the employer. Who is the employer? Who is the farmer? The farmer in California is the Bank of America. He is the No. 1 farmer, the Bank of America. They own all these great, big farm factories. He is not a fellow who is walking around his farmlands seeing how things are going, doing a little work here and there; he is in the street, as they say in the financial circles. He is the farmer, the Bank of America. Mr. O'HARA. Exactly. Finally, I would like to call attention to another matter you have mentioned-the notion that the seasonal or migrant farmworker's em- ployment situation is such that the NLIRA should not apply to him be- cause he works for one employer for a short time and then he moves on. You have pointed out correctly, I believe, that this situation is similar to that found in the construction industry. Often carpenters, bricklayers, or plumbers will work for a short time on one job and then move on to another job. We have found a way of regularizing representation of such em- ployees and we have had a lot of experience with it. It works very well in the construction industry. Mr. MEANY. This is where the union structure comes in, where a man can move from town to town and still have the same bargaining rep- resentatives elected by the members. Mr. O'HA~. Yes. We have paved the way for that. We have worked out a system that works very well, and there is no reason it will not work the same in another field-in the case of the seasonal farm- worker. Thank you. I think you have given excellent testimony. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Reid of New York. Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to say I really appreciate your thoughtful and interesting testimony this morning, Mr. Meany. I have one or two questions I would like to ask to clarify the record, if I may. First, you say that there are only five States and Puerto Rico that are covered by workmen's compensation. What are those five States? Mr. MEANY. I have not got them here; I will furnish them to you, Mr. Reid. Five States and Puerto Rico, I think you said. Mr. REm. Yes. Mr. MEANY. That is where they have full coverage and then in half of the States they have no protection and in the other half they have some protection. There are only five where they have full protection. Mr. REID. That is a striking figure. Mr. MEANY. Yes. I will furnish the names of the States; we have them over in the office. Mr. REID. On page 2, you talk about child labor. Do you have any additional information other than what you have here? You say it is still common in agriculture. Mr. MEANY. Yes; it is. Mr. REID. Where? Mr. MEANY. We can give you detailed information on that, too. Mr. REID. All right. 82-132-G7---------2 PAGENO="0018" 12 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES The third question deals with the fact that apparently the figures are very hard to come by and you say that some of these figures date back to 1959. I notice in particular that, according to these figures, only about 650,000 were employed for more than 150 days. As far as you know, is that approximately a current figure today or do you think it is not accurate for today? Mr. MEANY. Well, I think I would say that that would not be the exact figure, 1 suppose, but I don't think the figures have changed a great deal in that respect over the years. Mr. REID. Of these 650,000, are some of these members of a family working on a family farm, or are these hired farmers who come in to work for a certain period of time oi~ a farm? Mr. MEANY. No; these are wage earners. These are what we call wage earners who are hired. Mr. REID. `What is your impression, Mr. Meany, of the efforts we have been trying to make to outlaw braceros and wetbacks? Mr. MEANY. They have been outlawed and, despite all the predictions that the crops would rot and they would not be harvested, that j ust did not happen. A year ago last January they were outlawed and I think that from my point of view the braceros were handled and I saw this myself years ago, went down to California and saw it. I would say this was a disgraceful procedure. We find that, as I say, despite the argument used that the crops would rot, we would not be able to get them in, we didn't have any crops rotting and we have outlawed the procedure. Mr. REID. I think it would be very helpful here to supply to the committee if you could any figures that show the amount and value of the crops harvested before and after braceros were eliminated. Mr. MEANY. The dollar value of the 1966 crop with the braceros eliminated was considerably higher than the value of the 1965 crop where the braceros were still legal. Mr. REID. I think if you could present some figures on that, perhaps expanded from your standpoint on the statement that you quote on page 5 of the National Advisory Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the gist of which is, as I understand it, that the oppor- tunity to handle the farms and higher earnings would be enhanced given appropriate wages and working conditions. Mr. MEANY. Yes. In other words, the question of competition for the family farms, in a sense. Mr. REID. If you could demonstrate the instances, in a case where reasonable standards for braceros are in fact required, that instead of hampering the earnings, the earnings are improved as well as the human necessity for schooling and all the rest that is implicit in the progress in this area. Mr. MEANY. I will send you a complete memorandum on all those questions, Mr. Reid. Mr. REID. All right. Well, again I just would like to thank you for testifying. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Reid. Mr. William Ford of Michigan. Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join the chairman in complimenting you, Mr. Meany, on this statement. PAGENO="0019" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EM]?LOYEES 13 I have seen many statements from representatives of organized labor before this committee in the last couple of years, and this is one of the most exciting, because the subject matter is most interesting. Mr. Chavez has opened a lot of eyes in this country to the problems thait his people have encountered. But those of us who entered college immediately after the war and read the LaFollette committee reports as a part of what was then considered to be labor history, are really much surprised when we start to delve into this problem and discover that things have not changed very much during the past 35 years with respect to a substantial segment of our society. I am also amazed at the close parallel to the conditions so very vividly burned into my mind as a yoimg person by the "Grapes of Wrath" and the conditions that still exist in my own State of Michigan each year as the crop followers come to our State. We pride ourselves in Michigan on being rather sophisticated in recognizing the great value to a stable economy of collective bargaining which we have had now in our major industry, the automobile in- dustry, for many years. As the third largest user of migrant labor in the United States, we are, I believe, one of the States that you mention in your testimony which provides absolutely no workmen's compensation coverage for migrant workers. As a matter of fact, I discovered when I was a member of our State senate that we afford more protection for a "wetback" who finds his way to Michigan to pick cherries than we do for an American citizen who puts his family in the back of a truck and comes there to pick cherries. I spent two summers living with these people in northern Michigan and still wonder at times how they could ever turn into citizens with roots with the kind of conditions they are content with. I have seen families where everyone large enough to walk and everyone who had reached the age where their canes would not permit them to go into the field, maybe three generations in one family, coming off of one truck to pick in Michigan. I am informed that that has not changed since 1942 when I had that experience in northern Michigan, and I am very grateful that we now have before us a piece of legislation that might bring about a change. I am particularly interested in your references to the small farmer vis-a-vis the large corporate farmer. I think there is again a parallel here with what we have experienced in our State. I had the opportunity of attending a meeting with an organizer for a small business association who was attempting to organize small shopowners-into the protective umbrella of the Small Business As- sociation. Some of these shopowners were my clients. I asked the organizer what his definition of a small business was in terms of the total employees and he said, "Well, we would not consider much over 500 or 600 employees to be a small business," whereupon my clients immedi ately began to cool off in their ardor about what they had in common with the employer of 500 or 600 people. . Unfortunately, the farmers in my State have not had a similar confrontation, and although they will write most of the letters oppos- ing this legislation and will be heard most frequently in the public media in Michigan, it would seem to me that you have made a very PAGENO="0020" 14 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES telling point when you illustrate that by joining with the large cor- porate farmers in maintaining a low wage stability the smaller farm- ers are in fact working against their own interest. I think the statement you made provides a basis for an outline of the factors that ought to be considered in weighing this legislation and examining it for possible changes or improvement. I would like to ask, with respect to agricultural workers and the organization of agricultural workers, if there is substantial evidence now available to us in various parts of the country that would demon- strate the effect over a period of time? We know what has been hap- pening in California; there has been a great deal of publicity with respect to that. Is the recent California experience unique in the attempts of orga- nized labor to organize labor, or is this happening in other parts of the country? Mr. MEANY. We have been in other parts of the country but I would say that California is unique in the sense that it is the most success- ful in setting up. We met tremendous resistance in Louisiana and Texas to our efforts which indicate the need for establishing among these workers the legal right that other workers have both in Texas and in Louisiana. In California, of course, as I say, we have concentrated there and we have had some success there. Mr. Foiw. Is it correct that most of the employers that are involved in the organization activities or involved with the employees that you are attempting to organize in California are themselves organized into an association or associations whereby they control by agreement with each other the level of wages, the price of their products, and all of the other aspects? Mr. MEANY. I could not answer that. I don't know just how they are organized. Mr. FORD. Well, is it common, for example- Mr. MEANY. My director of organization here maybe could answer that, Mr. Kircher. Mr. KIRCHER. The employers are, in fact, organized, and very well organized. I can't as a matter of fact testify with respect to how much they use the organization to restrain some of the situations that you mentioned. I don't know this as a matter of fact but we certainly have many indications that cause us to feel that this is part of their program. Mr. FORD. Do these organizations enter into any formal agreements in which the farmers agree on a set price for certain classifications of labor such as pickers and so on? Mr. KInGlIER. I don't know. Mr. MEANY. I could not tell you that. Of course, there is one factor that I mentioned before that ties them together and that is they all get their money from the same till; I mean, they are financing what they need to operate. This whole Calif or- ma structure runs right back to the banks and has for many years. Mr. Foiw. I, in closing, would just like to take issue slightly with one observation that you make with respect to the small farmer. I think you let him off too easily when you suggest that he is not directly responsible or directly involved in the problem of the unorganized PAGENO="0021" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 15 labor force. Again using the example of the State of Michigan, I don't think that it makes the small farmer with a big cherry orchard at all unhappy to see these people load up on their trucks and leave town as quickly after his cherries have been harvested as possible. He really does not want anything to happen in Michigan that is going to make it a desirable place for them to live. He demonstrates in a number of ways that he prefers not to have them as his neighbors and he considers themin every way as his inferiors. I don't know of any place where social class caste is demonstrated as clearly as it is in some of the finest, most beautiful little Hollywood- type Midwest American homes in my own State. I, as one resident, am a little bit ashamed of it, and I think the small farmer has to take his share of the blame. Mr. TI-Iom~soN. Thank you. The next gentleman here is one of the leading agricultural experts from the sidewalks of New York, Mr. Carey. Mr. MEANY. From Brooklyn. Mr. OAm~r. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know that you don't need to orient me with Mr. Meany or Mr. Biemiller. Mr. Meany and I were together last Saturday eve- ning when we honored a great American, David Sullivan, head of the American International, on the occasion of his being made the most elevated person in the church community-in fact, I think now we have to salute Dave every time we see him, something like Saint Gregory on a white horse. This was a fine chance for a plumber and ex-Brooklyn farmer to sit down and elevate the ex-service employee. 1 think I will have to in this case disown my agricultural background because the last farmer left Brooklyn a long time ago. Even though Mr. Meany, I know, is a good historian, and especially knows old New York himself, the term "hick" actually originated in Brooklyn. For the information of this committee, Mr. Chairman, in my district there is a street named Hick Street. Hick Street was the site of a great apple orchard during pre-Revolutionary days. The Hicks family who ran this farm knew they could get the best price for their commodi- ties, these good apples, over in lower Wall Street where those fellows didn't know what an apple was in those days. We didn't get around to selling apples on the corner until the Republicans got in 107 years later. Mr. THoMPsoN. We make very good apple juice in New Jersey. Mr. CAREY. Right. At any rate, the name "Hick" originated in American vernacular when the family Hicks would load up their little rowboats and row their crop across the East River to sell them in Lower Manhattan. The Lower Manha.ttanites were waiting for these `apples so when they would see the `boats coming across the East River they would say, "Here come the Flicks," and that is where we got the language and I will dispute anybody who says it is not so. Mr. Meany, I am going to approach you from a somewhat different angle now. I am the leading milk buyer of Congress, individua' milk buyer. It was running about 2 gallons a day when I left home this morning, and when I left home this morning they had not been home for lunch yet. PAGENO="0022" 16 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTIZJRAL EMPLOYEES In all seriousness, Mr. Meany, when we look at the public prints and we read about milk dumping because the milk grower is not sat- isfied with the price of his product and the beef cattle farmers with- holding beef from the market and in the wheat market we no longer look to the leverage of the Commodity Credit Corporation to estab- lish prices, the American housewife probably faces a.n ever-growing cost in the farm items in her market basket. Now, I am anticipating the testimony we are going to get from the NAM and every other management-based witness before this committee on this legislation, I think you and I can get to some kind of Latin term in order to offset that type of testimony. I think we will have to show that the effect upon the market basket of this particular legislation would be de minimis. I know that is an unfair term to throw at a plumber but I happen to know this plumber knows a little bit of Latin. I would like t'o pursue with you the kind of questioning that would show that this would not be a serious and inflationary bill were it to be passed tomorrow insofar as the total overall effect on the market basket would be concerned. If, in fact, 6 percent of the farms that account for 76 percent of the wage bill, as you say, and of this fewer than 2 million worked longer than 25 days and only about 650,000 were employed for more than 150 days, and we talk in terms of an average wage of 95 cents to $1.18 for those who worked in the South, if we got this up to the minimum wage, how much total dollar cost would it possibly add to the actual cost of farm production here in the country? If the housewife had to pay the whole thing and would not spread through the whole consumer market, how much would it possibly cost? `Mr. MEANT. In terms of your gross national product or something like that, it would be very small, I would say. Mr. OAREY. All right. Now, are we not in effect paying a lot of this cost in some other way? When the farmer does not pay the living wage, I am talking about the Bank of America, the corporate farmer does not pay the living wage, who does pay for the maintenance of income for the family and the in- dividual and the children in these families when they are not on the farm and receiving direct cash payments? Somebody is paying them or they are starving. Isn't it true that it is a combination? We found out in Mississippi many of these families are below the minimum level of maintenance in terms of food; they actually are at or near the starvation level; is this not right? Mr. MEANT. I think you will find out many of them are on relief at the same time they are working; they have to be in order to live. Mr. CAREY. It might be that the big consumer of farm iwoducts to- day is paying this in terms of income maintenance for the Welfare De- partment; is that correct? Mr. MEANT. That is possible. Mr. CAREY. Instead of paying it to the food supermarket, we are probably be paying it somewhere to the welfare system with a lack of truly American kind of payments and cash to the man who produced the~ food we are eating. Isn't it true that if we could add to the family income of the farmworker he would be less inclined to desert the farm PAGENO="0023" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 17 and head for the big city where he could at least school his children and get some type of year-round maintenance even though it be welfare? Mr. MEANY. I feel if they have the right to organize the same as other* workers, naturally they will get to the point where they have unions of some stability and I think the union will make a contribution to the stabilization of employment as it has in every other case. Mr. CAREY. That is the exact point I am coming to. Given the fact that this segment were allowed to organize, we are not talking about the family farmer here, we are talking about the co- operative farmer for that matter, is it not true that given the bulk of support of labor t.hat there could be some stabilization of farm price in- come, farm production income, and the organized labor would be on the side of the farmer in trying to get a fair return on his investment of labor and his investment of time and capital and everything else in the package that he is delivering to the supermarket? Mr. MEANY. This flows from stable organization. I mean, any or- ganization of labor is interested in the industry which furnishes to pay him a little. This is just as simple as that and surely the farmer would be no exception, that he would be interested with his employer in regu- larizing employment and perhaps the employer might find out through contact with organization that it is in his interest to regularize and not to have people coming down the road and then send them off a few weeks later. So, actually, what you have here is an opportunity for the worker through his union to make a contribution toward the stabilization and regularization of the industry in which he makes his living. Mr. OAREY. Now, Mr. Meany, I am very sensitive to the fact that my colleague on my right from the great State of Michigan, and per- haps it is unwise or inappropriate to draw this comparison, but we say that what happened to the American automobile could happen to the American tomato and the American head of lettuce. We were told when we organized the automobile industry that nobody ever would be able to afford a model T. That proved to be completely unfounded and we know that more people own cars today and more families have two cars than ever before, and the relative pricing of the automobile has gone down in terms of the cost of overall manufacture over the times since it was first invented, so mass production and other tech- niques employed huge masses of labor at good wages under outstanding living conditions-and you won't mind attributing some of this to the United Auto Workers who have done a fine job in this regard. Is it true that the same power would be drawn here, that if you could bring automobiles within the consumer market and put money in people's pocket to buy automobiles and get a good economy on the auto- mobile, why would not the same thing apply to farm products? Mr. MEANY. No reason at all. The automobile worker whose wages went up, he was able to buy homes put, up by the construction worker. He was able to buy radios, TV sets, refrigerators, and the same would be true on the farm. You could not hurt the economy of this country by adding to the purchasing power of these farmworkers. Maybe they would buy some automobiles and some of the other things. Mr. CAREY. If the hired man left the farm, this would probably bring back the traveling salesman, would it not? [Laughter.] I yield to my colleague, Mr. Ford. PAGENO="0024" 18 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. Foim. Thank you for yielding. Mr. ThOMPsoN. He has done everything but stand up. Mr. FORD. I just want to correct him on part of the history that he is putting into thisrecord. The problem was not the price of the Model T at the time of the or- ganization of the auto workers; we were working on the V-S engine then. Afterward Ford came out with a new car called the Mercury. So, you are off about half a generation. Mr. CAREY. I am going to accept the competent authority on this. I will do everything as long as you don't bring up the Edsel. Just to cap off the line of questioning, this will be my last call in this regard, it certainly is true that we have a ludicrous phenomenon in the economy today and that is that the very workers who produce this bounteous diet which we find on the American dining table today, the best food system of supply and the best diet that any civilization ever enjoyed, these very same fa.rmworkers are unable to participate even in the minimal requirements of a balanced diet if they don't have meat on the table the way we do in Brooklyn 4 or 5 days a week-it used to be 4 days a week but the Pope has changed all that. At least, they do not participate in the very fruits of their own labor; they cannot afford the minimum fare necessary for a balanced diet for their children at the same time they have given all of us one massive problem of actually weight watching. Now, this is a ludicrous phenomeon. That is, the very people who produce aren't able to participate in the balanced diet that the rest of America enjoys. I think it is time this bill got decent consideration, and I think your statement has gone a long way in helping us in that direction. Thank you; Mr. Chairman. Mr. MEANY. Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Meanv, I thank you very much. Mr. MEANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THo~rPsoN. Since Secretary Wirtz has not yet arrived, his testi- inony will be presented by Mr. Frank A. Potter, Director of the Farm Labor Service of,the Bureau of Employment Security. Good morning. Would you identify the gentleman with you? Mr. POTTEI~. Yes. I have with me Mr. Jim Gooclgion, administrative assistant in my office, who is familiar with some of the data that you may ask for later. Mr. TI-I0MPSON. How do you wish to proceed, Mr. Potter? Do you wish to read the Secretary's statement or shall we put it in the record at this point? Mr. POTTER. I would like to read his statement. I am authorized to do so and with your permission I will. Mr. ThoMpsoN. With the Secretary's permission, we will do so. STATEMENT OP HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OP LABOR Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunlty this hearmg presents. The circumstances commend bluntness. PAGENO="0025" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 19 There has not for a long time been any real reason in economic or social policy or in administrative fact for exempting agricultural labor from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act. Arguments cast in these terms have prevailed, without being per- suasive, for two reasons: One has been the unbalance of political influence as between agri- cultural employers and agricultural labor. The second has been that organized labor has not been in a position to undertake, on a sufficiently intensive basis, the unquestionably dif- ficult job of organization which is involved here. Today, both circumstances have changed. We have paid a high price as a nation for this shortsightedness and narrowrnindedness. It has meant the consignment of millions of people to poverty while they worked to make the rest of us fat-literally. The average farm- worker's earnings are today some place between $1,100 and $1,500 a year-depending on which of several availaible measures is used. A thoughtful person, sitting down to a large meal, would turn away from it if he let himself think of the circumstances-at that hour-of some of those who had, in the fullest sense, worked to bring that meal to his table. I urge the enactment of H.R. 4769 and the other similar bills which are before the subcommittee for consideration. If it is suggested that the circumstances of agricultural production- its being subject, for example, to the whims of nature-present special difficulties, it is time to answer squarely that the burden of absorbing these risks and costs should not be put on those who work in the fields. If the mobility of agricultural labor and the constant changing of employers is advanced as a reason for not affording the employees pro- tection, it is time to face honestly the fact that this increases their need for such protection. This mobility factor has not prevented giving collective bargaining rights, as well as many others, to workers in the construction industry. It is the construction industry collective bar- gaining provisions that H.R. 4769 and identical bills in the House and Senate would apply to agriculture. If it is argued that there are insuperable administrative difficulties in applying these statutory protections to small units, it must be em- phasized that under the National Labor Relations Board's current jurisdictional standards, these provisions would affect only those farms whose interstate shipments amount to more than $50,000 a year- or about 3 percent of our Nation's farms-1967 report, "The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States," Subcommittee on Migra- tory Labor, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, page 33. There are two basic inequities which we must face-inequality of educational opportunity and inequality of economic representation. The 89th Congress went a long way toward meeting the first of these inequities-in educational opportunity. It would be a comparable achievement if the 90th Congress were to make significant advances against the other inequity-of~ economic representation. The enactment of H.R. 4769 and the other identical measures would be a proud step in that direction. PAGENO="0026" 20 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES There ought to be representation for those who need it most. In order to describe more fully for the subcommittee the back- ground for your consideration of labor relations legislation for farm- workers, I have asked Mr. Frank Potter, Director of the Office of Farm Labor Service, to elaborate on the farm labor situation. Mr. POTTER. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Secretary's state- ment. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Now, on April 17, as you know, I wrote asking for some statistics and for some background information which I thought would be use- ful, and I note that you have prepared that information. We would appreciate it if you would offer it at this point. Perhaps we will have some questions as we go along. May I say to the members of the subcommittee, if you do have any questions as Mr. Potter goes along with this presentation, please feel free to ask them at any time. STATEMENT OF PRANK A. POTTER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FARM LABOR SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY J~AMES E. GOODGION, ADMIN- ISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Mr. POTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in response to Chairman Thompson's letter of April 17, I have prepared a brief state- ment providing general background information on farm employers and farmworkers, and about recruitment techniques and programs which I think the committee will find helpful. I am prepared, of course, to answer, to the best of my ability, ques- tions on any part of our farm labor program about which you may wish more detail. I. FARMS EMPLOYING HIRED FARMWORKERS About 1.6 million farms-half of the 3.2 million farms in the United States-used hired workers at some time in 1964, according to the latest census. A. May 1965 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey indicates that of these farms, only about 232,000 used at least 100 man-days of hired labor in their peak quarter of 1964 and that of this 232,000 figure, 110,000 used 200 man-days of labor, and only 67,000-2 percent of all farms-used at least 300 man-days. Mr. THOMPSON. May I interrupt at this point? That means, does it not, that 2 percent of the farms are the major users of agricultural labor? Mr. POTTER. I would say this is correct, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have any information on the average size * of those farms? Mr. POTTER. In. terms of acreage ? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. POTTER. I am sorry; I do not have that available. We could pre- pare that for the record if you would wish. Mr. THOMPSON. I think it would be valuable. Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. PAGENO="0027" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 21 Mr. CAREY. To complete that statistic, could we get the total number of persons employed in the 67,000 farms, 300 man-days help? Is that figure available? Mr. POTTER. We will certainly try. Mr. THOMPSON. Also, if available, the percentage of the total produce grown on these 2 percent of the farms. Would that be possible? Mr. POTTER. We will have to check this with the Department of Agri- culture, but we will certainly do our best to obtain this information. Mr. THoMPsoN. Fine. (The information requested follows:) The best estimates we can derive are that these farms average about 1,600 acres in size and account for about 20 percent of the total value of farm production. They employed 572,000 hired workers in the survey week, May 16-22, 1965. Mr. POTTER. The same survey shows that 49 percent of the 67,000 farms using 300 man-days of labor were in the South, 30 percent in the West, 13 percent in the Midwest, and 8 percent in the East. II. FARMWORKERS Altogether, there are between 3 and 31/2 million persons who do some farming work for pay in the course of a year: Between 600,000 and 700,000 (one-fifth) are considered regular farmworkers-they do 150 or more days of farm-wage work during the year. The balance (from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000) are seasonal workers and half of this number work fewer than 25 days on farms. Of this seasonal farmwork force between 400,000 and 450,000 (about one-sixth of all seasonal farmworkers). are migratory, leaving their homes over night to do farm-wage work. III. PATTERNS OF MIGRATORY LABOR Migratory workers move in three principal streams: Workers who have spent the winter and spring picking citrus and vegetables in Florida move north in May, stopping in the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware on their way to the potato, tomato, apple and other harvests in New Jersey and New York. A few reach the New England States. Migratory workers from Texas cultivate sugar beets in the Mountain and Plains States in May and June before moving on to the Great Lakes area to pick cherries, cucumbers, and tomatoes and other crops. The third stream starts early in the year, going up the west coast in a wide variety of activities. Most migratory workers travel in crews, some of them as large as 150 to 200 persons; but the number traveling in family groups is growing. Iv. PROGRAMS AND TECHNIQUES FOR RECRUITING FARMWTORKERS A. Year-round workers Recruiting for the year-round farrnwork force for today's highly mechanized and specialized farms requires a different approach from that of recruiting for seasonal peak labor needs. Almost every State reports critical shortages in the skilled categories. Much program em- PAGENO="0028" 22 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES phasis is now on recruiting less skilled farrnworkers-some ex-mi- grants-for training programs in order that they may learn the more sophisticated operations needed by employers of year-round workers. B. Seasonal workers-local In areas where income from farms is important to the community, local people respond well to recruitment for brief periods of agricul- tural employment. Youth and housewives are signed up with the local employment offices well in advance of the season. Day hauls are orga- nized-that is, arrangements made in advance for the orderly assembly of workers at designated pickup points and their daily transportation to. and from farm jobs. Cooperation is sought and obtained from local news media. Some local offices display considerable ingenuity to get everyone out to heTp with the harvest. (Hospitals and other institutions, off-duty military personnel, et cetera.) U. Seasonal workers-Out-of-area-Migrants It is apparent that regardless of local labor recruitment effort, how- ever, almost every State at some time during the year needs help from the outside-from migrants, defined as those who leave their homes overnight to do farm-wage work. In additiOn to those persons in the migrant streams about whom most people are aware, the definition "migrant" also encompasses groups for whom special recruitment programs have been devised; high school and college youth, both boys and girls; reservation Indians; Puerto Ricans from the island under contract; custom-combine or sheep-shearing crews; and there are others. Many of these groups are recruited between States on regular job clearance orders-and all interstate orders must meet the Secretary's regulations for interstate clearance with respect to wage rates, adequate housing, and transportation. But migrant farmworkers are most often considered to be those people, not far from the bottom of the economic ladder, who tradition- ally follow the crops. In 1966, their number represented more than one-fifth of all seasonal workers at the July peak. One of the special and highly successful techniques for arranging jobs for migrants is known as the annual worker plan. This is a pro- gram through which the indiviclua~l migrant, or the crew leader, can plan an itinerary before the season begins that will increase the num- ber of working days and assure the employer that workers will be at hand when he needs them. Farm labor representatives from demand States go to the supply States to consult with their counterparts, and with crew leaders and workers, to develop suitable work schedules. There is provision in the plan for in-season changes in schedules in the event weather or some other unforeseen circumstance disrupts the preseason schedules. Some 195,000 individuals, of whom 143,000 were classified as workers, were assisted through the annual worker plan in 1966. And from indications so far this year-commitments are already being worked out in Florida and Texas-1967 should be equally successful. Mr. THOMPSON. Would the difference betweei~ 195,000 and 143.000 mean children mostly? PAGENO="0029" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTTJRAL EMPLOYEES 23 Mr. POTTER. Elderly members of the family and children; yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Do the Secretary's regulations go to the education of migrant children at all? Mr. POTTER. No, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. They do not. V. OTHER SUPPORTING OFFICE OF FARM LABOR SERVICE PROGRAMS Mr. POTTER. In order for the Farm Labor Service program to be meaningful, it is imperative that the Service be concerned with matters other than job order taking and worker placement. Other facets of the program involve: A. Arranging for certification for foreign workers, as a last resort, under conditions that will not adversely affect American citizens and that will prevent crop loss due to a lack of labor. B. Administering the Crew Leader Registration Act. C. Operating, through the States, interstate migrant information stations and rest stops. D. In cooperation with other Government and private organiza- tions, encouraging provision of adequate farmworker housing, better transportation practices, more~ community participation, awareness of need for improving foreman supervision, orientation training on the job, safety practices, and labor relations generally. Thank you, gentlemen. I shall be happy to try to answer any questions. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. You have answered completely the questions set forth in my letter and these statistics will be very valuable to us. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. I want to thank Mr. Potter and to express my com- plete agreement with Mr. Wirtz' statement. I have no questions. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ford. Mr. Foiw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 2, at the bottom of the page, you make the observation that "Most migratory workers travel in crews, some of them as large as 150 to 200 persons; but the number traveling in family groups 15 growing." Now, this committee has considered in several pieces of legislation the problem of the migrant child. We have given him a lot of atten- tion and not very much money irnder the Economic Opportunity Act, and even less attention under the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act. I notice, for example, that the famous Quie amendment takes mi- grant children back out of the Education Act almost as fast as we put them in. We put them in this year, and he would take them out next year. During the course of this legislation, we have been increasin&y con- cerned with the problem of having this large number of children out- side the pale of the normal institutionalized education system. Do you mean to say by this statement that there are more children traveling in families today than there were 10 years ago? Mr. PoTTER. This is our experience of the past year or two, and I think there are two reasons for this: One good and the other bad. PAGENO="0030" 24 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES One of the reasons why the family is traveling alone is that they stay until the completion of a school year because by that time the crew leader and his large crews have gone and the family then goes on their own, as I say, after school has been completed. Now, we think there is another reason for this and that is the Crew Leader Registration Act. There have been a number of crew leaders who have gone out of business, and for these families to continue their normal swing they have adopted the practice of traveling in their own vehicles. Mr. FORD. Would you be able to give us an estimate of what the progress of this has been since World War II? Mr. POTTER. We can certainly try, Mr. Congressman. It might be rather difficult, but we will try. (The information requested follows:) The statistics are incomplete but the answer to both questions is probably yes. Statistics are available only for interstate migratory groups that were contacted by the Farm Service and only as far back as 1957. There is no information on the groups which make their own employment arrangements without contact with the Farm Labor Service. The table below shows the number of family groups contacted by the Farm Labor Service and the number of persons under 16 years old in all groups contacted. One other point should be made about the statistics: Some of the increase in absolute numbers of children and family groups since 1957 is attributable to more groups contacting the Farm Labor Service rather than an actual increase in numbers. It should also be noted that the second set of figures is more relevant than the first if the concern of the Committee is the number of youngsters in the mi- grant stream. The first set of statistics reflects, among other things, the effects of the crew leader registration law, which has tended to break up crews into smaller groups, such as families. Year Family groups Children under 16 years old Number Percent of all groups contacted Number Percent of all people in all groups contacted 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 7,234 7,618 5,385 4,186 3,990 3,788 2,440 1,949 1,026 1,369 58 57 52 41 40 41 33 28 15 21 52,862 50 405 47 831 45,448 44,460 39,692 30 203 25 234 28 248 25,179 27 26 26 21 21 19 19 15 17 17 Mr. FORD. Well, you are making this as a flat statement and I find it really a startling one because `I thought we were moving in the other direction. It would indicate that at the same time we are cutting down on the number of people employed in farm labor by the increase in the use of mechanization, that we are increasing that segment of farm labor that has the most potential for deleterious side effects on society. Mr. POTTER. Perhaps this statement is not clear, Mr. Congressman. I would not say that there has been an additional number of people traveling. It is the mode of transportation, that more of them who did travel with crews and buses are now traveling on their own. The numbors havo not inor ed; the total nuniber. PAGENO="0031" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 25 Mr. FORD. But the problem that we are attracted to and attempting to do something with in other legislation arises out of this family mobility. Now, it comes as a surprise to me that while the number of Pe91?le involved in agricultural labor is dropping, the number of families moving with agricultural labor is increasing. We know some little bit at least about the tremendous potential for the very expensive social problem that this creates for us. I would be interested in anything you can give us that will show the progress of this and perhaps anything that you can suggest to us that would give an explanation in some depth. I appreciate the two reasons you just gave for this change. Mr. Po~m~uu. Be happy to do so. Mr. FORD. It seems that we ought to be doing something here be- cause we cannot go on enlarging the amount of money we are spending for these other problems. We are really only applying band-aids to the migrant-worker problem in both the poverty program and in the education bill. I think that most of the members of this committee might share my surprise to learn that the group we are dealing with is getting larger instead of smaller. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Carey. Mr. CAImrn~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Potter, this comment is addressed to Secretary Wirtz' statement and I don't expect you to defend or otherwise comment on it because it won't need any defense; it is practically along the line of the ques- tioning I addressed to Mr. Meany, and it seems that the Secretary has put it even more precisely. This condition we face today has consigned millions of people to poverty where they are to make the rest of us fat, literally. This seems to me to `be the great justification of this legislation. I would hate to ever attempt to synopsize Willard Wirtz, but the big job, it seems here, is to turn us away from weight watchers into wage watchers so we can see what is happening to the people who can't share the bounty that we enjoy day `by day. In your knowledge, would you tell us what has been the overall ef- feet upon the consumer price in the market basket of the increase of betterment of working conditions among the seasonable harvest labor force since' we introduced some of these Federal remedial acts like the Crew Leader Registration Act and benefits of migratory workers, and so on? Has it been unbearable for the grower; has he been able to survive to' the extent that the structure of prices is still within reach of the mass consumer market? Have we seen any inflation of prices in this citrus problem, in the vegetable crop, and so forth, or in the wine- growing crop? Mr. POTPER. I have some facts here, Mr. Congressman. Mr. CAm~r. If they are voluminous, perhaps you can supply them to us. Mr. POTTER. Yes. We will submit a statement on that for the record. PAGENO="0032" 26 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES (The information requested follows:) Recently enacted legislation could not have had any appreciable overall effect on consumer prices because the cost of most of these benefits has been borne by the Federal Government rather than the growers. In this category are the Mi- grant Health Act and the provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act relating to education, children's day care, housing and sanitation for seasonal farm workers. The impact of minimum wage coverage on food prices has been negligible be- cause only about 400,000 workers are covered, and the large farms on which these workers are employed tend to be in the areas where the going wage is equal to or above the statutory minimum of $1.00 an hour. The Crew Leader Registration Act may conceivably in rare instances have bad the effect of raising prices or reducing growers' profits slightly because crew leaders had to charge more for their services to cover the cost of insurance. There is no evidence that this has happened however. Mr. CAREY. It seems to be my experience, and I have just made a limited study of this from food reports and food economists who seem to always be available to the housewife in terms of giving her a continuing commentary on prices day by day. I don't think that I can recall any time in the last decade, for instance, when you could get Texas grapefruit at three for a quarter for the large ones, and yet those are available on the New York market today. To me, the citrus market seems to bring in better fruit at lower prices than ever before; is that correct? Mr. POTTER. That is corre~t, because you have a great abundance of citrus fruit this year. I think Florida `alone is going to produce about a third more citrus than they did a; year ago; terrific increase. Mr. CAREY. We have then been able to cope with the effect of the reform legislation that we directed toward the foreign-worker group and the migratory-worker group which has been passing the last few Congresses. Mr. POTTER. I think the big increase in your food basket comes from the meat end of it. Mr. CAREY. I am glad you bring that up. I hope you didn't get the impression in my talking to Mr. Meany that I am particularly concerned about this area of price increase. It is true that the meatgrower and wheatgrower and the dairy farm- ers are not users of mass labor groups; is this not true? Mr. POTTER. Not like the fruit and vegetable growers. If I remem- ber correctly, the Consumer Price Index shows that retail prices in- creased in 1966 over 1965 by 2 percent for both processed and fresh market fruits and vegetables. Mr. CAREY. So, the passage of this `act would not have any effect or only a minimal effect on dairy products, mea't, and the basic items in the food basket; is that correct? Mr. Po~rru. Probably not. Very little labor is needed to produce meat and grain for bread. Production of milk, fruits and vegetables requires more labor than meat and grain. Mr. `CAREY. Little effect on grains, little effect on milk-little effect on brea;d, in other words-little effect on vegetables? Mr. POTTER. This is very difficult for me to answer, sir. Mr. CAREY. I hope we can get the answer because we are going to be bombarded with arguments that the price of `bread is going to go up; the price of meat is gomg to go up, and the price of milk is going to go up, for the poor family as well as the moderate-income family, if we pass this bill. I think we need the answers here if we are going to determine whether this is a fallacy or a fact. PAGENO="0033" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTuRAL EMPLOYEES 27 Mr. POTTER. If enactment of IET.R 4769 brought about unionization of the majority of dairy, fruit, and vegetable workers, there might well be some price increases, but assumptions regarding the degree of unionization that would result are pure speculation at this point. Mr. CAREY. Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON. In essence, your question answers itself. If it is a fact that the feed grain industry, dairy industry, the meat-growing industry are either the most automated or use the fewest workers, then obviously these industries are not going to be greatly affected by H.R. 4769. I think that the hearings held by my colleague, the junior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Williams, showed in the case of lettuce, for instance, that there was nothing like a proportional increase in the price of the agricultural product as a result of the increase in its cost of production. Anything that you can provide for us along this line will be valuable. (The information requested follows:) CHANGES IN WAGE RATES, FIELD LABOR COSTS, AND PRICES FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA CROPS, 1984 AND 1965 Crop Wage rates Preharvest Harvest hourly piece Field labor costs Wholesale Retail unit unit Price paid producer' Retail price2 Asparagus-Fresh market: 1964 1965 Percent change $1. 00-$1. 10 $1. 25 15-25 30-lb. crate $1. 00 $1. 15 15 30-lb. crate $1. 15 $1. 32 15 Pound 3. 8i~ 4. 4ç1 16 30-lb. crate $4. 41 $5. 01 14 Pound 29. 9l~ 36. 9~t 23 Cantaloupes: 1964 1965 Percent change $1. 00-51.15 $1. 10-41. 40 10-40 . 88-lb. crate 2E~ 50~ 100 100 lbs. $1.09 av. $1. 51 av. 39 Size 36 melon 2. 5q1-2. 8~s 3. 4~,-4. O~ 39 av. 100 lbs. $4.24 $5. 00 18 Size36 melon 328 5 30 7 Celery: 1964 1965 Percentchaage $1. 00-$1. 12 $1. 05-$i. 40 5-40 30-lb. crate iOi~-25~ i0~-25~ No change 100 lbs. 86. 4~ av. 90. 8~1 av. 5 Pound . 86~ . 91q1 5 100 lbs. $4. 38 $4. 39 (4) Pound 15. 71 15. 6~5 -0.6 Lemons: 1964 1965 Percent change $1. 00-$1. 25 $1. 10-$i. 50 10-50 53-lb. box 25~-95Ř 35~-$1. 25 32-40 75-lb. box $1. 20 $1. 57 31 Pound 1. 6~i 2. i~ 31 75-lb. box `$3. 50 $4.34 24 Pound 21. 2~t 23. 6~t ii Lettuce: 1964 1965 Percent change $1. 00-$1. 15 $1. 25 9-25 Crate-24 he2d - 22Ř-24~ 31~-34~ 29-55 Crate-24 head 36ç~ 48~-SOi~ 33-39 Head 1.5~.1 2. 0~-2. 1c~ 33-40 100 lbs. $4. 04 54. 04 0 Head 24. 6~1 25. 5~t 4 Strawberries-fresh market: 1964 1965 Percentchange $1. 00-51.05 $1.40 33-40 12-lb. tray - 5Oy~-7Oi~ 6Si~-8S~ 4-70 12-lb. tray 65. 7~-86. 4~ 86. 9i4-$1. 07 0.5-62 1-lb. pint 5. 5~-7. 2~ 7.2Ř-8.9~.i ~-62 1-lb. pint 24. 4e~ 26.0~1 7 1-lb. pint 35ft 38.8~t 11 Tomatoes: Fresh market: 1964 1965 Percent change $1.05-si. is $1. 40 22-33 50-lb. box 16~-i8~ 19~-28Ř 19-75 100 lbs. $2.59 av. $3. 32 av. 28 Pound 2. 59~1 av. 3. 32~1 av. 28 - 100 lbs. $9. 15 $10. 64 16 Pound 33. 2ç1 34. 3~t 3 For canning (#303 can): 1964 1965 Percentchange $1.05-si. is $1.40 22-33 50-lb. box i5~-22~~ 26~-28~ 18-87 Ton $11.03 av. $15.43av. 40 #303-1.5 lbs. . 83~ av. 1.16~av. 40 Ton $31.30 $41.30 32 #303 can i6. 0# 16.i~t 0.6 1 "Vegetables-Fresh Market," U.S. Department of Agriculture 1965, or "Vegetables-Processing," U.S. Department of Agriculture 1965. - - - 2 "Estimated Retail Food Prices by City," Bureau of Labor Statistics. 3 Unofficial estimates. 4 Less than 0.5 percent. - - "Agricultural Prices," September 1965 Supplement, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Source: Taken from Farm Labor Developments, April 1966. 82-132-67----3 PAGENO="0034" 28 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. CAREY. Mr. `Chairman. On the overall, as head of the Farm Service, in your opinion would st'tbihty of working conditions help to ielie.ve the cui rent spot short'~ge of farm labor? In other words would more people be attracted to this as an occu- pation so that they would spend more time in it either through the annual worker program and so forth? Would the stability of working conditions and better wages on an annual basis tend to relieve the spot shortage of farm labor that now seems to occur in Long Island or Michigan and so forth? `Mr. POTTER. `It is very difficult for me to answer that. Farmworkers, like other works, are usually not motivated solely by wages and work- ing conditions although improved and stable conditions would un- doubtedly make farm work more attractive. Undoubtedly these are the most important factors and we do `have examples where such improvements have attracted more workers, but considerations such as job status and length of the employment period are also motivation factors. For example, one reason for the `difficulty in attracting a sufficient number of domestic workers to the `apple harvest in the Northeastern `States is that the period of employment is so short in relat ion to the distance to be traveled by migratory workers. A very substantial increase `in w'ages would probably be necessary to make it worthwhile for migrants to travel several hundred miles for a few weeks employment. Another reason for spot shortages which could not be alleviated `by wage increases is the beginning of the school term at the time of highest labor needs in `some crops `and areas. This not only withdraws from the labor force local high school youths but also causes migrants to leave early to enroll their children in schools. The problem on dairy farms seems to be the excessively long hours as much as low wage rates. Mr. CAREY. I `am concerned `about this because in my own State I have been informed that many, many smaller dairy operators have been going out of the `dairy business because they can simply not attract to the dairy farms even the minimum help they need, even though we `have a `surplus labor pool in the `area nearby. What we need to `do is to get people to go ba'ck on the farm if we can provide working conditions that are livable. Mr. PorrEn. The dairy industry is rather unique `and certainly its management practices have left a lot to `be desired in the past, and I think that the industry, itself, is m'aking those efforts right now. Mr. CAREY. Has the shortage of labor during pickingtime or harvest- time and in spot shortage that followed thereafter `been any reason for the increase in importation of farm produce into this country in recent years, in recent months? I know the New York area was seeing a great deal more importation of foreign citrus and fruits and vegetables that we did not see before. Is there `any of this due to the inability to supply harvest workers or to supply produce in these areas or is it the overall attraction of the market that we h'ave in the metropolitan area now because of the high consumer spending rate? Mr. P0TEER. It may have been a factor but not the most important one. The increase in imports has been mostly from Mexico. It is true that labor is cheaper and more abundant there, but other expenses PAGENO="0035" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 29 offset this advantage. Fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, machinery, machine parts, packing materials, and interest on loans are more expen- sivethan in the United States. The expense of shipping produce to the border, plus border-crossing fees and import duties, adds to the total cost. The main reason for the increase in imports from Mexico is that they arrive on the market at a time of the year when production in the United States is low. In the case of tomatoes, by far the most impor- tant Mexican fruit or vegetable export to the United States, production in Mexico is usually profitable only when this country has a short crop of winter tomatoes. Mr. CAREY. So, the passage of this act will not be creating any sort of vacuum that will attract imports to the detriment of the American farmer? Mr. POTTER. I don't believe I am qualified to answer that, Mr. Con- gressman. Mr. THOMPSON. The Secretary of Agriculture is toying with the idea of restriction on imports of certain dairy products because of the eco- nomic difficulties in which the dairy industry finds itself today. This causes people such as myself who have been advocates of freer trade some difficulty and yet I recognize that within the States which have many dairy farmers that there is extreme difficulty. Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, wi]l you yield to me on that point ? This is a very, very real problem for us in Brooklyn. Do you realize what would happen if we had to rely on Wisconsin and Minnesota to produce the cheeses that we need in our consumer diet practices in New York today, that we could not get the Mozzarella and Parmesan for our pizza parlors in New York City? You just can't get that stuff in 1~Visconsin. Mr. THOMPSON. You have a lot of corn there, too. Mr. CAREY. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. If we have further need for statistics, we will write for them. The subcommittee will adjourn, to meet on Thursday next, May 4, in room 2261, to hear Mr. Mayer of the Meat Cutters, and Msgr. Quinn, Rabbi Hirsch, and Dr. Neigh. The subcommittee will adjourn. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon~- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 4, 1967.) PAGENO="0036" PAGENO="0037" EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES THURSDAY, NAY 4, 1967 HOtTSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OP THE COMMIrUEB ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chair- man of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, Dellenback, and Gard- ner. Also present: Peter W. Tredick, counsel; Daniel Pollitt, special counsel; Jeunesse M. Zeifman, clerk; and Michael J. Bernstein, minor- ity counsel. Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order for continuation of the hearings on the bill H.R. 4769. We have `an announcement about the witnesses who will be appear- ing tomorrow. We had originally invited Caesar Chavez to appear. Mr. Chavez is director of the United Farm Workers Organizing Com- mittee, and has been one of the leaders in the efforts of the farmworkers in California to organize. He has had a change in plans and will there- fore be able to be with us with the other farmworkers tomorrow. STATEMENT OF ARNOLD MAYER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN, AFL-CIO Mr. THOMPSON. Our first witness `this morning is Arnold Mayer, leg- islative representative of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen. Good morning, Mr. Mayer. We are very glad to see you. Mr. MAYER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPsON. You have a prepared statement. Do you wish to read it or have it put in the record and summarized? Mr. MAYER. If I may, I would like to read it. Mr. THOMPSON. Please proceed. Mr. MAYER. My name is Arnold Mayer. I am the legislative repre- sentative of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen (AFL-CIO). The AMCBW is a labor union with 375,000 members organized in about 500 local unions throughout the United States and Canada. The 31 PAGENO="0038" :32 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES AMOBW and its local unions have contracts with thousands of em- ployers in the meat, retail, poultry, egg, camdng, leather, fish proc- essing, and fur industries. AMOBW FARMWORKERS Our union also includes some farmworkers. In fact, until recently, we had the only labor-management contract existing between a large corporation farm and a union. We are delighted that the successes of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO) has broken our monopoly. Our local 56 in New Jersey organiz&l Seabrook Farrn in Bridgeton in 1941. Since then, some dozen labor-management contracts have been negotiated by the management and the union without a strike. The local union and the management are currently in contract ne- gotiations. May I interject here, Mr. Chairman. I am going to quote Leon Schachter, president Of the local. He had planned to be here. How- ever, he is serving on the Presidential Commission on Food and Fiber. He and the other Commission members are working in New Orleans today on their final report. So he sends his regrets he could not be h~re. Leon B. Schachter, president of local 56, a vice president of the in- ternational union and director of our Washington office, wrote about the organizing drive in a union publication in 1957. 1-le reminisced that Seabrook's cannery workers had originally asked him and the other AMCBW organizer to help them form a union. * But he found that- Not only Seabrook's cannery workers wanted a union, the farmworkers, who were earning as little as 15 cents per hour, wanted to organize, also. There were no labor laws to help them. There could be no election to determine the bargaining agent . . . Farmworkers are outside this protective legislation. They are second-class citizens, who need protection the most, and get it the least . But the Seabrook family, which owns and manages Seabrook Farm, was not medieval. (The family has since sold the farm to Seaman Brothers.) It did not meet local 56's organizing drive with blind, frenzied counterattack. Once it realized that its employees wanted a union, and that the union was coming, it was willing to abide by the workers' decision and try out the new force. This was not true of other large farms which local 56 attempted to organize. The drive, as most farm labor organizing campaigns, was met with "blind, frenzied counterattack." The growers stopped the drive, but at the expense of some of the farms going out of business. Unlike at Seabrook, there was desperate, bitter warfare. There was no means of adjudicating the issue of union representation peacefully. None exists even today. NAWF IN oun UNION In 1960 the National Agricultural Workers TJnion, the successor to the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, became a part of the AMCB1~T. The STFU and NAWU have a long history of attempting to organize farmworkers against fantastic odds and opposition in the 1930's, 1940's, and early 1950's. They were embroiled in bitter warfare, in- cluding strikes which lasted more than 2 years each. PAGENO="0039" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 33 H L Mitchell, the piesideiit of these oig'tnizatio~s, now heads one of our local unions of food-processing workers in Louisiana. He is currently in the early stages of attempting to organize some farm- workers. Since management will probably viciously oppose the orga- nizing drive and since there is no means of adjudicating the issue, the result can be strikes and economic disruption again. Because of our experience and that of other efforts to organize farmworkers, we believe that the legislation you are considering is of the utmost importance and is long overdue. Our union has urged the enactment of farm labor coverage under the National Labor Rela- tions Act since the early 1940's. LAW OF THE JUNGLE Currently, the law of the jungle prevails in agricultural labor rela- tions. If we Americans, as a people, believe in the rule of law, then we ought to change this deplorable situation. If the Congress abhors violence, chaos, and disorder, then it ought to provide the mechanism for limiting or avoiding these conditions in the field of farm labor- management relations. And the most logical mechanism is the one operating in other industries, the provisions of the NLRA and the rules and regulations of the NLRB. One point is certain: Whether the Congress approves NLRA cover- age or not, farm labor organization will cOntinue and it will succeed. The question which Congress can and will decide is what are the costs to workers, employers, and communities attendant to this highly charged emotional situation going to be. Either the law of the jungle will continue and th~ costs will be great or established national laws will set the limits for both sides and will provide an impartial body to settle differences. ~UNIQUENESS" MYTH In past legislative battles.with the growers, we have found that they tend to believe their own propaganda. As a result, a series of myths develop to cloud not only the issues, but also the growers' thinking. So it has about this legislation. I should like to deal with some of the myths which have developed. In each legislative battle involving farm labor reform, the "agri- culture is different" myth is trotted out. Obviously, agriculture is dif- ferent from other industries in the same way that the construction industry is different from the steel industry or the canning industry is different from the merchant marine or the movie industry is dif- ferent from garmentmaking. Each industry has some degree of uniqueness. Agriculture does, also. But that hardly means that the National Labor Relations Act which operated in virtually every industry in the United States will not work in agriculture. What are these alleged areas of agricultural uniqueness? Is it that some parts of agriculture operate on a short season? So do individual construction jobs and so does the canning industry. Our union organizes cannery workers. We have participated in NLRB elections involving workers of plants which operate only a part of the year. The campaign and the election took place while the PAGENO="0040" 34 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES workers were there. The organizing campaign and election occurred in the same maner as at a year-round plant-except that the election had to be held in a particular period of time. Is the alleged uniqueness that agriculture deals with perishables? So does the entire food-processing industry. In fact, the members of the committee will recall that during the minimum-wage battle of last year, vegetable and fruit canning and freezing was again permitted to work employees longer hours without paying premium overtime rates because the industry deals with perish- able products. But this industry has been covered by the NLRA since the inception of the act. Is the uniqueness that agriculture contains some small operators? So does the food, service, and many other industries. It is unlikely that the small farms might face NLIEtB elections. These farms use comparatively little hired labor and they are steadily being merged anyway. The uniqueness story does not work. It is a pure alibi for the main- tenance of an exemption which has no justification. "HARVEST STRIKE" MYTH Then there is the myth about the "strike at harvest season." It goes something like this: A strike at harvest won] d kill the entire crop and absolutely ruin the grower. Therefore, NLRA coverage may doom the grower. Frankly this is an argument I have difficulty following. There is no denying that a harvesttime strike would hurt growers. But what has that got to do with NLRA coverage? Harvesttime strikes are feasible and legal-NLRA coverage or no. In fact, at the moment, they are far more likely because of the lack of a rule of law in labor-management relations in agriculture. The experience of labor and management in California farming in the last 2 years amply shows that workers often must strike in order to get to collective-bargaining-agent elections. If an established pro- cednre to decide whether a union represents workers had been avail- able, most of the strikes, boycotts, and other actions of industrial war- fare would not have taken place. The fact is tht NLRA coverage is a means for limiting strikes and labor-management fighting. It sets up alternative procednres. We do not mean to say that after NLRA coverage is enacted, there will no longer be strikes in agricnltnre. Bnt we do say that another technique would be available to decide recognition and to determine unfair labor practices. And, therefore, labor-management relations in agriculture would be far more peaceful. "UNION DOMINATION" MYTH Then, there is the myth about "unions controlling agriculture with NTJRA coverage." A great many growers frankly believe this. They are unfamiliar with NLRA and the working of the National Labor Relations Board. They have constructed a bogeyman and have scared themselves with it. PAGENO="0041" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 35 Frankly, we wish that NLRA coverage would bring about the automatic unionization of agricultural workers. Unfortunately, it does not. Unions will still have to show that they have at least 30 percent of the workers signed to authorization cards to get an election. They still must campaign under established rules. They still must win the elections. The employer may still file challenges and exceptions. The case can still drag .through the NLRB and the courts. Additional elec- tions can still be ordered. And so on. if NLRA coverage means automatic unionization, then we are at a loss to explain why the southern poultry industry is not fully or~ ganized despite our union's tremendous efforts. Or why the southern textile industry is not organized. Or, for that matter, why every NLRA-covered enterprise-and that includes most firms in the United States-is not under a union contract. "ENSLAVEMENT" MYTH Still another myth is the one about "union enslavement." This story allows that farmworkers are somehow very happy with their em- ployers and working conditions. They do not need or want a union. If this is the case, we would assume that growers would welcome NLRA coverage of farmworkers. What better way could the satisfac- tion of workers be shown than by their demonstrating it in a secret ballot, Government-conducted election? The fact is, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that these arguments are nonsense. There is no reason why the NLIRA should not cover farmworkers, as it does other workers. NLRA COVERAGE BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT Despite the fear and complaints of the growers, the fact also is that NLRA coverage is actually a good thing for farm employers. Here is why: 1. It will limit strikes, boycotts, and other forms of warfare. What the farm employer needs more than anything else is the absence of labor-management chaos. He needs a peaceful, routine way of settling these basic problems. 2. It will help to end the almost feudal practices of agricultural labor-management relations, which have given growers a tremendous public black eye. This poor image has hurt growers in other areas which are much more basic to their interests than farm labor wages and conditions such as agricultural price policy. 3. It will provide a means for truly deciding whether or not a group of workers want a union, and if so, which union. It will take the em- ployer out of the middle position if each of two unions seeks to bar- gain for his employees. 4. It will make possible a rational, human, labor-management rela- tions policy instead of the crazy, fear-driven policies which agricul- tural employers are currently following. Growers currently are the prisoners of their fears. It is difficult for them to plan long-range, ef- fective policies. PAGENO="0042" 36 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES UNION CONTRACT BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT But what if the workers vote for union? Will not the employer be hurt then? The answer is "No." Obviously, organization will mean higher wages, a grievance system, fringe benefits, et cetera, all of which will cost the employer money. But it does not mean perpetual warfare, loss of their operation, and all the other bugaboos which growers imagine. In hundreds of indus- tries, in perhaps millions of enterprises, collective bargaining relation- ships have resulted in a normalized, fairly cooperative relationship. Why should it not in agriculture? Consider just these two benefits to growers from a contractual la- bor-management relationship: A labor-management contract in agriculture would probably run ~ or 3 years. It would state specifically what wages and bene- fits workers would receive. As a result, companies would be able to do long-range labor-cost planning for the first time. It would take one major factor out of the "variable" category. That would be a boon to farm management. The growers have screamed long and loud about difficulties in obtaining adequate and effective labor. We believe that this prob- lem-if it does exist-is due to the incredibly poor wages and working conditions. But once these factors are adjusted in a la- bor-management contract and if in the unlikely event problems of obtaining labor still remained, a union would share in the re- sponsibility of obtaining workers. A union hiring hall, like those of the building trades or maritime industry, for example, would be very helpful to agriculture. During World War II, when a tremendous shortage of farm labor hit Seabrook Farm and the rest of eastern agriculture, our local 56 worked out an arrangement with the Southern Tenant Farmers Union to bring southern farmworkers to New Jersey. In the years the pro- gram operated, some 10,000 workers came north in non-Jim Crow rail- road cars-then an oddity. Currently, retail meatcutters are in short supply in some communi- ties. About a half dozen of our local unions have joined with the Fed- eral Government and retail management in their areas to train unem- ployed workers under the manpower training program. Also, the union helps to bring skilled meatcutters from areas of oversupply to areas where jobs are available. Obviously, adjusting to the new relationship will have its difficulties and its costs for agricultural management. But, contrary to their pres- ent fears, they will also find some distinct advantages, as managements in other industries have. PLEA FOR NLRA COVERAGE LEGISLATION Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we are grateful to you for allowing us to bring these facts and views before you. We hope and respectfully urge that you will quickly approve H.R. 4769, legislation to bring farm labor under the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act. We hope the House of Representatives will shortly thereafter act favorably upon your recommendation. PAGENO="0043" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTUR&L EMPLOYEES 37 For this legislation is justified and long overdue. It is necessary and good for the Nation. Mr. THoMPsoN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayer. I have only one question relating to your testimony. In the case of Seabrook Farms, which are in southern New Jersey, do you have any statistics or experi- ence to show whether the organization of the workers on these farms caused any significant increase in consumer prices of the farm products? Mr. MAYER. It has not, Mr. Ohairman. Sea'brook Farms has been competitive. If our contract had caused a sharp rise in consumer prices of Seabrook's products, the farms would not be competitive because neither our union or other unions, until recently, have been successful in organizing other farms and entering into other contracts. Seabrook Farms was the only farm that had a labor-management contract for nearly 30 years. What did happen I have to admit is that the wages are not the sort of wages we would have liked to have negotiated. For example, at the moment, the seasonal wage there for laborers is in the $1.50's, I believe. This is one-half of what we negotiated in packinghouses and retail stores. In other words, the union could not negotiate the same wage increases, the same benefits that it did in the retail stores or packing- houses, because this was the only farm organized. The union and management are currently in negotiations. Management has offered a 10-cent across-the-board wage increase, and we are negotiating for more. This is the management offer on wages that was on the table the last time I checked. They may have progressed from there since. Mr. ThoMPsoN. Thank you. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Gardner. Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go to your testimony on page 2 to familiarize myself a little more and explain what you mean by "blind, frenzied counterattack." Mr. MAYER. Let's take one example. In 1952, Mr. Mitchell, whom I referred to in my testimony, then the president of National Agricultural Workers Union, organized workers on some ranches of a large corporation farm. The workers were immediately replaced by strikebreakers who were imported from Mexico. The sheriffs, deputies, and the local establishment were used to intimidate strikers. There were beatings, fighting, and firings. Mr. GARDNER. Let me a'sk you this: Were these strikers only march- ing in front and picketing? There was no violence on their part? Mr. MAYER. There was picketing to start out with in front of the ranches and then there were boycotts and~ the situation escalated. Mr. GARDNER. So the union should have to share a part of the blame in it also? Mr. MAYER. Perhaps, but, Mr. Gardner, you have to remember there is a difference between a highly organized farm organization which controls the law, which has the money, and which has the political power in the area. So much political power that until fairly recently it and other farm groups were able to prevent farmworkers from being covered by Congress under all protective legislation. These are workers who at the time were earning far less than $1 an hour-probably as little as 50 or 60 cents an hour. PAGENO="0044" 38 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES These were workers who had not been organized and who are of various different ethnic groups. They were the poorest of poor. There is quite a difference in the power that they had or have and the power that corporate agriculture can use. Furthermore, what happens in these disputes is that they are not over whether workers will get another 10 cents an hour or something else which sooner or later can be compromised and settled. These strikes are over whether there will be a union, whether these workers will have any collective bargaining relationships. These are issues which have to be settled one way or the other. Either there will be a union or there will not. You can't compromise. Mr. GARDNER. Going on in the testimony, page 4, you say: "Either the law of the jungle will continue and the costs will be great, or established national laws will set the limits for both sides * * *~ J would like to ask you-I am not entirely familiar with your particular union, but it would seem to me over the past few years we have not seen limits set for both sides. The President has set up certain guide- lines for the unions and they seemed to totally disregard these guide- lines, when on the other hand management has been forced to pretty well adhere to it. Why do you come up and say you think limits will be set for both sides? Mr. MAYER. In the first place, the National Labor Relations Act does not cover prices and wage increases, which is what you are talking about, if you mention "guidelines." Mr. GARDNER. Right. Mr. MAYER. No. 2, I would very much disagree with you that labor does not adhere to the guidelines and management adheres to them. I think that is quite untrue as shown by the various steel price in- creases that have come on, quote, "selected," end of quote, items in recent months. The guidelines concern wages and they were advisory. There are no laws involving wages or prices. Congress, except during World War II, has not acted on wages and prices. Congress has acted on the National Labor-Management Relations Act, which does prohibit acts by both labor and management. Let me give you an example. In the old days, in 1935 to about 1947, if our union had been as well organized then as we are today, we could have organized most of the farms in the United States simply by telling our members not to handle the products of those companies which refused to sign labor-management contracts. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, which was enacted in 1947, we cannot do that. That is illegal. We can be brought into court, we can be sued for triple damages. We would face all sorts of criminal penalties as well as monetary penalties. This is one example. Furthermore, under the NLRA, management has to bargain with the union which is certified by the NLRB as the bargaining agent. On the other hand, if a union goes into an election and loses that elec- tion, then that union cannot seek certification for bargaining with that management for at least a year. So you see there are rules and regula- tions, and they do apply to both sides. Now, you and I may disagree whether they are too binding on labor or on management, but the rules and laws are there, they are on the books. PAGENO="0045" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 39 Mr. GARDNER. Well, I think I would disagree, probably, with you. Mr. `Chairman, I don't have any further questions. Mr. THOMPSON. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HAii~. Mr. Mayer, I think the points you have made are very good. Let me ask you a further question. One of the important protec~~ tions, it seems to me, for a worker under the National Labor Relations~ Act is `the protection, although imperfect, against loss of his job for union, activity or for joining the union or working with a union. W& are going to get into the question of whether or not this protection is adequate to accomplish its purposes, in subsequent hearings, I under- stand, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. We have set plans. Mr. O'HAJ~A. But at any rate, it seems to me this is one of the im- portant protections for workers under the NLRA. It is one clearly not enjoyed by agricultural workers, is that right? Mr. MAYER. That is absolutely correct. An employer can fire workers for their participating in a union organization-even though such firing by other industries are specifically prohibited under the act. As you say, there is a question in some areas as southern textile, southern poultry, about the effectiveness of the NLRA protections in practice. But, nevertheless, the law says a man cannot be fired for exercising his right to try to organize and to improve his condition. In agriculture there is no such right at all. A man can be fired. In the 1950's, for example, and in the late 1940's, employers would simply meet organizing drives by mass firings and hiring braceros who were imported from Mexico. Mr. O'HARA. It seems to me that the application of this NLRA to labor-management relations in agriculture would do a great deal to stabilize the industry and permit labor and management to establish stable arrangements satisfactory to both parties. Mr. MAYER. That certainly would be true. This is an industry which has labor-management practices that the rest of American industry had in the 1920's. Some agricultural areas, like southern Texas and the Southeast have the labor management conditions that American industry in other areas had in the 19th century. The result is not that the employers are having a great time of it. The result of this situation is that there are labor shortages at harvest time. This `is an industry that is looked down upon and an industry that a worker would rather not work in. , It results in an inability for the employer to plan and an inability, in many cases, to keep a stable labor force. Some employers in the farm industry, as in other industries, have learned that to improve conditions, will result in the same workers coining back each year. For example, I was talking to a cherry grower from Michigan yester- day and his crew comes back each year. His wages are somewhat higher and he takes care of the workers' problems. But even this is not the same thing as an established system, such as a labor-management con- tract, which specifically provides what the benefits will be. I think what the growers need more than anything else is a stabi- lizing influence. I think the Labor-Management Relations Act and union contracts will be a stabilizing influence in this'industry as it has been in others. PAGENO="0046" 40 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTTJItAL EMPLOYEES Mr. O'H~u~. Mr. Mayer, I think your testimony has been excellent, and I hope you will now go forth and help us round up some votes for this legislation. Mr. MAYER. I will be glad to. Mr. THOMPsoN. Mr. Mayer, our special counsel, Mr. Pollitt, has two or three questions. Mr. POLLITT. Mr. Mayer, you mentioned there have been strikes and ~will continue to be strikes in agriculture and you indicated these strikes are primarily for recognition to establish the bargaining relationship. I wonder if you have any idea as to the size of this problem, the num- ber of strikes? Mr. MAYER. Number of strikes involved? I can't give you any figures. There is an excellent book put out by the Department of Agriculture in 1945 which discusses labor-management relations in agriculture. I read it many years ago, and listed in it there must be hundreds of strikes. Also, there were a series of strikes at the e.nd of World War II when farmworkers suddenly took heart and decided to try to organize once again. There was a DiGiorgio strike in 1952 in California which was long and bitter and lasted about 2 years, as I recall. Then there are the recent strikes in Delano area of California and the surround- ing areas. There must have been easily a dozen strikes in that situation. Then there is a strike in Texas and series of strikes and demonstra- tiOns recently in other areas of the country. Mr. P0LLITT. Is your union organizing in Florida? Mr. MAYER. My union is not organizing in Florida. That is an Indus- trial Union Department operation. Mr. P0LLITT. Do yo~i know whether that organizing has been accom- plished by recent strikes? Mr. MAYER. I am not familiar with the Florida situation. I saw a clipping in the New York Times recently that there was a strike down there. Mr. POLLITT. Switching gears a little bit here, what are we talking about when we talk about agricultural laborers? I mean a lot of peo- ple chop cotton and a lot of people pick potatoes. Is that what we are talking about, or your union which represents packinghouse employ- ees, does it find that the work traditionally done by packinghouse em- ployees in the packinghouse is now being done in the fields? What I am getting at is whether this is a totally unskilled manual labor or does it involve skill? Who do you have at Seabrook? Do you have categories of various job classifications? Mr. MAYER. Yes. There are unskilled workers on the farm and these workers have to be protected. In the tomato harvest, in the various other kinds of vegetable harvests, there are pickers, who are considered unskilled. I think the work takes quite a bit of stamina and quite a bit of skill. However, in the labOr market, they are considered unskilled workers. They are involved. However, there is an increasing amount of mechanization in agriculture. For example, you mentioned cotton h~vest and most of that work is mechanized. Much of the work which still remains unmechanized will become mechanized, because this is the trend. So there are skilled workers and machine operators-many of them-in agriculture. And there will be more. PAGENO="0047" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 41 In addition, there are packing operations, some of which are in the field. This switches back and forth. In the 1950's in California, some of the packingshed operations were organized by a union, not ours, an- other union, the United Packinghouse Workers, AFL-CIO. To try to destroy the union, the people managing the packingsheds brought the operation into the field. However, other factors intervened. The com- panies found, for example, difficulty in getting labor and all sorts of other problems. I understand that the movement now is back out of the fields. So in agriculture we are not only talking about unskilled workers. Well, let me give you another example. We have a local of sheepshearers out in the Rocky Mountain States. That work is a highly skilled opera- tion and, by the way, a well-paid occupation. But it is considered agri- cultural. The sheepshearers could not go to an NLRB election. There are a lot of skilled workers involved. And these workers per- form duties similar to those covered under the National Labor Rela- tions Act for many years. These skilled workers need the NLRA pro- tection and the unskilled workers need it~ too. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayer; we appreciate your statement. Mr. L&~iin. Thank you. STATEMENTS OF MSGR. WILLIAN r. QUINN, CHICAGO, DIRECTOR, BISHOPS' COMMITTEE FOR SPANISH-SPEAKING, CHICAGO, ILL.; RABBI RICHARD G. HIRSCH, DIRECTOR, RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER, UNION OF AMERICAN HEBREW CONGREGATIONS, ALSO REPRESENTING THE COMMISSION ON SOCIAL ACTION OP RE- FORM JUDAISN; AND REV. ISAAC IGARASHI, DIRECTOR OP EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, DIVISION OF CHRISTIAN LIFE AND MISSION, NATIONAL COUNCL OF CHURCHES Mr. THOMPSON. Our next witnesses are Msgr. William J. Quinn of Chicago, director of the Bishops' Committee for the Spanish-Speak- ing; Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch, director of Religious Action Center, Union of American Hebrew Congregation, also representing the Com- mission on Social Action of Reformed Judaism; and the Reverend Isaac Igarashi, the director of the Eastern Regional Office of the Divi- sion of Christian Life and Mission of the National Council of Churches. Good morning, gentlemen; it is nice to have you here. You may proceed with your testimony as you wish. Monsignor, I see you are listed first. Monsignor QUINN. My name is Msgr. William J. Quinn. I am direc- tor of the Chicago office for the National Bishops' Committee for the Spanish-Speaking and I am appearing on behalf of this committee. Speaking on behalf of Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles, Arch- bishop Joseph McGucken of San Francisco and all the other bishops of California, Bishop Hugh Donohoe of Stockton, Calif., stated that: 1. Any group in society has the right to form an association to foster its own well-being. It is understood that this association act within law and therefore is concerned with the general welfare as well as with its own. 2. Applied to farmers, this principle justifies their membership in any legiti- mate organization of their own choosing. Those who seek to promote the orga- nization of farmers are~ not to be looked upon as outside agitators. PAGENO="0048" 42 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 3. Applied to farm laborers, this principle justifies their membership in any legitimate organization of their own choosing. Those who seek to organize farm laborers are not to be looked upon as outside agitators. 4. Such organizations must be protected by law, and where necessary, criteria and procedures established to determine the legitimacy of particular efforts to organize such associations. These excerpts taken from Bishop Donohoe's March 16, 1966, state- ment delivered before a U.S. subcommittee in Delano, Calif., signed by all Roman Catholic ordinaries of California, underscored by the fact that it was made in the midst of the strife and turmoil of the grape- pickers strike. These excerpts, I repeat, are clearly within, the tradi- tional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church since the 1890's. Pope Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, and PaulVI' have stated over and over again `that society must allow, safeguard, and protect the right of any group to organize legitimately and within the concern for the public welfare. For our present purposes we respectfully submit that this right of the farmworkers to organize is being frustrated and that there is no legislative machinery to protect the farmworkers or even the farmers themselves if the claims of unions to represent t.he farmworkers are untrue. Farrnworkers have been excluded from the benefits of. the National Labor Relations Act. To my knowledge the United States is the only country in the world where this exclusion has been deliberate and ~al- culated. In an era of enlightenment and concern for the poor it seems indefensible that such an exclusion should . continue. In our poverty program we insist that the poor be given an opportunity to help them- selves. In California, Texas, and Florida and with beginnings in sev- eral other States, farrnworkers, all of them poor, are attempting to help themselves-strictly on their own, with no help .from poverty pro- grams. Yet the law of the land. to which they pledge allegiance and for which they fight does not touch them as they seek to involve them- selves in the American niainst.ream. Without legislative assistance, without inclusion under the NLRA, the struggle of farmworkers "is going to take a lot more time; it is going to take a lot more money; and it is going to cause a lot more bitterness," as pointed out by Mr. William L. Kircher, director of the AFL-CIO Department of Organization. He continues "~ * without legislation, strikes and boycotts, struggles and strife become necessary, inextricable parts of developing a union." In Texas, too, in the face of bitter strife the Catholic hierarchy of that State have spoken out in the same vein. Having stated clearly the right of both growers and farmworkers to organize, Archibishop I~ucey of San Antonio and all the other Texas bishops- urge that governmental bodies, especially the National Congress, be more at- tuned to the needs of both of these groups and recognize the essential contribu- tions they make to the common good of our nation. It would seem reasonable that legislation similar to the National Labor Relations Act, which has proven bene- ficial to the economy as a whole, would also be appropriate in the field of agri- culture with modifications taking into account the special characteristics of this segment of the economy. In a followup to this all-Texas statement Bishop Humberto S. Ma- deiros of Brownsville, Tex., where strife at present abounds, urged his PAGENO="0049" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 43 people to apply the principles of the first statement and in a pastoral document to all the people in his diocese declares: We have no time to waste. We must hurry with all prudence and charity to bring about needed reforms, for there exist situations whose injustices cry to heaven for vengeance. We do, indeed, understand the growers' fears that strikes could ruin them. Ruination of crops because of a strike, exorbitant wages, et cetera, could easily do a grower in. But as pointed out by Austin J. Morris in an article in the California Law Review (vol. 54, No. 5, December1966): There was no logical response to these same fears in 1939 when agriculture tried, unsuccessfully, to rid itself or organized labor in the food processing in- dustry. The only area in which agriculture's evaluation of organized labor can be validly tested, however, is actual experience. The 30 years' experience of the food processing industry has sufficiently demonstrated the poverty of farmers' thinking about unionism. The author goes on to cite the case of Hawaii, where field workers have been organized for 20 years. He points out that bargaining in the agricultural economy in Hawaii "is as mature as anywhere in the United States." In conclusion, the Bishops' Committee for the Spanish Speaking respectfully urge the Committee on Education and Labor to give grave consideration to the inclusion of the farmworker under the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Monsignor. I think we will hear the three statements and then give the members of the subcommittee an opportunity to ask questions. Rabbi Hirsch, do you wish to go next ~ Rabbi 111115011. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee. I am Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch, director of the Religious Action Center, Union of Arneričan Hebrew Congregations. I appear in behalf of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, a joint instrumentality of the Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Other national agencies which are members of the Commission on Social Action are the National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods, the National Fed- eration of Temple Brotherhoods, and the National Federation of Temple Youth. I appear before you today to offer support for H.R. 4769, which would extend to agricultural workers protection of their collective- bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Although our national agencies have not had opportunity to study the provisions of this particular bill, its general purpose is in con- sonance with positions long held. Jewish tradition has always stressed the imperative of economic justice for the laborer. My colleague, Monsignor Quinn, has just indicated this is in con- sonance with positions the church has held since 1890. I would like to submit that economic justice for laborers has been an integral part of the Judeo-Christian heritage from the beginning and in a sense Moses might be considered the first labor organizer and in his dis- cussions with Pharaoh of Egypt he was the first to engage in the collective bargaining process. In the millenia since then, labor-management relations have pro- gressed considerably. The Talmud and other post-Biblical Jewish 82-132-67----4 PAGENO="0050" 44 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES writings promulgate detailed guidelines specifying the rights and obligations of both the employer and the employee and stressmg their interdependence and the necessity for mutual trust. In our own times the relations between employers and employees have been guided by legislation, in recognition that a democratic society must have orderly procedures for achieving justice without resort to violence. As early as 1918 the Central Conference of American Rabbis urged recognition of the right of labor to organize and bargain collectively. And in 1928 they asserted these rights in a 17-point social platform ranging from the general duty of socialmindedness and the sacredness of the individual personality to the specific moral right to a living wage for every worker and his family. In part, the platform says: The same rights of organization which rest with employers rest also with those whom he employs. Modern life has permitted wealth to consolidate itself `through organization into corporations. Workers have the same inalienable right to organize according to their own plan for their common good and to bargain collectively with their employers `through such honorable means as they may choose. Some of these fundamental principles were subsequently incorpo- rated in the passage of the National Labor Relations Act and other related legislation. However, in recent years we have become acutely aware of the tragic exclusion of some workers from the rights and benefits bestowed on others. The omission of farmworkers from the protection of the National Labor Relations Act has deprived them of the means to join with those whose lot they share to pursue shared objectives. This has resulted in discrimination against farmworkers in comparison to other workers. The discrimination is compounded `by the fact that the incomes, working conditions, `and living standards of farmworkers are, to `begin with, much lower than any other segment of the labor force. The inequity, it appears to us, should be manifest to all-those least able to protect themselves have been `afforded ~the least protection by society. That is why, in recent years, through resolutions, testimony before committees of Congress, and involvement in local disputes such as that which ha's already been mentioned in the hearing this morning, most recently in California, our national and regional leadership have addressed themselves to `the plight of farmworkers and supported their objectives. In an enlightened and progressive society, each generation must refine and redefine the formulations of its predecessors. Now that our Nation has become sensitized to racial, social, and economic injus- tices in our midst, now that we have declared "war on poverty" arni committed ourselves anew to the fulfillment of our democratic vision, we must zealously seek to assure equality of treatment to the least privileged members of our society. We are cognizant of the reasons given in the past for the failure to include farmworkers in the National Labor Relations Act. And we are cognizant of special factors, such as the vagaries of nature and the perishability of crops, which come into consideration in the present. `But we believe that past reasons, whether justified or not, and present fears, whether real or exaggerated, do not outweigh the dictates of morality. PAGENO="0051" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 45 And I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that there is soniething especially significant in the fact that we have appearing before the committee this morning the mem- bers of the three faith groups in our country. This is a manifestation of the fact that this matter has been elevated from a political to a moral dimension. Furthermore, this legislation is needed in order to conform to the new conditions of modern agriculture. In the last generation, the aver- age farm has more than doubled in size, and the value of assets used in agricultural production on the average farm has increased tenfold. The small family farm is giving way to an agricultural industry characterized by all the problems inherent in big business. Not the least of these are problems of labor-management relations. If farmworkers, strengthened by growing appreciation of their legiti- mate rights, continue to be ignored by intransigent owners, conflict will be the inevitable result. The increasing number of farm labor dis- putes, in such scattered areas as California, Florida, and Texas, are already harbingers of more serious controversy which will cause eco~ nomic loss and disruption to both producers and workers. Opponents of collective bargaining for farmworkers should recall the history of American labor-management relations. In the absence of agreement on fundamental rights, labor-management relations were predicated on enmity between employer and employee. With the regu- larization of collective bargaining, labor and management developed mature relations predicated on cooperation and interdependence, to the benefit of the parties involved and the Nation as a whole. The very fears now agitating growers were expr~ssed 30 years ago by the closely allied food-processing industry, and both of the previous witnesses have made mention of that. But the unionization of this in- dustry has not resulted in crippling strikes during harvesttime. Simi- larly, the unionization of the dairy industry and of fleidworkers in Hawaii has been beneficial to both labor and management. We therefore endorse collective bargaining for farmworkers as well as for all other workers. We believe that men are servants of God and not of other men. "For unto Me are the children of Israel servants." (Leviticus 25: 55.) An employer can pay for an employee's time and toil, but he cannot possess his person. The employee is, above all else, a human being and as such is entitled to associate with others, if he so desires, to achieve encouragement, assistance, and strength in pur- suit of the means to sustain and ennoble human life. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Rabbi. Next is Reverend Igarashi. You may proceed, if you please. Reverend IGARASHI. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Isaac Igarashi. As the chairman mentioned, I am director of the eastern field office for the National Council of Churches. In my portfolio is concern for agricultural migrants and it is a real pleasure to represent Dr. Kenneth Neigh, who was to have been here, and wanted very badly to be here, but was unavoidably detained in Mas- sachusetts. He happens to be the chairman on the committee on struc- tures in the efforts by several major denominations to effect a merger. Perhaps you are aware of the Commission on Christian Union and the attempts of major denominations to develop a far more effective instrument of mission work in local communities. PAGENO="0052" 46 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES So he does send his regrets, Mr. Chairman, to you and to your com- mittee, and expresses the hope that the supporting statement to be read by me will be an acceptable substitute. So if this meets with your approval, I would like to read the testimony at this time. Mr. THOMPSON. You may, and we are sorry Dr. Neigh couldn't be here. We are delighted, though, to have you. Reverend IGARAsm. Thank you very much. I will just read the statement as he worked it out with his staff. (Readingprepared statement of Rev. Kenneth G. Neigh:) My name is Kenneth G. Neigh. I am the general secretary of the Board of National Missions, United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. `I am appearing here on behalf of the National Council of Churches, of whose general board I am a member. The National Council of Churches is composed of 34 Christian com- munions, whose aggregate membership was 42,500,000 at last report. No one could speak for all of these people, and I do not pretend to. I am speaking only for the general board, which is the representative governing body of the National Council of Churches, and which is composed of 255 members chosen by the member communions in pro- portions to their size and by whatever procedure each sees fit. No one can speak for the General Board of the National Council of Churches without authorization by the general secretary and without a very explicit basis in policy adopted by the general board after a rather lengthy and democratic process of preparation. The National Council of Churches has extensive policy in the area of concern under discussion today, and will become evident as this statement continues. Christian tradition has always emphasized mutual aid and coopera- tion as practical expressions of the command to love God and neigh- bor. This ideal applies equally to the owners and operators of agri- cultural enterprises a.nd to those workers who are employed for wages in agriculture. The General Board of the National Council of Ohurches asserted in June 4, 1958, in a statement entitled "Ethical Goals for Agricultural Policy": One of the finest things farmers have done has been to associate themselves together in voluntary organizations for mutual aid and cooperation * * * The Churches should encourage full membership participation in such organizations of mutual aid and cooperation as a genuine contribution to both Christian and democratic ideals for society. It is our deep conviction tha.t such mutual association with others to achieve legitimate ends is a basic need and right of all in a free society. This applies to agricultural workers equally with other eco- nomic groups. Forms of organization for democratic and self-deter- mining participation in economic, political, civic, and other areas of life and work, by which farmworkers seek responsibility to advance their status and general well-being should `be encouraged. It has, therefore, long been a matter of serious concern of the Na- tional Council of Churches and many of its constituent denomina- tional bodies `that agricultural `workers have been seriously limited in the exercise of the right to organize-under law, by the specific and of- fending reference in the National Labor Relations Act which elimi- nates such workers from the services and coverage of the National Labor Relations Board. We hold that such restriction infringes upon the general right of association which should include the right to or- PAGENO="0053" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 47 ganize into labor unions and bargain collectively and responsibly with employers under the provisions of the NLIRA. The law functions in other areas of labor-management relations, but is unavailable to agri- cultural workers. This concern has led the General Board of the National Council of Churches repeatedly to insist that the provisions of NLRA and other public policies established to regulate relationships between employers and employees to establish justice and to protect all the parties in- volved should be extended to include agricultural wage workers. This has found expression in action of the General Board of the Na- tional Council of Churches in 1951, again in 1958, in 1960, and most recently in December of 1966. On December 3, 1966, the General Board of the National Council of Churches stated: Several aspects of the seasonal farm labor problem require legislative action at federal and/or state levels followed-and I think I would like to underline this sentence-by conscientious administration and enforcement of the laws. Local congregations, denominations, and the Councils of Churches, acting within the framework of their respective doctrines and policies, should press vigorously for the enactment and implementation of legislation on state and national levels along the lines set forth in the following list of legislative goals. The first listed is as follows: Inclusion of farm workers under the provisions of the National Labor Rela- tions Act and accessibility to the services of the National Labor Relations Board. Add to these similar, and perhaps even stronger statements by six of the major Protestant denominations quite apart from the National Council position. They have been issued by: The American Baptist Convention; The Methodist Church; The United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.; United Lutheran Church; United Christian Missionary Society of the Disciples of Christ; The United Church of Christ. I understand, also, these statements are in your hands. There are several practical as well as ethical factors which under- gird our position on this issue: (1) The "industrial farm" is a reality and is rapidly increasing in size and scope. It possesses all the essential characteristics of an indus- trial operation including separation of the functions of ownership, management, and labor, and year-round operations requiring a more permanent labor supply. In keeping with its increasingly industrial character, the agricultural industry must swiftly come to the point of maturity in labor-management relations where it is ready to deal with its labor under the same conditions as other industries. (2) In certain instances unnecessary social conflict has occurred in recent years as farmworkers have attempted to organize and achieve recognition as collective-bargaining units. Such conflict has resulted in hardship on both the grower-farmer aild the worker. In larger measure this has come about because there was no legel means of con- trolling, directing, and policing the relationship between the parties in conflict. Strikes have occurred, are occurring, and will occur again. Unnecessary conflict is often, and regrettably, a characteristic of such episodes when there are no legal channels for either the grower or the worker. Thus everyone suffers. PAGENO="0054" 48 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES (3) We believe these developments will continue in the absence of coverage of the NLRB. The situation will likely get worse instead of better. In many instances there will be violations of the rights of both the employers and `those who labor for them. (4) Some outstanding and responsible growers have given public expression to the crying need for the services of some public agency to which agricultural management-labor conflicts can be appealed. We join them in this plea, and have demonstrated our earnestness in this concern not only through our official statements but physical presence in certain situations where farmworkers were demonstrating their plight. To achieve an orderly procedure wherein (1) unnecessary conflict can be avoided, (2) justice may be achieved under law for both the employer and the worker in the agricultural industry, `and (3) the basic dignity of humanity may be recognized and protected, there should `be legislative action providing for the inclusion of agricultural workers in the services of the National Labor Relations Board. Such legislation, and the implementation of the act itself, must recognize the rights and limitations inherent in both sides to any conflict. Care should be taken to include guidelines which will, to the greatest extent practicable and attainable, protect the basic rights of employer, worker, and `the public in the area o'f `agriculture, as is true of such legislation in other areas of management-labor relations. In February 1958, `the General Board of the National Council of Churches `adopted a statement on `basic principles relating to collective bargaining. We restate those basic principles under which we see `the collective-bargaining privilege for agriculture workers being of ad- vantage to all concerned: We recognize the right of both employers and employees to organize for col- lective bargaining, and in connection with employees we believe that it is generally desirable to do so. In all transactions between labor and management we believe that the follow- ing basic requirement's should be met by both: A. There should be a compelling sense of responsibility for the public intere'st and for what is mutually fair and just. B. There should be a willingness to bargain collectively and in good faith and to refrain from violence. 0. There should be recognition of fact that in the collective bargaining process negotiation requires the existence of recognized entities, each respecting the rights of the other to exist. D. There should be fidelity in the observance of agreements mutually entered into. E. There `should be adherence to procedures agreed upon in advance for the peaceful settlement of issues that arise in the interpretation and application of the terms of a contract. F. Precautions `should be taken by each side to refrain from exerting pressures, the intentions or consequences of which would be a violation of the terms of contract. G. The interests of the consuming and general public `should be protected against possible abuses through employer-union collusion in matters of prices and trade practices. Under such basic guidelines we maintain that the inclusion of agri- cultural workers under the NLRA, with proper implementation in NLRB, contains no threat to the growers' return on his investments in his industry while it recognizes the basic. human right of the worker to a reasonable and fair wage, and acceptable working conditions. Perhaps most importantly of all, it recognizes the workers' basic PAGENO="0055" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 49 humanity and dignity as a free moral agent who may exercise his right to help form his own destiny and to responsibly better his own conditions. This is the end of the testimony as it was to be presented to by Dr. Neigh, Mr. Chairman. ~{r. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, all three of you. Your state- ments are splended and are most useful. I might ask if it would be pos- sible for us to get the statements referred to on page 3 of the last testimony by the other denominational groups and any other that might be available? Would you be able to get them for us? Mr. HIRSCH. I might add we have had 10 lost tribes, too. Reverend IGARA5HI. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. I think the best way to proceed now is for the Chair to recognize members for questions and time will allow us to operate under a 10-minute rule with the number that are here. If any more show up we will have to reduce our time proportionately. We will start with Mr. O'Hara, Michigan, who is the author of the bill. Mr. O'HA1i~&. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what I can add to the statements that have been made. There is, however, one question which has been left unanswered. The church organizations have, for a number of years, advocated legislation to deal with the problems of farm- workers. They have supported bills to guarantee their right to organize under the NLRA and to improve several aspects~ of their work- ing conditions-workmen's compensation and unemployment insur- ance, and prior to a termination by Congress, reforms in Public Law 78. It seems that no one likes to oppose the churches as such and be on the side of evil. So those who have opposed the church position on various aspects of the farm labor program have taken the approach that, "the churches just don't understand the practical problems of the grower. If they really understood what was going on they would not take the position they do." I wonder if any of these several very excellent witnesses might like to comment on this sort of defense, which has been used by growers in the past, and I am sure will be used again this year. Monsignor QUINN. Mr. O'Hara, I think there is a genuine concern on the part of growers for their future and the possibility of wide- spread organization of farmworkers does present a great threat. When the church and temple support these efforts on the part of the farm- workers, I suppose the growers are justifiably concerned that pressure is being put on them by a lot of people who are not nearly as close to the problem as the growers themselves are. But I think the emphasis here is on the fact that poor people are not able to express their concern, cannot get together for 100 different rea~- sons or so, to get something for themselves and the desire of the poor in the cases which I have cited in California and Texas particularly is an effort to work together with the growers. As we point out and has been pointed out by all three witnesses here, our churches are concerned about the growers themselves and hope- fully they are counseled to join together with associations themselves. I think the emphasis here is on the fact that a certain segment of the population in the United States, a very affluent country, is being ex- ploited and neglected and I don't think anyone can score the churches or the temple for that kind of interest. PAGENO="0056" 50 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. O'HARA. Do either of you gentlemen have a comment? Reverend IGARAsm. I would like to say, increasingly, speaking for the Protestants, it is becoming clear that if the church is to be the church of today's world it will have to deal with social justice ques- tions. As the church allies itself with Christians at all levels of society, it is gaining sophistication in regard to a number of practical questions. These everyday questions have to be faced and these are being faced, so t.hat any grower who says to us, "You do not understand the grower's perspective on society," is begining to see that there is a tremendous conversation going on within the church about the basis upon which people live and move and have their being in different institutions in our American society. So, though the grower may be a Christian and have committed him- self to the church's institutions, lie also, by his very participation in economic society, belongs to an "economic" institution, the farm, and is guided by the vested interests of that institution. Therefore, when the church tries to deal with such problems as the problems of the rural poor, and the agricultural migrant in particular, and when it seeks to understand the context within which lie lives and when it is faced with justice questions in local communities in which the grower may also happen to live as a member of an economic insti- tution, he finds himself in conflict with other Christians who may happen to be poor agricultural migrants. In such cases the church finds itself in tremendous tension because on the one hand growers are Christians-and members of churches. At the same time agricultural migrants, too, are people of God, for whom the church needs to express concern and in whose develop- ment, destiny, and dignity it has a tremendous vested interest. As to the question of the grower who raises the profit motive prob- lem, the churches recognize that profitmaking is indeed important to a healthy economy, yet the matter of dignity for all people and a chance for justice -for all people, including the argicultural migrant, is just as critical, perhaps even more so. Indeed, the church continues to place the human factor as a priority item. Mr. O'HARA. In other words, sometimes these adjustments are diffi- cult, but the demands of social justice are such that they will have to be made? Reverend IGARAsm. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. I would certainly agree with that position. I was pleased that there were several comments during your testi- mony with respect to some of the larger aspects of organization in the agriculture industry. Monsignor Quinn, you quoted the statement of Bishop Donohoe of Stockton, indicating that farmers had a right to join legitimate orga- nizations of their own choosing to promote their mutual interests. Dr. Neigh's statement, which you read, Mr. Igarashi, made the same point. He said, as a matter of fact, one of the finest things that farmers have done in recent history has been to join together. I under- stand a bill is currently pending before Congress which would legally extend and strengthen the right of farmers and growers to band to- gether in their dealings with the purchaseis of their products. PAGENO="0057" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 51 I understand, further, that unlike any piece of legislation I can recall since I have been in Congress, this bill has the unanimous sup- port of the farm organizations. The Farmers Union and the Farm Bureau, whom I can't recall having agreed on anything in the last 9 years, are fully in accord on this piece of legislation. It seems to me that if organization is good for the growers it ought to be good for the workers. Would you agree? Monsig'nor QUINN. I would agree with you. Mr. O'HARA. And I don't suppose that any of you gentlemen have any plans to testify against that legislation? Monsignor QUINN. None whatsoever. Mr. O'HARA. Then I hope the farm organizati'ons won't testify against this legislation. Mr. THOMPSON. I think it is a faint hope. Mr. O'HARA. No further questions. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Gardner. Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 think Mr. O'Hara has set the tone of the questioning. I certainly would not want to be placed on the side of evil. Iwould like to ask each of you the same question after commending you on your very excellent testimony. Monsignor, in your statement when you quoted from Bishop Dono- hoe, you made the statement that: "It is understood this association act within the law, therefore, is concerned with the general welfare as well with its own." I think each of you gentelmen gave the same type of testimony that really the issue we are dealing with is a moral issue as much as any- thing else. If we would substitute the word "individual" for the word "associa- tion" I would like to ask each of you if you would agree that you would have this same type philosophy, that the individual would have the right to join an association or union if he so desired? Rabbi HIRSCH. May I ask a question of you, Mr. Congressman?~ Mr. GARDNER. Yes. Rabbi HIRSCH. Are you trying to relate this to the discussion of the repeal of 14(b)? Mr. GARDNER. Right. Yes. With the chairman's permission. Mr. ThOMPSON. You have permission, of course. Mr. GARDNER. This is really one of personal interestS Mr. ThoMPsoN. I might point out the major faiths over a period of years with respect to 14(b) have taken a position to which the Chair `subscribes. I am not trying to answer for these geutlemen because they can answer for themselves, but 14(b) does not in fact give anyone the right to work. If it did, anyone unemployed could go in to any employer in the State of North Carolina or elsewhere in the 19 States which have the right-to-~vork laws and say, "Here I am. You say I have a right to work, `I want the job." I will let them answer. Rabbi HIRSCH. I was going to respond because of the three gentle- men here, I believe I am the only one who presented testimony on 14(b). The three faith groups did testify, although we did not appear as a panel. Mr. Thompson was present at that testimony, and all three PAGENO="0058" 52 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES groups testified in favor of the repeal of 14(b). Rather than my at- tempting to respond to you now, perhaps it would be much more effi- cacious if I were to refer you to the well-formulated written positions as expressed at that time, last summer, I think it was. Mr. THOMPSON. The summer before that. The hearings are clear on that point. Mr. GARDNER. Do either of you other gentlemen care to comment or stand on that? Monsignor QUINN. As Rabbi Hirsch pointed out, the Roman Cath- olic Church was represented in hearings coming out for the repeal of 14(b). Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. Reverend IGARASHI. I am not quite sure what policy statement we have to support the statement of Rabbi Hirsch, but nevertheless our general stand is pretty clearly articulated in previous testimony. Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield, I might relieve him of any fear of the immediate repeal of 14(b). Mr. GARDNER. I am delighted to hear that, Mr. Chairman, I must admit. I have a hard time in my own mind understanding how various groups can be concerned about individual workers and not be con- cerned about the right of an individual to join a union under his own choice. I will be quite frank in this. It seems to me your position is very contradictory. I would share the same concern over the right of an individual in North Carolina or any other State that has 14(b) to, of his own choice, join a union. I would be just as concerned with this as a worker having an oppor~ tunity to a voice speaking for him. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. I might point out to the gentleman an example of how opposite things can happen and one can disapprove of one aspect of a situation and approve of another. Under the cotton marketing reguTations, you know, every cotton grower, whether he wants to or nOt, must pay $1 per bale of cotton for advertising of cotton without any choice. Mr. GARDNER. That is according to the law. He has no choice. Mr. O'HARA. If I may pursue the analogy the chairman started to make, I think one important point, sometimes overlooked about sec- tion 14(b), is that the Labor-Management Relations Act requires that once a labor organization has been recognized as the bargaining agent for a group of employees, it is required by the law to represent each and every one of those employees in grievance procedures, in arbi- tration, in wage and working condition determinations, whether or not all employees are part of the union. And the requirement of the union shop, which is sometimes referred to as the Taft-Hartley union shop, is not the same as the traditional union shop which existed before the passage of the Taft-Hartley law. Under the so-called Taft-Hartley union shop, the employee, if there were a union shop agreement, would not be required to join the union if he did not want to. If there is a union shop agreement. in a non-right-to-work State~, however, he is required to pay the union the equivalent of the dues and initiation fee even if he does not belong to it. He is not required to join any organization which he does not want to join, but he is required to pay his share of the cost of the representation the union is obliged to furnish him. PAGENO="0059" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 53 Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield, his recitation is quite accurate. The analogy between 14(b) and the cotton grower is that the cotton grower is a member now of what the Taft-Hartley law made ii- 1egal, namely, a closed shop. There is no choice to the cotton grower but to distribute to this central fund $1 per bale of cotton, whether or not he wants to. He must. Well, we are getting away from this. We are using Mr. Gardner's time. Mr. GARDNER. No further questions. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Dellenback. Mr. DELIJENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to see Mr. Igarashi here and at the same time I: am regretful not to see Ken Neigh here, because he is a gentleman for whom I have considerable respect and with whom I served in the past in the Presbyterian Church. I am delighted to see the other gentlemen, too. There are a couple of background questions I would like to throw out to get reac- tions to be sure I understand the relationship in which you gentlemen stand before us. As to this particular bill, 4769, Rabbi Hirsch, your testimony makes clear you are not speaking on this bill, you are speaking to the general context that you statements alludes and you are not talking at all about H.R. 4769, except insofar as it does or does not meet the general testimony you have given? Rabbi HIRSCH. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. I don't find in your statement, Monseigneur Quinn, are you speaking to 4769? Msgr. QUINN. I am speaking to the general area. Mr. DELLENBACK. You are not talking to this bill either? Msgr. QUINN. I am talking about the subject bill of inclusion under the NLR Act. Mr. IDELLENBACK. But you are talking as Rabbi Hirsch is on the general idea rather than as to any particular bill? Msgr. QUINN. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. Is that in fact your position, Mr. Igarashi? Reverend IGAiiAsm. Yes, this is our position. Mr. DELLENBACK. You are talking in general on an idea and not about a particular bill? Reverend IGARA5HI. That is right, at this point. Mr. DELLENBACK. Secondly, insofar as your individual capacities to speak and whom you represent in speaking before us, I see from Dr. Neigh's statement that while he is speaking here for the general board of the national council, rather, he makes clear that, however great its membership that its membership is not involved in that statement except through its representatives on the general board of which there were 255 for 42i~4 million persons. Do you know how many of those members participated in the decisions or policy state- * ments here set forth? Reverend IGARA5HI. I am awfully sorry. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am aware of the procedure. I found this in our State legislature and all of us are familiar with this procedure. A person appears to speak before us, and it is clear that that which the person says is the statement of the person himself. He also appears in a representative capacity and in some instances he represents a large PAGENO="0060" 54 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES or small number, all of whom have, in truth, directly participated in the stand expressed. In other instances and most frequently, he speaks in a representative capacity where in truth there are only a rela- tively few people who have really dug in depth into the issue and have taken a particular stand. Now, can you tell me any more from the data which has been handed to you as to where we stand on this particular statement, Mr. Igarashi? iReverend IGARASHI. There are several levels at which we need, to answer your question. The 42 million members of NCC is a deceptive figure and all 42 million people quite obviously are not behind us. If we were, as the church, speaking, we would have had this bill passed a long time ago, or any bill for that matter. The fact is, the whole question of representative government is being asked. When we speak of the National Council of Churches, it is impor- tant to remember that it is not the staff of NCC to which we refer but it is the constituent denominations: 34 of whom are represented by a longstanding process by which people are elected. The whole question of "visible" elected minority who speak for the church raises the equally valid question of who speaks for any church, whether it be local, regional or national. At any church's jurisdictional level, who does indeed speak for the church or any group in which a representa- tive or participatory democracy is evident? Mr. Boutilier, the executive director of the National Campaign for Agricultural Democracy, just reminded me that the action of the gen- eral board on December 3, 1966, in fact had 110 people for and none against; and one abstention. This is a rather substantial support, and represents a considerable number of people. Supporting this action by the NCC general board, there are over 10,000 volunteers and countless numbers of people who, in the church, have considered this matter of the extension of the rights of the agri- cultural migrant and the specific bills which refer to these rights. Earlier in this hearing I was asked whether the testimony supported this particular bill or not, my answer then was, "in a general way." This cautious reply indicates our desire for more study. We have not had a chance to really look at this particular bill, but we have studied other bills on the extension of collective bargaining rights with infinite care and I can assure you with quite a considerable number of people who represent Protestant churches across America. And these are indeed represented by the 110 general boa.rd vote figure. Mr. DELLENBACK. Please understand I am not quarreling with the position of the paper. I am just fully aware of the representative nature in the Presbyterian Church where we go from the congrega- tion to the individual church, to the presbytery, to the synod to the general assembly; and in the final analysis the man who speaks in behalf of our denomination may very well not have talked with many people below him and it finally ends up, in large part, although he is chosen as the representative, he speaks for himself on the particular point involved. This is really what I was intending, to at least have the record clear, that we are not here really getting the views of 42 million persons and you have said this, but we are getting it in a different way. PAGENO="0061" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 55 I am less familiar, frankly, with the national council and how it operates in the representative capacity. And as you indicated, 110 were speaking and this was less than the total membership of the 255 which does not mean the others would not have felt the same way, but we are talking about 110 people speaking about this although they have some representative authority. Reverend IGARASHI. Several major denominations listed in Dr. Neigh's testimony discussed this issue in their resolutions committee or other appropriate bodies within their denominations. The fact they have produced supporting statements I believe reflects rather sub- stantial concern. Mr. DELLENBAOK. I say again I am not quarreling with the state- ment. I am just fully aware in the Presbyterian Church of the wrest- ling going on in the last 2 years as we deal with the question of the new confession for our church and there is an attempt really to get down in the individual congregation and I know firsthand even there this is not really happening as deeply as some of us would like to see it done. I am not familiar with the representative nature in which the other two witnesses speak. Monsignor, can you tell me, I recognize you are in the office of the National Bishops Committee, and can you just in simpliest sense tell me how deeply, how broadly based the capacity is in which you appear before us? Msgr. QUINN. I represent a group of nine bishops and we are on the Bishops Committee for the Spanish-speaking people. My statement rather is an interpretation of the common teaching of the church rather than a sort of consensus on the part of all Roman Catholics in the United States. I don't go as far back as Moses but this is the common teaching as interpreted for this specific area here in the United States. Mr. DELLENBACK. There are theologians who say you do go back as far as Moses. Msgr. Q1JINN. What I mean is-well, I lose on that one every time. This is rather a restatement of the common teaching of the church as evidenced from the quotations I have in there where there is a great deal of strife in the United States now, the church being called upon to reiterate things which perhaps have dropped into the background and these statements represent that kind of thing particularly in Texas and California. Mr. DELLENBACK. Please understand I am not quarreling with what is said but I am just seeking here. You are not speaking for the con- stitutent members of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States in any wise but speaking in behalf of these nine individuals who are seeking to say what the teaching of the church is in this regard? Msgr. QUINN. That is right. Mr. DELLENBACK. Rabbi Hirsch. Rabbi HIRSCH. We have a rather complicated structure. I represent the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, which rep- resents the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, which is the overall national body of Reform Jewish Congregations in the country. Mr. DELLENBACK. Can you tell me how many persons that embraces approximately? PAGENO="0062" 56 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES RABBI HIRSCH. Approximately 1 million persons is what we talk about, although you may know the Jewish community does not count souls but families. However, counting as one would in the Christian community, it is approximately 1 million. Of course, the resolution which is the basis of our testimony, was passed at an assembly where there were perhaps 1,500 to 2,000 people present, again representatives in the very way that I suppose Con- gressmen are selected as representatives. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not sure about the chairman, but I am sure when I speak all 460,000 of my people are solidly with me. Rabbi Hnisoii. Well, I mentioned it because I would imagine that Congressmen are acutely aware of the representative character of the religious leaders' role, because they themselves have had similar expe- riences in determining exactly whom they represent. I think there is some analogy in. this respect between religious and political leader- ship. The other major group I represent is the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which is the national organization of Reform Rabbis in America, and they passed a resolution which I believe wa~ unanimously approved. If you don't mind, I would like to read it into the record, because I did not have it at the time the written testimony was prepared. Mr. DELLENBACK. I would be very pleased. Rabbi Hnisci-i. This was adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis at its last convention: We hail the results already achieved in the Delano Strike which brought historical recognition by some agricultural employers of the right of farm work- ers to organize and to bargain collectively, and we hope that this right will soon be extended to all farm workers. So, to return to your question, Congressman Dellenback, we are' cognizant of the problems inherent in any representative role. I would say, in effect, what the other gentlemen have said: namely, that our position does represent a consensus of what the leadership of our groups would believe. Mr. DELLENBACK. Oftentimes our stands as representatives, either as Congressmen or as religious leaders, really reflect what we think ought to be the stand of our people instead of, of necessity, a counting of heads as to what their stands in fact are. Rabbi HISRCH. I am in agreement that this may sometimes be the case. But I want to make one other statement which I didn't have a chance to respond to in the question of Congressman O'Hara, concern- ing whether or not the churches understand the practical problems of the growers, a question which I think is also related to what you are now asking. I am aware of the fact that the church, very frequently, is accused of meddling and of not being very sophisticated in some of these issues. However, if there is any issue in which the churches have in- volved themselves recently and have tried to get to the depth of the' problem, I think this is the issue, and particularly in a place like California. Speaking for the Jewish community, I don't know of one Jewish farmworker. We have no narrow vested interest in the plight of the farmworkers. I do know there are many Jews who are either growers or who are involved tangentially with farm production. I do know PAGENO="0063" EXTENSION QF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 57 that in such issues as the Delano grape strike, every effort w~ made and is still being made to solve the problems of that situation, because the problems are continuing to cause a great deal of tension, and every effort has been made to involvethe growers in discussions. This morning I received in the mail a copy of the minutes of a meet- ing which took place between the growers and farmworkers in the offices of our Union of American Hebrew Congregations in San Fran- cisco. In attendance were growers, workers, and representatives of the three faiths. So, it seems to me, that every conscientious effort; is being made to approach the issue by taking all sides into consideration. Frankly, if the church groups were motivated by narrow vested in- terests, they would have had to be on the side of the growers, some of whom contribute to church groups. The farmworkers do not give any substantial money. The farmwork- ers do not, in most instances, belong to the established churches, so that when the church groups take a position on this issue, which from the narrow perspective is contrary to their vested financial interest as institutions, to me at least it speaks much louder than it would on an issue in which they won't have that vested concern. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think we would really all agree that the real vested interests of your groups, as represented in toto, is souls rather than the property of the members and of the people of this Nation, so you really are speaking of what you consider to be the vested interests of your groups. iRabbi HIRSCH. A good theological point. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ThoMPSoN. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'H~iiA. Mr. Chairman, I pricked up my ears when I heard Mr. Dellenback ask the witnesses if they endorsed this particular bill or endorsed the general principles. I would like to point out that this bill was not introduced until fairly recently, February 2, and that the meeting of the Council of Churches at which the statement was made was in December of last year. Because no church group has called for the passage of this particu- lar bill, H.R. 4769, I would like to get into the question of what prin- ciple it is you do endorse. Monsignor Quinn's statement at the bottom of page 4 asks us to give grave consideration to the inclusion of the farmworker under the National Labor Relations Act. .The testimony of Rabbi Hirsch specifically endorses passage of this particular piece of legislation and the statement of Dr. Neigh, at the top of page 2, lists the first legislative goal regarding farmworkers of the Council of Churches as inclusion of such workers under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. What you are saying is, I believe, that farmworkers should have the same rights to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRB Act as any other workers. Is that a fair statement? RabbiHn~soH. Yes. * Mr. DELLENBACK. Will the gentleman yield, and may I characterize what I read from the papers and ask you this: Are you speaking in favor of the principle of workers associating themselves together in voluntary organizations for mutual aid in cooperation in this partic- ular field `ts well as in others ~ Is this what you spe'1/k in favor of 2 PAGENO="0064" 58 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Rabbi Hinsoi-i. I think we speak in favor of that but not only the right to organize and bargain collectively but protection under NLRA, which is accorded to all other workers. The crux of the matter is the NLRA protection. Mr. `DEL.LENBAOK. Are you really taking a stand on involvement of the Federal Government in the situation as opposed to the State governments? Are you taking a stand in favor of Federal involvement as opposed to State involvement? Rabbi HIRsou. This is an area that I would answer as an indi- vidual, because the question has never been asked of us. Mr. DELLENBACK. But in your representative capacities, are you taking a stand on that point? Rabbi HIR5OI-I. I would say that in regard to this particular legis- lation there has `been no discussion of that, but in, regard to a whole host of other legislative issues, when it comes to such matters as States rights versus Federal legislation, our response has generally been that the legislation must' be Federal in order to be implemented on an equitable basis. So if the crux of your question, Mr. `Congressman, is that maybe we are not really in favor of protection of NLRA or maybe we are not in favor of this particular bill, then I want to agree with what Mr. O'Hara was suggesting. We are in favor of this particular bill as being that piece of specific legislation which most closely repre- sents the general principle, and which best applies the general prin- ciple in behalf of which we have all spoken. Mr. DELLENBAOK. This against the background in which you already made clear as to the capacity in which you ,speak? Mr. O'HARA. I would like to reclaim the floor `for a minute. I gather from your testimony that while you are not, except in the case of Rabbi Hirsch, specifically endorsing a particular bill, you are speaking in favor of the inclusion of farmworkers under the NRLA with the same rights, obligations, and privileges as any other workers. Is that correct? Monsignor QUINN. That is correct. Mr. O'HARA. Rabbi Hirsch, is that correct? Rabbi Hmson. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. Reverend Igarashi, would `you say it is fair interpretation ~ Reverend IGARASHI. Yes; not only a fair interpretation but I would like to make reference back to, and again I do not have the specific number here but on December 8, 1960, the general board, or the general assembly in San Francisco passed this statement. We urge the continu- ation of current efforts as a responsible and democratic labor organiza- tion among these workers. We favor extending to them `by law the right of collective bargaining and access to the services of the National Labor Relation Board on a par with other wage workers in iiidustry. We c'dl upon employers of Christian conscience to encourage and stand with these workers in their effort to gain human dignity, self- respect, and economic security through the device of human organization. Now, the general assembly, for your information, is more than just the general board which acts in the assembly's `behalf in between tri- ennial meetings. This is the governing body of all member denomina- PAGENO="0065" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 59 tions. The representative system, therefore, has a much broader base when they come together as the assembly. I refer to this to reaffirm the fact that protestant churches have called over and over again for this bill or a bill like it so that if there was any contravailing opinion within the church against these, there would have been quite a body of counteropinion a long time ago. Therefore, my judgment is we have broadly based support for this bill. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you. I am glad to have you confirm my interpretation. Let me call attention to one part of your quotation from the resolu- tion adopted by the general assembly in 1960. You said farmworkers should be "on a par with other workers." I don't believe you are saying, "We believe that farmworkers should have some of the same rights" or "a few of the same rights." I believe you are saying that "We believe that farmworkers should have the same rights to organize and bargain collectively under the NLRA as other workers." Is that correct? Reverend IGARASHI. That is right. Mr. O'HARA. I would like, in conclusion, to point out that all this bill does is carry out that principle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. The line of questioning by our friend and colleague from Oregon is a familiar one to all representative people who appear before us and is analogous to our responsibilities as representatives here. We are not delegates, we are representatives. rl1here is a thread through the testimony of each of the three of you of concern for the social cost of a lack of organization among the f arm- workers; is that a reasonable statement? Monsignor QUINN. Yes, I think it is, sir. Rabbi Rinsoii. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TII0MP50N.There has been a tremendous amount of involvement by individual clergyman in California and Texas and elsewhere in a very real sense. The clergy, whether they have direct concern or not, have gone out, have helped to organize the pickets, have supported boy- cotts, and hawe taken such other legal and constructive action as they thought possible in order to assist in the organization of these work- ers. This in my view is a very heartening thing. The fact that the three of you appeared today speaks well for all of you and for the people whom you represent. Do you expect a continued concern and continued militant action in support of the organization of farmworkers, Monsignor? Monsignor QUINN. Yes, I believe we expect an expanding concern. I think there is an ever-growing interest on the part of people, even city people now, because the plight of the farmworker has been much pub- licized in the last several years and particularly since the beginning of the Delano grape strike. Mr. TiionpsoN. I note there is here, and it will be made a part of the record, a strong statement by the Catholic bishops of Texas where there is current activity, the Northern California Council of the Union of American hebrew Congregations, and a number of other groups that have taken stands with respect to this. 82-i32---67----5 PAGENO="0066" 60 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES I think that we are much in your debt, all of you, for your splendid contributions, and I simply want to restate what Mr. O'Hara made clear. There is nothing complicated in the legal or technical sense about the bill which is before us. It is a simple bill. It simply deletes an exemption for the agricultural workers. It gives them the equal pro- tection of the law now enjoyed by all other American workers in interstate commerce. Obviously, it would not apply to the hired man on a small family farm, and it would not apply to very small farms, of which there are a diminishing number. But it is aimed at the farm factories in the United States; the analogy between the agricultural industry and other industry in .Dr. Neigh's statement makes this quite clear. Thank you all very, very much for coming. The subcommittee will continue its hearing on this subject at 10 a.m., tomorrow, in room 2175. (Whereupoi~, at 12 :05 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, May 5, 1967.) PAGENO="0067" EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES FRIDAY, MAY 5, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDuCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chair- man of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, Albert, Gardner, and Burton of California. Also present: Peter MT. Tredick, counsel; and Jeunesse M. Zeifman, clerk. Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order. We will continue our hearings on the bill, H.R. 4769, by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan. Our colleague, Mr. Burton from California, would like to introduce our witnesses for today. Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend you and the other members of your sub- committee for bringing this matter into the public forum. I am pleased to have joined with a number of my distinguished col- leagues and our principal author in proposing legislation bringing farmworkers into our National Labor Relations Act. We have with us this morning, as you know, various leaders of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. I would like to, without in any way showing undue favoritism, make special mention not only of the presence of Cesar Chavez, a re- markable man of great personal integrity, conviction, and effective- ness, but, even more so, the one lady present, a young lady and the mother of seven children, Dolores Huerta. Dolores and I worked on a number of projects in our State, num- bers of them were thought to be lost fights to begin with, but as a result of her efforts and the support generated among those who labor on the farms of our State, the farmworkers in our State have had extended to them mandatory workmen's compensation coverage, disability in- surance, and supplemental welfare benefits in those instances where the father is unemployed but remains in the home. 61 PAGENO="0068" 62 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES It is a great pleasure for me to join with you in listening to this testimony which I am sure will be moat helpful to all of us in our de- liberations on this matter. Thank you. Mr.. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton. You are indeed welcome, Mr. Chavez, and it is a pleasure to have you here. If you would, introduce those who are with you for the benefit of the stenographer, and then you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENTS OF CESAR CHAVEZ, DIRECTOR, UPWOC, AFL-CIO, DELANO, CALIF.; ~1OE SERDA, CHAIRMAN, RANCH COMMITTEE, SIERRA VISTA RANCH, DELANO, CALIF.; MACK LYONS, CHAIR- MAN, DiGIORGIO RANCH COMMITTEE, ARVIN, CALIF.; GILBERT PADILLA, DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZATION, UFWOC, AFL-CIO, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEX.; DOMINGO ARREDONDO, CHAIRMAN, UPWOC, AFL-CIO, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEX.; LARRY ITLIONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UFWOC, AFL-CIO, DELANO, CALIF.; MRS. DOLORES HUERTA, DIRECTOR OF NEGOTIATIONS, UPWOC, AFL-CIO, DELANO, CALIF. Mr. CHAVEZ. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are very happy to be here this morning to tell you about our efforts to organize f arm- workers and to point out to you the need of passing the legislation to cover farmworkers under the National Labor Relations Act. First of all, to my extreme left, we have Brother Joe Serda, who is the chairman of the Sierra Vista Ranch. Then we have Mrs. Dolores Huerta, who heads the negotiations for the union. Then to my immediate left, Brother Larry Itliong, who is the assist- ant director of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. To my extreme right, we have Mack Lyons, who is the chairman of the DiGiorgio Arvin Ranch Committee. Then next to him is Brother Gilbert Padilla, who is leading the Texas strike for the union in Rio Grande City. Then to my immediate right, we have Brother Domingo Arredondo, a striker in Texas and Rio Grande City. With your permission, we are going to speak from notes and will attempt to give you the story of our struggles, mostly in Delano, to point out the need for such legislation. c[n September 1965, the farmworkers strike started in Delano. The strike was one for recognition; over 3,600 workers assembled and voted to strike 40 grape growers in the area; The evening when the strike vote was taken, we asked the workers for a 4-day period in which to try to get to the growers and see if we could convince them to negotiate with us. In that 4-day period, we sent to them people who we thought they would listen to in the com- munity and they were, of course, rejected. We sent registered letters to them. When that failed, and failed in the form that they refused to accept the letters, then we sent wires to them. Then we tried to get a priest in the community to go see them PAGENO="0069" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 63 and see if we could get some negotiations going. When that failed, we called on the State conciliation service and he, too, was rebuffed by the growers. So, there were 4 days of intense activity trying to head off what we knew was going to be a very long and a very bitter strike. When all of the attempts had failed, then the strike went into effect, and it `has been now almost 21 months since we went out. Because of lack of legislation, the grower has the upper `hand in such a `struggle. For instance, immediately, those `workers who were on strike were blacklisted. Those who were sympathetic and not going on strike were also blacklisted and those who `dared to speak up in favor of the union were also blacklisted. We had a number of firings because of workers coming forth and stating that they were for the union. Then we began to `have the yellow dog contract th'at gained a lot of prominence right from the beginning of the strike. We h'ad several attempts to build company unions. Then we had the interference from the police, the Sheriff's Department, and, in some cases, the unwilling- ness on the part of the district attorneys in both Delano and Kern Counties to take our complaints and file those complaints against physical abuse against our strikers. Strikebreaking for agricultural workers, and especially in Texas and California, is a situation where the growers can immediately pro- duce as many `strikebreakers `as they need and as they want simply by traveling to the nearest Mexican border and hiring what `we call the green card workers. These are the people who are legal residents of the United States but who live in Mexico and commute in most cases across the border every morning to work and then return in the evening. Mr. THOMPSON. May I ask you a question `at this point? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. `There have been estimates that from 40,000 to 100,000 green card workers move in and out of California and the Southwest. Do you think that a congressional investigation of the green card policies of the Immigration and Naturalization Service would help to clear up some of the difficulties facing the American farmworker? Mr. CHAVEZ. I `am very sure that it would because, see, we have not been able to get this through the executive branch. We have been to the executive departments and we `have not been able to get them to give us any `assistance. We know that there `are many problems that resulted from the `cross- ing of these workers. We know it is `an established fact that when they come in they do depress the wages; they do depress `working con- ditions and become strikebreakers not only in California but in Texas. There is no question about this; this can be proven; so an investiga- tion would be most welcome not only by our union but I imagine by many unions. You see, Mr. Chairman, they not only come in to do farm labor but they also come in and take over the jobs that are `held by, in many cases, other union members in the building trades, the restaurants, hotels and motels, and so forth. PAGENO="0070" 64 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. You will be interested to know that our colleague, Mr. Udall, from Arizona, is seeking `an investigation. Mr. TJdall `has had a very deep interest in this. Mr. CHAVEZ. Next, I would like to just briefly point out in our great conflict, because of the lack of protection for the workers and the lack of the National Labor Relations Act, what a difference it would have made if we had had the act. When we struck the DiGiorgio Corp., the first reaction from the corporation was that there was no strike and that those people on strike were not really farmworkers. So, we continued with the struggle `against them for 6 or 7 months until finally we instituted a national consumers' boycott against them. When they began to feel the pressure and also when we had broken the solid opposition by having the Schenley Corp. recognize our union, we immediately then concentrated all of our efforts on the DiGiorgio Corp. After a few weeks of intense activity on the boycott and also on the strike, DiGiorgio began then to try to find a way in which they could get rid of our union and they tried to organize a company union inside the farm. They closed the entrances to the camps because at that time about 90 percent of the workers do live inside the camps. When this failed because the workers rejected the attempt to form a company union and force them into this company union, the next development was the appearance of the Teamsters Union in the fields working alongside the employer with the foreman and with the super- intendent trying to sign up people. While this was going on, we were being excluded from the property. Six or seven arrests were made when our organizers attempted to go into the camps on the property and talk to the workers after working hours. These arrests were made even though the workers had invited the organizers into their homes. And' when the pressure continued to mount, then the company called an election on the 24th of June of last year. This was what we called a phony election. The election was called; our union was not permitted to have an observer at the polls; our union was not permitted to campaign. Furthermore, when we rejected the idea of a campaign under these conditions then they went ahead and included our name on the ballot. At the same time the Teamsters Union was on the ballot and the Teamsters officials and organizers were inside the ranch with the company working on the workers. Mr. Serda will be telling you a little bit about this in his testimony. That election was set aside `through the good offices of Governor Brown who, after we appealed to him, saw the injustice of that elec- tion and the `results of it and called on the American Arbitration As- sociation to send in an arbitrator. The association sent in an arbitrator from Wayne State University in Michigan, Ronald 1-laughton, who came in and after about a month and a half of intense activity was able to get the three sides together; the Teamsters, DiGiorgio, and ourselves. Then he also set up rules and procedures for the election, knowing that would not give us the protection that we could get if this had been a National Labor Relations Boa'rd election but more than we ever had before. An awful lot of `time was spent on determining voter eligi- bility, which was very difficult. PAGENO="0071" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 65 After some activity, the ~Jection was set for August 30 of last year. Once the workers were permitted to vote, they voted almost 3 to 1 in favor of our union. This was the first time that workers had been per- mitted to vote and this was a makeshift arrangement. During the period of the campaigning, there were many, many un- fair labor practices, using the National Labor Relations guide. There were many unfair labor practices that we have nowhere to appeal to that were being committed by the company, that were being committed by the other union against our union. Even with the minimum rules, we were able to bring on an election that gave the workers their rights. The next thing that I would like to talk to you about and which points out even more dramatically the need for legislation is the Perelli-Minetti conflict. In October 1966, the workers of Perelli-Minetti, 52 of them, who were harvesting grapes for wine, left the fields on a recognition dispute and also for wages and working conditions. Two days later, the State department of employment, after an investigation, certified that we had a strike against the Perelli-Minetti Corp. For the next week, here was absolutely no activity on the ranch as a result of the workers' strike. About the 8th or 9th day after we went on strike, the same unit of the Teamsters Union went in, brought strikebreakers from the sur- rounding towns, and began to break our strike. Then a few days later it was announced in the press that Perelli-Minetti had signed a con- tract with the Teamsters Union. We were put in a position that we could not ignore this; we thought this was a very dangerous precedent. We would be organizing for the `other union, organizing and giving support to the union without the workers having the right to determine which union they wanted. So, we instituted a national boycott against the Perelli-Minetti Corp. and we have been at it for almost 7 months. This has been a. very bitter dispute. This has been a dispute that in- eludes the Perelli-Minetti Corp., includes the Teamsters Union and our union. We are claiming that that contract was signed without the other union having the right to represent the workers because the workers had not given the right. We had all the workers signed up not only on authorization cards but many of them had been paying dues to our own union for as much as 2 years. We proceeded then to boycott as the only weapon that we have in such cases to bring economic pressure against that combination, `to be able to reverse that immoral decision that they went into when they signed a contract. Now, we petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a repre- sentation election and we were turned down. Not only were we turned `down, but then in the attempts to bring economic pressure to the corporation we began to boycott their products at the Mayfair Stores in Los Angeles. We had a lot of picket line activity and leaflet dis- tribution in bringing to the attention of the consumer the fact that we ~were boycotting struck wines and brandy that were being sold at this particular store. The Mayfair Stores went to the Board and the Board interfered and we stopped. We were told that if we did not quit picketing for a cooling-off period we would be enjoined, so we stopped picketing and, in fact, to this day we have not gone back to our consumer boycott. PAGENO="0072" 66 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES What I am pointing out here is the imb~lance of the National Labor Relations Act turning us down when we wanted a representation elec- tion and on the other hand using another part of the act to bring action against us. There are some of us who feel that this is extremely unjust, and that while the National Labor Relations Act will not pro- tect our organizing in fact in this case it has interfered to the detri- ment of the union. There are a lot of fears of the opposition, particularly the growers, that if we are covered under the National Labor Relations Act that this would in fact give the unions a license to organize aiad if we have a license to organize then there will be many, many strikes dur- ing harvest time. We are convinced that if we had the protection of the National Labor Relations Act that out of the 40 growers that were being struck in Delano maybe even less than half would have resisted the attempts of the union to organize. So, the fact that we do not have legislation has brought about more strikes than if we had legislation. The other thing that should be pointed out that is very significant is that we have run into two growers now who say "we would like to give you a representation procedure, a card check or an election, but if we do we are going to incur the wrath of the other growers and we cannot afford that; therefore, we would rather fight you until you make us, under economic pressure, give you the representation procedures." So, if we had legislation, this would then back up the growers who do want to recognize t.he union provided their workers want to have it, and, of course, there are not too many of these but there are some. AlsO, because the main issue of the union at this point is recognition, and because there are no procedures, of course the only avenue open to us is to strike them or force them into some recognition procedure. So, I would say that if we get the coverage of the law, that strikes would be lessened. We know that a union of f'armworkers is going to be built somehow because workers are on the move and they want a union; they know a union brings benefits and they will be able to get for themselves and their wives what other union members have been able to do in other industries. We know whether `we get `legislation or not the effort is go- ing to continue. We `are committed to using the nonviolent method of organizing and we have been extremely successful to this point. The only reason that there has not been any blood shed in Delano-I can say this, I think that all our people in the union would agree with me-is because we have not responded to attacks on us by the `opposition. The issue now is, `will the Congress act soon enough to extend the law of the land to the workers to bring about their organization? Will the Congress give the workers the democratic right to self-determina- tion `by enacting this legislation? Or will the Congress remain mute as it has for these many years and will it then not `give the workers any other `avenue except what they have nOw, which is the law of the jungle where the fittest survive? We will see that `as long as jungle law continues the untold suffer- ings and the' loss on both sides is so tremendous th'at it will never be made up. S'o, we say `that for orderly organization there must be and PAGENO="0073" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 67 there has to be a procedure. We are convinced, because we have now a few contracts, that workers and growers can get together and resolve their issues. So, we are saying now that including farrnworkers in the protection of the National Labor Relations Act is a must. In the name of those thousands that we represent, as well as those we do not represent but who are anxiously waiting for some position from Congress, we are expecting some action after 32 years of inaction. Thailk you. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chavez. Do you wish to proceed by having the others testify now-I know that you must leave at 11:45-or would you prefer as each of you fin- ishes for the members of the committee to ask questions? Mr. CHAVEZ. I would like to have the questions asked of me. In this way, I will be able to leave on time. Mr. THOMPSON. Fine. Mr. CHAVEZ. Then we could follow the same procedure if it is all right with the committee. Mr. THOMPSON. That is fine. During that 4-day period when you wrote letters, sent telegrams, and asked the priest to go and even asked the State to help the growers, what was the attitude of the companies? Did they just simply refuse to d1scuss this matter with anyone? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes; it was an outright refusal. They would not even consider accepting-well, the mail we sent to them were returned even though they were delivered to the persons; all of them were returned with an explanation by the Post Office Department that they were not accepted. Their attitude was one of absolutely no communication with the union. Mr. GARDNER. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I will yield. Mr. GARDNER. At this same time, were there negotiations at all with the Teamsters Union by the companies? Mr. CHAVEZ. No; the Teamsters Union had not come into the picture at this time. Mr. THOMPSON. Were workers who belonged to your unions fired from the job during this organization period? Mr. CHAVEZ. Oh, yes; they were fired from the job. Anyone who ap- peared at our meetings or who appeared in the picket lines, like, for instance, workers who were working at other ranches but joined us after work or maybe on weekends when they were not working, if they were identified they were fired. The police department and the sheriff's department in Kern County for a period of about a month and a half photographed all of our pickets, everyone in the picket line, everyone leaving and entering our office, they took down license plate numbers of every car in the picket line, every car coming to visit us in Delano in our offices, and at our meetings in the evening they did the same thing. Mr. THOMPSON. You mean the local police were doing this? Mr. CHAVEZ. The local police and the sheriff's office. There is a case where one of our pickets was stopped and asked to identify himself on the picket line almost 50 times in a period of about 17 days. The same procedure. And what they were doing really was PAGENO="0074" 68 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES harassment. Because stationary picket lines are not effective in the fields, ours is a roving picket line, we have about 400 square miles to patrol, we move almost constantly all day long from one end of the field to another. As we were moving around the sheriff's officers were stop- ping our pickets, photographing them, and asking them to identify themselves and making us lose sometimes more time in talking to them than we would spend in our own job of picketing. Outright harass- ment. Mr. THoMrsoi~. Did you go to the district attorney about this? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. We went to the district attorney about this. We went to the district attorney on several other eases where we had wit- nesses. There was no question that our pickets had been harassed. For instance, in one case one of our pickets was run down by a car driven by a grower and they refused to take action. Mr. ThoMPsoN. Were there any disorderly conduct or other charges made against your pickets? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. We haYe had many, many arrests. We have had almost a hundred or even over a hundred arrests. Mr. THOMPSON. What were most of the complaints? On what basis were they arrested, as disorderly persons? Mr. CHAVEZ. On one occasion, 44 strikers were arrested for refusing to remain silent on the picket line. In other words, the strikers were arguing that they had the right to shout into the fields the word "huelga" which means strike in Spanish. Most of the strikebreakers are from Mexico so we yelled "huelga, huelga," so they would know there was a strike going on. The sheriff's officer from Kern County came to the picket lines and said they could not use the word "huelga"; they refused to give up using the word, so all 44 were jailed. Mr. THOMPSON. Have those cases been tried? Mr.. CHAVEZ. No; they were never tried. See, after the election, after the district attorney was reelected, then the charges were dropped. Mr. THOMPSON. Did those arrested have to post bond? Mr. CHAVEZ. They did, and we spent almost $10,000 in these cases.. Mr. THOMPSON. Has the bond been returned? Mr. CHAVEZ. No. We have to buy the bail from a bail bondsman so we don't get the money back. And we don't get the mouey back that we have to pay the attorneys to defend the strikers. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, attorneys never return money. Mr. CHAVEZ. They went so far as to arrest a minister because he was reading to the strikebreakers the famous Jack London's definition of a strikebreaker and the same sergeant for the same sheriff's department found this to be offensive and he was arrested. He was tried and, of course, the case was thrown out of court. Mr. THOMPSON. You referred earlier to the fact that with your workers there was no violence and no bloodshed because your workers didn't respond to the physical challenges. What type of physical challenges did they encounter? Mr. CHAVEZ. Well, . for instance, a very common thing was for the growers-and I am not speaking about the people who were on the growers' staff; I am talking about the growers directly, personally coming to the picket line-would elbow us, kick us, push. us around, and in several cases they sat on our cars and refused to get off the cars PAGENO="0075" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 69 so we could leave. In two or three cases, some of our pickets were beaten up. In one case, the grower ordered the spray rig to leave the fields and to go out to the road and spray us with pesticide. We hope it was sulfur, and not anything worse than that, but we don't know. In another case, they drove a tractor disk rig back and forth right next to the picketIiiie so it would make enough dust to force us to leave the picket line; these are just examples of a number of attempts on their part to discourage our picketing. We were never able to get the district attorneys in either Kern or Tulare County to file charges against them. Mr. THOMPSON. Then subsequently the Teamsters moved in and were allowed on the property by the growers; is that right? Mr. CHAVEZ. They openly asked the Teamsters to come in because at that time the growers thought they were the lesser of the two evils. On the payday before the DiG-iorgio election as the workers were being handed their paycheck they were also handed a letter from the company asking them to vote for the Teamsters Union. We could not go inside the fields. We were kept outside and we could not campaign. Mr. THOMPSON. Now, in the case that you mentioned where the Teamsters arrived at a contract with the grower, do you know the provisions of that contract? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. The provisions of that contract are less for the workers than the provisions in the contract that we have with another grower who has a similar type of operation. When you look at the Schenley contract as compared with the Perelli-Minetti contract signed with the Teamsters, the Perelli-Minetti contract is much inferior. Mr. THOMPSON. It sounds like a sweetheart arrangement. Mr. CHAVEZ. We say it is a sweetheart contract; yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, you realize that in the circumstances of the Ma~ifctir case, that even if you were included under the law as Mr. O'Hara's bill would do, that type of boycott activity at their stores would be a secondary boycott and would be illegal. Mr. CHAVEZ. Well, we say this was a~ Mr. THOMPSON. I don't say if I were out there I would not be boy- cotting with you, but- Mr. CHAVEZ. The question is we probably would not even have to go out there if we had the procedure. Mr. THOMPSON. Precisely. Mr. Gardner, do you have any questions of Mr. Chavez? Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chavez, I would like to compliment you on your testimony today. There are several questions I would like to ask. First of all, going back to the numerous arrests which you had among your members, were there ever any convictions at all? Mr. CHAVEZ. There has been one conviction; yes. Mr. GARDNER. What was that conviction? Mr. CHAVEZ. That conviction was for resisting arrest on the picket line where one of the hired guards for the DiGiorgio Corp., attacked one of our pickets, a lady picket. The police came and one of our pickets, Manuel Rozas, who was bleeding from a head wound inflicted when he went to the woman's aid, was found to have been resisting arrest at that point and he was arrested. He has served 8 months. PAGENO="0076" 70 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. GARDNER. Do you happen to have a copy of this letter of the employer asking the employees to join the Teamsters Union? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. Mr. GARDNER. Do you have it with you today? Mr. CHAVEZ. No; we don't have it with us today. Mr. TIio~irsoN. The Chair asks unanimous consent that it be pro- vided and be put in the record at this point. (Letters and sample ballots appear on p. 246.) * Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chavez, what is the average wage per hour, have you broken it down, for the members of your union? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. There are two ways of determining wages for farmworkers. One is the hourly rate and the other is the piece rate. There are a lot of conflicting views on the piece rate. No one will probably agree on what rate of pay is when they are working piece rate. Now, on the hourly rate, the wages are at this point in Delano around $1.40 an hour except where we have contracts. Under the con- tracts we have risen 15 cents to 25 cents an hour, so we are up to $1.65 minimum. Mr. GARDNER. Is this the highest contract you have? Mr. CHAVEZ. $1.75 is the highest minimum wage that we have. Mr. GARDNER. One other question. Do you know, to your knowledge, of any increase in retail prices of the DiGiorgio products since they have become unionized? Mr. CHAVEZ. No; we don't. We are aware that as a result of our consumer boycott that they were in some difficulty. Mr. GARDNER. Would you elaborate on that a little bit more? Mr. CHAVEZ. Well, the boycott was a national, instantaneous thing; many groups got involved. At one point, there were 400 communities with picket lines; in many cases, priests and ministers and sisters and labor leaders and labor people were involved; so the products that we were boycotting suffered, I think-the labels at least got a very bad name. As a consequence of that boycott we found in the DiGiorgio report to the stockholders that there was a loss of about a million and a half dollars and he attributes this to a large extent on the labor difficulties on the farms. Mr. GARDNER. But you know of no significant increase in retail prices? Mr. CHAVEZ. I am not aware of that; no. Mr. GARDNER. Thank you very much. Mr. THoMPsoN. Well, DiGiorgio is still competitive; isn't it? Mr. CHAVEZ. I am sorry. Mr. THOMPSON. It is competitive in price? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes; sure. So is Schenley. Mr. THOMPsON. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chavez, I heard you mention in your statement something about some dealings you had with the National Labor Re- lations Board in connection with an alleged secondary boycott. Did I hear correctly? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. This came about as a result of our engagement in a consumer boycott in front of the Mayfair Stores in California and in Arizona. The Mayfair Stores went to the Board and complained PAGENO="0077" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 71 we were conducting a secondary boycott and the Board requested that there be a cooling-off period of 2 weeks. IVe did that. Now, the question is that we really don't know where we stand be- cause if we ~o back to the consumer boycotting there may be charges renewed against our union. We know under the law there is no way in which we could offset this and by which we could bring about repre- sentation elections; so we think this is a great imbalance. Mr. O'}L~A. Well, I am somewhat confused about this. It is pretty clear that the National Labor Relations Act under section 8(b) would prohibit a labor organization from conducting this kind of picket against a secondary employer, but I can't see how it is that your orga- nization would be considered a labor organization subject to section 8(b) if it isn't a labor organization for purposes of getting repre- sentation elections. Mr. CHAVEZ. What has happened is that in one case we had a small peanut shed that was certified for a representation election with another employer and now the argument from the Board is that be- cause we have these few shedworkers and we used the Board once that then we are covered as a group. Mr. THOMPSON. Would the gentleman yield? I agree with Mr. O'Hara. I can't see how conceivably the Board could interfere in this instance and say that this was a secondary boycott even though you have a contract in a shed somewhere. That would be analogous to packingworkers being subject to the law be- cause they can organize in the packinghouses but they cannot organize in the fields where those crops are being harvested. We will look into this. Mr. O'IHIARA. I should think we would because I can see how they arrive at that. "Labor organization," the term used in section 8(b), means an organization in which employees participate, and so forth, and so on. So, the fact that you represent one small group of shed- workers some place in the United States of America makes you a labor organization evidently for the purposes of 8(b). That is, you can't yourself engage in any practices forbidden by section 8(b), but the employers with whom you are trying to get contracts would refuse to recognize you because you have no protection of the law and then they are subject to none of the strictures of 8(a) because it does not apply. I think this is a little bit worse than I had thought it was. I had thought the situation was disgraceful; I now find it is abominable because not only do you not have the protections of the Labor Relations Act, you are subject evidently `to some of the strictures of the Labor Relations Act. It is really a one-way street. Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield. This would be analogous to the historic O'Sui?ivan Rubber Manu- facturing case where literally millions of people finding themselves unsympathetic with the lockout and with the action of the company would not dream of having O'Sullivan's heels on their shoes. Mr. O'HAIiA. I am sorry I am not a heavier drinker so I would have more of an impact on this matter. Let me ask you a little bit about some of the contracts that you have entered into. It seems to me that in seasonal work, such as most of your members will engage in, there are some particular contract problems. In the vineyards, I would suppose that you have a small number of year- PAGENO="0078" 72 EXTENSION OF NL~A TO AGEICULTTJRAL EMPLOYEES around employees and then a relatively large num~bei of pickers at the proper season. In the contracts that you have entered into, inasmuch as a new group ~comes in each year, presumably, how do you deal with your con- trnumg rights under those contracts from harvest to harvest? Mr. CHAVEZ. Well, first of all, we have in most of the farms a small work force that remains there from year to year. The contract re- niains; hi one case from year to year, in another case it is for a 3-year period. We have a new development as a result of the contract. For instance, Mrs. Huerta will be speaking more on this, but it was after the contract with Schenley that for the first time we have seen that large numbers of workers who would normally work there only for the harvest season for two and a hal-f months have stayed and the same workers are there to do the pruning and some of the other work that is done before the harvesting, preparing the vineyards, and so forth. So, we are seeing that there is quite a move on the part of the work- ers themselves to remain there because they know that they do have a job come next year because of the seniority clause in the contract. Nevertheless, we would have to have and we do have a hiring hall agreement. There is also a need to have the sign-up period for mem- bers after hire to be a lot less than the 30 days required in the act as it is. In other words, the solutions in the NLRA granted to the building trades would pretty much apply in agriculture. Mr. O'HARA. I am glad you brought out that point because I wanted to get that point brought out. Your situation is certainly analogous to that of the construction industry. In order to give you, it seems to me, a fair shake under the Labor Management Relations Act, one would have to provide for the same hiring hall and 7-day sign-up procedures that now prevail in the construction industry, and the bills introduced would do that. I wanted you to bring out why that was necessary. Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. Otherwise, it would be most difficult to have a membership. They would be working under a union contract but there would not be a membership because the periods of high activity, in- tense activity, are less than 30 days in many cases. Mr. O'HAiu&. Mr. Chavez, let me say that I hardly find the things you seem to be seeking revolutionary. As I see it, all you are asking for is the protection of your members from being fired or blacklisted because they want to join th~ imion; right? Mr. CHAVEZ. Right. Mr. O'HAIu~. Or express an interest in the union. Mr. CHAVEZ. That is right. Mr. O'HARA. You are asking that if a majority of the workers would decide they wanted you to represent them on a secret ballot election conducted under the National Labor Relations Board that they be permitted to do so; right? Mr. CI-IAVEZ. That is right. Mr. O'HARA. And you are willing in return to abide by all the limi- tations imposed upon labor organizations under the Taft-Hartley Act? Mr. CHAVEZ. That is right. Mr. O'HARA. Well, I can't think of a more reasonable request and it seems to me that there are maybe a few people left in this country PAGENO="0079" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTURAL EMPLOYEES 73 that still don't believe in the right of working people to organize and Forrn associations to bargain collectively on their own behalf. I can't believe there are very many of them left. It seems to me your request is entirely justified and that this Con- gress would be making a serious mistake and avoiding a serious obli- gation if it does not pass this bill. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. Congressman, it seems to us that there may be very few people who will be against unions but it seems to me that most of them are in Delano. [Laughter.] Mr. O'IHARA. I want to congratulate you. I know~ something of your career and I want to say that you and your associates are doing some- thing that needs doing and I am delighted for America that you are doing it and I think that we ought to give you some help. Mr. CHAVEZ. Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Albert. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chavez, do you have contracts with some of the companies in the Delano area? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes; we have a contract with the Schenley Corp. We have contracts with the DiGiorgio Corp., and we have now a contract with Christian Bros. We have negotiated part of an agreement with the Mosesian-Hour- igan-Goidberg outfit in Delano. We have some negotiations starting with the Novitiate Wineries and then we have four, possibly seven, growers who have agreed to provide a representation procedure for us this coming summer. We still have 33 growers in Delano that we have been striking and now we are going into our 21st month of the strike and we can't get them to establish that procedure. Mr. ALBERT. Are your relations on the whole good with those grow- ers with whom you do have contracts? Mr. CHAVEZ. I think that they are .very good. The problem is we cannot get them to say so publicly because again they say, "You know our grower friends won't like that." Again, the Schenley Corp. made a statement to our negotiating com- mittee when we went back just about 2 weeks ago to renew the con- tract. The representative said that in their experience of 30-some years that this was their best experience with a union; that, while we argue with them any time we felt that we were right and we were not about to give in on anything that we felt belonged to the workers; once we made an agreement, we stuck to it and we did our best to have that agreement work. So, even with the DiGiorgio Corp., where there was this conflict and intense feelings about unions, I think that we are getting along to- gether now. Mr. ALBERT. These unfair practices which you have mentioned, do you' face these with most of the companies' or is it just a few individual companies in your area?' Mr. CHAVEZ. Any company that we are striking, and when they feel the pressure they do these things. Mr. ALBERT. What you are saying is that as a matter of principle, re- gardless of how you get along with one company or don't get along with another, you should have the same rights as other laboring people in other industries to participate in the protection and meet the obliga- tions of the National Labor Relations Act? PAGENO="0080" 74 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct. Mr. ALBERT. Thank you very much. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. O'IIIara has a question. Mr. O'HAit~&. Mr. Chavez, I wanted to return to one question and that has to do with the actions of the police and the district attorney's office and the growers in respect to your continued organizational ef- forts. You spoke of past arrests, past harassment, and refusal by the dis- trict attorney to take action on complaints that you might have with respect to grower activities. Could you bring us up to date on that? What is the present sit- uation? Mr. CHAVEZ. We have onecase pending that the district attorney in Kern County will not take. This is where one of our young organi- zers in the DiGiorgio campaign was beaten up by some Teamster or- ganizers and we tried to bring the complaint against them. We have identified them and the district attorney has refused to take action. What happens is that every time we go in to a grower and we get him to agree to have a contract or to give us an election and we go to the next grower, the pressure begins to mount and it is at that point the pressure begins to get pretty strong against the grower. We get this action not only from the police but, in a good many cases, from the city council. We have been subjected to hundreds of investigations-the fire department, the health department, and name it, you know, they are after us day in and day out; some of the com- munity groups. In fact, early in the spring both the high school board and the elementary school board passed resolutions condemning the strike; the strike was only about a week old. It went so far that some of the churchmen in town condemned us and condemned the strike. See, when you strike out in a community in a rural area like Delano, the only strength that the workers have are themselves, because the whole power structure is in immediate reaction to the whole idea of forming a union. So, we are not only fighting the growers but we have to put up with all of the other pressure that comes to bear upon us in our efforts. I am sure that if there were coverage under the National Labor Rela- tions Act that the reaction would not be so severe because then it would just be a simple matter of the workers deciding on the ballot whether they want a union or not instead of the present circumstance, where we have to strike and put up the pressure to get the growers to the point where they will give us an election. In so doing, of course the community reacts very bitterly-not the workers' community, but the other side. Mr. O'}IAn~&. I think that too was an excellent point, that the com- munity is divided and torn now because unless a grower voluntarily goes through procedures similar to those prescribed in the National Labor Relations Act, the only recourse you have is to bring economic pressure, and when you bring economic pressure the rest of the com- munity reacts. I don't imagine that Delano is as good a place to live in some ways as it once was although it is certainly better for those who have better wages and better working conditions than they used to have. PAGENO="0081" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 75 Mr. CHAVEZ. The other problem that we are faced with is that the workers have joined together and have started a cooperative program. We have a common disadvantage. The reaction from the community is so severe, not only against the union but against anything that we do; for instance, our cooperative is buying gas from the Texaco Co. There was a period of about, oh, almost 12 days where we could not buy gas for the station in Delano because there was so much pressure against t.he Texaco Co. not to sell gas to a co-op because it was a co-op and because it belonged to the workers. Not only that, just 2 weeks ago our gas station was bombed. The windows were destroyed and a lot of merchandise was destroyed. Luckily this was' during the night period when there was no activity there but `this is how the community shows its resentment. We have had a series of attempts to set fire to our offices. We have a number of small houses where we have our offices and in one night we had four attempts to set fire to our offices. Mr. O'HARA. You have a very active, alert police department out there; I assume they have apprehended the people that did all this. Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes; the police department is costing us just on minor traffic tickets in Delano over $800 in the first quarter of 1967. Mr. O'HAn~&. What about the bombings and the burnings? Have they come up with the people who did this? Mr. CHAVEZ. Not a thing. Someone broke into the office and they stole our membership records but they also stole a commercial money order, and we found the money order and we gave it to them. There was the name that appeared there and we told them who the man was and they didn't even investigate. We have no protection from them. Mr. O'HARA. I think they are too busy out on the picket line probably. Mr. CHAVEZ. See, the city policeman's job has been, since the strike started, to attack rather `than defend us because of our efforts to or- ganiZe, and somehow they are truly convinced that to try to organize farmworkers is un-American. Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'}L&ii~. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Does the town have have an organized or a volun- teer fire department? Mr. CHAVEZ. It is an organized fire department `and they supple- ment it with volunteers. Mr. THOMPSON. Do they finish their game of dominoes before they come to your fire or do they get there quickly? Mr. CHAVEZ. In the case where we had the four attempts to burn our office, the department had a full-time staff there but also volun- teers. One of those volunteers happens to be my brother and he was the first one out there. Mr. THOMPSON. Did he run out there with a fire extinguisher? Mr. CHAVEZ. He'has a radio and he knows the address, so when he heard the address he came out fast. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. Just two points. The first is that my office has some firsthand knowledge of this Texaco incident and their national executives have a better under- standing of their corporate responsibilities than did the local dis- 82-132-67------6 PAGENO="0082" 76 EXTENSION OF NT~RA TO AGRICIJLTTJRAL EMPLOYEES tributor, and I am led to believe that the distributor got off the dime when the national office said he better do it, or else. Cesar, do you place any significance in the fact that this is Cinco de Mayo? Mr. CHAVEZ. Well, there is some significance for those of us who are of Mexican extraction. Another battle was won many years ago for Mexico on this date. Mr. BURTON. Will you just tell the committee in a sentence or two? Mr. CHAVEZ. Yes. The Mexican forces defeated the French forces who were trying to invade Mexico on May 5, 1865, I believe. Mr. BURTON. I thought it most symbolic and in the tradition of the PTeat understanding of our subcommittee chairman that he would have you and your organization appear to testify here on Cinco de Mayo. Perhaps it augurs well for the future of this legislation. Mr. T1EIOMPsON. Thank you, Mr. Burton. With respect to your relations with other unions, the president of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Meany, gave very strong and very splendid testimony here on your behalf the other day and said that they sent you considerable assistance. It is my understanding also that the United Auto Workers have cooperated with you to the fullest possible extent, including giving you financial support and otherwise. Is that correct? Mr. CHAVEZ. That is correct; yes. Mr. TIaOMPs0N. So, actually your difficulty has been this competi- tion in your organizational activities with the Teamsters? Mr. CHAVEZ. That is where we have had most of our difficulty and that is where I don't see any way out of this unless we gave up and we stop organizing farmworkers or until such time as we have the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. THOMPSON. I think now, Mr. Chavez, that we could hear from your next wjtness. Realizing that you have to leave, when that time approaches, please feel free to leave. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chavez, and compatriots, I wish to apologize to you because I have to leave. I have to leave before Mr. Chavez. I have to catch a plane out to Michigan where we are having an annual spring rite on `the 5th of May. In Japan, it is Boys' Day; in Mexico, it is Cinco de Mayo; in Michigan, it is Jefferson-Jackson Day. I will have to leave, but I want to say that I will carefully read the testimony of your com- patriots as soon as I get back. I am sorry I do have to leave. I think it would be very interesting to stay. Mr. CHAVEZ. We want to thank you very much, Congressman. The next witness is Brother Serda, who is the committee chairman for the union in the Sierra Vista Ranch in Delano which is also owned by the DiGiorgio Corp. He was a worker inside the farm while our union was trying to organize and was being kept from going inside to talk to the workers during the whole strike period. He wants to tell the story of what was taking place inside that would most dramatically point out the need of such legislation to prevent such things from occurring again. PAGENO="0083" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 77 STATEMENT OF J~OE SERDA, CHAIRMAN, RANCH COMMITTEE, SIERRA VISTA RANCH, DELANO, CALIF. Mr. SERDA. Before I start, Mr. Chairman, I would like, with your permission, to explain a little bit about myself, and then we will go into the testimony. My name is Joe Serda. I have been working in the Delano area since 1934. I started working for DiGiorgio in 1953; well, I worked 9 years there, and then I quit and came back in 1962 and worked up until the present time. Many people have asked me at different times why is it that being a foreman I choose to help the strike. Of course, there are many reasons, but I would only like to take time to cite one. Not too many years ago, we were picking juice grapes, or otherwise known as gondola picking. We had local people there, and I remember my supervisor told me he wanted me to put a lot of pressure on the workers. I didn't understand why he wanted to do this because I believe we were a little short of men in those days. So, when I asked him, he says, "Joe, you don't understand. If we can get these people to quit, we can show the Labor Department that we have not got any help, and then we can get braceros." From that day on, I lost quite a bit of respect for that man. This is only one example. Of course, there are hundreds of others, like a man getting fired because he went up to the boss and told him he was short on his paycheck, or he was overcharged on his board. In the early part of 1966, DiGiorgio held a general meeting of all the fleldworkers and packing workers. In this meeting, I noticed that there were, well, important-looking people that I took to be reporters or probably even Senators, I didn't know who they were. In this meeting, the company told us that they were not opposed to us having a union or voting fOr a union; they told us that we were free to pick a union and to vote for a union and that no hard feelings would be held against any worker. `When they told us this, me and a lot of workers were very happy about it, so we started going to union meetings. We came to find out the hard way that this was not true at all. We were told this but a lot of our people were fired. For example, a case that really stuck in my mind was the case of Manuel Campos. Wewent to a meeting one time in the summer and we made the mistake of leaving the door open. Evidently somebody who was watching our meeting place saw Manuel Campos in there and the next day he was fired. He was asked why he had gone to this meeting and who was at the meeting and he refused to give the names of the other workers. He was fired but he was told that he was being fired because he had had a fight with a lady, a female, who had been living there at the camp. We also lost a lot of workers who the company found out were going tO union meetings. For example, I understand taking a radio to the field I shOuld not think would be a reason for being fired. It was very common in Sierra Vista to take a radio to the field; no one would ever complain. But after the union started, then people started being fired for taking a radio into the field. I should not think this would be a reason for being fired. PAGENO="0084" 78 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES For exa~iiple, a lot of people were fired because they would be out 1 day. The company never did tell us that we were being fired because we went to a union meeting. It was always either "Your work is not satisfactory any more" or "We just don't need you here." So, what we had to do from there on was to have meetings very, very secretly. For example, one tactic that we used, at the end of the day I would tell a worker that they would enjoy a very good movie up- town and I invited whoever wanted to go. The workers knew what I was talking about so they would say, "Well, wait for me and I will take a shower and we will go to this movie you are talking about." But, I tell you, we were not going to a movie; we were going to a union meet- ing. In my point of view, the company made a very bad mistake when they started firing these men because every man that was fired im- mediately went to the union office and would sign a paper saying how long he had been working there, why he was fired, and so on. So, this proved very costly for the company, especially in the case of Ophi~l-~ Diaz. Ophelia Diaz had been a forelady there for 12 years and for 12 years before that she had been just a worker. She had been asked the same as I had, the same as everybody else had many times, to sign with the Teamsters. She had also been asked to sign petitions which we will talk about a little later on. Ophelia Diaz always re-fused to sign Teamster cards and at the same time she would always refuse to sign petitions. I don't remember exactly the date but there was a fight at Sierra Vista where a picket was hit over the head but I do remember very clearly that the company wanted Ophelia Diaz to testify against the pick~ts. Ophelia refused, saying that she would testify but she would say only what she saw and nothing else. This, of course, made the company very, very mad and she was discharged. She was told that her work was deteriorating-I understand that means that it is not good any more. Just a few days later, I don't remember how many days later, her husband who was working in a nearby farm was also fired from his job. Her husband later on moved to another farm and he was also discharged from this farm. If my memory serves me right, I under- stand that the union or somebody went to this grower asking him if there was any connection in the two firings, of the man and his wife. In other words, they wanted to know if they were blacklisting. I under- stand that that grower refused to even talk to whoever went over there. Now, again, I say I don't remember the exact dates but one day a foreman went across to my crew and he had a petition with him. The 1?etltion read like this. On top of the petition were the words typed, "I don't want a union. What I want is more protection," and it was addressed to Governor Brown. Everybody in my crew, including myself, refused to sign this petition, the same as we refused to sign the other petition which came about 2 months later asking the Teamsters to come back to Sierra Vista. I don't know if you gentlemen are familiar with this but the Team- sters left Sierra Vista and then they came back under the pretense that they were called back. PAGENO="0085" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 79 I saw most of these petitions and when I saw them there were very, very few signatures on them because we were doing quite a bit of work on the inside. The workers had seen how the Teamsters were operating, their tactics, what they were doing and saying. Even though we are just grape pickers and not very intelligent, we know what we want. We know what is best for us, and so on. Now, as time went by, DiGiorgio kept on firing workers. It is very easy to understand how they knew who to fire because those workers who wanted AFL-CIO never signed a petition; they never signed a Teamster card. So, it would be very easy for the company to under- stand what this worker had in mind, what the other worker had in mind. In the month of July, just before the elections, all those Mexicans who live in this one camp were fired and they immediately went to the union saying that they were fired for no reason at all. The company leader said that these people were not fired; they were simply being laid off or there was not any work available. Now, having worked there for many, many years, I will say that *from time to time we do get laid off but as a rule all of us would get laid off; there would only be a skeleton crew left to do whatever work there was. In other words, the older workers would stay and every- ~body else would go. But, in this particular case, only these people were singled out and here is the way it happened. When they got in that day from work their luggage or whatever it was was out there on the front lawn and the bunkhouses and the cabins were padlocked. Many of these workers told the company that they wanted to stay there and sleep overnight and they were told that they had to leave. When they kept on in- aisting, within a mattei~ of a few minutes there were three police cars out there and those people were told that they had to go. * Later on I came to find out that Cesar had talked to somebody or done something and the major part of those people were rehired again. I take it that the idea was for those people just to disappear because the elections were being talked about or negotiated in some way or another. Later in that month of July, we were told that there would be an election at Sierra Vista to see what union we wanted to represent us. We were told by Cesar to boycott those elections, that they were false. Now, I may be wrong in this, but I understand that Cesar had a meeting with the company officials and a distant date was set for elec- tions and then the company the following day, I believe, said, "We will have elections the day after tomorrow." That irritated Cesar quite a bit and, if I am not mistaken, he had a court order to get the union's name off of the ballot. So, actually, the voting turned out to be what they call a write-in because the Teamsters also were dropped. We were taken to this voting area by one truck at a time. When my crew got there, all of us refused to get off to vote. We were told many times to vote, that we had to vote. Before all this, we had been told many times before by company personnel that we had to vote with the Teamsters. PAGENO="0086" 80 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTTJRAL EMPLOYEES In the meantime, before this election, the Teamsters would come in, they would give us soda pop, they would give us keyholders, and then later on we came to find out that they were paying $2 a card for every card that was signed from each worker. In other words, there were certain key personnel, company personnel, that were having these cards signed and they were to get $2 for each one. Later on, after the election, I came to find out that. this was actually true because at the beginning I found it pretty hard to believe that man would sell another man out for $2. So, when they had the false election, of course, we boycotted them. I still say that I am very sure that those elections were not any good because I feel that when elections are held company officials should not be around the polling place, and people that were not sup- posed to vote voted and the election itself showed indications that were no good at all. For an example, this lady from Texas was told to vote and taken to the voting place. When she said that she didn't want to vote, she was told, "Now, look, we brought you from Texas; we are helping you get your relatives over here by giving you a company letter and now we want you to vote and we want you to put your `X' right here." In fact, she was even called stupid because she kept asking, "Why? ~There?" What really happened is that this lady didn't have her glasses and she could not see. Anyway, this was very, very frequent. Later on, when Mr. Haiigton came to Delano to investigate, we signed sworn affidavits explaining just exactly what happened to each one of us individually in regard to the elections. Now, during the summer before the supervised second elections, the agreement was that during the noon hour and again after people re- tired for the day the AFL-CIO organizers and the Teamsters orga- nizers could come into the DiGiorgio property. Then, of course, being a foreman out there I noticed that the Teamsters could come and g& just about any time they wanted to. For example, they would get there at 11 a.m. and actually go into the fields while on the other hand our organizers had to stay there on the road. The Teamsters acted in a. very nasty way a.s supervisors. They would say, "You guys get out of here; you are not wanted here," where the Teamsters could go into the property just about any time they wanted to. Another thing that changed most of the fieldworkers over to our union was when we found out that the Teamsters were actually using rough tactics, like the time that Selma Lina and another organizer, Brock Amens, I think was his name, I am not sure-anyway, those tactics only helped to swing the workers over to the AFL-CIO more. WelL that is about it. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Gardner, do you have any questions? Mr. GARDNER. No. Mr. CuAvnz. Mr. Chairman, I will have to be leaving now. I want to thank you and the committee and ask permission to leave. I have to catch a plane to go back to California. Mr. THo~rPsoN. Thank you. Mr. CHAVEZ. Mrs. Huerta will be the next one to testify and she will he the one in chai~ge of the others as their turn comes up. PAGENO="0087" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 81 Mr. THoMPsoN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here. Good luck to you. Mr. CHAVEZ. Thank you. STATEMENT OP MRS. DOLORES RUERTA, DIRECTOR OP NEGOTIATIONS, UFWOC, AFL-CIO, DELANO, CALIF. Mrs. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman and Congressmen, I will give testi- mony regarding the contracts and you might say successful part of our strike story that we have had and to indicate to the committee that collective bargaining is possible and is a workable solution in agri- culture and for these difficulties that we have had over the last few months, we will certainly point this out. We have had a series of elections that have been conducted in the Delano area and outside the Delano area. One of these elections, the first one, of course, was the one Mr. Chavez referred to at the Sierra Vista Ranch, arranged by Governor Brown and that was, of course, the big election. Many people said, well, farmworkers won't. vote because they don't know how to vote. As a matter of fact, there were over 1,500 people that voted in that election at the Sierra Vista Ranch. One of the reasons there were so many voters, was that, we had held out that strikers also had a right to vote and they were given that right. Following this election, there was an election conducted at Di- Giorgio's King Ranch at Arvin, which was conducted by the State conciliation service. We then had an election with the Mosesian- Hourigan-Goldberg Co. which was also the result. of a strike and a boycott. Leading up to that election one of our pickets was very badly in- jured by a truck that ran him down on the picket line. By the way, that man was cited by the police department for throwing himself in front of the truck and he is now facing trial on those charges. We then had another election, a `card check with the Christian Brothers employers, covering their workers up in the northern part of the State in the Napa area. All of these elections, when we look back at them, indicate a great deal of suffering on the part of the people who had to try to get those elections and a great deal. of `suffering that had to go into getting the employer just. to agree to an election, just to agree to a procedure. There is one election that people don't hear about very often `and this is the one that we had with the DiGiorgio packing shed~ Earl Fruit Co. The reason that no one hears about this election is that it was conducted by the Board. Since it was a packing shed, it was covered by the NLRB and it was a very inconseauential campaign: people went in and voted; there was no campaign. There was not all of this dissension that accompanied the other elections that we had. This is very interesting because the Earl Fruit election shows what could be done if we were covered by the Board and what a savings it would be in terms of not. only money but also in terms of the human suffering which we would be `able to save. Mr. TIIo~rPsoN. I wonder if you would give us a comparison in an instance or two between the type of contract which you have negotiated and a similar one negotiated by the Teamsters in the same area and for PAGENO="0088" 82 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTIJRAL EMPLOYEES the same work; the differential, if any, and the hours and the other aspects of the contract. Mrs. HUERTA. Well, the other contract that we have in our area has been negotiated by what we call a back-door agreement. The hourly wage is 15 cents an hour less than what we have at Schenley. There the hourly base rate is $1.60; our base rate at Schenley is $1.75. Their piece rates on the tonnage rate for picking grapes range from $3 to $4 a ton less than what we have at the Schenley Ranch. There is no seniority provision at all in the Perelli-Minetti contract. In our Schenley and DiG-orgio contracts, we have a very tight seniority provision that says workers have seniority and if they have a seasonal layoff this does not constitute breaking their seniority. When a man is laid off, he comes back and reclaims his job when the work starts again. In the Perelli-Minetti contract, there is no seniority provision at all. Mr. THOMPSON. How about percentage increases? Mrs. HUERTA. Percentage increases? What do you mean, the wages? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mrs. HUERTA. Well, percentagewise, I would say we had, I guess, about a 25-percent increase in the Perelli-Minetti contract, it went from $1.40 to $1.60. We went from $1.40 to $1.75 in the Schenley con- tract. I don't know what the exact figure is. For Schenley, we have an agreement with the company that if the picking rates are too low because of the tonnage per acre, that they can be adjusted so that the worker will get a better rate for his picking. In other words, the rate has to do with the amount of grapes on the vine and if the average worker does not make enough of a wage; then the company will adjust and pay him accordingly. They don't have that in the Perelli-Minetti contract. One of the biggest things, of course, is to remember that the protec- tions are just as important as the wages. You have heard testimony here about how easy it is for people to get fired. At DiGorgio just a week before we signed the discharge clause in the contract, 30 people were fired because they were not working fast enough on piece rates. There is a tendency on the part of the company to just push and push and push their workers. Well, in our discharge clause, we have the statement that says the workers cannot be fired because they do not work fast enough on an incentive plan because actually they are getting paid just for what they pick and it says very clearly in the Pereili-Minetti contract that the company has the right to set the pace for the worker; the worker has to stay at this pace all the time. The company can fire a worker any time they feel he is not working, any time they think he should be working faster. Mr. Ti-IoMPsoN. This is all on piecework? Mrs. HUERTA. Yes. We have this protection in all of our contracts, that workers cannot be fired if they are working slowly on an incentive rate. You can see what a toll this brings to the older workers, the 50- and 60-year-old workers. They cannot keep up with the younger fellows on an incentive rate. The fact now is that if they don't work as fast as the younger fellows, they just get fired. Of course, they still have families to sup- PAGENO="0089" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 83 port at that age `because they have 10 or 15 years until retirement and it makes it very difficult for them to keep tip with the younger workers. This is what makes agricultural work so hard; the backbreaking pace at which it is done. When we think in terms of tonnage of fruit th'at `a worker picks, it is just fantastic, and you almost have to see it to believe it. Mr. THOMPSON. In terms of grapes, what is the production of the average worker in a day? Mrs. `HUERTA. I `would say that a grape picker on a wine grape crew picks between 2 and 4 tons of grapes a day. It is fantastic. What they do, they just run through the field-I mean, they run. One of our biggest gains in contracts has been to bring cold drinking wa'ter to the fields. The workers consider this a big accomplishment. They di'dn't have cold water even working at this terrible pace. Mr. BURTON. My God. Mr. THOMPSON. `Tell us the difference between your health and safety provisions `and the Teamsters. Mrs. HTIERTA. Well, the `big difference between our plan and the Teamsters plan is this: At the present, we are trying to `build a health and welfare program th'at will take care of the seasonal workers. Mr. THOMPSON. I am talking about work in the fields. Mrs. HUTERTA. This is what I am talking about. We are trying to establish a health `and welfare plan that will `be able to take care of a worker regardless of where he works, `whether `he works for `Christian Brothers in the north or DiGiorgio in the southern part of the `State or San Diego. We are trying to work out a plan so that the workers can have their doctors bill their medical care. In the DiGiorgio contract, `there is a $25,000 contribution to the fund and 5 cents an hour for time worked to go to the fund. At the present, there will not be `any immediate medical benefits but after we go about a year `and we get more employees paying into the fund that we will `be able then to provide health care. The difference `between this type of approach and the Teamsters approach is this: In their. contract, the company p'ays $18 a `worker to the Teamster plan; however, the eligibility is very restrictive. Mr. `THOMPSON. I see. Mrs. HUERTA. For eligibility, they say that a worker cannot qualify for the health and welfare plan unless he has worked for the company for an 8-week period of time. So, `a worker has to work for the company 2 months `before he is qualified for the plan. If you think in terms of seasonal work, where maybe their entire work period will be something like 2 months on wine grapes, you know, what are you talking about? You are not talking about anybody work- ing for the company long enough to get any kind of coverage. Furthermore, in the Perelli-Minetti contract, and this is very im- portant, a worker is on a 30-day probationary period and has no re- course to the discharge clause or any kind of grievance procedure clauses during 30 days, so the company can hire workers and then fire them and rehire them and get all this work done with just one turnover of workers, without paying any benefits. Mr. THOMPSON. How long does the harvest last? PAGENO="0090" 84 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mrs. HUERTA. Perelli-Minetti is a small company and they only hire about 50-some workers; it only lasts about 2 months. Mr. THOMPSON. So, for half that time there would be no coverage and no protection? Mrs. HUERTA. No protection whatsoever. Mr. THOMPSON. What sort of sanitary facility arrangements do you make in your contract as compared to others? Mrs. HUERTA. We have all of the the sanitary provisions spelled out. Now, these are State laws. In California, there are State laws that say that portable latrines have to be out in the field and they do have to have drinking water and individual drinking cups. However, none of these are enforced and one reason is because we have in the State of California a limited budget for this type of enforcement. So, we write right into our contracts all of the State laws and make it a part of the contract. This way the company, the supervisors and the workers know that this is protection tha.t they are entitled `to. So that, we do have then the toilet facilities in the field, and the portable drinking water. One item that is important is protective garments for the workers: gloves if they need them; goggles if they need them; clothing that will protect them from the pesticides. This is no small item because in California, the second largest number of occupational deaths and injuries have occurred in agriculture. Mr. THOMPSON. Are these people protected by the workmen's coin- pensation and unemployment compensation laws? Mrs. HUERTA. We have a State law and, as Mr. Burton says, it does provide them with workmen's compensation. The unemployment in- surance we have written into the contract's so they will get that type of coverage. Mr. BURTON. The State law does not extend it to farmworkers generally; however, those are the provisions you negotiate for your membership in your contract. Mrs. HUERTA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. How about workmen's compensation? Mr. BURTON. Workmen's compensation in our State was mandatory and this flowed from that hearing we held about 11 years ago in our State. Like four others, there is a disability insurance provision that is paid for at 1 percent of payroll by the employees, themselves. It is a very favorable wage loss ratio ranging from a $25 minimum now up to some $75 or $80 a week. It is about 55 percent of what your wages are at the time of the injury. This disability insurance provision provides for coverage in all of those instanq~s where there is sickness and injury not job related. Com- pensation is job related; insurance is non-job-related. That is manda- tory State law, universal coverage down to one employee. There is no coverage of any kind in terms of unemployment insurance but for this exception in their contracts. Mr. THOMPSON. Does your State unemployment law provide for `strike benefits after a period of time? Mr. BURTON. No. Unlike some States, no matter what the duration of the strike, benefits cannot be received. PAGENO="0091" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 85 Mr. THOMPSON. We have just passed such a law in New Jersey. Please proceed, Mrs. Huerta. Mrs. IHItrERTA. There is one other answer to your previous question :about the difference in contracts. Another important provision is that in our hiring hall setup we refer workers to the company. Now, in the Pereili-Minetti contract, the coin- pany has the right to reject any worker that is sent out by the union hall without any reason at all. Now, in our contract, it cannot reject a worker. The company has a right to fire a worker if he does not perform his work satisfactorily but they cannot reject a worker just because they want to. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have any grievance procedures? Mrs. HUERTA. Yes; very satisfactory, and it involves the steward who is himself a worker. Furthermore, our discharge policy is very strong. Since we know that it will take the companies a while to adjust the contracts and working relations with the union, we have a clause that says that before a worker can be fired, the union steward must be con- sulted and must be told the reason why he is going to be fired. This is interesting because we have instances where a supervisor will want to go out and want to fire. the whole crew and say, you are all fired. He may be. mad at his wife and fire the whole crew. You cannot do this iiow, fire the whole crew. This is what happened before; they would probably all get fired. Mr. THOMPSON. He probably kicks his dog now. Mrs. HIJERTA. That is our hardest problem, to get. them used to the idea that they cannot push people around any more and they have to look at the worker like a man. Going back to the elections, we have other elections that are now pending and we think that they will probably come off without too much incident, hopefully, as this goes along. In our contracts, we cover the whole industrial unit from the picker to the tractor driver, the irrigator, packing worker; all part of one industrial unit. This is the trend we have started in our contracts. Mr. THOMPSON. What sort of requirement do you have for skilled workers, and what do they do? Are there people in your union who repair machinery and have special skills which the pickers dOn't have? Mrs. HUERTA. Yes. We have mechanics and carpenters and plumbers, and all these people are included in our contract. Of course, it is understood that their wages are very, very much below what they are in c.omparabl.e AFL-CIO skilled trade contracts but at Schenley. we got a. 35-cent increase and at DiGiorgio we got a `25-cent increase over what they were getting before, so the wages are `still very substandard but higher now for people with special skills. What we try to do is upgrade from the ranks. One of the things that we have to contend with is that there is a tremendous amount of dis- crirnination in the fields against the Mexican, Filipino, and the Negro worker, so that you will often find that you have all of the Mexican, Negro, and Filipino people working in the field and then you will have `all the Anglo people driving tractors and doing the lighter work and the work that pays a little bit better. PAGENO="0092" 86 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTURAL EMPLOYEES So, one of the things we want as much as possible is to upgrade, so when there is an opening for a crewleader. or tractor driver or mechanic, we comb the crews to find out if there is anybody there that can do that type of work. This is one of the reasons why we feel so strongly about the unionization of the farmworkers. We found working in CSO (Community Service Organization) for many years that there was no other way that the Spanish-speaking people or minority people of the State were going to take their place in society was through a labor union because even with all of our work that we did on welfare programs and the civil rights program, this was not going to do it. They need the opportunity and they need the money in their pocket to educate their children and bring them up to standards of other people, and the only way to do this is trying to get a better wage for them. Mr. THo~IPsoN. How far does a grape picker travel in a season normally? Do they migrate to any extent from the south to the north? For instance, from southern California to the Napa Valley? Mrs. HIJERTA. Well, there has been a lot of migration. I do believe that unionization is going to curtail the migration considerably but at present there is a flow of migration intrastate, and you also have the' interstate and also international migration; people that come up from Mexico. In the grape industry, a worker in the table grapes will get about 9 months' employment; in the wine grapes, he gets only 5 months' em- ployment. So, he must do some interstate migration during the time he is laid off. Mr. THo~1rsoN. When his grape-working season is over does he normally go to other crops ? Mrs. HIJERTA. Yes. What most workers do in our area is that they don't go very far; they just go to orange picking and then there is some cotton chopping and things like that. I have one experience I would like to relate. The people that were working at Schenley were all laid off after the grape pruning season ended; then they started plum thinning in Arvin, which is only about 45 miles from Delano. So, we were able to send 50 of the workers that were working at Schenley on to thin plums. They had never done this before. DiGiorgio had never recruited people from the area; they always went as far as Mexico to get their workers. So, this an interest- ing, to see how we will be able to stabilize the work force and give the worker fuller employment. I guess I don't need to tell you a worker would much rather go out and work than he would like to stay on the relief roll. He has to try to keep himself some kind of stipend for existence. We foresee that more extended work seasons will happen as we get more people into contracts. Furthermore, unionization will bring about a better planning of the crops by the growers. The grape industry has not `been paying off too well in the past few years because they have had massive overproduc- tion. Well, since the union `has come in, and, of course, this affects us adversely right now but in the future it will be all right; they have started to pull out some of the grape vines and are going into other crops. This is better for the worker also because it gives him fuller employment at `all times of the year instead of having to depend on. that one crop. We see a trend in this direction. PAGENO="0093" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 87 At Schenley, they hired 1,600 people in 1965 coming and going to do the work at the Schenley Ranch. In 1966, after the union contract came in, they only had to hire 400 people. See what a difference this makes? Mr. THOMPSON. Nine hundred? Mrs. HtTERTA. Four hundred. In 1965, they had 1,600 people working at that ranch and in 1966, after the union contract came in, they had a payroll of 400 people. But the reason for this is because there was less turnover; the workers were treated better. Mr. THOMPSON. in other words, a difference of 1,200? Mrs. HtIERTA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. With 1,200 fewer employees did Schenley produce the same amount? Mrs. HUERTA. Yes, they did. The work force was more stable; it was there every day. They were not fired; people didn't quit. Usually people pull their own strikes; they just leave the job when t.hey are dissatisfied. So, all the talk that the union is going to bring about more strikes is false. Actually the workers have been striking every single day. They don't tell the employer, "I am striking"; they just quit. This is why you have this tremendous migration; they are looking for a job that pays a nickel more. When they get paid better and there is some security and they know that that is a good employer, then they will stay there. We have had very favorable comments, both in DiGiorgio and Schenley, on the labor force that we sent to them to work. Surprisingly enough, it has been just the local people. DiGiorgio in 1964 and 1965 went to Mexico and brought hundreds of people into his camps. This year they have not had to do this. We have been able to send all of the labor force from the local people that live in the area. This is hind of an aftermath to what Mr. Ser:da was speaking about. * One thing that happens when the agriculture industry is not organ- ized is that there are a lot of people that come in and take advantage of both the employer and the worker. We hnve seen this and we have eliminated this in one instance, the labor contractor. In another in- stance, he is known as the camp operator. What these people do is reap the profits off the room and board charges and charge the worker as he is brought in. Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, if there is a labor need this middle- man goes to the cOmpany `and says, "I will get people to fill your need," and he is paid by the company for doing that? Mrs. HrnatTA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. He goes and finds the workers and, of course, ex- tracts a fee from them, does he not? Mrs. HTJERTA. That is right. That is right. But the company pays him. He gets money from the worker and he gets money from the company. Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mrs. HUERTA. The Schenley people were extremely surprised that it did not cost them as much money as they thought because they were giving so much money to the middleman. *Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have any of those economic statistics, the difference in cost to Schenley? PAGENO="0094" 88 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mrs. HUERTA. I wish that they would give them to you but, as Mr. Chavez says, they will not make them public. They sent us one letter in which they said they were very satisfied with the work force. I am sure they won't say this publicly because they are afraid of the other growers. They did continue the contract for another year and said they were very satisfied. It is really commonsense. For instance, they had about 300 workers in their camps in April 1965 and these workers were being charged $2.50 board and room a day. In 1966, after the union contract. agreement, they. only had 12 workers in the camp and all the rest of the workers were local people. See, the company had had t.o pa.y out maintenance on the camps and they had to pay a. camp operat.or; they had to pay the cooks and all these other expenses that come in when they have to run a boarding. operation. Of course, the workers were also working for those expenses and the worker also was paying $2.50 a day out of his paycheck to keep that operation going. All this was eliminated when the union came in. Furthermore, we know they were paying the labor contractor some- thing like $18 a ton for grapes, to ha.ve the grapes picked. Now they end up paying the worker only about, say, $12, $6 a ton less and the worker can make a much better wa..ge a.nd it costs the company less money. Growers have been negative in that. They say, "We know it is not going to work," and they refuse to talk to the union. They don't see the sensible aspect of unionization. So, as long as they have this attitude, and it is hard to get to them, they won't meet with us and they won't meet with us because they have already said so many terrible things about us that they feel they are losing face if they do meet with us. But they are severely handicapped because they don't have any support. Now, if we were covered under the NLRB, we could use the services of the Federal Mediation Service that has some authority in adjudi- cating unfair labor practices, on telling what they can and cannot do. The State conciliation service isn't enough. It can only act if all the parties are in complete agreement. Even if we had only one Federal mediator that would come to Delano and then talk to the growers and try to get them to meet with us, I am sure a lot of this would be over and maybe would have been over a year ago. Now, if we don't get some kind of assistance in this area, we will probably continue for another year with the strike. The longer it goes the harder people's positions become. Of course, we have to present our case to the public and ask them to help us. So, then you know it really becomes a communitywide thing in terms of people taking sides. Mr. THo1~nsoN. What is the population of Delano? Mrs. HUERTA. It is 16,000. Mr. THoMPsoN. 16,000? Mrs. HUERTA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. And there still exists this incredible hostility to the workers and to the unions; is that correct? Mrs. HUERTA. Yes; very much so. Mr. THoMPsoN. Yet, you have had a tremendous amount of sup- port, have you not, not only from the AFL-CIO and the autoworkers but also from the clergy of various denominations? PAGENO="0095" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 89 Mrs. HtrERTA. Yes; that is true. In fact, the clergy has been acting as a mediator in our Perelli-Minetti dispute in trying to get us to- gether with the company, but again it is very awkward. We notice the difference quite a bit in a meeting we had with the clergy and Perelli-Minetti as against the meetings we had with Mr. DiGiorgio. When you have somebody that knows labor and they know arbitra- tion procedures and other procedures, there is a tremendous amount of difference that is established for negotiations. So, you need some- one that knows something about labor to be able to come in. I think that their assistance would be invaluable because, as I say, the growers say, "We don't want to talk with Chavez and his gang; they a..r~ a bunch of agitators running boycotts," but if you had some other third per- son that could come in, they could speak through that party to us. Mr. THOMPSON. We are going to hear more about that because we are going to have Mr. Haughton here as well as Mr. Fields, the Execu- tive Secretary of the NL1RB. Mrs. HUERTA. I guess that is about all that I have to say on the con- tracts. Maybe one of the others could say something. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Albert, do you have any questions ? Mr. ALBERT. I think you have a very informed and articulate state- ment, Mrs. Huerta; very enthusiastic. Your testimony has been very good. Mrs. HUERTA. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. THOMPSON. Tell us something about yourself. What is your educational background? Mrs. HUERTA. Well, I have had some college and f worked in the Stockton area in various kinds of jobs. One time I worked for the sheriff's office and as a schoolteacher. I became interested in the farm labor problem through the Community Service Organization which Mr. Fred Ross was organizing. I think Mr. Padilla. and Mr. Chavez and myself all came out of that organization which was a civic action group for Spanish-speaking people. As I say, we found there that although a lot could be gained through legislation if we had people like Congressman Burton fighting for you and wanting them to cure some of the symptoms of the ills- the fact was that people didn't have enough money in their pockets and therefore, regardless of how much we did in the civil rights area or in legislation, we could never cure the real problem. This is where I became interested in farm labor organizing. When Mr. Chavez started this group, he asked if I would help him and I was very honored to do so. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, while Mrs. Huerta is talking about discrimination against those of Spanish origin, I should think that in her case the only discrimination would be from those who discrim- inate in taste. Mr. THOMPSON. Very nicely put. Mrs. HUERTA. It is really a discrimination against the poor because you find when you are working in the community and you put the shoes on the people that are the subject of discrimination, you have to kind of be hit with it a few times to really appreciate how terrible it makes a person feel, and I am talking about just discrimination against the poor, period. PAGENO="0096" 90 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES You know, every time a poor person walks into an agency, he is treated different in every procedure, he is humiliated and degraded and this makes you really mad and it makes you want to fight a little bit harder to try to get some of the qualities that other people enjoy. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. Mrs. Huerta; in years past when she was virtually the unpaid lobbyist for the Community Service Organization,. an organization primarily consisting of the Spanish-speaking in our State, used to to tend her several children-how many do you have, Dolores? Mrs. HUERTA. Seven. Mr. BURTON. Her seven children, take a bus early in the morning, come into the capital, work all day long until 8, 9 or 10 o'clock, because in our State legislature we had at that time evening meet- ings, catch a bus again, go back home to Stockton and then repeat the whole routine. She would have sometimes as much as 75 cents a day to eat on during the course of these labors. I think the committee has probably gathered by now that she is truly one of the unsung heroes of this effort to help the poor and, in my opinion, one of the really great ladies of our country. Mrs. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Burton. I am not alone in this and I would hate for the committee to feel that any one person does more than any other because we have in Delano many people that have been walking a picket line now for 21 months and their average weekly earnings are $5 a week. This is what they have been getting. Of course, they didn't get that for a long time; it is something new. Everyone who works on the staff, which includes Mr. Chavez, we earn $5 a week stipend plus our subsistence and we have to depend on our food and our clothing from contribution in the caravans. For our medical care, we have a clinic that has been established by Peggy McGiven, a woman who left the nursing profession to come to Delano and help strikers and farmworkers. She has built up from one room to a clinic, a fantastic facility where she now recruits doctors to come in and take care of strikers. Many people-their lives have been saved. Even the migrant workers would never have gotten any kind of health care had it not been for this wonderful nurse, Peggy. We have not tried to get any Federal money for any of these pro- grams but are trying to do them strictly on a shoestring and self-help basis. So, there are many people that are in this, you might say. We have about, I would say, close to 400 people working full time on the strike in various parts of the State and they are all working on the same basis of dedication and no pay. We have just tremendous leadership that has been developed throughout the country. Mr. THOMPSON. I think it is just marvelous. I wonder if we could suspend now and return to hear the four remaining people accompanying you at 2 o'clock. Would that be convenient? Mrs. HUERTA. That will be all right. (Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon- vene at 2 p.m. of the same day.) PAGENO="0097" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 91 AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order. Mrs. HIJERTA. Mr. Chairman, our next witness will be Mr. Mack Lyons. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Will you please proceed as you wish ~ STATFLMDNT `OF MACK LYONS, CHAIRMAN, Di'GIORGIO RANCH COMMITTEE, ARVIN, CALIF. Mr. LYONS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell, you about 10 months of organizing but it would take too long to tell the whole story. What I really want to do now is tell you some of the experiences that I had during these 10 months. You know, in the testimony you heard you have heard that it is pretty tough to organize without being covered by the laws that other industries have. Now, when the workers started to organize at the DiGiorgio Farms, like the Sierra Vista Ranch, they had to organize secretly; they had to sign authorization cards secretly. They thought they would get elections by doing this but instead company representa- tives came from iDelano and they made speeches, they were telling the workers that they didn't object to them having unions, having elections, but when they left the workers at the DiGiorgio Farms never heard of elections, never heard of the DiGiorgio representatives any more. When they started to ask about elections some of them got fired, some of them got blacklisted. They were told not be caught at union meetings, not to be talking to union organizers. ~\Then the company found that this would not work, well, the Team- sters came and were permitted to come on company property at any hour that they wanted, they could talk to the workers. In fact, the company was encouraging the workers at DiGiorgio Farms to talk to Teamsters and there were instances where workers at the DiGiorgio Farms were hired by Teamsters. I do not know this to be a fact but I believe they were hired by Teamsters to sign other workers up on these authorization cards and they were getting $5 for every person that they signed up. After the workers found out they could talk to the Teamsters with- out being fired or blacklisted, they started asking the Teamsters for elections. When they talked to the Teamsters about elections the Team- sters would always talk about something else. If they pressed them too hard, they would just walk away from them, would not talk to them. After DiGiorgio found that this .would not work, the workers got together and signed a petition for an election. Out of 400 workers, 350 of them signed this petition and five of them took it to Governor Brown. About a week later Governor Brown sent letters to the work- ers that had signed this petition suggesting that they take this matter to Robert DiGiorgio, the president of the lDiGiorgio Fruit Corp. A week later 15 workers from Aryin left Arvin about 5 o'clock in the morning, we got to San Francisco at 12 noon the same day, and we went up to Mr. DiGiorgio's office. We asked to see Mr. DiGiorgio and the excuse was that he was out to lunch, but when they found that we were going to stay until Mr. DiGiorgio returned from lunch 82-132-67----7 PAGENO="0098" 92 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES they came back 10 minutes later with another story saying that he had gone home. Mr. THOMPSON. `He was probably tired after lunch. Mr. LYONS. Yes; after a 10-minute lunch he got tired. We said that we would just stay until we could get to talk to Mr. DiGior~io about having elections. The public relations man said that if we didn't leave that he would call the police, and we told him all we wanted was to talk to Mr. DiGiorgio; after all, we worked for Mr. DiGiorgio and we should have a right to see our employer. Then he called the police and they told us that we were under arrest for trespassing. Mr. THOMPSON. Were you one of those arrested? Mr. LYONS. Yes ; 1 was one of them. Mr. THOMPSON. As a trespasser? Mr. LYONS. As a trespasser on the employer's property. They told us that we were under arrest and then the police took us downstairs. We were on the sixth floor, they took us downstairs. After we got downstairs they told us that we were not under arrest, that all they wanted us to do was leave the building and go back to Arvin or anywhere we wanted to, just leave the building. They let us go and we went back up to make an appointment with Mr. DiGiorgio. The police caine. back up and rearrested us, at least they said that we were under arrest. Mr. THOMPSON. When you called and made your appointment with Mr. DiGiorgio, did you telephone his office? Mr. LYONS. Well, after the hallway got crowded with photograph- ers and reporters and the workers from Arvin, the public relations man suggested that we try to make an appointment; you know, any- thing to get us out of there. Mr. THOMPSON. Whose public relations m~n? Mr~ LYONS. The company's, DiGiorgio's. Mr. THOMPSON. But you simply called and asked for an appoint- ment and then you got to see the public relations man? Mr. LYONS. No; we saw the public relations man all the time. * Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. LYONS. After lie tried everything that he could to get us out without having us arrested, well, it was suggested that we make an appointment for the next day, and we did this. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, what did you do when you were waiting there? Mr. LYONS. Well, we were waiting to see Mr. DiGiorgio. We knew if he were out for lunch he was going to come back and we were going to wait until he came back. After they found out that we were going to wait, well, they went inside a little while and came back in about 10 minutes and said that he had gone home. Mr. THOMPSON. You were sitting down in a waiting room? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Were you making any noise? Mr. LYONS. No; we were just sitting there waiting for Mr. DiGior- gio to come back from lunch. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. LYONS. It took us about 15 minutes to get ahold of Mr. Di- Giorgio's secretary to make this appointment. During that time the PAGENO="0099" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 93 police were waiting for us to finish making this appointment at the public relations man's request to escort us downstairs again. Mr. THOMPSON. Where were the police? Mr. LYONS. They were right there in the lobby, too. Mr. THOMPSON. With you? Mr. LYONS. `Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Waiting for Mr. DiGiorgio to finish his lunch? Mr. LYONS. No; they were waiting for the public relations man to tell them what to do with us. Mr. THOMPSON. Oh; I see. Mr. LYONS. Finally he told them to get us out of the building. Then they took us downstairs again and this time they locked the elevator door and they blocked the stairway. Mr. THOMPSON. What floor were you on? Mr. LYONS. We were on the sixth floor. Mr. THOMPSON. Sixth~ Mr. LYONS. Yes. We had no choice then but to leave and come back the next morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. THOMPSON. How could you leave? The elevator was closed. Mr. LYONS. Well, they took us downstairs, they escorted us on the elevator downstairs, and when we were off the elevator operator was down there to lock the elevator so we could not come back up. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, that was very nice of them to take you down; wasn't it? Mr. LYONS. The next day we came back. Mr. DiGiorgio had agreed to see only three of us. When we came back the elevator was still locked, the elevator operator was standing beside the elevator to be sure that nobody went up on the elevator that was not supposed to. After he went up and saw Mr. DiGiorgio to inform him that we were down- stairs, he unlocked the elevator and escorted us up. We went into one of Mr. DiGiorgio's offices to wait for him. When he came in he asked what we wanted, and we told him that we wanted to have an election on union representation. He said his position was the way it had always been, that he would agree to an election if both unions agreed, but he knew that both unions would not agree to have elections. The Teamsters always opposed elections and this was Mr. DiGiorgio's excuse for not having elections. So I asked him who owned the corporation, him or the Teamsters? This made him a little mad and he said that he did, and with that he said that was all that he had to talk about and he left the room. One of his public relations men was there and he told him to take over and do what he could. We talked to the public relations man and he agreed to call the Teamsters and try to get them to agree to an election. This took about 3 hours. In the meantime we were waiting on his answer. When he came back he said that he could not get ahold of the Teamsters, that we were on private property and we were trespassing and if we didn't leave hewould really have us arrested today. So we said, you know, we came all the way from Arvin up here to talk to Mr. DiGiorgio about having an election and we chose to stay until we got an answer from Mr. DiGiorgio. He called the police again and he had us arrested along with some of the labor leaders in San PAGENO="0100" 94 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTIJRAIi EMPLOYEES Francisco who were up there in the lobby. When the police came they somehow got involved. Mr. THOMPSON. What were you charged with then; trespassing? Mr. LYONS. Yes; we were charged with trespassing. Mr. THOMPSON. Have you ever been tried for those charges? Mr. LYONS. No; the charges are still pending. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me ask you this. What did they do when they arrested you? Did they take you to the police station? Mr. LYONS. This time they did. They took the workers and the union officials in San Francisco to the jail and they booked us. Mr. THOMPSON. To the city jail? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Did they mug you and fingerprint you? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Did they set bond for you? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. How much was your bond? Mr. LYONS. I am not sure but I believe it was $110. Mr. THOMPSON. $110. So. you went to a bondsman and got the bond and then were released on bond? Mr.LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON.. How long ago was this? Mr. LYONS. This was about in October. Mr. THOMPSON. October of 1966? Mr. LYONS. Right. Mr. THOMPSON. Has a trial date been set for you? Mr. LYONS. The trial date is in May, I believe. Mr. THOMPSON. What date is the trial set? Mr. LYONS. I believe it is the 26th of May. Mr. THOMPSON. The 26th of May. Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON.. In other words, for that reason you have not applied for a dismissal on the grounds of a lack of prosecution? Mr. LYONS. No; we have not. What we did since we now have an election and the contract, is that I have called Mr. DiGiorgio and talked to him, you know, about dropping the charges but he refused to drop the charges. He, you know, insists on prosecuting us. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. LYONS. So after we were arrested and we didn't accomplish our point we went back to see him. Mr. THOMPSON. I would not say that you didn't. Mr. LYONS. Sir? Mr. ThoMPsoN. I would not say that you had not accomplished any- thing. Mr. LYONS. At that time we didn't. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, of course. Mr. LYONS. We went back to Mr. DiGiorgio's office and this time the police were there waiting for us and you might say they had the building surrounded and it was also locked, they were not permitting people in the building without a pass or something. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you tell the police that you were going back? Mr. LYONS. No; we did not. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you have an appointment to go back? PAGENO="0101" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 95 Mr. LYONS. No; we did not. We were just going back to ask Mr. DiGiorgio to talk with us. Mr. THOMPSON. Does anyone else have an office in that building be.. sides Mr. DiGiorgio? Mr. LYONS. That is what it is, an office building. Mr. THOMPSON. A public office building? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, there might be doctors, lawyers, brokers, and other people in the building? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. How many floors are there in the building? Mr. LYONS. It is seven, eight, maybe more. I went to the sixth floOr and that was it. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. They were waiting for you? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Not when we got out of jail. Mr. THOMPSON. No; when you went back the next time. Mr. LYONS. Yes; when we got back they were waiting for us and they would not let us in. `Some of us went in the lobby and said that we wanted to see Mr. DiGiorgio, and the police were there and they ar- rested some more of us. Mr. `THOMPSON. When you go into the lobby of that building, do they ask everyone who comes in where he is going and to what floor? Mr. LYONS. Not before but after we were arrested and when we came back, well, anyone thatlooked like he was in our group or a farmworker was asked, "Where are you going?" or "What business do you have intheoffice?" Mr. THOMPSON. What do! your people look like? How can they tell the difference between you and someone who might work for a lawyer on the third floor? Mr. LYONS. Well, you know, farmworkers- Mr. THOMPSON. I can look at you. Are you a grape picker? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. You don't look like a grape picker to me. Mr. LYONS. 1~Teli, the grape season is over. [Laughter.] Mr. Tno~rPsON. I see. Mr. LYONS. The way they could tell wasat that time, you know~ be- cause we were looking like grape pickers. Mr. THOMPSON. How do you look when you are picking grapes? I know you look tired. Mr. LYONS. Yes, you would look tired and underfed, I guess. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. LYONS. Anyway they just about knew who to stop and ask. Mr. THOMPSON. But I cannot help but. wonder. Didn't this occur to you? The lobby is on the first floor, right? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. There are police there and other people and there are a lot of other businesses and offices in the building. What do they do, stop everyone and `say, "Let me see your hands?" Something like that? Do they ask, "Are you a grape picker?" Mr. LYONS. No. They went by the quality of your clothes, you know. If you lived in San Francisco and was supposed to be working in the building, you undoubtedly had more expensive looking clothes than farmworkers `had and they probably were more expensive, you see. PAGENO="0102" 913 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES : ~Mr. THOMPSON. I would think so. ~Mr. LYONS. This is the way they are, you know, they could tell. ~Mr. THOMPSON. These are the police? Mr. LYONS. These are building attendants, I guess, DiGiorgio em- ployees. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. LYONS. And the police were there, you know, to assist them. * Anyway, some more fellows got in as far as the lobby and they were stopped and were talking, were questioned by the police and before too long these people were arrested along with some more union leaders from San Francisco. After about another 3 or 4 days of demonstrations and pickets out on the sidewalk Mr. DiGiorgio decided to have elections. The Team- sters pulled out of the elections and we went back to Arvin. On Novem- ber 4, last year, we had elections. This is just one person's experience, and this is not all of my experi- ence. Like 1 said, it would take weeks to sit down and tell you every- thing that happened. A lot more important things than I mentioned happened. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Lyons, let me ask you this. If you are convicted on these trespass charges in your trial later in May, what sentence could you get? Mr. LYONS. What sentence could I get? Mr. Tno~rPsoN. Yes. Suppose the judge says, "I have heard your case; you are guilty." What could he sei~tence you to do? Mr. LYONS. I don't know. It might be a jail sentence; I don't have any money to pay a fine. Mr. THOMPSON. What would the fine be in that case? Mr. LYONS. I think the fine would be around $150 or maybe more. Mr. THOMPSON. So you might get 150 days or $150? Mr. LYONS. You could get some time for it, I imagine; 6 months, a year maybe. Mr. THo~rrsoN. For `sitting in Mr. DiG-iorgio's office? Mr. LYONS. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. That is pretty expensive sitting, isn't it? How many were arrested in this first instance? Mr. LYONS. There were six altogether, three workers that got to see Mr. DiGiorgio and three union officials in San Francisco. Mr. THOMPSON. You were arrested twice as I understand it, is that right? Mr. LYONS. No, I was arrested once and other workers were ar- rested. Mr. THOMPSON. Where were you physically when you were arrested? Mr. LYONS. When I was told I was under arrest? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. LYONS. I was in Mr. DiG-iorgio's office. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. And the police were there, they came in and arrested you for trespassing? Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. In a public building? Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. Who is the chief of police, Mr. DiGiorgio? Mr. LYONS. I think so. Mr. THOMPSON. It sounds like it. PAGENO="0103" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 97 Mr. LYONS. You know, farmworkers have been left out of certain laws and certain government elections, they have not been encouraged to participate in these elections, but since the strike started in Delano they have become aware of their vote and they know that one vote does not mean too much but a united vote is about the strongest thing that you can have. Mr. THOMPSON. Are you registered to vote in Delano, Calif.? Mr. LYONS. Yes, in Bakersfield. Mr. THOMPSON. In Bakersfield. Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. So you can vote in that cOunty. Mr. LYONS. Yes. We are not here to get a new law passed, we are only here to get the same rights that workers in other industries have. We are just asking for the same right, we are not trying to get any special treat- ment, no special privileges, no special laws passed. We are just asking for the same law that other workers have. Mr. THOMPSON. That is what Mr. O'Hara's bill does and that is all that Mr. O'Hara's bill does. It would allow agricultural workers the same right to organize as workers in industry, workers in the building trades and workers everywhere else. If this law is to pass, and I fervently hope that it does, then you would have the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as any other workers. In other words, you would be brought under a whole body of labor-management re- lations law and you could organize under that law. You would be subject to unfair labor practice cases and so would your employers. I gather that your big problem has not been your right to organize. The problem has been your inability to get your employer to discuss with you the possibility that you might organize. I am sure you realize that `if you were brought under the law 30 percent `of your workers in any one given situation would have to indicate by card or otherwise that they wanted an election. Then, under the auspices of the National Labor Relations Board, an election could `be held. You understand that? Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. THoivirsoN. And you understand that if a majority did not vote to have a union, that for 1 year you could not petition for another election? Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. You are willing to do that? Are you willing to take your chance and say, "OK, we want the NLRB to have `an election. If we do not get 30 percent to call it, we cannot have it. But if we do get 30 percent and we have the election and lose by one vote, we are willing to wait the year?" Mr. LYONS. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. Peaceably? Mr. LYONS. Yes. You know, at DiGiorgio to get an election it took almost a year of strikes and pickets and boycotts. Mr. THOMPSON. But even then it was not an NLRB election, was it? Mr. LYONS. No, it was not. If we had had a right to organize like you say, if we had 30 percent of the authorization cards signed, we could have had elections right then. PAGENO="0104" 98 EXTENSION OF. NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. Right. And it would have been over. Mr. LYONS. We had to wait 10 months, 11 months. Mr. THOMPSON. Suppose you had only had to wait 2 weeks and had lost the election by two votes, would you have been willing to abide by that rule? Mr. LYONS. We would rather do that than to picket and strike and boycott. Mr. THOMPSON. I would think so. Mr. LYONS. Now this is all we can .do. This seems like it is the law. If you can beat them with pickets and strikes and the boycott, this is the law that you get an election with. Mr. THOMPSON. Tinder your circumstances, that is right. Mr. LYONS. That is right, but other workers under other circum- stances sign up 30 percent of the workers at a certain factory and they have elections immediately. Mr. THOMPSON. Right. Mr. LYONS. This is all we are asking for, is the same privilege. Mr. THOMPSON. There are lots of industries in America. Lots of people do not understand this, but the workers who are now covered by the law have responsibilities under the law and there are a number of cases where for many years there have been efforts by labor to or- ~anize plants and they have had elections as near to Washington as in the Shenandoah Valley in nearby West Virginia where they get 30 percent of the voters to indicate interest in an election; they have a vote and the union does not win. So they wait a year. At least then they can say to themselves, "Well, enough of our fellow workers did not agree with us and we lost." So they go back to work and they work for a year and then try again. You are willing to do this, I gather. Mr. LYONS. Yes. This is why you have a vote and why it is so im- portant. You are free to vote whatever way you want to vote. Mr. THOMPSON. All you want is the right to vote? Mr. LYONS. That is right, the right to have elections and to chooseS You know, it has been said by the growers that, "The people that work for me are satisfied the way things are; we get along perfectly," but with the workers this is not true. They are just saying something to the public like, "Try to get some of the heat off," you might say. Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, this is ancient history. This has happened in industry throughout the United States. Our national labor policy attempts to encourage stable and demo- cratic labor relations. If you are included under the NLRA by Mr. O'Hara's bill, you will simply enjoy access to the Federal law. But you have to get yourselves elected. That is all you are asking; isn't it? Mr. LYONS. That is all. Mr. THOMPSON. It sounds pretty reasonable to me. Mr~ LYONS. Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. I very much admire your efforts and the determination that all of you have. Mrs. Huerta. Mrs. HUERTA. I just wanted to add that Mr. Lyons was a negotiating member for the DiGiorgio contract and has done a m~tgnificent job along with Mr. Serda in negotiating the part of the contract that was PAGENO="0105" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 99 completed in advance of the arbitration. I think he did a tremendous job. Our next two witnesses are Gilbert Padilla, who is in charge of organizing in Rio Graiide City, Tex., and Domingo Arredondo, who is one of the striking workers. STATEMENT OF GILBERT PADILLA, DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZATION, UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEX. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. Chairman- Mr. THOMPSON. Before you start, Mr. Padilla, tell us something about yourself. Where are you from? Mr. PADILLA. I am from California. I came down in January to Rio Grande City to help the strikers in Rio Grande City in Texas. Mr. THOMPSON. What are they trying to do there? Mr. PADILLA. They have a little problem in Texas, something like the strike of nine growers. Mr. THOMPSON. What is this little problem in Texas? Mr. PADILLA. I would like to tell you about it and I would like to tell you what I have seen since my stay in Texas and then I will also tell you some of the things that happened when we walked out on the strike. The atmosphere in Texas is completely different than in California. The strike started on June 1, 1966, with one of the biggest growers in Starr County, which is La Casita Farms. Mr. Tiioi~IPSoN. What crops are involved? Mr. PADILLA. La Casita has melons, onions, potatoes, peppers, celery, and lettuce. What happened in Texas should never happen again in the United States. Immediately after the walkout of the workers-several hun- dred walked out in Starr County, Tex.-the deputy sheriff deputized the growers. A week later, with the assistance of the sheriff, the growers recruited green-card carriers from the Mexican towns adjoining the United States which are Ciudad Mequil Alernan and Ciudad Camargo and brought them in to break the strike. How they did it, to bring the strikebreakers in, was to have buses drive up to the International Bridge and park and let the workers walk across the bridge from Mexico with the protection of the sheriff. Mr. THOMPSON. And they have green cards. Mr. PADILLA. They have green cards. Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, Mexican nationals are being used as workers during strikes? Mr. PADILLA. Right. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know of any instances where the growers have told the Mexican citizens that because they were Mexican they could not strike? Mr. PADILLA. Yes. In many instances most all of them have been told that they could not strike, that it was against the law, that they were not citizens. They were told that they had gotten their green cards legally and they should abide by the laws, and not to come here and get in any kind of a dispute. As a matter of fact, they have been told that they cannot vote even in an election of the workers. PAGENO="0106" 100 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTTJRAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. Were any of them told that they would be deportedi if they did strike? Mr. PADILLA. Yes. In Other words, they have been told that they can- not go out on strike because it was against the law and that when they were given the green card to come into the United States they hadi sworn they would not violate any law of the United States, and if they did they would be deported. Mr. THOMPSON. Then they were told that the laws of the United States prohibited them from striking? Mr. PADILLA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. PADILLA. Now, in Starr County, the sheriff of Starr County is a doctor of Starr County, and the county judge of Starr County is the other doctor of Starr County, so Starr County has two doctors, the judge and the sheriff. Mr. TiIol\IrsoN. You mean medical doctors? Mr. PADILLA. Medical doctors, M.D.'s. Now the county counsel, who is supposed to be the district attorney~~ represents La Casita Farms, Starr Produce, and El Negro Ranch;: he is the representative of the growers and he is the prosecutor of the county. We have had 56 arrests between June 1, 1966, up to January 20, 1967.. It is very interesting that we had 56 arrests but no prosecutions. Mr. THOMPSON. What were the charges against those arrested? Mr. PADILLA. One charge was secondary picketing. Mr. THOMPSON. Secondary picketing? Mr. PADILLA. Secondary picketing. This is not all. To top it alL be- sides having the sheriff- Mr. THOMPSON. Don't hurry it. Mr. PADILLA. All right. I was just going to inject something that goes with the law that they brought in- Mr. THOMPSON. This was an arrest made for secondary picketing? Mr. PADILLA. Right. Mr. ThoMPsON. If my information is correct, the arrest was made under a law whichhad been declared unconstitutiona1~ Mr. PADILLA. That is right. See, they have funny laws in Texas. They don't arrest them the same day, they wait a week and then one day they walk down the street and say, "The judge wants to see you," and they get in the car and when they get to the courthouse then they are under arrest. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Then do they post bond? Mr. PADILLA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. How much is the bond? Mr. PADILLA. Some bonds run up to $1,500. Mr. THOMPSON. $1,500? Mr. PADILIJA. Right. Mr. TnoMPsoN. For secondary picketing? Mr. PADILLA. For secondary picketing and unlawful assembly. Mr. THo~rPsoN. How much does it cost a man who has been arrested for secondary picketing and is held on $1,500 bond? What does he have to nay the bondsman? Mr. PADILLA. That is 10 percent of the $1,500. Mr. THOMPSON. $150? PAGENO="0107" EXTENSION o1~ NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 101 Mr. PADILLA. Right. Mr. THOMPSON. Where does he get it? Mr. PADILLA. Well, we have supporters, as we mentioned before in the testimony. We have friends in organized labor who have been behind us all along, and church people and sympathetic people that have been helping us along. Mr. THOMPSON. They loan the money? Mr. PADILLA. Yes, and sometimes we get lawyers that donate their time to come into Rio Grande and try to get us out. In one instance we had 11 people arrested who had to stay in jail for 7 days. As a matter of fact, we have one now who has been there for 2 months and the bond goes up and down. First it was $1,500 and we got $1,500 bond, and they said it was $500. We went back and they said it is now $10,000. So each bond we. got was not worth anything because it was not the right amount. Mr. THOMPSON. I-low are they treated while they are in that jail? Mr. PADILLA. Domingo Arredondo will tell you his experience with the doctor's employees. Mr. THOMPSON. By the doctor do you mean the judge or the sheriff? Mr. PADILIJA. The sheriff. Mr. TiioMrsoN. 1 see. It saves a lot of costs if the sheriff is the doctor. If a prisoner falls downstairs and gets hurt in prison and the sheriff is a doctor, he can treat the prisoner. I am going to introduce a bill some day requiring that no jail in the United States of America be built on more than one floor. This will save a lot of medical expenses for people failing downstairs in jails. Mr. PADILLA. Well, I could mention, Mr. Chairman, we have a little peculiar problem right there in the lower Rio Grande Valley. The second day I was in Texas, the deputy had gone down to the union office and said that the judge wanted to see four of our pickets. I drove with them to the courthouse and while we were in the courthouse Ran- dall Nye, who is the county counsel, came down and arrested the four of them. I protested and asked why, and his answer was that he had a com- plaint signed by one of the workers in the field, a strikebreaker, for abusive language. I said, "What was the abusive language ?" and he said that the pickets were calling the strikebreakers "scabs." They got arrested and had to post bail of $110 apiece. That night a minister from California and myself with 15 other workers, went to the courthouse and had a prayer vigil. This must have been about 9 o'clock in the evening, and the door was locked at the courthouse. We started our prayer and the deputy came out and said to go away, that if we wanted to pray, we had to go to church. I explained to him that our brothers were in jail and it was our custom that if one of our brothers was in jail that we have a minister and pray for him, and I invited him to pray with us. We started the Lord's Prayer and he said, "If you don't go, I am going to arrest you." I said, "We came here very peaceful and we are just going to say a prayer." He arrested me and placed me in jail, and I asked why and he said I was disturbing the peace. Mr. THOMPSON. By praying? PAGENO="0108" 102 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. PADILLA. Forty-five minutes later he arrested the minister and he was also charged- Mr. THOMPSON. Why did they wait? Mr. PADILLA. What? Mr. THOMPSON. Why did they wait? Mr. PADILLA. They didn't know what to do with him. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. PADILLA. After they got him, they found out he was a minister, they had him locked up. They arrested him at 10 o'clock at night and it took them until 11 o'clock the next day to figure out a charge. Finally, it was disturbing the peace. I kept saying I was not disturbing the peace, I was just praying; the courthouse was closed for business and there was no employee in there doing business that I could distract. So Mr. Nye filed a charge that I disturbed the janitor on the third floor from performing his duties. Mr. THOMPSON. Why? Did he want to kneel when you prayed? Mr. PADILLA. I suppose he wanted to pray with us. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. PADILLA. In any event- Mr. THOMPSON. I wonder how much he was being paid an hour? Mr. PADILLA. I would hate to say that. Mr. THOMPSON. You know, we do not put our witnesses under oath but just informally are you telling me the truth? Mr. PADILLA. I am telling you the truth and I swear it on a stack of Bibles. I know nobody could believe me so I have brought something to show my charges. Mr. THOMPSON. I find it hard to believe. Mr. PADILLA. I know it is hard to believe but it is true. Mr. THOMPSON. I believe you. Mr. PADILLA. Now I think and I know that if we have an election now in Starr County with the people who have been oppressed for so many years, we will prove that the process of voting, the democratic process of doing things quietly and nonviolently, works. Recently we had an election in the packingshed, the only packing- shed in the county that is covered under the National Labor Relations Act. We petitioned for the election and there were 36 employees in- volved. In spite of the harassment of the power structure, in spite of the harassment of the courthouse people who were going to the workers and telling them not to vote for the union, in spite of the fact that the company hired a special superintendent to work against the union, to tell them not to vote for the union, despite the fact that they put a sample ballot on the wall marked "No," on the date of the election, when the odds were against us very heavily, we still wanted to go ahead just to prove that people can vote and people want the union. The day of the election the deputy sheriffs were there, Mr. Randall Nyc, the county counsel was there representing the company, the superintend- ent- Mr. TIio~IPsoN. Wait. Is this the doctor again? Mr. PADILLA. No, this is the county counsel; he has not got his M.D. The superintendent who had been campaigning against the union was in the polling place and even despite the fact that they offered the workers higher wages-they had never seen this in Starr County be- fore the strike-of 50 cents an hour in the shed so they were getting PAGENO="0109" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 103 $1.65 and $1.45, everybody voted and we had a tie election. So things are very unusual in Texas. We have a tie election. Mr. THOMPSON. Eighteen to eighteen? Mr. PADILLA. Fourteen to fourteen. We have three challenged votes. This election proves that if the workers have a right under supervision of the Board that they are not going to be scared any more, and it adds to the proof of 56 arrests and 10 months of striking and 10 months of suffering-it proves that the workers want a union. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me ask you this. The arrests for the strikers on secondary picketing charges, a number of them were made on Novem- ber 9, 1966. Mr. PADILLA. That is right. On the day after general election day. Mr. THOMPSON. But they picketed 6 days earlier on November 3; did they not? Mr. PADILLA. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me ask you one further question. In the course of your organizing, have you ever had any disputes with those who oppose you? Mr. PADILLA. No. Mr. THOMPSON. Have there been any persons injured? Mr. PADILLA. There has been pushing around, slapping on the part of the sheriffs. Mr. THOMPSON. None of your members have been arrested for assault and battery? Mr. PADILLA. No. Mr. THOMPSON. Just breach of the peace, disorderly conduct and secondary picketing. Mr. PADILLA. Abusive language. Mr. THOMPSON. And abusive language. Mr. PADILLA. Praying. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. PADILLA. You know, it is fantastic, I don't imow if you believe this, I had requested some priests to come down because it was such a mess and some five priests came from San Antonio to be on the picket line and to talk to the strikebreakers from Mexico. The five priests and some other workers were standing adjacent to the La Casita Farms on private property. One of our members who owns that poverty has given us permission to go on his property, and they were arrested for disturbing the peace. Mr. THOMPSON. What were they doing? Mr. PADILLA. They were standing adjacent to the La Casita property. Mr. THOMPSON. Were they taken to jail? Mr. PADILLA. They were taken to jail. Mr. THOMPSON. Did they have to post bond? Mr. PADILLA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Have those cases been tried yet? Mr. PADILLA. No; none of the cases have been tried. They say that my case got lost in the files because they could not find it. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. PADILLA. I would like to have Mr. Arredondo talk now about what happened. Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to hear from him. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. Arredondo is one of the original strikers that walked out. PAGENO="0110" 104 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF DOMINGO ARREDONDO, CItAIRMAN, UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEX. Mr. ARREDONDO. Mr. Chairman, my name is Domingo Arredondo. I was born and raised in Rio Grande City, Tex., County of Starr, and I went out on strike. I joined the strike organization and since then many things have been happening in Starr County or in Rio Grande City. Like you said, some arrests were for secondary picketing. Eight days before an election they had in Starr County for-I don't know what the election was going to be all about. Anyway, the deputy sheriffs went to our picket line. We talked to them, we asked them, "Are we on the right procedure? Are we violating any law? "Oh, no, no, no; you are doing perfectly all right, just don't go into anybody's property, just stay where you are and nobody will harm you." Mr. THOMPSON. Who were the deputy sheriffs? Were they growers? Mr. ARREDONDO. Well, we got growers deputized. Mr. THOMPSON. Were they wearing a badge? Mr. ARREDONDO. I think they wear secret badges. Anyway, they carry pistols on their hip. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you carry a pistol? Mr. ARREDONDO. Pardon? Mr. THOMPSON. Do you carry a pistol? Mr. ARREDONDO. When I am on my farm I shoot rabbits with a pistol. Mr. THo~IPsoN. You shoot rabbits with a pistol? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. You must be a good shot. Mr. ARREDONDO. No, I always miss when I shoot. Anyway, we kept our picket line on the right spot all the time so we could not violate any law by being on private property or anything like that. Anyway, we were very happy about the law telling all that we were on the right spot. It made us think and believe that they were for us but they acted that way because that election was going to take place either on the 1st or 2d of November, sometime in there. So they acted real nice with us during those days before the election. After * the election was over and they realized that they were turned down they started making the arrests for secondary picketing. Mr. THOMPSON. When was this, what date? Mr. ARREDONDO. Of the arrests, that must have been around the 8th or 9th of November. Mr. THOMPSON. 1966? Mr. ARREDONDO. 1966, right. Mr. THOMPSON. Were you arrested? Mr. ARREDONDO. I was arrested; yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Were you taken to jail? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir; I was placed in jail. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you have to make bond? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir. Mr. TI~OMPSON. One hundred and fifty dollars? Mr. ARREDONDO. No, I think that time it went to a thousand dollars. Mr. THOMPSON. A thousand dollar~ PAGENO="0111" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTTJRAL EMPLOYEES 105 Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. There were maybe 11 of us in jail; we got different bond. Mr. THOMPSON. I think you are right. I think there were 11 of you nrrested on November 8, 1966. Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. For picketing on October 30. Mr. ARREDONDO. Right. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. ARREDONDO. The bonds were set at different amounts. Some bonds ~were set at $1,500, some of them were set at $500; anything up from $500 to $1,000 to $1,500. Mr. THOMPSON. When, are you going to be tried on your charge? Mr. ARREDONDO. That is one thing I don't know, is when they are going to go to trial. Mr. THOMPSON. Was the only charge against you secondary picket- ing? Mr. ARREDONDO. Secondary picketing. Mr. THOMPSON. Not `disturbing the peace? Mr. AmtEDO~uO. No, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Not assault and battery? Mr. ARREDONDO. No, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Just secondary picketing? Mr. ARREDONDO. Secondary picketing. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you work in the fields? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir; I have been a farmworker all my life. Mr. THOMPSON. What do you do? What kind of farmwork do you do? Mr. ARREDONDO. I can operate a tractor `and pick cantaloupes and do most `any kind of work in the fields. Mr. THOMPSON. How `much do you make an hour? Mr. ARREDONDO. Before November I was operating a tractor at night working 13 hours at 80 cents an hour. Mr. THOMPSON. At `80 cents an hour? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Thirteen hours? Mr. ARREDONDO. Thirteen hours. I went to work at 6 o'clock in the evening `and left the field at 7 o'clock the next morning. Mr. TnOMP50N. At 80 cents an hour? Mr. ARREDONDO. Eighty cents `an hour. Mr. THOMPSON. How many `days a week~? Mr. ARREDONDO. Seven days a week. Mr. THOMPSON. Seven days a week? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. You made `a lot of money, didn't you? How much would you have made if you had `been picking canta- loupes? Mr. ARREDONDO. Well, in that last year they were still paying 80 cents an hour and for picking cantaloupes, carrying a bag that weighs about 90 to 100 pounds every time you fill it up with cantaloun~s- Mr. THOMPSON. Our arithmetic shows you drove a tractor 91 hours a week. Mr. ARREDONDO. Right. PAGENO="0112" 106 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTTJRAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON.. Thirteen hours .a day, 7 days a week. Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. At 80 cents an hour. Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. So that you made $72.80 a week. Mr. AREEDONDO. Correct. Mr. ThoMPsoN. Do you have a wife? Mr. ARREDONDO. I got a wife and six kids. Mr. TI-IoMrsoN. Six children. Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. How many hours would you have worked a week if you had picked contaloupes? Mr. ARREDONDO. It wOuld be 70 hours a week. Mr. THOMPSON. Seventy? Mr. ARREDONDO. Seventy hours a. week, 10 hours a day. Mr. TI-I0MP5ON. And 80 cents an hour? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir. Mr. THOauPsoN. I see. You can see how very well off the grape pickers are, can't you? They make up to $1.60 an hour and they make up to $11 a ton for grapes. They can make $35 a day if they pick grapes by the ton. Mr. ARREDONDO. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. What is the highest paying job on the farms in Texas on which you have worked? Mr. ARREDONDO. Well, after they passed this minimum wage of a dollar, that is what we are getting. Mr. Ti-io~IPsoN. One dollar an hour? Mr. ARREDONDO. On some farms such as La Casita the truck oper- ators or truckdrivers that have been working there for over 8 years are getting from $1 to $1.65 an hour, but it seems to me like it is the procedure of La Casita to keep the truck operators from feeling free to have an election with our business agent. It seems to me like that is their plan. The farmers talk to the workers about, "We are giving you SO much, why should you mess around with this?" Mr. THOMPSON. Well, do they feed you during the time when you are driving that tractor? Do they pay for your food? Mr. ARREDONDO. Oh, no. I have to pay for my own food. Mr. ThIo~IPsoN. Do you have, time off to eat it ? Mr. ARREDONDO. No, not at night because if you stop to eat, well, probably your lunch would he all dust. You see, sometimes we just eat supper at night when we leave at 6 o'clock and go to work without eating all during the night, just drinking~ water until the next day because when you are operating a tractor you cannot leave your lunch anywhere, you have to carry it with you all the time on the tractor. If you are ploughing, there is a lot of dust. No matter how well wrapped you have your lunch, it still gets dusty. So it is best for us to eat before we come to work and that is it, maybe take a. thermos bottle with coffee or something with us. Mr. Ti-io~1PSoN. What is the best job that there is on the farm down where you live in Texas, the very best job? Mr. ARREDONDO. It is kind of hard to say which one is the best be- cause some say irrigating is best., but coming to the irrigating prob- lem you are always in the mud up to your knee. You can never be PAGENO="0113" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 107 looking around or sitting or waiting for 5 or 10 minutes, you always have to be walking up and down, moving pipes back and forth, put- ting the stuff to the wheel where it will not roll too fast. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you travel from one part of Texas to another in your work? Mr. ARREDONDO. I used to travel; not after I got this tractor work in the fields. Mr. THOMPSON. How many months in the year can you find work as a farmworker? Mr. ARREDONDO. The most is 9 months of the year. Mr. THOMPSON. What happens to your wife and children when you are working away from your home? Do they stay at home? Mr. ARREDONDO. No, I always carry them around with me. Mr. THOMPSON. Where do the children go to scho9l? Mr. ARREDONDO. Well, every time, I keep them in school. For ex- ample, in 1964 I came from Rio Grande City to Seminole, Tex., for *wheat cutting. I had my kids put in school there in Seminole. For ex- ample, I got into Seminole, let's say, Sunday night, well, Monday morning I went to report my kids to the school and sent them to school that same day or maybe the next day. Mr. THOMPSON. How old are your children? Mr. ARREDONDO. The oldest one is 12. Mr. THOMPSON. How old is your baby? Mr. ARREDONDO. Seven months. Mr. THOMPSON. Seven months? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have any others of school age; 6, 7? Mr. ARREDONDO. I got three school kids right now. Mr. THOMPSON. And they travel from school to school? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Can they read and write? Mr. ARREDONDO. They can. Mr. THOMPSON. They have learned to read and write? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Can your wife read and write? Mr. ARREDONDO. No, she cannot read or write. Mr. THOMPSON. Can you? Mr. ARREDONDO. I do. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you work with your children? Mr. ARREDONDO. I do. Mr. THOMPSON. Teaching them? Mr. ARREDONDO. Yes. Yes, sir, I always help them out with their problems when they come from school and start asking questions or if they don't know how to do something or don't understand the problem, they come to me and I will just help them out. Mr. THOMPSON. You are just one of millions of people just like your- self, aren't you? Mr. .ARREDONDO. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON.YOU know, I sit up here and really right at this mo- ment I am struggling not to weep. I am ashamed of all of the things that I enjoy and that I have and that my children have. I swear to you I will stick with this thing as long as I am here to see that you get S2-132-67----8 PAGENO="0114" 108 EXTENSION OF NLRA. TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES the opportunity that you want. All you want is to have an opportunity to make a littlebit better way for your family. Mr. ARREDONDO. That is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Mrs. Huerta. Mrs. HUERTA. The next witness will be Assistant Director of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, Mr. Larry Itliong who is in a great way responsible for the whole farm labor struggle. STATEMENT OF LARRY ITLIONG, ASSISTANT' DIRECTOR, UNIThD FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, DELANO, CALIF. Mr. ITLIONG. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you a little something about myself so you will understand my concern on behalf of the plight and hardship of the farmworkers of our country. I am a Filipino American. I came to this country in 1929. My am- bition at that time was to go to the American schools thinking that I would get a better education in this country. When I left the Phil- ippines I was 15 years old and I went through the `sixth grade. At the time when I came here, that was the beginning of the great depression during the thii~ties. I didn't know there were such things as the depression. I am the son of a farmer, a small farmer in the Philip- pines and I never did know what hunger was until I came to this country. Mr. THOMPSON. From which island were you? Mr. ImIoNG. From Luzon. Mr. THOMPSON. Luzon. Mr. IThIONG. Yes. I arrived in this country in April of 1929. At that time I arrived in the State of Washington and it was hard to look for a job. Some people were recruiting workers to go to work in Montana to work as sugar beet workers. They recruited us about the end of April to go and work in the beet fields of Montana. The people that. recruited us said that we were going to' be working in about a week after we arrived in Montana. Well, we came to find out that after we arrived in Sidney, Mont., the beets were not even planted yet and it. was not until June that we were able `to do' any kind of a job and it only lasted about 5 weeks. The planting took less than 5 weeks. While we were there we were being boarded, charged with rent~ at the camp at which we were staying, so when we got out I think I made about $27. We were brought to Montana for free transportation b'ut after we finished cutting if we wanted to, go back to Seattle, Wash., we had to pay for our fare. So quite a chunk of my $27 was taken out. of that pay for transportation. I went. back to Seattle. I looked for another job and went to work for the railroad. I made a few dollars while working for the railroad before I got into an a.coi- `dent riding the freight train and that is where I lost three of my fingers on my right hand. I went back to Seattle, Wash., and I happened to' `get a job picking tomatoes on one of the big ranches in MOnroe, Wash. I was not there a couple of weeks when they had a strike in that particular ranch. PAGENO="0115" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 109 That was in 1929, the first strike I was involved in. I didn't know how strikes were rim at that `time so I was afraid to go' on strike with the people that went on strike. So I left that job and went to California in 1930 to work in the fields. Let me tell you it is not an easy job, and be- sides at that time my hand was not well enough so I had to work with my left hand. Anyway, in my travel working in the fields I began to see minority workers being discriminated against in pay, being discriminated against in employment chances and not having any kind of a right at all. This of course amazes me because while I was in the Philippines we heard and read about the kind of government that this country had and t.he kind of system that the United States has in a lot of things that are beneficial to its citizenship. But I found out differently; that if you are in a minority group, you don't have any kind of a chance to help yourself. So from year to year I traveled all over the State trying to get a job that I could make money on. In the meantime I had forgotten about going to school. I never made enough money, and whatever money I made from one j ob was not even enough for me. to live on until I got to the next job. I learned also that other farmworkers have the same kind of prob- Tiem. I began to learn the causes of the problems of the farmworkers. I learned that if you do not have any kind of an organization, if you have any complaint, your complaint is going to be heard in one ear and it passes through the other ear. Like if you said to your employer that you wanted some cold water while you are working for him dur- ing the hot season, he was going to tell you that you must bring your own jug, he has no time to bring any water to you. In 1948 I was in the asparagus fields in Stockton and we had a strike there. We pulled a strike to have a union of the asparagus workers. We had not been on strike 3 days and the growers were able to recruit ~bracero workers to take our jobs. So what happened to us, we were left walking on the picket lines being harassed by the sheriff and in a lot of instances being rim off the road by the growers themselves. We were on strike for 3 months. We ran out of money so we went some place else. In 1949 the same thing happened. We did not get any kind of sup- port then from the labor movement, from anybody as a matter of fact, so our strikes at that time in trying to organize were not successful. In Septeinber of 1965, when we started our strike in Delano, the workers, I would imagine especially the Filipinos, were so mad at their employers that they were willing to go on strike again even if they had to lose everything that they had because of the fear that they are getting older, they have been here in this country for a num- ~ber of years and they have not got anything to show for their labor, so what have they got to lose? So in 1965 we went on strike without any money, without any kind of financial assistance that we could be sure of, and the very first few days that we were on strike we were allowed to stay in the camps of the growers. Why they let us stay in the camps at that time we don't know but probably because they felt that if we stayed in the camp that they would be able to convince us to go back to work. They ifigured that in a week's time we would all get hungry and be begging PAGENO="0116" 110 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES for our jobs back, but the strikers were determined to fight for their union. The growers then started shutting off the water, the lights and the gas so that even if you stayed in the camp you could not cook and at night you had no light and it was cold and you could not get a drink there, and they tried to drive the strikers away from the camps. `We told the strikers to stay there and come to town to eat even if they had to walk. This made the growers so mad that one day while we were on the picket lines they bolted up all the rooms, they threw all the work- ers' stuff outside the rooms, they threw it all over camp. So when the workers went back in the evening hoping to be able to sleep in the camp, they were met by security guards of the employer and they were told that in order for them to get into the property where the camp is located they had to go and see the grower to get a permit to get. their clothing so that. they could move out. Well, it was around 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening when we came back from picket duty, and try to find where the employer was at that time was quite a job. Some strikers went to t.he office of the employer and there was nobody there. So a lot of these people slept on the road and slept in their cars. We had no room for them at the place where we have a messhall for them to eat, so we told them that they had to sleep outside and we hoped that they wouldn't get too cold and get sick. A lot of them slept out on the road. The next day they went to the employer's offices and asked perinis- sion to get their belongings. The lack of housing entailed a great deal' of problem for us as organizers, so we started asking for public as- sistance. We sent out letters to people asking that they give us as- sistance in our struggle to better ourselves as farmworkers. Luckily it was at that time that the organization of Mr. Chavez supported our strike. Mr. Chavez was smart enough to utilize publicity to make the people understand that the farmworkers have a just cause in trying' to get the workers the kinds of conditions that they should be working' under and the kind of pay that they should begetting. In the early parts of the strike we were attacked by the growers. I myself have been attacked by the growers and I have been arrested. Mr. THOMPSON. What do you mean by "attacked by the growers" ~ Mr. ITLI0NG. We were being pushed around. As a matter of fact, one of the growers pushed me so hard, I think he pushed me about 10' feet for no reason when I was walking on the picket line. I was just walking in the picket line when all of a sudden a grower came and just shoved me as hard as he could. Mr. THOMPSON. What did you do? Mr. ITLIONG. What can I do? Mr. THOMPSON. You didn't fight back? Mr. ITLIONG. No; I could not even if I wanted to. I know that I have' experience in the past that if you `fight these people you are not going' to get anyplace. Mr. THOMPSON. It is all right for them to push you around but you cannot push them around? Mr. ITLIONG. That is right. Durin~ my organizational work a grower beat. the hell out of me and I filed a complaint at the D.A.'s office. You know what they told' me? "You have. no business going there; you are lucky `he didn't. kill' PAGENO="0117" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 111 you." That is the response I got from them. So if I go to the police department and file a complaint, I won't get anyplace. In one of the instances that happened, one of our organizers who was on the picket lines directing the activity of our picketers, was beat up by one of the growers one day while he was walking into town. This fellow is a crippled fellow, with one limp leg, and a 6 foot 6 grower beat the heck out of him for nothing. We filed a complaint at the police department and they said, "Where are your witnesses?" It so happened that there was nobody there as his witness. So if you are just a striker, you just might as well not file a com- plaint. They say, "We are not going to take your case." If you get beat up and you go to the police department, what are you going to do? Mr. THOMPSON. I see. What do you do now for a living? Are you an organizer or do you work in the fields? Mr. ITLIONG. Yes; I am one of the organizers now. Mr. THOMPSON. But you have worked in the fields since 1929? Mr. ITLIONG. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. You picked grapes? Mr. ITLIONG. I picked grapes, I picked potatoes, I cut lettuce, I bunched carrots-you name it, I have done it. I picked fruits, every- thing. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have a family? Mr. ITLIONG. Yes, sir. I have three children. I think that our country, Mr. Chairman, is sophisticated enough in its ways and in its rules and in its laws that I don't think the f arm- `workers should be excluded from this one thing in wanting to help themselves. The farmworkers in wanting to organize are not organizing because they want to put the growers out of business, they want to be organized because they want to have some dignity in the kind of work that they want to do. They want to have at least the right to tell their employers when they have some kind of complaint that they feel as human beings, they have feelings, they have decided to have a good life like anybody else. I think our people have suffered long enough. The President of our country says that he wants to help eradicate poverty in our country, and that is very good, we are grateful for that. Including us in this coverage will help implement that desire of the President of our country. I think our legislators are intelligent enough to know and that this in itself is going to help them tremendously in their desire to help them- selves. Sometimes I am really amazed at the plight of our legislators in worrying about how powerful the growers are, worrying that maybe if they give the farmworkers some right that they will not be elected in the next election. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, you have seen that happen in California. Mr. ITLI0NG. Yes; I sure have seen it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, let me say this, that I am very grateful for all of this testimony. Even the, members who could not be here today, I assure you are interested and will read the testimony very carefully. I do not know what is going to happen with this legislation. I know `what I am going to try to do and what Mr. O'Hara and the others are going to try to do. I do not want you to leave here thinking that be- cause I am sympathetic and Mr. O'Hara is sympathetic and others are that this is going to bring about the enactment of this legislation right now. History shows that it took over 100 years for the Negro to be given PAGENO="0118" 112 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES any degree of equality under the law. History shows that it takes a. long, long time to pass legislation of this nature, social legislatioa which benefits people. This is to my knowledge the first time in the House of Representa- tives that this subject has been really very seriously considered. Sen- ator Williams of New Jersey has worked for a number of years to help' migrant laborers in the Senate and he is working on this very legisla- tion as you know. The passage of this legislation is inevitable. Whether it will come in your working lifetime is the question. It might come ne.xt year, it might not. But a fight will be made and your voices will be heard. I think the strikes in California have been the very first ones ever to capture na- tional attention and national sympathy. One did not read a few years ago articles in the major magazines of the United States describing your activities and your problems; they are now being written. Never before recently that I know of, or ever that I know of, have' people on the east coast felt so strongly about your problems that they boycotted in their own quiet way the products of the west coast. I offered a friend of mine a martini the other day and my friend said, "I will have one unless that is Tribuno vermouth." I said, "No, it is not Tribuno vermouth." He would not have had any vermouth with his gin, he did not get much anyway, but he would not have had any vermouth if it had been Tribuno. I know literally hundreds of people on this coast who, during the' Schenley difficulties, said "No Schenley." Even though there is a thread of disbelief in this testimony because the stories that you tell are completely and absolutely incredible, we know that the stories are true. This legislation is going to come about, and, even if it does not come about this year, you people are going to persist and you are going to win. For myself, I say stay with it and keep fighting until it does come. One of the problems is that so many Members of the Congress who come from farm areas love nothing better than to say, "I was born and raised on a farm and I went out and I did my chores and I walked down the road to school and came hack and milked the cows and pitched the hay," and so on. When I was a boy, my father sent me to Maine for three or four summers and had me work as a junior grade farmworker so that I would learn something of the problems of a farmer. I remember how tough it was to do the chores that they gave me during the day. And they let me swim an hour or two a day and fish early in the morning. The family farm is not involved in this legislation as Mr. Meany pointed out. I do not. think that you could have iess interest thap you do, any of you, in the fellow who has a. small farm he works with his wife and his two sons and maybe a hired man. You are not going to organize them, are you? Mr. LYONS. No. Mr. THOMPSON. You are interested in the industrial farm, the farm factory. The sacred American farm which in the minds of many of our colleagues means the family farm is not your target. These large farmers are in industry; they ship their products, thanks to mass transportation and refrigeration and aircraft, north, east, south, and west across the country. You can get tomatoes in New Jersey 12 months a year-they are only good for 3 months when they are New Jersey PAGENO="0119" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 113 tomatoes-but you can get tomatoes, they are shipped from Cali- fornia or Florida. You can get asparagus from California and now it is coming in from the Carolinas. I had some last night. These are mass-production industries just like the poultry industry is, and this is what this legislation aims at. We are going to hear next week from the opponents of this legis- lation. They mean well, even though we do not agree with them. They are going to come in and say what an expensive farm operation it 15. They are going to want to know how much more a dozen oranges are going to cost if union agricultural workers picked them than they do now. This was one of the reasons why I asked Mrs. Huerta the economics of the industry out there and learned that so many fewer workers can do the work of so many more only a couple years ago. They are going to argue that the Nation's grocery bill is going to increase in price because of the unionization of farmworkers. That is not so, and I think that we will be able to establish satisfactorily; that is not so. Even if it is, I believe that the American consumer is willing to pay a cent or two more for an agricultural product and to be able to sit down and eat it and know that they are not eating the sweat and toil of children who cannot go to school and of laborers who nearly starve in order to put the food on the table. I am convinced that this legislation is imperative; and like every- thing else that we do around here it is overdue. I think that it is going to succeed. I want to thank you on behalf of the members of the committee and myself for the enormous sacrifices that you have made, for your inte- grity and for your honesty and for your candor. I have been in this business a long time and I am seldom touched as I have been by your testimony. From the bottom of my heart I wish you well and express my determination that you shall have your place in the sun. And I do not mean just the hot sun without any water, either; I mean your place in the economic sun. Mrs. HUERTA. Mr. Congressman, I hope when you hear the growers testimony next week that someone on the committee will remind them that the American farmer, and now he is really an operator of big business, as a businessman has been in a very favorable position in the last few years with the type of Government protections that he has. Right down in our area tl.iey have soil bank subsidies, and the grOwers in the California area have gotten a~ tremendous amount of money from the Federal Government on water-I think something like $577 per acre for water. So this in terms of dollars and cents is just hundreds and thousands, practically millions of dollars that they have gotten from the Federal Government in addition to their parities. The Federal Government often subsidizes the growers in terms of costs to the country, for example, in social security pensions that they have to give the workers because these people were not able to earn enough money. So the Government has to subsidize for medicare and the State medicare programs and social security programs-the Government subsidizing these employers. Mr. THOMPSON. Not to mention the deductions for the cost of their doing business. Mrs. HUERTA. That is right, all the tax and gasoline rebates they get and all of the expenses. The Government has special loan programs for the growers, they can get a low-interest-rate loan. The wOrkers are PAGENO="0120" 114 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES also subsidizing the growers' investments because the workers have to use their cars on the jobs, the workers have to provide their own pro- tective clothing. Workers even subsidize growers by donating their health. Farmworkers at present cannot keep their health. There was an interesting occurrence. One of the Perelli-Minetti brothers said, "Look what you have done to my father. My father is 85 years old and all of this harassment about a union has really bothered him. He is an older man and it has made him very nervous." The farmworker turned around and said to Mr. Perelli-Minetti, "You should be glad that you have your father; my father died when he was only 55 because he was worn out from work in the fields. You are very fortunate you have your father still with you." He said, "My father could not live that long," but that is the kind of thing the growers would not understand. What I am going to tell you now has happened on several occasions. At the negotiating tables the growers are always ashamed of the way they have treated the workers. They start out with an attitude toward the workers that they are subhuman, that somehow they are not really people, and when they get down to the negotiating table and we start talking about terms and conditions of a contract and then when we bring up to them that we need protective clothing and cold drinking water they are extremly ashamed because they have not provided these things. Thi:s has happened every single time that we have sat down and negotiated a contract, and they are extremely embarrassed because of the attitude they have had in the past. Mr. THOMPSON. I think what you are saying is what is true and what all of us believe, that the growers are not evil people or venal people. In some cases they are unenlightened and selfish and greedy. All of us have these characteristics at one time or another. I do not think that the growers are so cruel that they would deliberately do this; I think as a matter of fact they would welcome this advice. A thread of this runs through the testimony of today when it said that Schenley is organized and does not want to announce the success of its organization because their neighbors or their fellow growers might disapprove of it. This is historic. It has happened in every other industry, and it is just so many years late in this. I refer to the original passage of the Wagner Act, when the man- agers of the bill excluded agricultural workers from the Wagner Act in order to pass it. The NLRA was a benefit which would accrue to a majority of the workers and a sacrifice was made. At the same time, 30 years ago, the promise was made that the agricultural workers would be included shortly. Well, it has been a lot longer than shortly. So we are going to examine these other witnesses very carefully. We are going to find out from them what their real attitudes are, what the economics of the industry is, and so forth. I, for instance, have introduced legislation to protect the right of farmers to engage in cooperatives. I believe this: If the farmers want to cooperate and pool their resources, there is no reason why the people who harvest the crops should not have the same right, and I hope that we can bring this about. I thank you all very, very much for testifying. We will see you a little later. Thank you. (Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, May 8, 1967.) PAGENO="0121" EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGIUCULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES MONDAY, MAY 8, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Wa$hington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, Scheuer, `and Ford. Also present: Peter W. Tredick, counsel; and Jeunesse M. Zeifman, clerk. Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order for the continua- tion of the hearings on H.R. 4769, introduced by our colleague from Michigan, Mr. O'Hara, who will introduce our first witness. Mr. O'I-L~R~&. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to introduce an old friend this morning. He is Prof. Ronald Haughton, of Wayne State University and the University of Michigan's Department of Industrial Public Relations. Mr. Haughton, with whom I have had an opportunity to work on a number of matters dealing with the manpower training program, is a valued consultant in Michigan, especially in the Detroit area, on man- power training questions. He has had experience which I believe will be valuable in connec- tion with consideration of H.R. 4769. Mr. Haughton was the mediator and coarbitrator of the labor dispute involving the D1C-iorgio Corp. of California. This is the dispute on which we had testimony from spokesmen for the labor organizations involved. I know Mr. Haughton will provide valuable insights into the farm labor problem. He is also an excellent speaker, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. You are most welcome, Dr. Haughton. I hope that you will feel free to proceed as you wish. We have been looking forward to h'aving you here so that we can ask you some specific questions. STATEMENT OP PROP. RONALD W. EAUGKTON, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. HAUGHTON. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. And thank you, Congressman O'Hara. I certainly would be remiss if I did not say here that those of us who are rather totally immersed in manpower training activities and the 115 PAGENO="0122" 116 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES pushing of this great work in Michigan look to Congressman 0 `TIara for leadership. I have a written statement here, which has been provided to the com- mittee. I will make a few remarks as an introduction. Perhaps I should take the judgment of the committee chairman as to how much I should inflict on him in a reading of the statement. Mr. THOMPSON. I think, Dr. Haughton, it is short enough to read. However, please feel free to treat it as you wish. Dr. HAUGHTON. There is no philosophy in this statement. Because of its shortness and because it covered a period of 11 months of activ- ity, it is almost a chronology and has little qualitative flavor. The appendixes are there not for your particular reading at this point, they are submitted in the light of some obligation to history. I think this is the first time that even a skeleton package has been put together on what happened regarding the collective bargaining pic- ture in the DiGiorgio situation in California. These appendixes pur- port to give a feeling of continuity up to and including t;he negotia- tions of a full collective bargaining agreement. The agreement, itself, is a first-class document quite comparable to those negotiated in indus- tries covered by NLR.A. MThile I am going through my general statement, I w-oiild like you to glance at the index to exhibit F attached to my statement. The con- text and range of this index will be recognized by Congressman O'Hara in particular. It is typical of what one would expect to find in any long-established collective bargaining contract. It covers virtu- ally all aspects of collective bargaining. In terms of its being accepted in this giant operation, DiGiorgio being the largest grower in the Delano area, it is a situation comparable to General Motors and auto- workers agreeing on a basic contract. The important thing is that this contract was accomplished through a voluntary arrangement and is acceptable to both DiGiorgio and the farmworkers. They can live with it. Maybe they don't like all parts of it, but it is theirs. They had nothing. Now they have a real contract. It is just amazing. There is a hiring hall in here which gives institu- tional protection to the union and to DiGiorgio. The company gets em- ployees and the union can keep track of its members. Just one more thing. You see there is a certain amount of enthusi- asm on my part. I was paid for my work on this, but I think I would have paid the people to have allowed me to do it anyway. It was the most cxci t.in~. total -immersion, collective-bargaining experience I have had in some 25 years in this activity. My colleague and coarbitrator in the final product~ Mr. Sam Kagel, of San Francisco, had the same experience. I think he started this work in 1929. He is "Mr. San Francisco" as far as collective bargain- ing is concerned. I believe that he considers this to be the most. signifi- cant collective-bargaining experience that he has had. Mr. ThoMpsoN. I am particularly happy that you have this docu- mentation. Without objection the appendixes will be made a part of the record immediately following the testimony of Professor Haughton. Dr. HAUGHTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here to testify affirmatively on H.R. 4769. a bill which will extend collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act to agricultural workers. PAGENO="0123" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 117 Specifically, I have been asked to speak within the framework of my recent experience as a mediator and coarbitrator of the labor dispute involving certain properties of the DiGiorgio Corp. in California. `The entire procedure in which I was involved was instituted by then California Gov. Edmund G. Brown in June 1966, when he asked the American Arbitration Association to nominate someone to work on the problem. After my nomination on June 30 the Governor asked me to study a representation election which had been conducted by `the DiGiorgio Corp. on June 24 and certain charges that it did not :accurately reflect the wishes of the farmworkers for representation at the Borrego Springs and Delano properties. The Governor asked that there be recommended a fair and equi- table resolution of this matter, which he referred to as a part of a total problem. Finally, the Governor stated that, "in view of the absence, at pre- sent, of any State or National labor relations law covering farmwork- ers," he would like to receive a set of guidelines for the holding of representation elections in agriculture. During the next 2 weeks, I visited the properties and interviewed some 200 persons in an area stretching from San Francisco in the north to Borrego Springs in the south. I did make one trip in the south through some desert country, `with Mr. Chavez as my chauffeur, an all-night trip in his automo- bile. We are very conscious of automobiles in Detroit. Chavez needs a new car. He has a Volvo that had real mechanical problems. One of Mr. Chavez' minister friends thought the car looked in such `bad shape that he insisted on' driving up the hills behind us to make sure we made it up on to the plateau. In the interest of accomplishing a fair and equitable resolution of the total problems, the focus of my efforts was on th'e development of solutions and procedures leading thereto. I neither condemned nor endorsed the election of June 24. I simply recognized the importance of an impartial agency doing the job. Therefore, on July 14, 1966, in `the absence of applicable law, I recommended, among other matters, the scheduling of an election under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. As you gentlemen know, of course, this is a private, nonprofit operation. A copy of my July recommendations is attached hereto as exhibit A. The 22 points of this document, upon formal acceptance by the two unions involved and by the DiGiorgio Corp. became enforceable in court as a contract, and `became the basic ch'arter for all subse- quent procedures up to and including negotiation and arbitration of the complete contract. What `the parties, in effect, did was to establish by private agree- ment a procedure which was generally patterned after the National Labor Relations Act. This was a very exciting quasi-legal operation. There was no coverage by the Labor Relations Act. The parties there- fore set up their own rules. You will see that the document, among other things, provided for determination of appropriate bargaining units; determination of eli- gibility to vote; and t.hrough exhibits B and C, organizing and cam- paign procedures. PAGENO="0124" 118 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES I put exhibit B and exhibit C in to give you a flavor of the kind. of detail that this contract provided for regarding what might hava been unfair labor practices if there had been coverage under the act.. When, for example; if at all, should an organizer get to go into a bunkhouse and disturb four out of eight people who don't want to join the union? You will see that the document provides a procedure for resolving coinplarnts which, under existing law might have been unfair labor practices; cessation of all strike and boycott activities; full coopera- tion by the company, and an election to be administered by the Ameri- can Arbitration Association. A unique provision accepted by all of the concerned parties, and which went far beyond what is required by existing law in covered. industry, is set forth in item 21 of exhibit A. Now, this clause was quite unique. It recognized that one could set up an NLRB-type procedure, and still have problems after the certi- fication of an appropriate bargaining unit. Absent agreement on a contract, DiGiorgio could still be expected to have a problem of a strike and boycott. A strike at that point in time was an unpleasant alternative to both DiG-iorgio and the farmworkers. They, therefore, agreed to a procedure whereby they would not have a strike. They agreed they would arbitrate their contract right through to a completion, if necessary. This gimmick, if you will, that is in exhibit A, item 21, guaranteed continuity of production of grapes' and the payment of wages after the election and through a contract. I will quote item 21: In the event there is a union selected in an appropriate collective bargaining unit, negotiations leading to a collective bargaining agreement shall commence immediately, That is the "negotiation-in-good-faith" aspect of the NLRA. and will continue for a period of 45 days after the date of certifications by the undersigned. Actually, Mr. Kagel and I both signed the certification. If two unions are certified a common expiration date for the first contract is a "must" in order to ensure stable collective bargaining reistionships at the end of the 45-day period. You see, there was a shed unit here and a farm unit. However, we were insuring that there would not be "whipsawing" between the two units, by providing for the common expiration date. Unless the time is extended by mutual agreement, all remaining differences shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before Mr. Sam Kagel of San Francisco, and Mr. Ronald Haughton of Detroit. The Award of the arbitrators shall be retroactive to the date of certification. Mr. Kagel and I referred to this clause as a "taxi meter." The people there knew that they would not lose by the passage of time, and the company had the pressure of knowing that the taxi meter on retro- activity was ticking. It goes without saying that a union which `might not be `successful in the election- and we figured one might lose- is barred from obtaining another election for the one-year period now recognized in covered industry by the NLRB, and is also barred in accordance with estab- PAGENO="0125" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 119 lished Labor Relations Law. For a like period of one year from boycotting or engaging in similar economic activity resigned to force recognition without an election. There was, thus, established a total procedure which guaranteed continuity of production through the final acceptance of a full collec- tive bargaining contract. Further, a union which might have been unsuccessful in the election is barred for a period of 1 years from boycotting or engaging in similar economic activity designed to force recognition without an election. These binding arrangements, of course, could not have been made without the full cOmmitment of the two unions and the company. I The professional can see that throughout there was a heavy reliance upon the tried and tested procedures of the NLRB as established by statute and by case law. I can say without reservation that the July 14 document could not have been put together, and could not have been ~effectively administered if it had not been for the fact, in the main, ~the way had already been charted by the work of the NLRB in admin- istering the NLRA over the years. Here, with the permission of the parties, I was able to obtain valuable itdvice from the regional directors and staff of the Board in Detroit and San Francisco. I mention this not only because I am grateful, and these people were tremendously helpful, but because it relates to my conviction, from solid experience, that the National Labor Relations Act, as it has been interpreted and administered, is quite susceptible to application to the farm industry. I am not alone in this opinion. The affirmative position of the AFL- ClO on this point is so well known that I simply need to refer to it. I don't know it specifically, but I can't conceive of their not support- ing the bill, Congressman O'Hara. The formal position of the DiGiorgio Corp., largest of the growers in the Delano, Calif., area, is worth repeating. In his July 20, 1966, testimony before the Fact-finding Commission on Agriculture of the California State Senate, Robert DiGiorgio, president of. the firm, told the committee- Now, before I quote this July 20, 1966, statement, I would like to point out something which is very significant. It was 6 days after Mr. DiGiorgio signed the July 14 charter which set up his own private 1~LRA. So he knew whereof he spoke when he made this statement: Speaking strictly for the DiGiorgio Corp., I believe that the greatest single need of both growers and workers is for the legal procedures allowing workers, if they desire to, to choose whether or not they wish to be rep- resented by a union, and, if so, what union. It is my belief that procedures should be established that would create a counterpart of the NLRB in dealing ~with farm labor disputes in California. Without trying to give any impression that there is an industry consensus on the stated DiGiorgio position-and I have met some growers in California who don't like this idea, and it would be unfair to them if I ignored them completely, but I assume they~ will have an opportunity to testify before your committee-there are at least two other farm labor contracts currently in existence in California, with another company having recently agreed to an election. J. B. Quinn, master of the California Grange, was reported in the Los Angeles Times for July 21, 1966, as having urged to the Cali- fornia State Senate Committee that "a system of compulsory arbi- PAGENO="0126" 120 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES tration be adopted in California so that farm strikes can be avoided in the future." He went on to say that "bitter as it may be, we will be obligated to recognize the right of workers to organize." I make no invidious suggestion in referring to the word "bitter." I am sure Mr. Quinn had some membership to bring along. The im- pact of the statement is `to show, however, that, for whatever reason, he was thinking in terms of collective bargaining as coming to Cali- fornia's farm industry. He was reported as going on to say that the growers should form stronger organizations, not only to deal with the unions-but also to negotiate for `higher prices with food processors. I `am in favor `of strong organizations for both unions and com- panies. Parallel structures are thus established. The resulting balance of power should resul't in good contracts. I do not agree with all that Mr. Quinn has suggested. However, the net effect of his remark was to indicate an acceptability of the necessity to bargain collectively in the California farm industry. The terms' of the July 14 document were made effective through the point of election and certification of the winning uniohs for the Borrego Springs and Delano properties by September 2, 1966, the date of formal certification. By the agreement of October 25, 1966 (exhibit D) the United Farm Workers and DiGiorgio agreed that there would be an election at the Arvin property of the corporation on November 4. The Teamsters' Union had by this time withdrawn its request for representation at the Arvin and Merrysville properties. The Teamsters were on the ballot at the Delano and Borrego Springs. election, but they withdrew voluntarily on this order. The November 4 election was duly conducted by the California'. State Conciliation Service, and the United Farm Workers were certi- fied as the exclusive collective-bargaining agent. The United Farm Workers and DiGiorgio thereupon undertook to negotiate a contract. They did not negotiate an entire agreement, but, they did freely and voluntarily agree-and I suggest this is `impor-. tant-to such important items as the union shop, the check-off of dues;' no-strike no-lockout provisions; recognition of seniority; subcontract- ing provisions; and final and binding arbitration of grievances. I note in passing that there are still some people in industry who don't accept final and binding arbitration of grievances. The parties submitted all the unresolved issues to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the July 14 and October 25 agreements. These were primarily money items. The award is attached hereto as exhibit E. Now, you don't even have to glance at exhibit E. Exhibit E is just a legal document. But I feel it is really quite `important. You can see the parties themselves were very much a part of it, because the heart of it, except for the money. was really negotiated voluntarily by them. The combined agreement and award is attached as exhibit F. The provisions of the exhibit which are the specific awards of the arbi- trators are identified by asterisks in front of the section awarded. Note, for example, when you come to "Union Shop," there are no asterisks. The parties agreed voluntarily to this provision. PAGENO="0127" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 121 What we did was put the whole award together, and then we just visualized a book which is just the same as any other first-class com- pany and union collective-bargaining arrangement would have. Exhibit G is the arbitrators' summary of the provisions of the col- lective-bargaining agreement settled directly by the parties and of the awards. It was read to the parties jointly by Mr. Kagel and me in San Francisco. We laid it out so there was no question as to what was in the docu- ment. At this point, I want to pay particular tribute to the work of Mr. Sam Kagel, the San Francisco attorney, arbitrator, and professor of law at the University of California. He was coarbitrator of the award, and was a close adviser during the entire proceedings. His great experieiice and judgment were essential to the final product. I can report that the contract in its final negotiated and arbitrated form has been well received. Mr. George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, was reported in the New York Times of April 4, 1967, as "acclaiming" the' pact. He said that the contract would point the way to new gains for farmworkers throughout the country. In the same article Mr. J. Max O'Neill, president of the DiGiorgio Fruit Corp., which operates farms for the parent corporation, was reported as saying that the new agreement "will, in all likelihood, establish procedures for collective-bargaining agreements in Califor- nia and other agricultural States." A company announcement quoted in the San Francisco Examiner for April 2, 1967, the day after we issued our award, said: "DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation accepts with satisf action the judgment of the arbitrators." The contract is now being administered just as would be expected in the case of any long-established agreement. The grievance proce- dure is operative, and Mr. Kagel, mutually agreed-upon arbitrator, informs me `that several grievances are scheduled for hearings. In conclusion, and on the basis of my experience in California dur- ing the past year, I repeat that I favor the extension of the jurisdic- tion of the National Labor Relations Act to cover agricultural labor. Existing National Labor Relations Board case law and procedures are flexible enough that Board personnel could be assigned to this kind of work with a minimum of difficulty. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The documents accompanying the statement follow:) EXHIBIT A AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSoCIATIoN, $an Francisco, Calif., July 14, 1966. Hon. EDMUNDG. BR0WN,~ Governor of California, Racramento, Calif. DEAR GOVERNOR BROWN: I have the honor to enclose herewith six (6) copies of my Report and Recommendations regarding the matter of the Di Giorgio Cor- poration, Borrego Springs and Delano, California Properties, the National Farm Workers Association, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee `and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Parties have not heretofore seen copies of the document in its final form. However, to facilitate discussion, and in an effort to narrow the issues, draft copies were provided to them on July 7 and 12, respectively. I sincerely believe that the attached Recommendations are fair and equitable to all concerned, and should be accepted by them. Otherwise there could be a continuation of a situation which would be contrary to the good of the State of California. PAGENO="0128" 122 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES All of the concerned parties understand that their copies of the attached are confidential until publicly released by your office. I want to thank you and the some two hundred persons who cooperated with me so fully during the c&urse of my fact finding. It would not have been possible to complete this report in the time available if it had not been for the full sup- port of people in the Industrial Relations Department of the State of California. In closing, special thanks is due to Mr. Sam Kagel of San Francisco for the public spirited way in which he has made his time available, and for his gener- osity in agreeing to serve as one of the arbitrators for the final resolution of the problem. Sincerely yours, RONALD W. HATIGHTON. AMERICAN ARBITRATION AssocIATION, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE MATTER OF THE FACT FINDING PROCEDURE THE DI GI0RGI0 Conr., BORREGO SPRINGS AND DELANO, CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES, ET AL. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. On June 30, 1966, the undersigned was nominated by the American Arbitra- tion Association at the request of the Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Governor of the State of California. 2. The request by the Governor was to study the recent representation election held by the Di Giorgio Corporation and certain charges that it does not accurately reflect the wishes of the farm workers for representation at the Borrego Springs and Delano Properties. The Governor asked that there be recommended a fair and equitable resolution of this matter, which he referred to as a part of a total problem.Finally, the Governor stated that, "in view of the absence, at present, of any State or National labor relations law covering farm workers" he would like to receive a set of guidelines for the holding or representation elections in agri- culture. 3. Because of the importance of the matter to the people of the areas, to the employees, to Di Giorgio, and to the concerned unions, an immediate fact finding effort was undertaken. I can now Report that there have been face-to-face meet- ings with some 200 persons in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego, Julian, Borrego Springs, Hemet, Delano, Burlingame, and San Francisco. These include members and representatives of all of the concerned unions, the corporation, rank-and file employees of Di Giorgio, members of the Catholic and Protestant Ministry, private citizens and State government officials. 4. By all normal measures the time span has been short. But because of the complete cooperation of the parties, and of citizens, any additional fact finding at this point would be superfluous. 5. All of the parties were furnished with a preliminary draft of a Report and Recommendations on July 7, 1966. The purpose of this document was to narrow areas of disagreement and to serve as a basis for in depth discussions with each party separately. Finally, at a joint meeting in the offices of the American Arbi- tration Association, San Francisco, on July 12, 1966, each party was furnished with a second draft document and was advised that, subject to consideration of exceptions to be made on that date, such document would be the basis of a final Report and Recommendations which would be sent to the Governor on July 14, 1966. 6. In the interest of accomplishing a fair and equitable resolution of the total problem as requested, attention will be directed not to what happened, or to "who-shot-John" but to solutions and to precise procedures leading thereto. Lest there be any doubt I am neither condemning nor endorsing the election of June 24, 1966. I am recommending among other matters the scheduling of an elec- tion under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 7. My Recommendations as to the election and other matters are set forth be- low. Prompt acceptance of such Recommendations is required to establish the climate of fair play and consideration of the rights of all concerned. Acceptance or rejection by the concerned parties of the Recommendations herein should be provided to the office of the Governor of California by telegram not later than Tuesday, July 19, 1966. Failure to respond on or before this date will be regarded as rejection of the Recommendations. Thus, the National Farm Workers Associa- tion, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, the Teamsters Union and Di Giorgio must accept the terms of the Recommendations in their entirety or not PAGENO="0129" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 123 at all. For the purpose of this proceeding they cannot elect to accept oniy a part without committing themselves to the whole. 8. Upon acceptance of the Recommendations there shall forthwith be a termi- nation of all current strike and boycott activities, and public notice thereof with a copy to the undersigned. Company cooperation to carry out the letter and spirit of the Recommendations is required. If there is acceptance, and there subse- quently is a charge that strike or boycott activities are continuing, or that there is a failure of the Company to cooperate fully, a finding will be made with re- spect to such charge, by Messrs. Kagel and Haughton and in an appropriate case a cease and desist order will be issued, which the accepting parties hereby agree shall be enforceable in an appropriate court as an order finding a breach of contract. 9. If there is an acceptance of this Report and Recommendations each party must sign a joint statement of such acceptance, which will be drafted by the undersigned after consultation with the parties. Such notice shall be posted on the properties. 10. There shall be scheduled under the administration of the American Arbi- tration Association on August 30, 1966, at the Sierra Vista Ranch property, Di Giorgio Corporation, in Delano, and at other appropriate sites in order also to determine representation at Borrago Springs, a representation election. Depend- ing on circumstances, and subject to decision by Messrs. Kagel and Haughton it may be necessary to keep the polls open an additional day. Eligible employees will express free choice by secret ballot, without restraint, interference, or coer- cion, before the election and during such election, as to their preferences of a col- lective bargaining representative. The Association as the Administrator, will supervise such other agencies as it may call upon to assist it in the administra- tion of the election. 11. Totals of all votes cast in the election shall be counted as if they were cast at a single geographic unit. 12. Union representatives shall have access to corporate properties during non- working hours in order to meet with eligible employees. 13. The Di Giorgio Company shall supply to the concerned unions and to the designated representative of the undersigned from payroll records and/or per- sonnel records, names and addresses of employees eligible to vote in the election. Such a list is to be supplied within 14 days of the date of this Report and Rec- ommendations. The names and addresses of new hires are similarly to be sup- plied within 24 hours of the dates of hire. 14. The Notice of Election and the Sample Official Secret Ballots, will be pro- vided within five days of these Recommendations. 15. The undersigned will retain continuing jurisdiction over the conduct of the representation election and circumstances relating thereto as they may occur prior to the election and at the time of such election. Further, for the purpose of receiving complaints he shall designate a resident representative to be assigned to Delano until and including August 30, 1966. 16. `Complaints and questions directed to the resident representative will be answered or decided promptly by `Mr. Haughton `and `Mr. Kagel. 17. As a part of the procedure to assure that a fair and orderly election will be conducted, each party on a `ballot shall have the right to appoint two observers at each election site. Such observers for `Company or Union shall `be Non-Super- visory employees. `No member of Supervision or non employee union representa- tive shall `be permitted in the proximity of the `polling places during election hours. For the purposes of this section, and without precedent for this or any other proceedings, a laid `off or terminated employee, otherwise eligible, may be designated as an observer. 18. If a person desiring to cast a vote is challenged such individual shall vote, `but `his or her vote shall be placed in a separate envelope with the voters name entered thereon. Thereafter Messrs. Haughton `and Kagel, after hearing evidence relating to such challenge, shall `make a final and binding decision as to whether the vote shall be counted or not. 19. Supervisory employees `who `have the right to hire and fire employees or to effectively `recommend hiring and `firing are ineligible to vote and shall be excluded from any resulting collective bargaining unit. Similarly there shall `be excluded office clerical employees. Voting shall `be conducted on ballots which give to employees a choice to vote if they wish to be represented `by `a Union, and the Union, if any, they wish to be represented by. 82-132-67------9 PAGENO="0130" 124 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES These ballots shall be as follows: White: The unit will consist of all field workers directly connected with field operations except truck drivers. Green :* The unit will consist of all other employees except field workers. The name of each union accepting these Recommendations will be placed on each ballot together with a place for a "non-union" vote. a. If one union wins both ballots the unit wil be one combined unit. b. If different unions win there then will be two different units, each with a different bargaining representative. c. If a union wins one unit and "no union" wins the other, there then will be a bargaining agent only for those workers in the unit for which a union has won a majority. d. If "no union" wins both units then there will not be any union desig- nated as a collective bargaining agency. 20. Any eligible employee who was on the payroll at Delano as of September 10, 1065, the day preceding the start of the strike at that property, shall have the right to vote. Similarly any eligible employee who after September 20, was or is on the payroll at Delano for 15 working days prior to August 30, 1966, shall have the right to vote. Any employee who was on the payroll at Borrego Springs as of June 23, 1966, shall have the right to vote. Similarly any eligible employee after June 23, 1966, who was or is on the payroll at Borrego Springs for 15 working days prior to August 30, 1966, shall have the right to vote. Because of the particular circumstances, employees who went on strike at Delano on September 20, and who signed authorization cards with the NFWA or a comparable document prior to September 20, on `September 20, or the day thereafter shall be counted as "Yes" votes for the NFWA on the White Ballot. Otherwise eligible employees who were at Borrego Springs as of June 24, or thereafter, and who subsequently were transferred to Arvin, shall be given the same opportunity to vote as is given eligible employees at Borrego Springs and Delano. 21. In the event there is a union selected in an appropriate collective bargaining unit, negotiations leading to a collective bargaining agreement shall commence immediately, and will continue for a period of 45 days after the date of certifica- tions by the undersigned. If two unions are certified a common expiration date for the first contract is a "must" in order to ensure stable collective bargaining relationship at the end of the 45 day period. Unless the time is extended by mutual agreement, all remaining differences shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before Mr. Sam Kagel of San Francisco, and Mr. Ronald Haughton of Detroit. The Award of the arbitrators shall be retroactive to the date of certifica- tion. It goes without saying that a union which might not be successful in the election is barred from obtaining another election for the one year period recog- nized in covered industry by the NLRB, and is also barred in accordance with established Labor Relations Law for a like period of one year from boycotting or engaging in similar economic activity designed to force recognition without an election. 22. It is hoped that this Report and its Recommendations will provide a guide for future situations as they arise. Dated this 14th day of July, 1966. *The matter of whether or not employees working in a shed at the eligibility time for the proposed election are to be counted as in the "Green" unit or in the "White" unit is a subject on which the usidersigned lacks precise evidence. Therefore, in the event this Report and Recommendations is accepted the matter referenced to in this footnote can, In the absence of agreement, be referred by any accepting party for the taking of evidence, if necessary, and prompt and final binding decision by Messrs. Kagel and Haughton. If there is disagreement on the subject discussed In this footnote any one of the concerned parties may direct a formal request to the undersigned that it be arbitrated. This is notice to the parties that if there is a request for arbitration before Messrs. Kagel and Haughton on the matter referred to in this footnote, the arbitration proceeding will be a the offices of the American Arbitration Association, San Francisco, at 9 :30 am., Saturday, August 6. 1966. PAGENO="0131" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 125 EXHIBIT B MEMORANDUM The following are to be in the Organizing Campaigning Procedures applicable at the DeLano, Borrego Springs, Arvin and Marysville Orchards, Properties of the Di Giorgio Corporation. 1. Union Representatives shall have access to corporate Properties during non-working hours in order to meet eligible employees. a. No campaigning on Properties prior to starting times in the morning. b. Campaigning to be allowed during lunch breaks with employees who voluntarily meet with particular Union Representatives. Employees who do not wish to participate in a particular campaigning meeting do not have to do so. c. Campaigning to be allowed on company property after quitting hours up to and including 10:30 P.M. d. Campaigning to be allowed on company property during non-sched- uled work days from the time of what other wise would be the start of a regularly scheduled day to end and including 10:30 P.M. e. In the event employees attend an evening campaigning meeting off company property, they can be transported by Union transportation back to their living quarters on company property, after 10:30 P.M. However no campaigning is to take place on company property after 10:30 P.M. f. The number of Union Organizers to be on a particular company property at any one time, is to be limited to five persons (5) during lunch breaks and seven persons (7) during non-working hours than the lunch periods. ExHIBIT C ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN PROCEDURES APIICABLE TO ARVIN 1. Union Representatives shall have access to corporate Properties during non- working hours in order to meet eligible employees. a. No campaigning on Properties prior to starting time in the morning. b. Campaigning to be allowed during lunch breaks with employees who voluntarily meet with particular Union Representatives. Employees who do not wish to participate in a particular campaigning meeting do not have* to do so. c. Campaigning to be allowed on company property after quitting hours up to and including 10:30 p.m. d. No campaigning by Union Organizers on dormitories. e. Campaigning to be allowed on company property during non-scheduled work days from the time of what otherwise would be the start of a regularly scheduled day to end and including 10:30 p.m. f. In the event employees attend an evening campaigning meeting off com- pany property, they can be transported by Union transportation back to their living quarters on company property, after 10 :30 p.m. However, no campaigning is to take place on company property after 10 :30 p.m. g. The number of Union Organizers to be on a particular company prop- erty at any one time, is to be limited to five persons (5) during lunch breaks and seven persons (7) during non-working hours than the lunch periods. 2. Company and Union representatives are expected to give proper considera- tion to the rights of each. Individual employees also are expected to maintain this code of conduct. EXHIBIT D AGREEMENT In consideration of mutual promises exchanged, and for other consideration ac- ceptable to the parties hereto, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Election at Arvin. There shall be scheduled under the administration of the California State Conciliation Service on Friday, November 4, 1066, at the Arvin Property of the Di Giorgio Corporation, a representation election. Eligible em- PAGENO="0132" 126 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTTJRAL EMPLOYEES ployees will express free choice by secret ballot without restraint, interference, or coercion, before the election and during such election, as to their preference of a collective bargining representative. 2. Campaign Rules. Union representatives shall have access to corporate prop- erties during nonworking hours in order to meet with eligible employees. This right shall be exercised in accordance with the campaign rules already in effect at Arvin. They are attached hereto as Appendix "A." 3. Company to Supply List of Eligible Voters. The Di Giorgio Corporation shall supply to the concerned employee organizations and to the designated representa- tive of the undersigned from payroll and/or personnel records, names and ad- dresses of employees eligible to vote in the election. Such list is to be supplied at Arvin within five days of the date of this agreement. 4. Issuance of Notice of Election and Sample Ballot. The Notice of Election and sample official secret ballots will be supplied at least five days prior to the election at Arvin. 5. Appointment of Observers. As a part of the procedure to assure that a fair and orderly election will be conducted, each party on a ballot shall have the right to appoint two observers at each election site. Such observers for Company and Union shall be nonsupervisory employees. No member of supervision or nonemployee union representative shall be permitted in the proximity of the polling places during election hours. 6. Challenged Ballots. If a person desiring to cast a vote is challenged, such individual shall vote, but his or her vote shall be placed in a separate envelope with the voter's name and address entered thereon. Thereafter, the Conciliation Service, after hearing evidence relating to such challenge, shall make a final and binding decision as to whether the vote shall be counted or not. 7. Employees Ineligible to Vote. Supervisory employees who have the right to hire and fire employees or to effectively recommend hiring and firing are in- eligible to vote and shall be excluded from any resulting collective bargaining unit. Similirly, there shall be excluded office clerical employees. 8. Eligible Voters. Any otherwise eligible employees who were on the payroll at Arvin during the period October 18, 1906, to October 26, 1966, shall have the right to vote. 9. Certification of a Collective Bargaining Representative. After the votes have been counted by the California State Conciliation Service, it will certify the re- sults and the collective bargaining representative, if any. 10. Continuing Jurisdiction of Undersigned. Working in cooperation with the California State Conciliation Service the undersigIled will retain continuing juris- diction over the conduct of the representation elections and circumstances relat- ing thereto as they may occur prior to such elections and at the time thereof. 11. Resident Representative and Complaint Handling. For the purpose of re- ceiving complaints, the parties shall select a resident representative to be as- signed to the property for periods prior to the elections. Complaints and questions directed to such resident representative will be answered or decided promptly by Messrs. Haughton and Kagel. 12. Collective Bargaining and Arbitration after Certification. In the event there is a union selected in an appropriate collective bargaining unit, negotiations leading to a collective bargaining agreement shall commence immediately, and will continue for a period of 45 days after the date of certification by Messrs. Haughton and KageL Unless the time is extended by mutual agreement, all re- maining differences shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before Mr. Sam Kagel of San Francisco and Mr. Ronald W. Haughton of Detroit. The Awards of the arbitrators shall be retroactive to the dates of certification. It goes without saying that a union which might not be successful in an election is barred from obtaining another election for the one-year period recognized in covered industry by the NLRB, and is also barred in accordance with established Labor Relations Law for a like period for one year from boycotting or engaging in similar economic activity designed to force recognition without an election. The costs of any arbitration proceeding stemming from this agreement, excluding costs of counsel, shall be borne equally by the parties. 13. Obligations upon Acceptaince. With acceptance of this agreement it shall be a violation thereof for any accepting employee organization to en~age :ifl a strike, picketing, or boycott against Di Giorgio Corporation. Company co- PAGENO="0133" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTuRAL E~LOYEES 127 operation to carry out the letter and spirit of the agreement is required. If there is acceptance, and there subsequently is a charge that there are strike or boycott actions, or there is a failure of the Company to cooperate fully, or that improper electioneering is being conducted by any. party, a finding will be made with respect to such charge by Messrs. Kagel and Haughton, and in an ap- propriate case, a cease-and-desist order will be issued, which the accepting parties hereby agree shall be enforceable in an appropriate court as an order finding a breach of contract. Any other order issued by Messrs. Kagel and Ilaughton which arises out of the interpretation, application, or enforcement of any part of this agreement shall likewise be enforceable in an appropriate court as an order finding a breach of contract. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 25, 1966. UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, By DOLORES C. HIJERTA, TEAMSTERS FARM WORKERS UNIoN, By DI GI0RGI0 CORPORATION, By RONALD W. HAUGHTON. SAi~I KAGEL. EXHIBIT B IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COM- MITTEE, AFL-CIO, AND DI GIORGIO FRUIT CoRPoRATIoN OPERATIONS AT SIERRA VISTA RANCH, BORREGO SPRINGS RANCH, AND Dr GI0RGI0 FARMS, AS TO VARIOUS TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THR'PARTIES ARBITRATORS: SAM KAGEL, RONALD W. HAUGHTON San Francisco, California, April 1, 1967 INTRODUCTION Four days of hearings were held in Delano and three days in San Francisco on the issues presented by both parties. The transcript of the hearings consists of 762 pages. The parties introduced a total of 173 exhibits and submitted written briefs totaling 97 pages. THE RECORD The Arbitrators in arriving at their awards studied, considered and weighed the entire record in this case. Because of the large number of issues and time element involved no opinion accompanies the awards. DECISIONS AND AWARDS Attached hereto is the complete Agreement between the parties. It consists of provisions which the parties themselves agreed to prior to the arbitration, together with the specific Awards made by the Arbitrators. Those provisions which are the Awards of the Arbitrators are identified in the attached Agree- ment by asterisks in front of the Section awarded. DECISIONS AND AWARDS 1. All provisions of the attached Agreement marked by asterisks constitute the awards of the undersigned Arbitrators on the issues submitted for decision. 2. All issues and proposals submitted by either party not covered by or con- tained in an Award as noted in paragraph 1 above are denied. Signed at San Francisco, California, on April 1, 1967. SAM KAGEL, Arbitrator. RONALD W. HAUGHTON, Arbitrator. PAGENO="0134" 128 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES ExHIBIT F AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, AND Di GI0RGI0 FRUIT CORP. (SIERRA VISTA RANCH, DELANO, CALIFORNIA; BORREGO SPRINGS RANCH, BORREGO SPRINGS, CALn?0RNIA; DI GlonGlo FARMS, ARVIN, CALIFORNIA) Effective April 3, 1967 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as Union) and Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Employer). (NoTE-Sections marked with asterisks are provisions awarded in arbitration case; all other sections are provisions agreed to between the parties prior to the arbitration.) SECTION 1-UNION RECOGNITION (a) The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive representa- tive for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment of all field workers, ir- rigators, tractor drivers excluding truck drivers, swampers, shed workers, kitchen employees, maintenance workers or pipeline repairmen of the Employer as certified by the American Arbitration Association on September 2, 1966 em- ployed on all agricultural fields leased, owned or rented by the Employer at Sierra Vista Ranch, Delano, California, and Borrego Springs Ranch, Borrego Springs, California, and for all of the employees at Company's Di Giorgio Farms, at Arvin, California, as certified by the California State Conciliation Service on November 4, 1966, excluding however at all locations supervisory employees who have the right to hire or fire or effectively to recommend same, and office clerical employees. (b) The Employer further recognizes the rights and obligations of the Union to negotiate wages, hours, and conditions of employment, and to administer this Agreement on behalf of all covered employees. (c) The Employer and its representatives will not undermine the Union or promote or finance any competing labor organization. (d) The Employer and its representatives will not interfere with the right of any employee to join and assist the Union, and will make known to all employees that they will secure no advantage, more favorable consideration, or any form of special privilege because of non-membership in the Union. (e) The Employer and its representatives will make known to all employees, supervisors and officers, its policies and commitments as set forth above with respect to recognition of the Union and that employees in the bargaining units should give the utmost consideration to supporting and participating in collective bargaining and contract administration functions. (f) All agricultural operations of `the Employer, and those that may be here- after established or purchased, leased or rented, within the intentions of the September 2, 1966 American Arbitration Association Certification, or the Certifi- cation of November 4, 1966, shall automatically be brought under this agreement. SECTION 2-MANAGEMENT RIGHTS (a) Employer retains any and all rights and prerogatives of management it enjoyed prior to the execution of this contract except as specifically and expressly limited or `modified by the provisions of this contract. SECTION 3-MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS (a) The Employer `agrees that `all condition's of employment `relating to wages, hours `of Work and general `working condition's shall be `maintained at no less `than the `highest standards `in effedt at these ranches at the time of the signing of `this Agreement and conditions of employment `shall be improved wherever `specific provisions for improvemen~t a're made `elsewhere in this agreement. PAGENO="0135" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 129 SECTION 4-NO DISCRIMINATION (a) In accord with the past and present policies of the Employer and of the Union, it is agreed that neither party will discriminate against any Employee on the ba'sisof race, creed, color, religion or national origin. * * * SECTION 5-INTERCHANGE (a) The parties hereto are cognizant that `the recognition conferred by this Agreement as to the Sierra Vista Ranch and Borrego Springs Ranch resulted from an election held August 30, 1966, and that also as a result of this election Employer will execute another contract with the Teamsters Farm Workers Union. Because of the particular circumstances which gave rise to this election, the employees voting in the election were split into two voting units, the so-called white unit and the so-called green unit. (b) The parties agree that the creation of the green and white units will not in any way limit *or condition the continuation of past practice of free and complete interchange by and at the discretion of the Employer of duties and assignments of employee back and forth among job categories, irrespective of whether such interchange involves job assignments from the white to the green unit, or vice versa. (c) All employees `who were employed as of January 18, 1967 shall be cov- ered by the Agreement applicable to the unit in which they voted, or would have been eligible to vote in, i.e., the white unit, Farm Workers; the green unit, Teamsters. (d) As `of January 19, 1967 and thereafter any hires whether new or rehires shall be covered `by the Agreement `within whose jurisdiction such employee works for a majority of `the time of his first `ten days of employment. (e) If an employee is transferred on a permanent basis from the jurisdic- tion of the Farm Workers Agreement to the Teamsters Agreement or vice versa, then such employee shall thereafter be covered by all the `terms of the applicable Agreement applying to the unit into which he was transferred. Any dispute as to whether a transfer i's permanent or not shall be processed by and settled through the Interchange Committee hereinafter created. (f) An Interchange Committee consisting of one representative of the United Farm Workers Organizing Oommittee, one representative of the Teamsters Farm Workers Union `and one representative from the Employer shall be set up forthwith. This committee shall consider and process and decide on a unani- `mous basis all matters pertaining to interchangeability within the Sierra Vista Ranch, and as between `Sierra Vista Ranch, Borrego Springs Ranch and DiGiorgio Farms. Matters not settled unanimously may be referred by any of the parties to the Arbitrator provided for under !the grievance procedure whose decision shall be final and binding on all the parties. (g) The union security, checkoff and interchange provisions as they are set forth in this Agreement shall be agreed to by the Employer and Teamster's Farm Workers Union and made a part of :that Agreement. This is in accord with the Agreement reached on this matter between all the parties at the Delano hearing held on January 18, 1967. (Tr. p 171-177) * * * SECTION 6-APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT (a) If the Employer leases, rents or transfers by any other arrangement, other than by a bona fide sale for value, land which is within the coverage of this Agreement and upon which agricultural operations are or can be carried on, then this Agreement shall apply to such land and operations. The Employer shall accordingly provide in any such lease, rental or transfer by any other arrangement, other than by a bona fide sale for value that this Agreement and any succeeding agreement shall apply to agricultural `operations if and when carried on the land involved in such transaction. (`b) If after April 3, 1967 any land coming within the terms of `this Agree- ment is sold and the Employer agrees to manage and farm such land for the new owner, then this Agreement and succeeding agreements as long as Employer farms such land shall apply, and the Employer shall make this a condition of his managing or farming such land. PAGENO="0136" * 130 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES * * * SECTION 7-SUPERVISORS AND BARGAINING UNIT WORK (a) Supervisors outside of the bargaining unit shall not perform work regu- larly performed by employees in the bargaining unit except as they have per- formed such work in accordance with past practice at Sierra Vista Ranch, Borrego Springs Ranch and DiGiorgio Farms. When they perform such work such supervisors shall be subject to all of the provisions of this Agreement except `that as to Section 13, Union Security, paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) only shall apply. .. * * SECTION 8-~FW JOB ClASSIFICATIONS (a) New job classifications and applicable wage rates may be established and made effective by the Employer in accordance with the following procedure: (b) The Employer shall notify the Union of its intended action in writing. (c) The Union, if it questions the Employer's' action, shall do so in writing within five days of Employer's notice, and the parties shall meet with the Employer within five days of. sńch written notice for the purpose of arriving at an agreement on the intended action. Fifteen (15) days after Employer's written notice if no agreement has been reached `earlier then the Employer may make the job classification and the rate effective. (d) If the Union thereafter still objects to the Employer's action it may submit in writing.within 10 days of the Employer's action the matter to the Arbitrator provided for in the grievance procedure who shall decide (the dispute. (e) The scope of such arbitration shall be the establishment of the job classifica- tion, the job content and the job wage rate. (f) The Employer shall not change or modify any present job so as to remove it from the bargaining unit. SEOTION 9-SUBCONTRACTING (a) The parties understand and agree that the hazards of agriculture are such that subcontracting by Employer is necessary and proper, but also understand and agree that Employer should not subcontract to the detriment of Union. They consequently agree that Employer shall have the right to subcontract as it has in the past, viz, for crop-dusting, barley planting and harvesting, potato harvest- ing, plumbing, electrical work and the like. The foregoing are examples only and are not intended as limitations on the Employer's right to subcontract. On the other hand, the Employer shall not utilize the services of any labor contractor to supply field or packing house personnel within Union jurisdiction unless Em- ployer first requests Union to supply such personnel and Union is uable to do so within 72 hours of such request. SECTION 1 O-TJISCHARGE (a) The Employer shall have the sole right to discipline and discharge em- ployees for just cause provided that in the exercise of this right it will not act in violation of the terms of this Agreement. * (b) Prior to any discharge, the Employer shall notify a steward and/or a Union official and such Union steward shall be present when formal charges are made. (c) The Union official(s) and/or steward shall have the right to interview discharged employees in private. (d) Within 24 hours after any discharge, for just cause, the Union will be notified in writing of the reason for discharge. (e) Individual performance in relation to a piece rate or incentive plan shall not be conclusive evidence for the purpose of disciplining or discharging an em- ployee. This provision shall not, however, constitute any limitation on any of the Employer's rights to discipline or discharge for unsatisfactory work performance. (f) As used herein, "just cause" includes, but is not limited to, drunkenness on duty, theft of Employer's property, premeditated, `deliberate destruction of Em- ployer's property. Complaints that the Employer has violated this paragraph may be taken up through the grievance procedure provided in this Agreement. (g) An employee who has been discharged for drunkenness, theft, or deliberate destruction of Employer's property may be eligible for rehire with the consent of the Company. PAGENO="0137" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 131 SECTION 1 1-NO STRIKE OR LOOKOUT (a) During the term of this Agreement there shall be no cessation of work, whether by strike, walkout or lockout, and there shall likewise be no boycott or other interference by the. Union, within the control of the Union, or with the Union's consent or approval, with the sale or distribution of any product or products `sold, distributed or marketed by DiGiorgio Corporation, including products of any of said corporation's divisions or subsidiaries. (b) If any violation of the. foregoing is charged, the parties will proceed forthwith to final and binding arbitration, and in no event' will either party violate the prOvisions of this Section during or after the arbitration. The arbitrator will be Sam .Kagel, or, if he cannot so act, the arbitratot' will be chosen in the manner provided in Section 37(e) hereof, but no other provision of Section `37 shall be applicable to any arbitration under this Section. * SECTION 12-PICKET LINES (a) Refusal to cross a legitimate and bona fide picket line as defined in this Section shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement. Such a picket line is one established and maintained by a Union, acting independently of the Union party to this Agreement at or about the premises of an employer with whom it is engaged in a bona fide dispute over wages hours or working condi- tions of employees of said Employer, a majority of which employees it repre- sents as their collective bargaining agency. Collusive picket lines, jurisdictional picket lines, hot cargo picket lines, secondary boycott picket lines, and infor- mational picket lines, demonstration picket lines are not legitimate and hona fide picket lines within the meaning of this Agreement. Any alleged violation of this provision shall proceed forthwith to final and binding arbitration as pro- Yided in Section 11 (b). SECTION 13-UNION SECURITY AND CHECK-OFF (a) Employees within the bargaining unit who are members of the Union or who have authorized the Union in writing to represent them shall maintain such membership during the term of this Agreement. All e~nployees hired after January 23, 1967, shall not later than the 10th day following commencement of their employment, become and remain members of the Union in good stand- ing. The Union shall be the sole judge of the good standing of its members. Any of the above-mentioned employees who fail to become a member of the Union within the time limit set forth herein, or who fail to pay the required initiation fees, periodic dues and regularly authorized assessments as prescribed by the Union shall be immediately discharged upon written notice and from the Union `to the Employer. (b) All employees within the bargaining unit who are not members of the Union, shall as a condition of continued employment after January 23, 1967, pay to the Union each month a service charge as a contribution toward the adminis- tration of this Agreement. The service charge shall be in an amount equal to the Union's regular initiation fee and monthly dues. (c) The Employer agrees to deduct said initiation fees, dues and service charges and remit the monies to the Union not later than the 15th day of the following month. Vacation pay is subject to such deduction. (d) Union shall provide Employer with written authorization forms authoriz- ing the above deductions, and Employer shall use its best efforts, in coopera- tion with Union, to assure that employees within the bargaining unit execute such authorizations. Said authorizations shall be valid for the term of this Agreement. Employer shall not be required to make any deductions from the wages of employees who have not executed authorizations, but deliberate refusal to execute such an authorization shall be reason for discharge, as above provided. (e) The Employer agrees to furnish the Union in writing, the names of em- ployees, addresses, Social Security numbers and type of job classifications on a quarterly basis. * * SECTION 14-HIRING HALL (a) Whenever employees are needed by Employer to perform any work cov- ered by this Agreement, Employer shall notify the Union in writing stating the number of employees needed, the type of work to ~e performed, the starting date of the work and the approximate duration of the job or jobs. PAGENO="0138" 132 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES (b) Upon receipt of such notice, the Union shall immediately use its best efforts to furnish the requested employe9s. If the Union does not furnish such employees within 72 hours, or on the date of the beginning of the work (whichever date is later), the Employer shall be free to procure needed employees not furnished by the Union from any other source. The Employer shall, in such event, notify the Union in writing within 48 hours of the names and addresses of all employees so hired ~y Employer. (c) Union shall not refuse to register and refer for employment under this Section, any person who is not at the time of registration or referral a Union member in accordance with Section 13. (d) Preference in referral shall be given to persons coming within the terms of Section 15, the Seniority provision, and Section 10, the Work Opportunity provision. (e) Employer shall have the unqualified right to refuse to employ any person referred by the Union if on or after April 3, 1067 that person has been discharged for cause by Employer, and the discharge was sustained on appeal, or if such discharge was not appealed. SECTION 15-SENIoRITY (a) When filling vacancies or making promotions, transfers, reclassifications or demotions, Employer will give preference to employees with the greatest length of continuous service, provided that qualifications and ability are equaL (b) Seasonal Layoffs shall not constitute a break in the continuity of service. Layoffs and re-employment after layoffs shall ~e on the basis of continuous service. (c) Employer shall furnish an up to date list of all employees on a quarterly basis. Seniority shall begin after 15 days worked and shall be retroactive to date of hire. SECTION 1 6-WORK OPPORTUNITY (a) If less than the normal work opportunity is available, preference shall be given to employees of the regular full-time work force. SECTION 17-SAFETY COMMITTEE (a) A joint safety committee consisting of equal numbers of employee repre- sentatives selected by the Union and representatives selected by the Employer shall ~e established at each farm. (b) The safety committee shall consider existing practices and rules relating to safety, formulate suggested changes in existing practices and rules, and make recommendations to local management with respect to the adoption of new rules and practices. SECTION 1 8-HEALTH AND SAFETY (a) Sanitary Facilities: There shall be adequate toilet in the field readily ac- cessible to employees, that will be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. These may be portable facilities and shall be maintained at the rate of one for every 35 employees, insofar as possible. ((b) Drinking Water: Each place where there is work being performed shall be provided with suitable cool, potable drinking water convenient to employees. Individual paper drinking cups shall be provided. (c) First Aid: Adequate first aid supplies shall be provided and kept clean and sanitary in a dust proof container; safe-keeping of same during work hours shall be the responsibility of the foreman, who may delegate such responsibility. * SECTION 19-PROTECTIvE GARMENTS, ETC. (a) Protective garments, tools and equipment necessary to safeguard the health of or to prevent injury to an employee's person shall be provided, main- tained and paid for by the Employer. (b) it is understood that the Employer shall furnish protective equipment for sprayers, umbrellas for tractor drivers and hooks or jacobs ladders for pipemen when going into large pipes. PAGENO="0139" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 133 SECTION 20-CAMP HOUSING (a) Rentals to employees of available camp housing on the Employer's premises ~shall continue to be made to employeeson a nondiScriminatory basis and with- out favoritism; the factors of race, color, creed, religion or national origin shall continue not to be considered in the distribution of available rentals. * * SECTION 21-OPERATION OF CAMPS (a) Oamps and meal service when operated by the Employer shall be operated on a non-profit basis. (`b) Where the Employer presently provides free sleeping accommodations In its camps, it shall continue to do so. * * SECTION 22-LEAVES OF ABSENCE; JUST PAY (a) A leave of absence shall be granted to employees on the seniority list for any of the following reasons without loss of seniority: (1) For jury duty or when subpoenaed as a witness; (2) Up to one (1) year in the event of his illness or injury. The Employer may extend the period of such leave. (3) Such employee shall, while serving on jury duty, receive from the Employer the difference in pay between his jury pay and his regular wages for the duration of such jury service. SECTION 23-LEAVES OF ABSENCE FOR UNION BUSINESS (a) Any employee elected or appointed to an office or position in the Union shall be granted a leave of absence for a period of continuous service with the Union. Fifteen (15) days' notice must be given the Employer before the em- ployee taking leave to accept such office or position or chooses to return to work. Such leave of absence will be without pay. (Seniority shall not be broken or suspended by reason of such leave). (b) A leave of absence shall also be granted for temporary leave to attend Union business provided five (5) days' notice is given. SECTION 24-MILITARY LEAVE (a) In the event an employee of the Employer serves in the armed forces pursuant to selective service act he shall not lose any seniority job rights or other benefits. Upon their discharge from the military, they shall be granted a job equal to that which they would have had with the Employer had they remained in continual employment of the Employer. SECTION 25-RIGHT OF ACCESS TO EMPLOYER PROPERTY (a) Employer agrees to admit to Sierra Vista Ranch, Borrego Springs Ranch and DiGiorgio Farms the authorized representatives of the Union for the pur- poses of collecting dues, observing the application of this Agreement, and ad- justing grievances. Union representatives shall advise Employer of such visits in advance by notifying the Ranch Supervisor or Director of Personnel. SECTION 26-BULLETIN BOARDS (a) The Employer will provide bulletin boards placed at such central loca- tions as the Union may designate, subject to approval of the Employer, upon which the Union may post its formal notices. SECTION 27-TAX WiTHHOLDING (a) Employer shall deduct federal income tax in accordance with standard practices, with scaled dependent deductions, for employees agreeing in writing to such withholding. PAGENO="0140" 134 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES * * * SECTION 28-CREDIT UNION WITHHOLDING (a) Upon proper written employee authorization deductions as provided in `such authorization shall be made by the Employer for the Farm Workers Credit `Union,' and such monies forwarded to that organization. * SECTION 2 9-WAGES (a) Wa~ges from April 3, 1967 `vntil April 2, 1i968: All hourly rated employees `shall receive a twenty-five cents (250) per hour wage increase effective April 3, 1967, and all wage rates shall be raised tweilty-five cents (250). The basic mini- mum hourly rate shalibe $1.65 per hour. (b) All piece work or incentive rates shall be adjusted to reflect a twenty-five cents (250) per hour increase effective April 3, 1967. Piece workers shall have guaranteed earnings of not less than the basic minimum hourly rate. (c) Establishing Appendiw A: The parties shall forthwith agree to a schedule of wage rates in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above and such schedule shall be marked Appendix A attached to this Agreement and be considered a part hereof. This schedule shall set forth the `classifications and applicable hourly rates. It shall also set forth the piece rates and tonnage rates. Any differences between the l)arties relative to formulating Appendix A shall be referred for tie- cision to the Arbitrator provided for in the grievance procedure, Section 37. (d) Wages as of April 3, 1968: Effective April 3, 1968 the hourly wage rates set forth in Appendix A shall be increased five' cents (50) per hour and all hourly workers shall receive five cents (~0) per hour increase. The basic minimum hwirly rate shall be $1.70 per hour. All piece work rates set forth in Appendix A shall be adjusted to reflect a five cents (50) per hour wage increase, and piece workers shall have guaranteed earnings of not less than the basic minimum hourly rate. (e) Retroactivity: All employees who worked at any time during the period from September 2, 1966 to April 2, 1967 at Sierra Vista Ranch and Borrego Springs Ranch and/or worked at any time from November 4, 1966 to April 2, 1967 at Di- Giorgio Farms shall receive fifteen cents (150) per hour for each hour worked as back pay. Such payments shall be made regardless of whether the employee worked on an hourly basis or piece work basis. (f) The Employer shall w-itl'iin ninety (90) days from April 3, 1967 supply the Union with a list showing the names of persons and last known address who are entitled to receive such back pay together with the amount due each person. Such list shall also be posted at each of the locations covered by this Agreement. (g) Any monies w-bich remain unclaimed as of April 3, 1968 by the persons named on the list shall be paid by the Employer into the Special Benefit Fund provided for in Section 35, and the Employer shall not in any manner thereafter be liable for monies to any person whose name was on the list but who did not claim such monies as of April 3, 1068. SECTION 30-HOURs (a) Relief Periods: Farm workers are entitled to reasonable and necessary time off for relief. Relief periods shall be fifteen (15) minutes for every four (4) hours w'orked, falling around the mid-point of the work involved, provided that relief not taken by the employee shall not be compensable time, and further provided that relief time not taken in any forenoon by choice of the worker may be cumulated and taken in the afternoon of the same day. (b) Meal Time: Lunch time shall be one (1) hour. (c) Day of Rest: Each farm worker shall be entitled to one (1) full day (24 hours) off without pay each payroll week as follows: insofar as possible, the work shall be `arranged so that each worker will have Sunday off. * * 5ECTION 31-REPORTING AND STANDBY TIME (a) An employee paid on an hourly or piecework basis who is required to report for work and does report and is furnished no work or less than four hours of work for reasons other than an Act of God sha.ll be paid at least four hours for that day at the employee's hourly rate of pay, or the employee's average hourly piece rate earnings. PAGENO="0141" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 135 SECTION 32-RECORDS AND PAY PERIODS (a) Full and accurate records shall be kept, including total hours worked, piece rate or `incentive records, total wages and total deductions. Employees shall be furnished `a copy of the itemized wages and itemized deductions each pay day which shall include the employee's daily wage and hour record. (b) The Union shall have the right to examine time sheets, work production or other records that pertain to employee's compensation, in case of a dispute `as to pay. SECTION 33-VACATIONS (`a) Employees who work a total of 1600 hours in either the calendar year preceding the vacation or 12 months immediately preceding the vacation at Sierra Vista Ranch or Borrego Springs Ranch or DiGiorgio Farms or `at all such loca- tions shall receive one week of paid vacation per year. Such vacation pay to be equal to 1/52 of the employee's earnings for the 12 months preceding the vacation. (b) Employees who have worked such total of 1600 hours at either Sierra Vista Ranch or Borrego Springs Ranch or DiGiorgio Farms or at all such loca- tions in each year (calendar year or 12 months immediately preceding annual vacation, of three consecutive years shall receive two (2) weeks' paid vaca- tion, such vacation pay to be equal to 2/52 of the emplOyee's earnings for the 12 months preceding the vacation. (c) If an employee's vacation period includes one of the holidays set forth in Section 34 his vacation period shall be extended to include such holiday, but without pay for that day. (d) Vacation schedules shall be mutually agreed upon except if more em- ployees in the judgment of the Employer want a particular vacation period than can be reasonably spared, the worker with the highest seniority shall have first preference for the vacati'on period. (e) If an employee is entitled to `a paid vacation and requests the pay so due him prior to taking the vacation he shall be paid the sum of money he is entitled to. * * SECTION 34-HOLIDAYS (a) Time worked on holidays hereinafter enumerated shall be at one and one- half times the regular rate of pay for work performed. (b) The following days shall be `the holidays referred to in (a) above: New Year's Day Good Friday Fourth of July Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day * SECTION 3,5-SPECIAL BENEFITS FUND (a) Purpose of Fund: The purpose of this Fund is to provide for health and welfare benefits and/or life insurance benefits and/or pensions as agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall agree upon the final purpose or purposes for which the monies accumulated shall be used and all of the conditions applicable to such use on or before sixty (60) days prior to April 3, 1968. If the parties are unable to so agree by that date then all disputes and differences shall be sub- mitted for final and binding arbitration to Sam Kagel and Ronald Haughton, or if both of them cannot then serve, to the one who is available, and if neither can serve, then to an arbitrator selected from a list of five names' submitted to the parties by the California State Conciliation Service. (b) Accumulation of Funds: The Employer as retroactive payments for the period from the dates of certification to December 31. 1906 shall pay into such fund the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). Then commencing as of January 1, 1967 the Employer shall contribute five cents' (5~) per hour for each hour worked by all employees covered by this Agreement to this Fund. (c) The Trust Fund and Trust Agreement: The monies to be contributed hereunder shall be paid into a trust which shall forthwith be established by an PAGENO="0142" 136 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES equal number of representatives of the Employer and the Union for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such Employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents): Provide that (A), such payments shall be held in trust for the purpose of paying, either from principal or income or both, for the benefit of employees, their families and dependents, for medical, dental, or hospital care, pension or retirement of employees or life insurance or insurance to provide any of the foregoing; (B), the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made shall be specified in a written agreement with the Employer, and employees and Employer are equally represented in the administration of such fund. In the event the Employer and Employee trustees deadlock on the administration of such fund Sam Kagel shall, acting as arbitrator, decide such dispute and his decision shall be final and binding. If Sam~ Kagel is unable to serve then an ~arbitrator shall be selected from a list of five names supplied by the California State Conciliation Service. The Agreement between the parties shall also provide for an annual audit of the trust fund by a Certified Public Accountant, a statement of the results `of "which shall be available for inspection by interested persons at the principal office of the Trust Fund. If payments are intended to be used for the purpose of providing pensions for employees then such payments shall be made to a separate `trust which provides that the funds held therein cannot be used for any purpose other than paying `such pensions. ~ * ~ SECTION' ~6-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (a) The Employer, to the extent that he' is not covered by the compulsory provisions `of the `California Unemployment Insurance Act, shall file with the California Employment Commission a `written election that all employment in the units covered by this Agreement shall be `deemed to be employment for all of the purpos'es of the Act and upon approval `by the Commi'ssi'on `of such election the Employer will make payments and deduction's provided `for under the Act. (`b) If the California Employment Commission does not approve the coverage requested then the amount `of the Employer's monthly contribution which would be payable initially under the `Act for each covered employee shall be paid monthly into the Special Benefits Fund provided for in Section 35, and such payments `shall `be retroactive to and commence as of April 3, 1907. SECTION 37-GRIEVANcE PROCEDURE (a) `The parties to this Agreement agree that as to all differences, misunder- standings, or disputes which ari'se between the Employer and the Union `out `of `the interpretation or application `of this Agreement, including but not limited to dis- charges, and wages, an ea'rnest effort `shall be `made to settle same immediately, as follows: (b) First Step: Within 24 hours of notice from one party to the other, the matter shall be taken up between the immediate supervisor, representing the Company an'd the Union steward, and they shall use `their best good faith efforts to resolve the grievance. (`c) Second Step: In the event they are unable to adjust the dispute within one work day, `the matter `shall then be taken up by an official `of the Union and the Branch Personnel Manager `of the Employer. (`d) Third Step: If there be no settlement between the above-menti'oned parties within two work days, the matter `shall `be taken up by `the Employer's district or local Personnel Manager and a Di'strict Officer of the Union. (e) Fourth Step: In the event `that these pa'rties cannot resolve the dispute within five working days, the `matter `shall be submitted to an impartial arbi'trator for a deci'sion which shall be final and bindi'ng on all parties. The `said impartial arbitrator shall be Sam Kagel. In the event that Sam Kagel shall not `be available, then an arbitrator shall be selected from a list of five persons submitted to the parties `by the `California Concilia'tion Service. (f) Grievance Committee: A `grievance committee of five (5) workers shall be established by the Union which may participate in any `s'tep of the grievance. (g) Harmonious Working Relations: Any claim by Union that action on the job of any n'o'n-bargaining unit employee is disrupting harmonious working relations `may `be taken up as a grievance. PAGENO="0143" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 137 (h) Failure to file the grievance within thirty (30) days from the date that such grievance came to the notice of the moving party shall constitute a waiver of said grievance, provided, however, that `a grievance on a discharge shall be filed within five (5) days from the date that it comes to the attention of the Union, and failure to file such a grievance within five (5) days shall constitute a waiver thereof. In computing time under this section, Sundays and Holidays will be excluded. (i) Union ~ecnrity or Hiring Disputes: Disputes arising between the Union and the Employer under Recognition, Union Security or Hiring shall be taken up directly *by the District Personnel Manager and the District Union Officer and Shall proceed immediately to arbitration if said persons cannot resolve the dispute within five (5) days. (j) Arbitration Procedures: All testimony taken at arbitration hearings shall be taken under oath, reported and transcribed. The expenses and fees of the arbitrator and reporter, and the cost if any, of a hearing room shall be shared equally between' the Employer and the Union. All other expenses incident *to arbitration shall be borne by the party incurring them. (k) Arbitrators Authority: The impartial arbitrator shall not modify any pro- vision or provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 38-MODIFICATION (a) No provision or term of this Agreement may be amended, modified, ~banged, altered or waived except by the parties hereto. SECTION 39-WAIvE~ (a) The parties acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any subject or matter not removed by law from the area of collective bargaining, and that the understandings and agreements arrived at by the parties after the exercise of that right and opportunity are set forth in this Agreement. Therefore, the Employer and the Union, for the life of this Agreement, each voluntarily, and unqualifiedly waives the right, and each agrees that the other shall not be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter referred to, or covered in this Agreement, or with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement, even though such subject or matter may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time that they negotiated or signed this Agreement, provided, however, that this waiver shall not be applicable to the creation Of new jobs, changes in existing jobs, classification or changes in existing practices with respect to hours or c'ondi- lions of work. SECTION 40-SAVINGS CLAUSE (a) In the event any portion of this Agreement shall become ineffective as the result of any applicable local, state or federal law, only that portion of the Agreement so affected shall be ineffective; in no ~vent shall the fact that a por- lion of this Agreeement be not `applicable or illegal in accordance with such `laws render the remanider of the Agreement ineffective or work a termination. * * SECTION 41-EFFECTIvE DATE, ANNUAL R.EvmWS, AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT (a) Except as different effective `dates are specifically stated in particular Sections of the Agreement, this Agreement shall be effective April 3, 1067. (b) Not later than ninety (90) days prior to April 3, 1969 either party may propose `to the other in writing, `modifications or amendments to the following sections of the Agreement: Section 29, and Appendix A; Wages; Section 30, `Hours; Section 33, Vacations; Section 34, Holidays; Section 35, Special Benefit Fund's, including those provision's negotiated `or settled by arbitration as pro- vided in Secti'on 35(a) and Employer `contributions; and Section 36, Unemploy- ment Insurance. The parties shall negotiate on such proposals and whatever re- mains unsettled between them shall `be submitted to final and bin'd'in.g arbitration thirty (30) days prior to April 3, 1969. Th'e parties by mutual agreement may extend the perio,d for negotiation and extend the date for arbitration, but any negotiated settlements or arbitration awa'rds, whenever made, shall be for the full year April 3;, 1969 to April 3, 1970. The arbitrators shall be Sam Kagel and Ronald Haughton, or if both of them `cannot then serve then either of them PAGENO="0144" 138 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES who might be available shall he the arbitrator; and if neither of them are avail- able then the arbitrator shall be selected by the parties from a list of five (5) names submitted by the California State Conciliation Service. (c) This Agreement shall remain in `full force and effect until April 3, 1970~ and shall be automatically renewed from year to year thereafter unless either party gives written notice of a desire to modify, am'end or terminate this Agree- ment, at `least ninety (90) `days prior to April 3, 1970 or any subsequent April 3. Negotiations concerning modifications or amendments' of this Agreemen't under' this paragraph `of the Agreement shall begin not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice to modify or amend. During negotiations `be- yond April 3, 1970 this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless either party thereafter gives the other party `twenty (20) days notice in writing' terminating the Agreement. (d) Notifications provided for in this Section shall be made by certified or registered mail. This Agreement signed at on FOR UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZA- FOR DI GIORGIO FRUIT CORPORATION TION COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO EXHIBIT G RELEASE OF ARBITRATORS SAM KAGEL AND RONALD HAUGHTON IN THE ARBITRATION' BETWEEN THE UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, AND DI GI0RGI0 FRUIT CoRP., OPERATING AT DELANO, BORREGO SPRINGS AND ARVIN Ordinarily arbitrators make no announcement of their decisions. This is left to the parties. 1-lowever, in this case because of the large number of issues submitted to arbitration and with the approval of the parties the following is a summary of the provisions of the collective bargaining, agreement settled directly by the parties and the awards made by the arbitrators: The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a number of important provi- sions which the parties themselves agreed to prior to the arbitration. These pro- visions include the union shop and union dues checkoff; a grievance procedure with arbitration as the terminal point; management rights clause; no discrimina- tion clause; subcontracting provisions; a no strike-no lockout provisions; recog- nition of seniority; establishment of a safety committee and other provisions. The Awards of Arbitrators Kagel and Haughton include the following: Provisions for a hiring hail. If the Union cannot supply the required employees within 72 hours the Employer may hire from any source. The Agreement is to be binding in all instances where the Employer may rent' or lease the land covered by the Agreement. However, it shall not apply to land' sold by the Employer. Leaves of absence for seniority employees for jury duty and illness or injury. Pay for jury duty. Wages: From April 3, 1967 until April 2, 1968 all wages to be increased $.25 per hour with the minimum wage set at $1.65 per hour. From April 3, 1968 to April 2, 1969 all wages to be increased $05 per hour with' minimum wage set at $1.70 per hour. Retroactive pay for all employees who worked from the dates of certification. September and November 1966 until April 2, 1937 of $15 per hour is provided.. Reporting and standby time of four hours payment is proivded if less than four hours w-ork provided. Vacations for employees working 1600 hours per year as follows: One week' paid vacation after one year, two weeks after three years service. Six holidays are named for which time and one-half shall be paid if work is performed on such days. A $peciai Benefits Fund is created to be used for health and welfare, dental, pension and insurance benefits. The parties are to agree on the details of such benefits by April 1969; otherwise they shall be settled by binding arbitration. The monies for such Fund shall be obtained as follows: As a retroactive contribution up to January 1, 1967 the Employer shall pay' $25,000 into the Fund. PAGENO="0145" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 139 As of January 1, 1967 and thereafter the Employer shall contribute $05 per hour per employee into the Fund. All retroactive wages not collected by April 3, 1968 by employees entitled to same shall be paid into the Fund. If unemployment insurance is not granted by the State then the contributions that would be made for such purpose shall go into the Special Benefits Fund. The Fund shall be administered by an equal number of Union and Employer trustees. Any differences between them shall be settled by arbitration. The Employer shall apply to the State for Unemployment In~uranee. If it is not granted the amount of the contributions that would have been made shall be paid into the Special Benefits Fund. The terrn~ of the Agreement is three years until April 3, 1970. The only interim review during this period shall be on April 3, 1909 when the parties may open the Agreement for a review of wages, vacations, special Fund contributions and other cost items. Any unsettled matters shall be submitted to arbitrator'. The parties by mutual agreement may extend the Agreement beyond April 3, 1970. The arbitration proceedings included four days of hearing at Delano and three days in San Francsico. The transcript of the hearings consists of 702 pages. The parties introduced a total of 173 exhibits and submitted written briefs totaling 97 pages. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, indeed. These documents are going to be extraordinarily valuable, not only to us but to others in studying the history of this particular contract~ As a matter of fact, I was thinking that the contract itself might be of great interest to organizations which may be organized soon. H.R. 4769 is in essence, of course, and you recognize it to be, a very simple bill. There no doubt will be concern by a great number of ~eo- ple that the enactment of such legislation might affect small farms. What recommendation would you have for exemptions for such a piece of legislation ~ Dr. HAUGHTON. I wouldn't be human if I had not thought of that. I did not include it in my testimony because, it seemed to me, it was getting into the political area and, basically, I have been testifying as almost a technician here. But I am happy to respond to the question. In my judgment it would be extremely difficult to get something like this through if, using the analogy of the mom and pop grocery store, if the mom and pop farm were covered to the point that they might be subject to writing a fancy contract like this DiGiorgio-Farm Work- ers' document. Mr. THo~1PsoN. Of course, the thrust of the legislation is not in the direction of the small farm. The politics of it aside, the. fact is that there might be consideration of some reasonable exemption for no man's land. Dr. 1-TAUGHTON. I think that is what it is called under the present administration of the NLRA. It is called a gray area, a no man's land. I had to go to school, so to speak, with directors of the NLRB and their staffs in San Francisco and Detroit to learn my A B C's. And all I know about the NLRA I learned in the last year. I suppose in a farm situation you could have a particular money income as a criterion for coverage. You could also have an acreage amount, or you could have the number of employees. Actually, I am not so naive as to say that everything can be switched from the NLRA to farm relations. I say that the framework, the structure, is there. Now, I was able to grub through the books of NLRB decisions, and I found that, as far as I was concerned, they showed a flexibility of approach on seasonal workers that fitted my concerns out there in California. S2--132-67-----1O PAGENO="0146" 140 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, in the administration of the law there are considerations, for instance, for the building trades which involve seasonable employment. Dr. HAUGHTON. That is right. Another one that comes to mind is an election involving longshore workers in Toledo, with all the intermittency there. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Scheuer, our colleague, has a bill on which we had hearings in the last Congress to extend these types of exemptions to the performing arts, where people work for short periods of time. Dr. HAUGHTON. Congressman, another piece of legislation that I have been most interested in, in terms of administration, and have done a good deal of consulting work in for the Government is the equal employment law. There must be some considerations there in terms of exemptions. What was the first. year? I think you had to have a hundred people before you were subject to it the first year. It went down, and it is now down to 25 or 50. My first Government work was in unemployment insurance. The original law exempted only employers of eight or less. Now, with long experience, I think, most State laws are down to the coverage of em- ployers of one or more. So, my answer is that I think the NLRB has within its power to create gray areas or no man's land. It can say, "We~ will apply this as long as it is a nondiscriminatory and legitimate approach. It can use a number of people, size of land, or whatever set of criteria, whereby the "mom-and-pop farm," if we can coin a phrase, would be exempted. And this has a very practical point. They would be so swamped if they had to conduct an election at every little farm that had one hired man for 7 weeks that the read thrust of this proposed legisla- tion would be vitiated. Does that respond to your question? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; I quite agree. Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. Dr. Haughton, I would like to cover first things first. I have read in the newspapers that the United Auto Workers are assisting the Farm Workers Organizing Committee. I am going to suggest that the Farm Workers earmark part of their assistance for the purchase of a certain Detroit product. With respect to the jurisdictional question, our next witness will be representing the NLRB and I hope to explore this problem with them. Dr. HAUGHTON. I am out of my field. I just gave a sort of political answer. They know the answer. Mr. O'HAr~&. You are entirely correct, both in political and acimin- istrative terms. You are also correct, I think, with respect to another approach to the jurisdictional problem. As a practical matter it just is not worth while to devote organizing efforts to very small operations. As you well know, in industry, labor organizations have adopted their own criteria. They, for instance, don't bother spending time and effort in organizing drives at concerns which employ less than a certain num- ber of people. PAGENO="0147" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO* AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 141 I think, that as a practical matter, we don't have to worry about organization on small farms, in light of the NLRB's jurisdictional standards and the practical aspects of the operation of labor organiza- tions and, in addition, the practical aspects of the employer-and- employee relationship in very small businesses, including small farms. I think your experience has shed a good deal of light on the farm labor situation. It is extremely interesting to me that in discharging your responsibilities in the DiGiorgio organizational matter you, while not an old NLRB attorney or authority steeped in the existing ways of doing things under the National Labor Relations Act, ended up, in essence, with a NLIRB proceeding when you cast about for a practical means of doing real justice for both the workers and the employer. The NLRB has worked with problems of this sort for a long time. They have arrived at a certain methodology or modus operandi. When you set out completely fresh in looking for ways to resolve this prob- lem, you ended up with the same procedures. Dr. HAUGHTON. Those fellows were my advisers. I hasten to say that I was encouraged by the taxpayers, both the farmworkers and DiGiorgio, to go see the Government people to find out how they did it. Mr. O'HARA. It is interesting to me that the principal differences between the procedures you arri~ed at and those which the Labor Relations Act, as interpreted by the NLRB provides, were extensions of the NLIRB procedures. In other words, you went beyond NLRB practice in some cases, but you did not fall short of them. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes. I had two well-qualified tutors outside of the Government itself. William Kircher, the director of organization for the AFL, who was working with Mr. Chavez, is steeped in NLRB background from his own industrial work. And the attorney, Mr. Don Connors, for DiGiorgio, is a total "pro" on NLRB matters. He does it for a living in San Francisco, represent- ing other industries. Where I failed to get something, the combination of Kircher and Connors could always fill me in. These two men knew the act like the backs of their hands. Mr. O'HARA. What I am trying to add is, although I certainly do not intend to inject the issues in the consideration of this legislation, that the addendum which you added to several procedures under the Labor Relations Act will be valuable to us in considering more general legislation in this field. For instance, regarding the NLRA requirement that the parties bargain in good faith, you gave a specific interpretion to what bar- gaining in good faith consists of. It is a very interesting interpretation. Dr. HAUGHTON. The important thing is that it was voluntary. Mr. O'HA1m~. My bill also provides for a hiring-hall procedure. I be- lieve that this provision is appropriate in view of the seasonal fluctua- tions in the agriculture work force. I believe that in your decision in the DiGiorgio case you arrived at the same conclusion. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes, a summary of that hiring-hall provision is contained on the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 of exhibit G. PAGENO="0148" 142 EXTENSION OF NLEA TO AGRICTILTIJRAL EMPLOYEES Mr. O'HARA. That was a decision by the arbitrator? Dr. HAtYGHTON. -Yes. Mr. O'HARA. I wonder if you could help us in dealing with this aspect of the problem. What considerations went into the arbitrator's decision on the hiring-hall question? Dr. HAUGHTON. I think that everybody is a product of his own biases, background, and so on. I originally came from the west coast. Mr. Kagel is "Mr. West Coast" in terms of labor. We knew of hiring halls from experience in maritime and longshore industries in 1933, which is the year I got out of high. school. They seemed to work, and they related to this sporadic employ- ment type of situation. I would say this past experience had a great deal to do with our thinking. A hiring hail would be much more shocking in my home State of Michigan than it was in San Francisco. It did not shock DiGiorgio,. in my opinion. As a matter of fact it could be looked upon as an extension of the seniority arrangement that the parties themselves agreed to. Given the California environment, and experience, and given genu- me seniority provisions, the parties themselves had already decided on a union shop, the hiring hail was not such an upsetting concept.. We gave the company full freedom, I think, after 72 hours, to go out in the open market if the union couldn't deliver. In the meantime,. hopefully, it saves the company a lot of trouble in the hiring process. Mr. O'HAR&. In other words, hiring hails have some advantages for the employer, because they give an incentive to the labor organization to assist in the recruiting process? Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes. The way this contract was written, seniority applied anywa.y. It is easier for t.he company to hire the person it has t.o hire under the seniority clause if they can find them. On the whole matters of the. addresses of migrant farmworkers, we spent just days, all of us,. looking for people. It can be difficult. Mr. O'HARA. The point is that my bill does two things. First, it amends the definitions of an "employee" so that it no longer excludes agricultural workers. One can say that all we are doing in dealing with agriculture is giving the same rights and obligations, vis- a-vis one another, to farm employers and farm employees, that others have had for many, many years. Second, it contains hiring-hall provisions similar to those which the NLRA provide.s for certain other industries. Dr. HAUGHTON. Where are you reading from there, Congressman? Mr. O'HAn~&. The second section. Dr. HAUGHTON. What lines from that? Mr. O'HARA. Starting on line 8, page 1. The hiring-hall procedure, in other words, would be an unfair labor practice were it not for the language sta.rting on line 6. Dr. HAUGHTON. I understand. Mr. O'HARA. We are saying, in effect, that t.he hiring-hall procedure, because of the fluctuation of work force, and so forth, is appropriate in the farm industry. Dr. HAUGHTON. But you are leaving it up to them to do it or not? PAGENO="0149" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTIJRAL EMPLOYEES 143 Mr. O'HARA. Yes. If they want a hiring hall, they:can. have one. Dr. HAUGHTON. The farmer could fight it. The workers could push it. It is up to them. Mr. O"HARA. It is up to those involved. We don't require it. We say that if they do agree on such a provision, it is all right. I think the point you make is valuable in assessing this provision of the bill. This is a procedure appropriate for the farm industry and the parties should be able, if they can agree, to utilize it. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes, but I would say "voluntaril~." Mr. O'HAIL&. Professor H~ughton, I think your te~timony has been extremely valuable. I hope you will find time in your very busy life to write a book about your experiences. Dr. HAUGHTON. I guess I am what you would call a "nonscholar." Fortunately, there are a few Of those in the universities. I am very grateful for the opportunity that you fellows gave to me to make me write up this testimony, and pull together the exhibits. I am afraid even that would not have been done if it had not been for this occasion. Mr. O'HARA. We are happy to have helped you out. Dr. HAUGHTON. Thank you again. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Scheuer? Mr. SGHEUER. We are tremendously impressed with your testimony, Dr. Haughton. I am particularly impressed with the large number of items which you cite on page 6 in the first full paragraph, that were resolved in the voluntary collective bargaining. Dr. HAUGHTON. This was simply astonishing to us. The union shop for example, was agreed upon. Mr. SOHEUJ~R. Union shop that had no strike, lockout, recognition of seniority, and arbitration of grievances. If you had to give a quick opinion of the total percentage of the outstanding issues that were voluntary before the thing was dumped into your lap, what would be your benchmark figure? Dr. HAUGHTON. I would think the real structure of the contract was fabricated and built by the parties in voluntary negotiations. The basic money matters were sent to arbitration. Mr. SOHE1IER. Would you say they solved 75 to 80 percent? Dr. HAUGHTON. Certainly more than 50 percent. The basic structure of the contract was constructed by the parties themselves, and we filled in the money items. Mr. SCHEUER. In other words, you dotted the i's and crossed the t's. Dr. 1-JAUGHTON. For the money. Mr. SOHE1JTER. Right. Dr. HAUGHTON. If that is important. Mr. SOHEuJER. This whole process was successfully brought to a con- clusion, (a), through the willingness of the parties to compromise some of their provisions and stabilize a basic structure. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes. Just take the one item of union shop. It is astonishing. Mr. SCHEUER. Yes. And then, (b), the existence of a final process that dotted the i's and crossed the t's where they weren't able to do it on the dollars and cents. PAGENO="0150" 144 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Dr. HAUGHTON. If there had been less good-faith `bargaining, the one who was feeling he was having to give too much would have waited for the final arbitration process. But this was not the case. Mr. SOHE1IER. That is the unhappy experience we have had in some of these other public-service strikes-that they never got `down and really attempted to solve the main issues. Can you give us any expectation you might have or any surmise you might have of what the results would have been here had you not had the final arbitration process as a court of last resort, so to speak, on dotting some of these i's and crossing the t's? Dr. HAUGHTON. Getting fancy, I don't suppose you would say they' were locked in mortal combat, but they were locked in combat for a couple of years. And they were hurting just the same as in any war. There is a figure in the Saturday Evening Post this last week of how much `Chavez w'as spending per month during the war, so to speak. DiGiorgio was hurting. It was `a matter of record. They have a fine prestige product, S. & W. brand, which I grew up Imowing, and it was being boycotted. They really could have hurt each other even more, and it would have gone on `and on. They both knew it would go on and on. There has to be a will to end these things, and this is what we had there. DiGiorgio knew that it could get badly hurt on its brand. I am told by the retail people that if you take a brand like S. & W. off the shelves and you get a second-rate brand, you can make more money on it. It is hard to get the retailer to put the S. & W. brand back on the shelves. From Chavez' standpoint h'e was spending tremendous sums to sup- port `his people. And it could have gone on and on a long time. Mr. SC.HEUER. I think they were all saved by the fact that there was some mechanism to solve the problem. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes, and they accepted the mechanism, I would say, almost with enthusiasm, because then, you see, they `didn't know who was going to win. I would say t'here were varying degrees of reservations on what. they got out of the arbitration. Mr. SCHEUER. It has to be that way. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes, that is life. Mr. SCHEUER. I certainly am very impressed with your testimony. I am very impressed `with how this machinery worked, not only in the interest, of the union and the company, but in the interest of `the public, too. I think there is `a real lesson in here for `all of us. Dr. HAUGHTON. It `has been the most exciting thing I have been involved in in 25 years. Mr. SCHEtTER. I think that. the formula and the mechanism that you developed will ultimately have some far-reaching implications throughout our society and our economy. Dr. HAUGHTON. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. William Ford, of Michigan. Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like' to join my colleagues in complimenting you on this testimony. On page 4, I `was particularly interested in the last sentence of the first paragraph, where you draw the conclusion that the experience in the case cited should serve as an example of how well the NLRA PAGENO="0151" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 145 would work if it were applied to agricultural workers of the kind that were involved in this entire transaction. Dr. HAUGHTON. Yes, we speak from our own experience. All I know isDiGiorgio... Mr. Fonu. There is one item that concerns me, however. If we bring these people under the NLIRA, this preliminary procedure that you described, which came after 2 years of painful experience of having both sides agree to compulsory arbitration of the initial contract, would not be present. I am curious as to whether or not the willingness of management in this case to enter into an agreement wouldhave been there if that.aspect weren't present. In other words, this is missing from the procedure that would be fol- lowed if it were under the National Labor Relations Act. Dr. HAUGHTON. You are very sensitive to these things, Congress- man, and you have put your finger on it. As a neutral, I believe in the balance of power. In fact, if I talk to a weak company and it is dealing, with the Auto Workers, I would con- sider referring them to where they can get some help. Or if I were talk- ing to a weak union dealing with a large company, I would be happy to suggest some professional help. I believe in the balance of power. Also, I feel they should fight it out. Certainly, this charter of July 14 would not have been agreed to if D1G-iorgio had not been under great economic pressure and if Chavez had not been under similar strain. Mr. Foim. As a step further, if under the National Labor Relations Act we reached the stage where a request was made for an election of a representative organization, prior to the time that you conclude that proceeding, it is clear that the other provisions of the act prohibiting secondary boycotts would be applicable to everybody involved. Dr. HAUGHTON. This would be helpful, you see, to the farmowner. Mr. Fonu. What happens is that the very thing you mentioned that was putting pressure on management in this case would be removed before the solution of the problem. Dr. }{AUGHTON. This is all right. I don't think labor is entitled to any extra weapons. Mr. FORD. But there would be no compulsion to arbitrate, you see, after the pressure had been removed from one side. Dr. 1-IAUGHT0N. The only pressure that would be removed is the pressure of secondary boycott.. Mr. Foiw. Isn't that the only practical pressure the workers have to exert? Dr. HAUGHTON. Oh, no; DiGiorgio was particularly susceptible to~ secondary boycott, because it happened to own a prestige brand, S. & W., which could be reached at the supermarket.. I am going to overstate my case, but it could be `argued that a mes- sage I received a.s mediator was: "The strike isn't hurting us, but get rid of that boycott." From Chavez's standpoint, he was just lucky he was able to second- ary boycott, and that he had `an employer who was susceptible to it. It would be very difficult, to conduct `a secondary boycott against a farmer~ growing grapes for' the general juice market, because the stuff dis- appears in a big vat, like orange juice. PAGENO="0152" 146 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES They `were ~uccessful' against Schenley with the first contract cover- iflg a very few people. But why were they successful? In my opinion, Schenley Corp. took a' look at all the intellectuals picketing the liquor stores, and they said, "Settle that thing, out in California." There was a secondary boycott regarding Schenley. If the farm in- dustry had been covered under NLR.A, the `farmworkers would not have `been able to boyc'ott Schenley or DiG-iorgio in terms of their other products. Mr. Foiw. `Also, on page 6, is a list of things that you thought were exceptional. From your answer to Mr. Scheuer, I got the impression that you thought that it was at least. startling that management would agree t'o the union shop. iDr. 1-IAUGHT0N. As a first contract, really a first major contract in an entire industry. You and' I know that if General Motors did not have, a union shop, they would- Mr. FORD. General Motors management has disassociated itself as much `as anyone else in the industry from `an effort to fight repeal of 14(b), because `they now believe it is to their advantage to have union shop, as distinguished f'rom the farm industry. Dr. HAUGHTON. I wouldn't know. I would accept your statement.. Mr. FORD. `This committee has held hearings, and one of the interest- ing places where we have found relative labor peace has `been in the automobile industry. In hearings we have had `in the past, everyone in the automobile industry has very carefully disassociated themselves from the attempts by the regular working people to fight the concept of the union shop. `They stop short of national endorsement, but they demonstrate that it is something `that they prefer to live with. Dr. IIAUGHTON. I can understand what has been said here. I will say that General Motors management and management of that type are unbelievably sophisticated, and whatever answers they are to be had, they know how to get them, and they know how to analyze them. If one goes even into upstate Michigan, it would not be hard to find an employer covered under the NLRA who would be violently opposed to the union shop. This does not bother me. This is his privilege, and there would be unions who would be for it. The point I am making is that except for these highly sophisticated places a union shop is still considered controversial. I don't think the union shop is noncontroversial in our society. Mr. FORD. Can you tell me what the principal item was that had to be settled by the first arbitration procedure? Dr. HAUGHTON. We had a preliminary sort of administrative arbi- `tration on who gets to vote. We will forget about that. We `had only one arbitration, and there is some scheduled arbitra- tion now under this new contract, under "grievances." Mr. FORD. What was the most serious issue? Dr. HAUGHTON. Money and money items, because we recommended voluntary coverage under the California Unemployment Insurance Act, for example. To a totally unsophisticated person that is not money, but it is 2.8 percent of the payroll. PAGENO="0153" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 147 Mr. Foim. On page 6, again, the last item you mentioned is the arbi- tration of grievances. You would not consider the rate of the contract in arriving at the economic part of the package as an arbitration of a grievance ~ Dr. RAUGHTON. No. You know, you have to look at community expectations. California, and especially northern California, is the area in* the United States which is most apt to arbitrate a new contract. To get the UAW, the Auto Workers Union, and a large automobile company to arbitrate a matter like this is so foreign to their thinking that it would just not happen. In fact, they would be surprised if it happened anywhere else. The way things work in our country is varied. There are all kinds of thingshappening, which is part of the exciting experimentation that goes on in a vohmtary system. It happens that arbitration of new contracts, interest arbitration, is not unusual in California. Mr. Kagel and I probably have had more experience with that than most people. I used to be in California. In Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and Ohio, where I arbitrate, I would say I have arbitrated perhaps 4,000 grievance arbitrations in t'he last 20 years, with no more than four cases involving new contract arbitration. Mr. Foni. Thank you very much for your testimony. We have to move along. We appreciate your experience. Dr. IHAUGHTON. Thank you very much. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Dr. HAUGHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMPSON. Our next witness is Mr. Ogden Fields; the executive secretary of the National Labor Relations Board. Good morning, Mr. Fields. STATEMENT OF 0aDEN W. FIELDS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. FIELDS. Good morning, Mr. Thompson. Mr. THOMPSON. I note you have a summary statement here of your full statement. Without objection, your full statement will be a matter of record at this point. You may proceed with your summary. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF OGDEN W. FIELDS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD My name is Ogden W. Fields. I have been employed by the National Labor Relations Board since 1941. Since 1960 I have served as its Executive Secretary. I feel honored to respond to the Committee's invitation to appear and testify concerning the probable impact of the proposed amendment on my agency's ad- ministration of the Statute. I have been asked to discuss whether it is practicable for the Board to conduct elections in seasonal and migratory industries and what particular administra- tive problems may be forseen in conducting elections in the agricultural field in the event H.R. 4769 is enacted by Congress. I am here as a so-called "expert witness," if you please, not on the policy question of whether the Act should be amended to cover agricultural employees-that is a matter for the Congress PAGENO="0154" 148 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRIGULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES *to decide-but on the question of whether the Board can do the job if Congress decides to give it to us. My simple answer is that we can. As you know, in addition to removing the agricultural exemption from Section .2(3) (National Labor Relations Act, as amended), the rider attached to our appropriations annually since 1946, precluding the use of Board funds in con- nection with agricultural labor, would also have to be removed if the Board is to exercise jurisdiction.1 Other legislative amendments would be necessary only if the Congress itself wishes to determine the standard for the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over agricultural employers and to broaden the scope of bargaining units beyond :singleemplOyer units into multi-employer or production or marketing area units. The problems that may be reasonably anticipated if HR. 4769 is enacted can, and should without too much difficulty, be solved through the administrative process rather than by legislation. The Board has had a wealth of experience in exercising jurisdiction over seasonal and migratory industries. Over many years it has built up in these industries a substantial body of case law and procedural practices that have won the approval and support of the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court.2 And much of this experience was developed in industries directly and immediately related to agriculture, such as the packing, canning, and food- processing industries. Definition and content was given to the term "agricultral laborer" by the Board and the Courts in a number of representation and unfair labor practice cases. The tests were practical, evolved from the character of the work performed as modified by custom.~ The seasonal need for large numbers of temporary employees to handle highly perishable products is not unique to agriculture. Nor is the fact that some em- ployees are migratory. These characteristics exist in fruit and vegetable pack- `ing, canning, and freezing, sugar processing, cotton ginning, production of alfalfa meal, fertilizer, potato warehousing, nursery stock warehousing, etc.4 1 Since the establishment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, agricultural labor has been excluded from the coverage of the act and thus from its benefits and protection as well as from th.e responsibilities the Act Imposes. The dgfinition of employee, under Sec- tion 2(3) of the Wagner Act, specifically excludes ". . . any Individual employed as an agricultural laborer . . ." This identical language was retained in the Taft-Hartley and Landriim-Grlffin amendments of the Wagner Act. In addition to this statutory exclusion, since 1946 Congress has added a rider to the Board's annual appropriation act which provides that no part of its funds shall be used in connection with bargaining units of agricultural laborers. However, unlike the statute which does not define or otherwise clarify the term "agriculture laborer," the appropriation rider defines the term as found in Section 3(f)' of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Appendix A. 2 North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass'n. v. N.L.R.B. 109 F. 2d 7~G (9th CIr. 1940), cert. den. 310 TJ.S. 632: N.L.R.B. v. Tovrea Packing Co. 111 F. 2d 626 (9th Cir. 1940). cert. den. 311 ITS. 669; Idaho Potato Growers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. 144 F. 2d 295 (9th Cir. 1044)~. cert. den. 323 U.S. 769; N.L.R.B. v. Edinburg Citrus As8ociation, Inc. 147 F. 2d 353 (5th Cir. I945) ; Bowie v. Gonzales, 117 F. 2d 11 (1st Cir. 194,1). See cases cited in footnote 2. (1) PackIng: American Fruit Growers. 10 NLRB 316 (1938)~ (lettuce packing sheds in Salt River Valley, Arizona) ; North Whittier Heights Citrus Association, 10 NLRB 1269 (packing citrus) : Grower-fihipper Vegetable Association of Central California, 15 NLRB 322 (1939) (packin,g lettuce)i; John W. Campbell, Inc., 58 NLRB 1153 (1944) (packing tomatoes) ; J. J. Crosetti Co., 98 NLRB 268 (1952) : Antile Carrots, Inc., 110 NLRB 741 (1954) (packing carrots)': and C. A. Glass Company, Inc., 1.11 NLRB 1366 (1055) (packing carrots and corn) ; Bodine Pro(luce Co., 147 NLRB 832 (melon Packing shed) ; Germ Co., 148 NLRB 1499 (asparagus packing house) ; H. H. Zimmerli, 133 NLRB 1217 (potato packing shed),: Norton ci McElray Produce, 133 NLRB 104 (preparatIon of lettuce & truck- ing) : S'tockbridge Vegetable Producers, Inc., 131 NLRB 1395 (lettuce warehouse I. (2) Canning: H. J. Heinz Company, 49 NLRB 573 (1943) (tomato catsup,, chili sauce, tomato juice, etc.)~; Wm. P. McDonald Corporation. 53 NLRB 427 (1049) (`canning citrus fruits and juices) ; Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.. 102 NLRB 1259 (1053) (canning peas, lima `beans, potatoes, etc.) ; G. L. Webster, 133 NLRB 440 (1961) (cannIng asparagus, tomatoes, etc.i. (3) Processing sugar: Franklin County sugar Company, 92 NLRB 1341 (1951) ; Evan Hall Cugar Cooperative, Inc., 97 NLRB 1258 (1952). (4) Processing green alfalfa into alfalfa meal: Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, 97 `NLRB 1463 (1952). (Ti) Ginning `cotton: J. G. Boswell Company, 107 NLRB 360 (1953). (6) ProcessIng turkeys: Nephi Processing Plant, Inc., 107 NLRB 647 (1053). (7) Freezing vegetables: Oregon Frozen Foods Company, 108 NLRB 1668 (1054). (8) Warehousing potatoes: The Great Atlantic ci Pacific Tea Company, 113 NLRB 865 (1955). (9) Seafood packing: Coubourne ci Jewett, 59 NLRB 176 (1944). (10) Milk processing: Alta-Dena Dairy, 150 NLRB 1537; Choenberg Farms, 129 NLRB ~966. (11) Egg and poultry processing: ~8train Poultry Farms, 16.0 NLRB No. 22. PAGENO="0155" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 149 The Bdard has also gained much experience from other industries where em- ployment is seasonal or of brief duration and the employees migratory or mobile, such as the fishing and construction industries, in addition `to a miscel- lany of non-food seasonal industries, such as toy manufacturing, lawn mowers, recreation, soft drink, gift packing, greeting cards, etc.5 The Board has' decided representation issues and conducted elections successfully in thousands of cases in these industries. Accordingly, in my opinion, many of the principles, procedural practices, and techniques in these related or analogous industries would be readily applicable to agricultural employees now excluded from the Act. There would, of course, still be some difficult and complicated problems. And the degree to which Board policies and practices evolved for other industries may be successfully transmuted to agricultural labor, to solve such problems, varies. Let us try to anticipate some of the problems that might arise and see if existing policies or principles apply or whether new solutions need be found `by the Board or be provided by legislation. Jurisdiction. Although the Board's statutory jurisdiction extends to all employers whose operations affect commerce, the Board has, with Congressional approval, limited the exercise of its power to those enterprises whose effect on commerce is sub- stantial. It has done this by setting up monetary jurisdictional standards for different kinds of enterprises stated in terms of total dollar volume of business. Since 1958 the standard for nonretail enterprises has been that the Board will assert jurisdiction over all nonretail operations which have an outflow or inflow across state lines of at least $50,000 a year, whether such outflow or inflow be direct or indirect.8 (12) Feed mills: Samuel B. Gass, 154 NLRB 728; Empire Milling Co., 117 NLRB 1782. (13). Rice drying: Sweetlake Land ci Oil Co., 138 NLRB 155 (14) Mushroom processing: Oxford Royal Mushroom Products, 139 NLRB 1015. (15) Nursery stock: Kelly Bros. Nurseries, 140 NLRB 82. (1) FishIng: Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., 110 NLRB 900 81 NLRB 1335, 82 NLRB 1056; Southern Shell Fish Company, Inc., 95 NLRB 957; Seafood Producers Association of New Bedford, Inc., 95 NLRB 1137; F. Alioto Company, et al., 129 NLRB 27; Boat Sara- fine II, Inc., 15,5 NLRB 910; Casebeer ci Foland, 149 NLRB 742) (whaling): Krist Gradis, et ci., 121 NLRB 601; Monterey-Sarine Industries, Inc., 26 NLRB 731; Fisherman's Co- operative Association, et al., 128 NLRB 62'. (2) Construction: Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., 93 NLRB 1081; Daniel Construction Co., 133 NLRB 264; Trammell Construction Cosnpcny, Inc., 126 NLRB 1365; Broomall Construction Company, 127 NLRB 344; Greene Construc- tion Company, 133 NLRB 152; Sioux Falls Builders Association~ 143 NLRB 27; Delmont Construction Company, 150 NLRB 85; R. B. Butler, Inc.; 160 NLRB No. 131. (3), Miscellaneous: Musgrave JIfg. Co., 12;4 NLRB 2~58 (lawn movers)i; Aspen Skiing Corp., 143 NLRB 707 (ski facility); Coney Island, 140 NLRB 77 (amusement park and eoncessions)~; Sprecher Drilling Corporation, 139 NLRB 1(009 (oil well drilling) ; Trade Winds Drilling Co., 189 NLRB 1012 (oil well drilling) ; Baugh Chemical Co., 150 NLRB 1034 (fertilizer plant) : Micro Metalizing Company, Inc., 134 NLRB 29~ (metal plating plant) ; Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Chattanooga, 132 NLRB 1441 (soft drink bottling) The F. A. Bartlett Tree Erpert Co., 137 NLRB 501 (foliage spraying). Lilliston lsrvplemen-t Co., 12?1 NLRB 868 (farm implements); Mission Pak Co., 127. NLRB 1097 (gIft packing plant) ; Freeman Loader Corp., 127 NLRB 514 (farm tractor)); The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 116 NLRB 1463 (holiday season) ; Ihoot Dry Goods Co., 126 NLRB 953 (retail department store) : F. W. Woolworth Co., 119 NLRB 480 (retail store)'; Brown Cigar Co., 124 NLRB 1435. (wholesale cigars). 6 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. The other jurisdictional standards. are as follows: Retail enterprises: $500,000 gross volume of business. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88. Office buildings: Gross revenue of $100,000, of which $25,000 or more must be derived from organizations which meet any of the Board's standards' other than the indirect standard for nonretail operations. Mistletoe Operating Company, 122 NLRB 1534. Instrumentalities, links, and channels of interstate commerce: $50,000 from interstate (or linkage) part of enterprise, or from services performed for employers which meet any of the Board's standards other than the indirect standard for nonretall operations. HPO Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394. Public utilities: $250,000 gross volume, or meet standard for nonretail. Sioux Valley Empire Electric Assn., 122 NLRB 92. Transit systems: $250000 gross volume. Charleston Transit Co., 123 NLRB 1206 (Except taxicabs, to which the retail test ($500,000 gross volume of business) shall apply. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122j NLRB 88. Radio, television, telegraph, and telephone: $100,000 gross volume. Raritan Valley Broadcasting Co., Inc., 122 NLRB 90. Newspaper enterprise: $200,000 gross volume. Belleville Employing Printers, 122 NLRB 350. National defense: Substantial impact on national defense. Ready Mixed Concrete ci Materials, Inc., 122 NLRB 318. Business in the Territories and District of Columbia: D.C-Plenary. ill. S. Gina ci PAGENO="0156" 150 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES This is the standard applied to the packing, canning, and food-processing industries as well as to all manufacture. In the event agricultural employees were brought under the Act, the Board would very likely adopt some similar jurisdictional test for this industry if Congress itself had made no provision in the legislation for a standard. The standard would be set only after full inquiry into the pertinent facts special needs and problems of agriculture.7 Most probably the Board would hold oral argument on the questiOn to which interested labor unions and employer organiza- tions and `issocittions in addition to the parties ~s ould be invited to paiticip~te Unfair Labor Practice Cases The administration of the unfair labor practice provisions of the Act, Sections 8(a) and 8 (b) , do not appear to involve any particular problems which the Agency has not already experienced ~there employment is seasonal and the employees migratory. Representation Elections Scope of Bargaining Unit Section 9(b) of the, Act provides that "The Board shall decide in each case whether; in Order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit approi~riate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof . . ." Thus, the basic unit is the single-employer unit. Under current law, the Board will not establish multi-employer units unless it finds that the employers have voluntarily formed an association for the pur- pose of collective bargaining and the union has agreed to bargain on that basis. These requirements of consent of the parties for purposes of establishing multi- employer bargaining units apply equally to seasonal industry.8 Thus, if in a given area a number of growers employing their workers from a common labor pool insisted on single-employer units but the union wanted a multi-employer unit, under present law single units would be bound appropriate and elections held accordingly. Were the positions reversed the results would be the same. Consent is the key to the continuance of multi-employer units as w-ell as to their creation. Where an association-wide unit has been voluntarily established, an employer member may, with due notice at an appropriate time, withdraw from the broad unit and thereafter bargain on a single-employer basis.° Likewise, a union may serve notice at an appropriate time of its intent to cease bargaining on a multi-employer basis, and thereafter bargain in single-employer units.'° Units broader than single employers may be particularly appropriate to certain phases of agriculture and the parties may well agree since it would be in their mutual interest. In the unlikely event that they do not the Committee might wish to explore the possibility of permitting the Board to formulate bargaining units in the field of agriculture on a broader and different basis from those w~hich the present Act allows, such as multi-employer units, other than those obtained by consent of the parties, or production or marketing area units. Composition of bargaining sinit `The composition of an appropriate unit for colle'ctive~bargaining purposes is an issue in many representation cases. The history of collective bargaining, if any, in a particular situation has always been an important factor in determining the composition and scope of the unit. Likewise, the patterns of bargaining in the industry have also been a factor. In agriculture, with collective-bargaining his~ tory still to be made and ~atterns of bargaining not yet developed, these motors are not present. Many analogies to related or similar industries, exist, however, that may assist `the Board in establishing appropriate units. Company, 114 NLRB 112 Territories-Standards apply. Sixto Ortego d/b/a Ci.xto lii NLRB 1917. Associations: Regarded as a single employer in that the annual business of all membars is totaled to determine whether any of the standards will apply. Laundry Owners' Associa- tion of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB 543. The question of jurisdIctional standards should also be considered In relation to labor contractors. See page 19 for a discussion of this. 8 I5trathmore District Orange Association, cit cii., 85 NLRB 1029. 9 Retail Associates, 120 NLRB 388. 10 Evening News Association, 154 NLRB 1494. See also, Evening New's Association 154 NLRB 1482. PAGENO="0157" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIILTIJRAL EMPLOYEES 151 Tin general, the Board seeks to include in the unit employees who share com- mon interests, similarity of skills and working conditions',, etc. In seasonal in- dustries mcluding those related to agriculture the Board has established units `taking into account the special attributes of those industries. In such industries, the factors most important to determining the inclusion of employees in the unit are (1) the expectancy of reemployment in the future and (2) the extent to `which the interests of the seasonal employees are similar to nonseasonal in the unit. Thus, where the employer draws from the same labor force each season,1' or `where former employees are given preference in r~hiring or recall,'1 the Board, as a general rule, find's that the community of interest `with the permanent em- ployes is sufficient to warrant inclusion of the seasonal employees in the unit. In order to determine questions relating to likelihood of return of employees from season to season, the Bo'ard `routinely takes evidence, on this subject in these cases. For example, in California Vegetable Concentrates Inc., 137 NLRB 1779 (processing of vegetables), the Company operated on a year-round basis with a permanent complement of between 240 and 290 employees. Also, seasonal em- ployees `were regularly employed each year `from August to November, with peak employment of about ~300 season'als usually occurring in October. The employer did not maintain a recall list of seasonals but it did give hiring pre'ference to former seasonal employee's `w'ho were known to be reliable worker's; between 20 and 50 seasonals became permanent employees each year. Of 270 seasonals on `the September 1961 payroll, over 50 percent bad worked during the 1960 season. The Board included the seasonal employees in the unit in accordance with its usual practice in this industry. The inter-relation or inter-action of the working conditions and pay of seasonal and nonseasonal employees makes it obvious that for the bargaining to be effective for either, the bargaining uni't should, if possible, include both. ~S1howing of interest Before the Board will conduct an election in a year round or nonseasonal in- dustry with relative regularity of employment, it is the Board's normal policy to require the petitioning union to make a "30% showing of interest"-i.e., to pro- duce evidence (usually in the form of signed authorization or membership cards) to show that at least 30% of the employees in the unit wish to be represented by the union for purposes of collective bargaining. The purpose of this rule is to avoid spending the taxpayers' money on running an election unless there is a rea- sonable ground to believe that a substantial number of employees are interested.13 However, where an employer files a petition for an election following a claim of majority representation by a union, no showing of interest is required. The Board does not apply this same rule in seasonal-industry cases. In such cases it is the Board's long-established policy to require a showing only among those employed in the unit at the time the petition is filed. T'his policy recognizes the practical, special problems incident to the conduct of elections in seasonal industries, where the Board seeks to have the election conducted at the peak of the season in order to allow a maximum number of employees in the unit to vote. Accordingly, if a cannery began its operations in May with 100 employees, built up to a peak of 500 employees in September, and the union filed its petition in May, the Board would require a 30% showing among the 100 employees em- ployed at the time the petition was filed. This would allow time for a hearing to be held, in the event the parties did not consent to an election, and an election to be directed among the 500 employees working during the peak of the season in September. Another type of question is reflected by the Board's decision involving an apple cannery in California. S'ebastopol Co-operative Cannery, 111 NLRB 530. "The em- ployer contends, however, that (1) the seasonal nature of its operation and the high rate of labor turnover in its plant make it improper to conduct an election among next season's employees; and (2) that for the same reason, the petitioner's present showing of interest is inadequate to warrant a direction of election among next season employees. We find these contentions without merit. 11 ICefly Bros. Nurseries. Inc., 140 NLRB 82 (growing and sale of nursery stock) ; Carol Management Corp., l3~3 NLRB 1126 (ownership and management of residential properties- grrd'eners). 12 Amen Skiing Corp., 143 NLRB 707 (operation of skiing facilities) Brown Cigar Co., 1,24 NLRB 1435 (cigar wholesaler-summer employees); Knouse Food Co-operative, 131 NLRB 801 (proceasler M f~iiitsl. 13 0. D. Jennings, 68 NLRB 516. PAGENO="0158" 152 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES It is clear, as to the employer's first contention, if the Board were to adopt the employer's reasoning the Board would be precluded from conducting an elec- tion in any seasonal industry where, as is often the case, there is high turnover of labor from one season to another. Franklin County sugar Company, 97 NLRB 936. As to its second contention it is well established that, in seasonal industries, it is the Board's policy to require a showing only among those em- ployed in the unit at the time the petition is filed. Nephi Processing Plant, Inc.,. 107 NLRB 647; J. J. Crossetti Co., 98 NLRB 268." Eligibility to vote The general rule governing eligibility to vote in seasonal industries is to vote those employees employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the notice of election and who are employed on the date of the election. This includes those who did not work during the designated payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off. The application of this practice to agricultural workers would have to be carefully examined to be sure that it does not disenfranchise significant numbers of employees. For example, the peak of the season for the harvesting of the crop of a large grower may occur in the last half of August. The eligible payroll period may be set for the third week in August with the election to be held on August 30. Accordingly, to be eligible to vote under present policy a worker's name must appear on that payroll. Thus, if a migratory worker during the desig- nated payroll period was not employed by this grower because he was engaged in the same area in winding up the harvesting of another crop or was migrating from another area he would not be eligible to vote even though he began work during the next payroll period and was employed on election day and remained at work several days to finish the crop. It would appear that if there were a number of true migratory workers in this category that the Board would have to accommodate its eligibility policies to such circumstances. On the other band the Board would want to know whether or not this eligibility rule would give a vote to those who may not have a common interest in the work. Therefore, the status of part-time and casual employees as distinguished from seasonal workers in agriculture will also have to be studied. Where there is no significant difference between the work of seasonal and nonseasonal workers and they bave other interests iii common, both groups may be joined into a single bargaining unit.14 Foreign Nationals recruited under inter-government agreements for temporary agricultural work are not eligible to vote.~' However, this is no longer significant. Timing of Election Consistent with the Board's policy of enfranchising a maximum number of employees, the present rule in seasonal industries is to conduct the election at the peak of the season.'° The date of election is selected by the Regional Director in consultation with the parties and usually with their agreement.'7 Timing the election at the harvest peak is also based on the assumption that the seasonal employees are genuinely interested in the conditions of their employ- ment even though any benefit derived from collective bargaining may not be realized until the following season, and on a recognition that a proportion of the workers will not return to the cannery or shed the next season. A study of each crop in order to determine the point of highest employment will have to be made. Likewise, consideration must be given to the effect of the varying season and work force for different crops of the same employer. Where, of course, there is virtually year round employment or where tl1e diversification of crops reduces the fluctuations in employment the timing of election's is not significant. Condnct of elections The actual, physical conduct of secret-ballot elections among agricultural employees would present no insuperable problems. The Board has conducted more than 200,000 elections among more than 25,000,000 voters since 1935. Board agents have taken the voting booth and ballot box to employees in units ranging from two to many thousands, and have conducted elections ranging in length from 14 Libby, McNeiU and Libby, et ci., 90 NLRB 279. "Stokely47an Camp, et al., 107 NLRB 1137. 10 Arena Norton. Inc., 93 NLRB 375. 17 Wade and Paston, 90 NLRB 1227. PAGENO="0159" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 153 15 minutes to 112 days (the latter one in the maritime industry where it was necessary to vote each of twenty ships three times due to crew changes in various ports). Polling places have been set up in factories and mills, of course, but also aboard ships and fishing vessels, in shacks or railroad boxcars, borrowed. schoolrooms or empty stores, and even, when necessary, in the Board agent's car or a rented tent. Election notices have been posted in many languages, in- cluding Spanish, Italian, Polish, German, Russian, Chinese, Tagalog, Greek, Portuguese. Hungarian, Ukrainian, Yugoslavian, French, and probably others.. Men working along hundreds of miles of pipelines or in isolated logging camps or in shrim.ping and fishing fleets have been voted. Board agents have hitch- hiked to inaccessible Alaskan salmon canneries by fishing vessel and single- motor pontoon plane. In 1945, 2,200 Board agents (experienced regulars aug- mented by temporary employees) voted, in 22 hours, more than 300,000 employees at more than 2,000 mines in 31 sta.tes. This is not to brag. It but recites experience that promises resourcefulness in new fields. Post-election procedxres New, speedier procedures also may have to be devised to deal with challenged ballots and objections to the election. The normal pace of investigation or hearing, reports, and appeals may have to be quickened so that objections may be resolved and, if necessary, a second election held before the season is over and most of the employees in the unit move on to other work. Contract Bar An accommodation of Board policy governing contract bars to elections may have to be made in agriculture. A contract bar is an existing contract held by an incumbent union that constitutes a bar to an election petition by a rival union until the incumbents contract is about to expire. There are so few existing contracts covering agricultural employees that any discussion of contract i~ar seems academic. Contracts made following a peak of season election usually are made to apply to the next season. Thus, in an organized operation an election would have to take place at a time when an incumbent union has an existing contract. This fact may require an exception to the Board's usual "contract bar" rule of refusing to conduct an election during the life of an outstanding contract. This in turn will require consideration of the status of an incumbent union and its contract when it loses an election to another union during the life of its contract. Certification Period Likewise, the normal length of the certification period may have to be ex- tended where a union has been chosen but the execution of a contract is delayed because of the seasonal nature of agriculture. The usual rule is that a cer- tification bars an election for one year. But, where a union is certified during one season and a contract is not agreed upon by the end of the season or during the off season, the certification year may be up before a contract is achieved. To avoid this problem the certification year may have to run through the next season. Whether a petition from a rival union should be entertained that is filed during the season following certification of the incumbent union must also be studied. Labor Contractors Apparently a great variety of employment an.d economic practices exists in agriculture as iii other industries. A farm may be leased by a cannery which will employ help directly to harvest the crops, or workers may be hired di- rectly by growers, or obtained through labor contractors, or through farm as- sociation or cooperative channels. The methods or techniques of employment are flexible and vary geographically and by crop. Thus, who the employer is, who exercises control, varies with the facts. It may range from a grower who turns his crop over to a cannery for harvesting and goes on a vacation, clearly making the cannery the employer, to a grower who enters into an arrangement whereby a crew leader is himself the employer with every sort of control or combination of control in between. One employment practice `that warrants added comment is the recruitment of migratory farm workers through "labor contractors" or "crew leaders." The crew leaders usually provide transportation, loan money, pay wages, keep books, handle contracts with growers, supervise workers on the job, and some- PAGENO="0160" 154 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES times pay OASI taxes.18 In 1901, the Secretary of Labor estimated that there were about 8~000 migratory "crew leaders" with 200,000 workers.19 There ap- pears to be little question but that crew leaders will present a problem in the administration of the proposed legislation. The Board will be required to de- termine the status of crew leaders as employees, independent subcontractors, joint employers, or employers; and such determination will critically affect appropriate units, the bargainihg duty, and whether employees will be covered by the Act in terms of such jurisdictional standards as may be applied. In determining the status of independent contractors, the Act requires the application of the "right of control test." 25 Where the person for whom the services are performed retains the right of control and the means by which the result is to be accomplished, the relationship is one of employment, but where control is reserved only as to the result sought, it is that of independent contractor. The resolution of this question depends on the facts of each case, and any one factor alone is not determinative. Factors to be considered are, for example, the right to hire and discharge, the extent of capital investment, the risk of loss, the oppor- tunity for making a profit, and the freedom to terminate the relat,ionship.n The relationship of crew leaders and farm operators may be construed, in some situations, (as that of "joint employers." In cases of this kind, the degree of con- trol exercised, the relative dependence of the contractor on his principal, the degree of physical and functional integration of the two, and the joint use of personnel and equipment for common purposes, are among the factors to be considered.22 On the other hand. if the labor contractor serving a number of farm owners is found to be an employer, the problem of a broader unit including agricultural employees working on a number of farms may be resolved by a finding of a single-employer (labor contractor) unit embracing a larger pool of employees. The numerous labor contractors or crew leaders in agriculture, and the variety of employment arrangements under which they may operate, constitute a very real potential for the removal of large numbers of agricultural employees from the jurisdiction of the Act if the proposed legislation is enacted without special consideration being given to this problem. SUBSTITUTE AGRICULTURAL "EMPLOYEES" FOR LABORERS Finally, I have noted that the proposed legislation before the Committee in H.R. 4769 contains the term (page 2, line 3) "agricultural laborers" in extending the application of Section 8(f) to agriculture. In view of the fact that there are categories of employees whose skills take them out of the "laborer" classification, this language may result in rulings inconsistent with the Committee's apparent intention to apply the Act to semi-skilled and skilled agricultural employees as well as to "laborers." If the Committee seeks the broader coverage, it may wish to substitute "employees" for "laborers." The Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 1965, TTol. II, lists almost 750 different job classifications in agriculture. (At pp. 531-533). Among these are many which describe the operation of complex, sophisticated equipment or the maintenance thereof. For example, Bean Harvesting Machine Operator, Combine Operator, Cotton Picking Machine Operator, Peanut-Digger-Shaker Operator, etc., appear from the descriptions of their functions, to be of significantly higher skills than that of farm "laborer". These men, among other duties, prepare the harvesting equipment by adjusting speeds of cutters, blowers, and conveyors and the height of cutting head or depth of digging blades according to the type, height, weight, 10 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, U.S. Senate, prepared statement of Secretary of Labor Goldberg, April 1961, pp. 38-39. 15 Golden Age Dayton Corp., 124 NLRB 916; C. J. Patterson 4/b/a Pert-Us Bakers of `Oklahoma, 1~1 NLRB 84; Albert Lea Cooperative Creamery Assn., 119 NLRB 817. 20 Buffalo Courier-Express, Inc., 129 NLRB 932; American Broadcasting Co., et al., 117 NLRB 13,, 17-18: Pqnirt-Nesbitt Bottling Corp., 130 NLRB 24: Citizen-News Co., Inc., 97 NLRB 42!8, 43~3-434; Nv-Carriers, Inc., 189 F. 20 756, 759; Clark Oil cf Refining Corp., 129 NLRB 750; Keystone Floors, Inc., 130 NLRB 4; Whiting Lumber Co., 97 NLRB 265; Southern Shellfish Co., Inc., 95 NLRB 957. ~ Under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, P.L. 88-582, "crew leaders" are require4 to' apply for a certificate of registration through the Department of Labor or, in certain States, at the offices of the State labor commissioner. Their treatment of employees is, to an extent, regulated by the Act. See 1966 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. U.S. Senate, The Migratory Farm Labor Problem in the United States, Report No. 1549, 1966. 22Freda Rednsonfl and Sir James. 147 NLRB 1025; Checker Cab Co., 141 NLRB 583: Spartan Dept. Stores, 140 NLRB 608; Panther Coal Co., Inc., 128 NLRB 409; Dayton Coal and Iron Corp., 208 F. 20 394 (CA. 6). PAGENO="0161" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTURAL EMPLOYEES 155 and conditions of the crop being harvested and the contour of the terrain, and they operate the same. In addition, there are, of course, tractor, lift fork, and truck drivers. Farm Equipment Mechanics are responsible for maintaining, re- pairing, and overhauling farm equipment and vehicles such as those described above. Irrigation occupations run the vital irrigation systems and the usual building construction trades such as electricians, carpenters, plumbers, operating engi- neers, etc., maintain farm electrical systems, refrigeration, plumbing systems, buildings, etc. Cursory review of the functions of these employees, among many others simi- larly occupied, may create doubt as to their coverage by the term "agricultural laborers." CONCLUSION No matter how much time was spent looking ahead in any new undertaking, there would arise, of course, unexpected problems new to the Board's experience. The field of labor-management relations is dynamic and ever-changing, and for 32 years now the Board has proved that it has the needed flexibility and resourcefulness to cope with the uncertainties Of our changing economic patterns. It is for the Congress to determine whether now to extend the Act to cover agricultural employees. If this be dOne, experience teaches that the Board usually can find workable solutions both for the problems anticipated and for those not yet foreseen. APPENDIx A NLRB Appropriation Bill Rider 79 Stat. 609, Title III National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses. For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-167), and other laws, ~28,165,O00 (1967) : Provided, that no part of this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection with investigations, hearings, direc- tives, or orders concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29 U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained or operated on a mutual, non- profit basis and at least 95 per centum of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for farming purposes. Fair Labor Standards Act, Section 3(b) Section 3(f) PLSA (agrici~lture) "Agriculture" includes farming in all the branches and among other things in- cludes the cultivation and tiulage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities (in- cluding commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 15(g) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended), the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bear- ing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmeror on a farm as an incident to or in conjunc- tion with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery~ to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market. - Mr FIELDS My name is Ogden W Fields I have been employed by the National Labor Relations Board since 1941. Since 1960, I have served as its Executive Secretary. I feel honored to respond to the committee's invitation toappear and testify concerning the probable impact of the proposed amendment on my agency's administration of the statute I want to also add that preparing for this testimony brought me back 30 years In 1937, I served for a year as `t migratory labor camp manager in Marysville, Calif., under the U.S. Department of Agri- culture. .. I have been asked to discuss whether it is practical for the Board to cOnduct elections in seasonal and migratory industries and what par- 82-i32-67-------ii PAGENO="0162" 156 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES ticular administrative problems may be foreseen in conducting elec- tions in the agricultural field in the event H.R. 4769 is enacted by Congress. I am here as a so-called expert witness, if you please, not on the policy question of whether the act should be amended to cover agricul- tural employees-that is a matter for the Congress to decide-but on the question of whether the Board can do the job if Congress decides to give it to us. My simple answer is that we can. As you know, in addition to removing the agricultural section from section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the rider attached to our appropriations every year since 1946, precluding the use of Board funds in connection with agricultural labor would also have to be removed if the Board is to exercise jurisdiction. Other legislative amendments would be necessary only if the Congress itself wishes to determine the standard for the Board's assertion of jurisdic- tion over agricultural employers and to broaden the scope of bargain- ing units beyond single-employer units into multiple employer or pro- duction or marketing area units. The problems that may be reasonably anticipated if H.R. 4769 is enacted can and should without too much difficulty be solved through the administrative process rather than by legislation. The Board has had a wealth of experience in exercising jurisdic- tion over seasonal and migratory industries. Over many years it has built up in these industries a substantial body of case law and proce- dural practices that have won the approval and support of the circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. And much of this experience was developed in industries directly and immediately related to agri- culture such as the packing and canning and food processing indus- tries. Definition and content was given to the term "agricultural laborer" by the Board and the courts in a number of representation and unfair labor practice cases. The tests were practical, evolved from the character of the work performed as modified by custom. The seasonal need for large numbers of temporary employees to handle highly perishable products is not unique to agriculture. Nor is the fact that some employees are migratory. These characteristics exist in fruit and vegetable packing, canning and freezing and many other agricultural related industries listed in my full statement under foot- note 4. The Board has also gained much experience from other industries where employment is seasonal or of brief duration and the employees migratory or mobile such as the fishing and construction industries in addition to a miscellany of nonfood seasonal industries such as toy manufacturing, iawnmowers, recreation, garden furniture, greeting cards, and so forth. I refer you to footnote ~S in my full statement. The Board has de- cided representation issues and conducted elections successfully in thousands of cases in these industries. Accordingly, in my opinion, many of the principles, procedural practices, and techniques in these related or analogous industries would be readily applicable to agricultural employees now excluded from the act. There would, `of course, still be some difficult and complicated prob- lems. And the degree to whiôh Board policies and practices evolve PAGENO="0163" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 157 for other industries may be successfully transmuted to agricultural labor to solve such problems varies. Let us try to anticipate some of the problems that might arise and see if existing policies or principles apply or whether new solutions need to be found by the Board or be provided by legislation. JURISDICTION Although the Board's statutory jurisdiction extends to all em- ployers whose operations affect commerce, the Board has, with con- gressional approval, limited the exercise of its power to those enter- prises whose effect on commerce is substantial. It has done this by setting up monetary jurisdictional standards for different kinds of enterprises stated in terms of total dollar vol- ume business. Since 1958, the standard for retail enterprises has been that the Board will assert jurisdiction over all nonretail operations which have an outflow or inflow across State lines itt least $50,000 a year, whether such outflow or inflow `be direct or indirect. This is the standard applied to the packing,' canning, and food- processing industries as well as to all manufacture. In the event agricultural employees were brought under the act, the Board would very likely adopt some similar jurisdictional test for this industry if Congress itself had made no provision in the leg- islation fo'r a standard. The standard would be set oniy after full inquiry into the pertinent facts, special needs and problems of agricultural. Most probably the Board would hold oral argument on the question to which interested unions, employer or~athzations, and associations, in addition to the parties, would be invited to participate. The administration of the unfair labor practice provisions of the act do not appear to involve any particular problems which the agency has not already experienced where employment is seasonal and the employees migratory. Specifically, the problem here is the additional time it takes to run down witnesses or to keep up with them incident to the investigation of charges. Under section 9(b) of the act, the basic unit is the single-employer unit. Under current law, the Board will not establish multiemployer units unless it finds that the employers have voluntarily formed an association for the purpose of collective bargaining and the union has agreed to `bargain on that basis. These requirements of consent of the parties for purposes of estab- lishing multiemployer bargaining units apply equally to seasonal in- dustry. For example, if in a given area a number of growers employ- ing their workers from a common labor pool insisted on single-em- ployer units but the union wanted a inuitiempioyer unit, `under pres- ent law single units would be found appropriate an'd elections held accordingly. Were the positions reversed the results would be the same. Consent is the key to the continuance of multiempioyer units as well as to their cre'ttion Where an associationwide unit has been volun tarily established, an employer member may, with due notice at an PAGENO="0164" 158 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO' AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES appropriate time, withdraw from the broad unit and thereafter bar- gain on a single-employer basis. Likewise, a union may serve notice at an appropriate time of its intent to cease bargaining on a multi- employer basis and thereafter bargain in single-employer units. Units broader than single employers may be particularly appropriate to cer- tain phases of agriculture and the parties may well agree since it would be in their mutual interest. In the unlikely event that they do not, the committee might wish to explore the possibility of permitting the Board to formulate bar- gaining units in the field of agriculture on a broader and different basis from those which the present act allows, such as multiemployer units other than those obtained by consent of the parties, or production- or marketing-area units. BARGAINING UNIT In agriculture, with collective bargaining history still to be made and patterns of bargaining not yet developed, analogies to related or similar industries may assist the Board in establishing appropriate units. That is the appropriate grouping of employers for an election and collective bargaining. In general, the Board seeks to include in the unit employees who share common interests, similarity of skills and working conditions, duties, common supervision, and so forth. In seasonal migratory industries, the primary factors are (1) the expectancy of reemployment in the future and (2) the extent to which the interests of the seasonal employees are similar to the nonseasonal employees. Thus, where the employer draws from the same labor force each season and former employees are given preference in re- hiring or recall, the Board as a general rule finds that the community of interest with the permanent employers is sufficient to warrant inclu- sion of the seasonal employees in the unit with nonseasonal or year- around employees. In order to determine questions relating to the likelihood of return of employees from season to season, the Board routinely takes evidence on this subject in these cases. For example, in California Vegetable Concentrates, an employee' engaged in processing of vegetables, the company operated on a year-round basis with a permanent complement of between 240 and 290 employees. Also, seasonal employees were reg- ularly employed each year from August to November with peak em- plovment of about 600 seasonals usually occurring in October. The employer did not maintain a recall list of seasonals but it did give hirine~ preference to former seasonal employees who were known to be reliable workers. Also, between 20 and 50 seasonals became perma- nent employees each year. Of 270 seasonals on the September 1961 payroll, over 50 percent had worked during the 1960 season. ` In its decision, the Board included the seasonal employees in the unit in accordance with the usual practice in this industry SHOWING OF INTEREST - `The Board's normal practices require the `petition of the union to show that at least `30 percent of th~ employees in the unit wish `to be represented by the union. PAGENO="0165" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 159 The purpose of this rule is to avoid spending the taxpayers' money on an election unless there is* reasonable ground to believe that a sub- stantial number of employees are interested. In seasonal industry cases, however, theBoard's policy does require a showing only among those employed in the unit at the time the peti- tion is filed. This policy recognizes the practical, special problems inci- dent to the conduct of elections in seasonal industries where the Board seeks to have the election conducted at the peak of the season in order to allow a maximum of employees in the unit to vote. Accordingly, if a cannery began its operations in May with 100 employees, built up to a peak of 500 employees in September, and the union filed its petition in May, the Board would require a 30-percent showing or 30 cards among the 100 employees employed at the time the petition was filed. This would allow for a hearing to be held in the event the parties did not consent to an election and an election to be directed among the 500 employees during the peak of the season in September. ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE The general rule governing eligibility to vote in seasonal industries is to vote those employees employed during the payroll period im- mediately preceding the date of issuance of the notice of election and who are employed on the date of the election. The application of this practice to agricultural workers would have to be carefully examined to be sure that it does not disenfranchise significant numbers of employees. For example, the peak of the season for the harvesting of the crop of a large grower may occur in the last half of August. The eligible payroll period n~ay be set for the third week in August with the election to be held on August 30. Accordingly, to be eligible to vote under present policy a worker's name must appear on the payroll `for the third week. Thus, if a migra- tory worker during the designated payroll period was not employed `by this grower because he was engaged in the same area in winding up the harvesting of another crop or was migrating from another area, he would not be eligible to vote even though he began work during the next payroll period and was employed on election day and re- mained at work several days to finish the crop. It would appear that if there were a number of true migratory workers in this category that the Board would have to accommodate its eligibility policies to such circumstances. On the other hand, the Board would want to know whether or not this eligibility rule would give a vote to those who may not have a common interest in the work. Therefore, the status of part-time and casua:l employees as distin- guished from the seasonal workers in agriculture will also have to be studied. TIMING OF ELECTION To allow a maximum number of employees to vote the present rule in seasonal industries is to conduct the election at the peak of the season. Timing the election at the harvest peak is also based on the assumption that the seasonal employees are genuinely interested in the PAGENO="0166" 160 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES conditions of their employment even though any `benefit derived from collective bargaining may not be realized until the following season `and on a recognition that a proportion of the workers will not return `to the cannery or sh~d the next season. Where, of course, there, is virtually year-round employment or where the diversification of crops reduces the fluctuations in employ- ment, the timing o'f elections is not significant. CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS The actual, physical conduct of secret-ballot elections among agri- culural employees would present no insuperable problems. The Board has conducted more than 200,000 elections among more than 25 million voters since 1935. Board agents have taken the voting booth and ballot box to employees in units ranging from two to many thousands and have conducted elections ranging in length from 15 minutes to 112 days. Polling places have `been set up in `factories and mills, of course, but also a'board ships and fishing vessels, in shacks or railroad boxcars, borrowed schoolrooms or empty stores, and even, when nec- esary, in the Board agent's car or a rented tent. Election notices have been posted in many languages, including Spanish, Italian, Polish, German, Russian, `Chinese, Tagalog, Greek, Portuguese, Hungarian, Ukrainian, French, and probably others. Men working along hundreds of miles of pipelines or in isolated logging camps or in shrimping and fishing fleets have been voted. Board agents have hitchhiked to inaccessible Alaskan salmon canneries by fishing vessels and single-motor pontoon plane. In 1945, 2,200 board agents-experienced regulars augmented by temporary employees-voted, in 22 hours, more than 300,000 employees at more than 2,000 mines in 31 States. This is not t'o brag. It but recites experience that promises resource- fulness in new fields. A brief discussion of postelection problems, contract bars, and certi- fication periods is contained in my full statement so I will not mention them here. EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND LABOR CONTRACTORS Apparently a great variety of employment and economic practices exist in agriculture as in other industries. A farm may be leased by a cannery which will employ help directly to harvest the crops or workers may be hired directly `by growers or obtained through labor contrac- tors or through farm association or cooperative channels. rllhe methods or teclmiques of employment are flexible and vary geographically and by crop. One employment practice that warrants added comment is the re- cruitment of migratory farmworkers through labor contractors or crew leaders. As of October 31, 1966, almost 2,000 were registered under the 1964 Farm Labor Contract Registration Act. The Department of Labor estimates that between 3,000 and 12,000 -farm labor contractors will be ultimately registered. The Board will be required to determine the status of crew leaders as employees, independent subcontractors, joint employers, or em- PAGENO="0167" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 161 ployers. And such determination will critically affect appropriate units, the bargaining duty, and whether employees will be covered by the act in terms of such jurisdictional standards as may be applied. In determining the status of independent contractors, the act requires the application of the right-of-control test. The resolution of this ques- tion depends on the facts of each case and any one factor alone is not determinative. The numerous labor contractors or crew leaders in agriculture and the variety of employment arrangements under which they may oper- ate constitute a very real potential for the removal of large numbers `of agricultural employees from the jurisdiction of the act if the pro- posed legislation is enacted without special consideration being given to this problem. SUBSTITUTION OF THE TERM AGRICULTURAL LABORERS FOR AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES H.R. 4769 contains the term "agricultural laborers." Since there are agricultural employees whose skills take them out of the laborer classi- ilcation, the committee may wish to substitute the word "employees" for "laborers" in keeping `with its apparent intent to apply the act to semiskilled and skilled agricultural employees as well as to laborers. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles lists almost 750 different job `classifications in agriculture. Cursory review of the functions of these `employees, among many other similarly occupied, may create doubt as to their coverage `by the term "agricultural laborers." In conclusion, no matter how much time was spent looking ahead in any new undertaking there would arise, of course, unexpected problems new to the Board's experience. The field of labor-management relations is dynamic and ever chang- ing and for 32 years now the Board has proved that it ha's the needed flexibility and the resourcefulness to cope with the uncertainties of our `changing economic patterns. It is for the C'ongress to determine whether now to extend the act to cover agricultural employees. If this be done, expe'rience teaches that the Board usually can find workable solutions both for the problems `anticipated and for those not yet foreseen. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Fields. This is extraor- dinarily fine, useful testimony. We especially appreciate the specific suggestions that run through it. Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Fields, I want to underscore what the chairman has said. I think your testimony has been extremely helpful in con- sidering this legislation. The most important question in applying this act to a new field is: Will it work? And this is a question to which you have addressed yourself. Without expressing an opinion on whether or not the NLRA s'hould cover agricultural employees, you have given us insights into the ques- tion of whether or not it will work. I would like to cover several additional points. By the way, before I do so, I would like to commend to all members of the committee the full statement that you submitted to the committee. A thorough read- ing and analysis of your statement, I think, will answer most of the questions that have been or will be raised. PAGENO="0168" 162 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTIJRAL EMPLOYEES I noticed you were present the other day when Mr. Chavez testified. You were, of course, present when Mr. Haughton testified. In both cases there was reference to the economic pressure activities engaged in ;by the union which, if one were to apply the usual standards of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, would be considered to be secondary boycott. In the DiGorgio situation and others, the indication was that the NLRB has not moved against the so-called secondary boycotts. Mr. Chavez mentioned the case of the Mayfair Stores. He led us to believe that the NLRB had acted. I wonder if you have reviewed the question of secondary boycotts as they affect farmworkers' organizations and if you can give us a little summary of just what the NLRB's position is, and what actions, if any, have been taken. Mr. FIELDS. Mr. O'Hara, I did look into that Mayfair case. I believe when Mr. Chavez raised it on Friday, the chairman, I think, character- ized the situation as that the agricultural laborers, they can't enjoy the benefits of the act but they are hit with the proscriptions. 1 believe our Spanish-speaking witnesses said, "Injunction, si; elec- tions, no," under our National Labor Relations Act. In stopping the secondary pressures in the consumer boycott, I don't think the general counsel had any alternative under the statute. This is because of the clear definitions under the act. It may be construed as a one-way street. Under section 2(3), the term "employee" under the act, shall not in- elude any individual employee as an agricultural laborer. Thus, he may not obtain an election and he has no protection against employer unfair labor practices but at the same time he is free to picket, to strike, and to boycott and to commit union unfair labor practices if the organization only represents agricultural employees and membership is limited to agricultural laborers who are excluded from the act. Now, this is the same with respect to railroad employees or to super- visory employees such as masters, mates, and pilots on ships. Now in the DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. cases the local union engaged in a secondary boycott but the courts held that it was not a labor orga- nization because this union exclusively represented agricultural labor- ers who were excluded from the act. So, it was held that they could engage in illegal, normally illegal, consumer or secondary boycotts. Now section 2(5) in defining labor organization, provides that a labor organization means any organization of any kind in which employees participate. So, it was held in at least three very fundamental cases by the Board and sustained in the courts and certiorari has been denied in which it was held that if the union, in addition to having supervisory em- ployees or railroad employees or agricultural laborers, if it also includes membership and also represents employees who are under the act, that the total organization is within the proscriptions of the secondary boycott provisions and, therefore, the general counsel under those cir- cumstances was required to seek to stop it either by injunction or by having the union engaged in the activity stopping it voluntarily. On May 2, the Farm Workers Union, this is the United Farm Work- ers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, voluntarily agreed to cease its consumer boycotting of the Arvin Mayfair Store. PAGENO="0169" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 163 Now you must understand that this was done because they included in their organization some packing shed workers. Originally the Na- tional Farm Union represented agricultural workers only and at the same time another organization, the AWOC, or the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, included agricultural laborers but also packing shed workers. Then they merged into an organization known as the UFWOC, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, that orga- nization included both, even though the packing shed workers were in a minority. So that under the statute the general counsel had no alternative. Mr. O'HARA. That confirms my analysis of how the Board arrived at the results it did. That the correct application of the law should lead to such an outrageous result is another reason for this committee doing something to change the law. Mr. FIELDS. Yes, sir. I would like, if I may, to give the reporter citations to the cases I mentioned. Mr. O'HARA. I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to do so. Mr. THOMPSON. Without objection. (The citations referred to follow:) DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. 28 LRRM 2195 89 U.S. APP. DO 155 29 LRRM 2022. Certiorari denied. Masters, Mates and Pilots v. NLRB (Chicago Calumet Stevedoring Company, 59 LRRM 2566). Electrical Workers Union (B. B. McCormick & Sons, 59 LRRM 276). Mr. O'ILkI~. Mr. Fields, there are two other particular points in your testimony which I would like to ask about. *First, jurisdictional standards. There has been some hint that we might want to adopt jurisdictional standards in any legislation we agree to with respect to agricultural employees. I would like to make it clear that I am not in favor of doing so. A very good case can be made, in terms of consistency and flexibility, that we leave such standards to the discretion of the Board. Am I not correct in saying that if legislative jurisdictional stand- ards were adopted for agricultural workers, they would be the only set of jurisdictional standards in the National Labor Relations Act? Mr. FIELDS. That is right. Mr. O'}IAn~. You have a very sensitive and complex set of adminis- trative jurisdictional standards, which while I don't agree with them, are geared to the specific requirements of particular industries. Mr. FIELDS. They are contained in a footnote in my full statement, as you know. Mr. O'HARA. Yes. You suggest that standards be adopted after a hearing and a thorough discussion of the requirements of this par- ticular industry. That makes a lot of sense. Mr. THOMPSON. If the gentleman will yield at that point, I agree with his statement. I have read the cases under which the administra- tive rulings were made. I gather that the thrust of this colloquy is that the Board in exercising its administrative responsibility would ex- clude the small farmer, not only in light of the history of this experi- ence but in light of the application of the one criteria which is abso- lutely necessary under the NLRA; namely, are they in interstate com- merce. PAGENO="0170" 164 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTIJRAL EMPLOYEES Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Fields, I would like to ask you about the amend- ments that are proposed by section 8(f). You have pointed out the difficulty that we face if we use the term "agricultural laborers" in this legislation. I would like to know whether we might bring in other problems if we used the term "employees" instead of "laborers." I haven't given it enough thought to determine whether that might be the case. Mr. FIELDS. I think it would be the intention to include in the defini- tion skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled agricultural workers, which the term "employees" would embrace whereas the connotations of the word "agricultural laborer," in view of the infinite number of occu- pations, may cause some difficulty unless the statute clarified it or clearly defined it. For example, in the definitions of occupational-there are just in- ~numerable, skilled machine operators. For example, the occu- pational dictionary lists as agricultural occupational classifications, bean harvesting machine operator, combine operator, peanut digger- shaker operator; and so forth, as well as electricians, carpenters, plumbers, operating engineers, just an infinite variety. So that person, psychologically at least, would think, "I am not covered, I am not a laborer, I am an operating engineer." Mr. O'HARA. At first glance you comment on the use of the word "laborers" seems to me to be entirely correct as does your observation with reference to the difference between the term "laborers" and "em- ployees." But I want to make sure that we would not get into a new set of problems were I to offer that change. I want to think about it a little bit. Mr. FIELDS. All I am suggesting is that this be looked into. Mr. O'llAn~. I thank you very much. Your testimony with respect to the practical application of the Labor Relations Act to farm labor has been very, very helpful. Thank you. Mr. ThOMPSON. Mr. Ford. Mr. FORD. I join Mr. O'Hara in his comments and ask you just two specific questions. The first pertains to the cases that you are going to put into the record concerning the determination that organizations of farm or agricultural laborers are covered by the act for the purpose of stop- ping a product boycott. Blow old are these cases? Mr. FIELDS. The DiGiorgio Fruit Corp. case was decided in 1951. The Masters, Mates, and Pilots, 1965, Chicago Calumet Stevedor- ing Co. Mr. Foiw. They are all in the 1960's? Mr. FIELDS. No. The DiGiorgio case was 1951. In that case the cir- cuit court held that because the Agricultural Laborers Union repre- sented agricultural laborers only, all excluded from the act, they could not be enjoined. They were free. They had neither the benefits nor the proscriptions and they could engage in secondary activities or con- sumer boycott. Mr. Foim. When did the Board make the finding on the other sub- ject? PAGENO="0171" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGR.ICTJLTTJR.AL EMPLOYEES 165 Mr. FIELDS. I think the case arose in 1963. It went up and was de- cided by the Circuit Court of Appeals in 1965. That leaves the case I referred to, Chicago Calumet Stevedoring Co., involving master3 and pilots. The circuit in the District of Columbia in 1965 enforced the Board's order. Then there was another case about the same time involving the B. B. McCormick & Sons and involved, of course, the Florida East Coast Railway. That occurred at about the same time. Around 1964 or 1965. Mr. FORD. Actually, the decisions are relatively new that seem to indicate that a proper technical description of the act as it now stands would mean that the worker has the right to be sued but not to sue, or is a citizen for tax purposes but not for voting purposes to use an even more severe comparison. I would simply like to observe that if this is going to be used very frequently by people on one side of the dispute, it will probably do more to excite the imagination of Members of the Congress and the public across this country for the passage of this type of legislation than anything we might do in this committee. Hopefully, one of the things that is going to come out of these hear- ings is that people across the country will realize that some of the things that have come to light during this hearing are still going on in this country. Certainly as to the enforcement of this provision by the Board, I make no criticism of the Board in doing this, I agree with Mr. O'Hara that you appear to be absolutely correct in your interpretation of the law, leaving to Congress responsibility for any addition to that law. Mr. FIELDS. It is not because the cases are recent, it is just that they didn't arise until recent years. I did not exhaust the research on this point. There might well have been cases with these interpretations in earlier years. We did have a case going back in 1951, the DiGiorgio case. There have been relatively few cases throughout this period. Mr. FORD. The bill that is before us picks up almost in toto the present exceptions and provisions that were written originally for the building trade. Have you made any examination of this language from the point of view of the Board to determine whether there are circumstances that might not make the exact language appropriate? In other words, might it not be appropriate for us to examine the possibility of a~ new section rather than hitchhiking on the building trade section? One of the things that brings this to my attention is that one of the provisions of this section is to provide that in labor contracts mini- mum training or experience requirements may be specified. This at first blush does not seem to me to be appropriate to the kind of em- ployment that we are talking about here. If you could compare the situation with an industrial-type union, it would have some bearing because you would be talking about senior- ity. If we are talking here about the possibility of a contract including the program for apprentices, master pickers and associate pickers and what-have-you, this raises the question, assuming the possibility of accomplishing what this, legislation intends to accomplish, of whether or not using the language of the present secti9n without more specific tailoring to this industry might lead us into problems? PAGENO="0172" 166 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. FIELDS. I would suggest that it be very, very carefully studied, because of this basic fact. The construction industry has, been a highly organized industry. Every year since Congress provided for this prehire arrangement, prehire contracts in 1959, there have been thousands entered into every year. The Board has had relatively few problems with it. But when you apply that to an agricultural field where there is just a very low level of organizing, it may well present problems where an effort might be made to anticipate. We have a few problems arising under the prehire contract by the Board. But as applied to this industry it is difficult to judge what would happen. In my opinion, it would not have much of an impact, the prehire arrangements in agriculture, for several years. I think that it might have to be organized first before employers would be consenting to these prehire arrangments. So, because of the basic difference, one highly organized, the other a very low level of organization, I would suggest a most careful study. Mr. Fom. I am not particularly concerned with prehire. I see no real problem with the concept, itself, except where it applies to this aspect of the contract that would accommodate provisions for mini- mum training and experience requirements as contrasted with the building trades that have a long tradition of apprenticeship programs and very strict, tight controls by the labor organization of these factors. Most persons could understand what you mean when you use the term prehire with respect to established labor as distinguished from the people who are most likely to be affected by this legislation who have no tradition of classification or union displicine. This, inci- dentally, is one area where even the building trades are subject to considerable criticism from time to time by such people as the civil rights advocates with respect to how such provisions are sometimes used in contracts. I would appreciate it if you people would take a look at this specific aspect of the language and if you see a problem such as I suspect might exist, will you comment on it before we conclude the hearing. Mr. FIELDS. I will be delighted to. Mr. THOMPSON. Once again, Mr. Fields, thank you very much. I am really delighted with the substance and the depth of your testi- mony. It will be most useful to us. Mr. FIELDS. Thank you very much. Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommitteewill adjourn until tomorrow af- ternoon at 2 p.m. in room 2261. We will hear Members of Congress and Mr. Walter Reuther ~f the United Auto Workers at that time. The subcommittee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Tuesday, May 9, 1967, in room 2261.) PAGENO="0173" EXTENSION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGRICuLTURAL EMPLOYEES TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2. :12 p.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Representatives Thompson, Dellenback, Gardner, O'Hara, Scheuer, Brademas, Ford, and Goodell. Also present: Hon. Phillip Burton, of California. Peter W. Tredick, counsel; Daniel Pollitt, special counsel; Jeunesse M. Zeifman, clerk. Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order for the con- tinuation of the hearings on H. B. 4769, by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan. STATEMENT OP HON. ELMER J. HOLLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP PENNSYLVANIA Mr. THOMPSON. We will now hear the statement of our colleague, the Honorable Elmer J. Holland of the State of Pennsylvania. Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to have the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R. 4769 and my companion bill, H.R. 1999. I do not claim to be an expert on agri- cultural economics. I do know a little bit about the structure of the agricultural labor force, and the role which the public employment service has played in past years in this area. But the main reason for my deep interest in this problem and my deep commitment to the principle of bringing agricultural labor under the National Labor Relations Act lies in my own personal background. Many years before I even dreamed of coming to the Congress, I had the privilege of working with the late beloved Philip Murray in help- ing to organize the United Steelworkers of America. In those early years of the labor movement, when the right to organize was itself under question, and the right to strike only a dream in the minds of some of us, I learned a few lessons very thoroughly. And I am unlikely to unlearn them now. The first such lesson is that the workingman has only his labor, only his strength and his ingenuity and his creativity to bring to the mar- ketplace. He cannot bargain on an individual basis with an employer. He cannot debate fine points of contracts with the employer's attorney. 167 PAGENO="0174" 168 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULT~URAL EMPLOYEES He cannot easily withdraw from the marketplace and live on his capital until conditions become more favorable for him. The second lesson-or maybe it's only another way of stating the first-is that the workingman must organize if he is to talk on a plane of equality with the employer. In labor negotiations, the whole, if not greater, is at least stronger than the sum of its parts. The third lesson I have learned is that while legislation to improve the life of the workingman is vitally important, it must necessarily take a second place to the efforts of free working people, organized into free unions, to improve their own lot. We can legislate minimum wages, we can legislate workmen's compensation, we can legislate health and retirement insurance programs, but none of our legislative efforts can ever do more than establish a floor below which negotiations are not allowed, as a matter of simple public decency, to plunge the workingman. If he is to rise above that floor, if he is to participate as fully as his contribution to the general welfare entitles him in the benefits of society, then he will do so more completely, more rapidly, and more permanently through collective bargaining than through all the efforts of the most forward-looking legislative bodies. I believe, Mr. Chairman, in a free economy. I do not believe in more Government regulation than is necessary to maintain minimum stand- ards of decency. But I believe, and these beliefs are inseparable., that t.he parties to that free economy must be of equal strength. It follows from this, that agricultural workers must be able to be as free to help set t.he conditions under which they work as are agricultural employers. And the first essential step to achieve this must be the extension to these workers of the same rights that are enjoyed by their fellow workers on the assembly line, in the cabs of trucks, and behind sales counters. As I have heard it argued that allowing farmworkers to organize would be "different" because if farm labor strikes during the harvest season, the employer is under a disadvantage. That's absolutely true. If farmworkers are organized, if they can refuse their labor to an employer because he offers them substandard wages or working con- ditions, if they can simply opt out of the labor market, the employer is under pressure. But. lie is under pressure to pay decent. wages and to provide decent working conditiQns. And, Mr. Chairman, lie very well ought to be under such pressure. Labor negotiation is not supposed t.o be a set of circumstances in which there is a phony semblance of equality, in which t.he employer is very pleasant and polite to the employee, but in which the end re- suit is foreordained because the employees simply have no way of making their point. The very purpose of the right to organize and the right to strike is to give to labor some leverage, some method of bringing pressure to bear on the employer. It assumes-and the history of agricultural labor proves the assumption fully-that employers are not going to pay as much as they can afford, but rather as little as they can get away with. We are told that if agricultural labor can organize and strike, that in some circumstances crops are not going to get picked, and growers will be in trouble. That's too bad, and for the most part agricultural labor is not going to be any more anxious to put growers out. of business PAGENO="0175" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGEICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 169 than 1~Talter Reuther wants to run the automobile makers out of busi- ness. But if an employer simply refuses to pay decent wages, if he simply insists upon treating his labor force like so many domesticated animals, then the Nation will be better off if he is run out of business. The grower's right to have his crops harvested and put on the market isno more basic than the worker's right to withhold his labor if offered impossible working conditions-and the further right to withhold that labor on an organized basis, and to advise other working people that a strike is in progress. The frightening pictures we have drawn for us of growers going out of business, and crops not getting harvested, and the housewife being denied her avocado salad or her cocktail hour artichoke-all these frightening pictures assume that the farm employee has some kind of "duty to the public" to perform his labor at whatever is offered him. But I never hear the growers suggest that they have any correspond- ing duty to offer the kind of wages that are necessary to let the em- ployees rise out of serfdom. If the farmworker has some moral obliga- tion not to strike, then the farm employer has a corresponding moral obligation to improve the conditions under which the worker exists. The pending bill, Mr. Chairman, will not enforce these moral obliga- tions, nor will it bring the hand of Government into the relationship between employer and employee by such devices as wage scales, Gov- ernment hiring halls, licensing, or the rest. What it will do will be to bring the employer-employee relationship out of the 15th century and into the 20th, and it will equip both sides equally to engage in honest collective bargaining, starting from a plane of equality. This right- and it is a right, Mr. Chairman-has been recognized for other seg- ments of the labor force for nearly 30 years now. It is time that the food on our tables had the blood and sweat of generations of exploited workers scrubbed from it. It is time to pass H.R. 4769. Mr. TH0MPSON.Thallk you, Congressman Holland, for appearing *before this subcommittee. STATEMENT OP HON. J~EPPERY COHELAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP OALIPORNIA Mr. THOMPSON. Our next witness will be Congressman Cohelan. Mr. `Cohelan represents the Seventh Congressional District of California. We will be glad to hear your testimony at this time. Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to testify on this very important legislation, which would extend collective bar- gaining rights, under the National Labor Relations Act, to agricul- tural workers. As you know, I have been deeply and actively concerned for a number of years with efforts to improve the lot of those Ameri- cans who toil in the fields of this country. There is no more honest and honorable work than farm labor; yet no group of workers has so regu- larly and systematically been discriminated against and exploited. One of the most important steps we can take to correct these past injustices is to include agricultural workers under the National Labor Relations Act. I have been sponsoring legislation to this effect since 1963. I hope that it will receive the favorable consideration of this ~committee and the Congress this year. PAGENO="0176" 170 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES There can be no question that within the last few years we have made important gains in the field of farm labor. As one who was active in the successful fight to end the mass importation of "braceros" under Public Law 78, I am delighted with the first steps that have been taken in minimum wage protections, education and health services, and day care centers for the children of migrant farmworkers. These, though, are oniy beginnings. We need to do much more, and in other fields as well, and we need to do it quickly. For let us recognize very clearly that until recently there has been a conscious, and a largely successful, effort to exclude the farmworkers of this country from much of the basic economic and social legislation written in the last 34 years. They have been denied unemployment compensation, and yet their need for income protection may even be greater than that of other workers because of the seasonal employment patterns and low wage structure of agriculture. They have been denied workmen's compensation in all but a few States, and yet farmwork has become one of the niost dangerous of all occupations. Until the end of Public Law 78 on December 31, 1964, we even interfered with their labor market by importing thousands of foreign workers to do the jobs that American workers were prepared to do if paid decent wages and afforded decent working conditions. In brief, we have treated our hired farmworkers like second-class citizens. The result has been predictable: American farmworkers today are one of the most deprived and disadvantaged groups in our society. Their poverty truly deserves the description of "a harvest of shame." Thomas Pitts, the very able secretary-treasury of the Oalifornia Labor Federation, pointed out earlier this year that: The events of the last few years suggest that domestic farm workers are likely to remain second-class citizens in an affluent society unless the social- economic legislation applicable to most of the nation's workers is extended to them. As first order of business, Mr. Chairman, we should grant farm- workers the same rights to organize and bargain collectively as are enjoyed by their industrial brothers. Let us acknowledge the facts: big agriculture is big business. The myth of the small family farm has been largely replaced, if not devoured, by the giant of corporate agriculture. But despite the changes of the last 100, 50, and even the last dozen years, farmworkers are still treated as dispensable, second-class em- ployees. They can achieve a collective-bargaining relationship-the basis of working relationships in almost every other sector of our economy-only with the consent of their employer. In other words, collective bargaining may occur only in those cases where the farm- workers themselves-through strikes, boycotts, and other means- are able to force their employers to bargain with them. Industrial workers passed through this barrier 32 years ago with the Wagner Act. But agricultural employees are still waiting for this fundamental employment security. The very reasons that have historically been used to oppose this basic protection for farmworkers are, in reality, the very reasons why it is so important to provide it. The fact that agriculture is subject to PAGENO="0177" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTuRAL EMPLOYEES 171 the whims of nature, the fact that agricultural work is highly mobile, only increases the need of the workers involved to have a collective- bargaining relationship with their employers. When we look at the record it is clear what some of the consequences of this denial have been. Over the last 10 years farmworker earnings have risen only half as rapidly as their gains in productivity, Since the end of World War II the gap in pay and other bene- fits between industrial and agricultural workers, relatively and absolutely, has grown greater, In my own State of California only 31 percent of the male workers-based on 1964 data-between the prime working ages of 30 and 50 earned more than the poverty-line minimum of $3,000 per year. My only criticism of this proposed legislation, Mr. Chairman, is that it is too limited. Under the National Labor Relations Board's current jurisdictional standards it would affect only that 3 percent of our Nation's farms whose interstate shipments amount to more than $50,000 a year. Fortunately, this would benefit a significant portion of our hired farm laborers, but like minimum wage and other guarantees, its benefits should be broadened to include more workers. Despite this limitation, I strongly urge this committee to report this measure and to press for its passage. Farmworkers should have the same rights to negotiate their terms of employment that workers in other industries have long enjoyed. Clearly they cannot redress the present inequities of their situation, clearly they cannot enter the mainstream of the American working force without this basic employ- ment protection. Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman Cohelan, it has been a pleasure to hear your testimony. Thank you for appearing here today. Our next witness is the Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez. Congress- man Gonzalez represents the 20th Congressional District of Texas. Congressman, will you have a seat at the witness table. STATEMENT OP HON. HENRY B. GONZALEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I consider it an honor and a privilege to appear before you in behalf of H.R. 4769 and similar bills, including my own H.R. 6928, which would extend the benefits of collective bar- gaining under the National Labor Relations Act to agricultural workers. All through our history, the hewers of wood and the drawers of water have served as the very root and foundation of the growth and strength of our Nation, and their contribution has been acknowledged. But recognition in history books does not conceal the fact that these people, who today are farmworkers, have been left far behind in the benefits that the growth and wealth of our country have given to virtually all our citigens. The agricultural worker has the least security in his job; he has the least wage for his work; he has the least hope of obtaining compensation if he is hurt on the job; and worst of all, his plight is hidden because he is out in the country, where few people see his burden, and fewer still care. 82-132-G7-----12 PAGENO="0178" 172 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES The history of labor relations in this country reflects that there have been sporadic efforts by farmworkers to organize themselves into labor unions. Perhaps the greatest such efforts came about in the thirties, when farmworkers in California, driven there by the great drought in the central plains, found that the promised land contained nothing for them but despair. These workers tried to unionize, but they were met with clubs and guns, and they found that camps could be concentra- tion camps, and farms, prisons. Their effort failed, but the idea has never faded, and last year, there was at long last a successful effort to organize a significant number of agricultural workers. In the absence of a framework of laws within which to conduct matters, efforts to organize workers into unions will meet with resist- ance of every sort, and the result is chaos. Not every employer resists unions, but the fact is that when there is no law, anarchy prevails, and in a state of anarchy, it is the powerful who prevail. For this reason, union activities in the absence of law results very often in the employment of mass firings, violence on both sides, economic reprisals, `lockouts and other needless and ruinous actions. More often than not, in such a situation, a company or activity can be organized only after `strenuous and violent efforts, with damage to both sides. If an em- ployee group is able to beat down a recalcitrant employer, there will be a contract; otherwise there will not.. We witnessed industrial anarchy in the 1930's `and we saw warfare between farmers and workers in the same period. There was wide- spread economic dislocation, and there was even more widespread injustice. `We solved `this by creating a framework of laws `within which unions and employers `could operate in conducting their relations. Since that time, we have not had the yellow dog contract or the blacklist; we have not had industrial warfare. But the farmworker who wou'ld organize into a union must face the same obstacles that the industrial organizer of 1934 had to face. In the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, today, there are efforts to start farm employee unions. These efforts are met with firings of those who are union members, or who look or talk as if they might be, or might `like to be, union members. There are jailings, there are ugly incidents, and there are the old tools on the twenties and the 19th century: economic threats and reprisals, blacklists and employment of physical threats. All of this might not be halted `by the bill before the corn- mitte, but one thing is clear: we can no more afford the kind of `warfare `between farmer and farmworker than we could the warfare between `worker `and industry 30 years ago. Nor is this simply an economic question; it is a moral one as well. I do not believe that Congress can say to the majority of workers in `this land that they have certain rights and that there are fair and unfair labor practices, and then deny this same privilege and pro- `tection to farmworkers. I believe that if one man has a right under law, then all other men are entitled to it as well. I believe that if firing a man for union `activity is an unfair labor practice at General Motors, then it is also an unfair labor practice in a factory field in `California or T'exas. But the fact is that there is no such thing as an unfair labor practice in ~the Federl lexicon, as far as farmworkers are concerned. PAGENO="0179" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 173 I believe that efforts to organize workers in the fields will take place regradless of whether there is legal framework for it. I believe that a legal framework would permit such activities to take place in a peace- ful way, and that much of the friction and tragedy that is taking place today would be halted. I find it hard to believe that in this country, there can still exist, quite legally, labor practices that were considered shameful 50 years ago, and practices which we outlawed 31 years ago. But it is true, and it is time that we did som~thing about it. I urge approval of legislation which will enable framworkers to enjoy the same benefits and protections that the majority of our workers now have. I believe that if we deny this protection to these workers, we will be creating a class of second-class citizens, a class of untouch'ables in a land built on the belief that every man is created equal. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I am sure that you have made a fine contribution to the deliberation of this committee. Mr. O'Hara, would you like to introduce your constituent? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, he is not my constituent, although he comes awfully close to being my constituent, his residence being just a few miles outside of my district. Our first witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Walter Reuther, who is president of the UAW and of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reuther has been very active not only in representing his own membership, the Auto Workers, but in fighting for social justice and for working people, whether organized or unorganized, in whatever field of endeavor, and in pur- suit of that interest, Mr. Reuther and his union, and the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO have strongly supported the ef- forts of agricultural workers to organize and bargain collectively. I, myself, and I am sure the other members of the committee, are looking forward to Mr. Reuther's presentation of the reasons why he believes this is so important, and his thoughts on what the par- ticular legislation before us would do along those lines. I am very proud and pleased that lie is here today. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to welcome our distinguished witness, Mr. Reuther. I represent a district where there are many members of the United Auto Workers, the district where we used to make Studebaker automobiles, and I am very proud to say that during my college days I worked on the assembly line and I was a member of the UAW Studebaker Local 5. I have great admiration for Mr. Reuther a.nd his leadership, not only in the American labor movement, but he is one of the outstand- ing leaders in American life today, and I am glad to see him here. Mr. TI-Io~IPsoN. Thank you, Mr. Brademas. I might note-without trying to reassert. my right to my nickname of "Topper," that I was a charter member of US Local 731, [laughter] while your mother was still attempting to train you. [Laughter.] She met with success, but only in recent years. That is the Turnstedt Division of General Motors in Trenton, N.J., and this is almost like all-star day. I notice in the rear of the room our distinguished colleagues, one a member of this committee, Hon. Roman Pucinski, and another, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Sidney Yates. And with them is a popular gentleman, PAGENO="0180" 174 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICUL2TRAL EMPLOYEES according to recent returns, the distinguished mayor of the city of Chicago, Mayor Daley. Also, with Mr. Walter Reu'ther is Mr. Jack Conway, who is known to all of us for his service to Government and to organized labor. He is well known, and his reputation is well deserved. I also note' the presence `here of a very dear and old personal friend of mine, Mr. Roy Reuther. Now; Mr. Reuther, you may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OP WALTER REUTHER, PRESIDENT, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS: OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY SACK CONWAY Mr. REUTI-JER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the' very kind remarks. I might say that I think both of you belonged to very good UAW local unions. I hope that won't divide us in that argument. I am privileged today to appear, both as president of TJAW, repre- senting 1,206,000 workers, working in the auto, aerospace, and agri- cultural implement industry, and I also appear as president of the in- dustrial union department, representing 1.5 million workers; and I appear, Mr. Chairman, to add our voice in support of H.R. 4769, as introduced by Congressman O'Hara, and I understand there are a number of other identical bills to provide essentially for the same legislation. I come here because I want to identify our voice, both in the IJAW and the industrial union department, with the efforts of migratory farmworkers to win for themselves the same basic rights that millions of other American workers have enjoyed for many years. Agricultural workers have been denied the right of self-organiza- tion, the right to collective bargaining, the right to a meaningful voice' in dealing with their working conditions, their hours, and their wages, and all of the other things in the broad area of collective bargaining' that other workers have had a voice and influence in. I believe all of us who have had any contact with the problems of agricultural workers will have to agree that they have been treated as second- and third-class economic citizens. They are in truth the "have- not" people of America. They have been disinherited, they have been disadvantaged, they have been denied, and they have been shut out of our society, because they have been denied the rights that other workers have enjoyed, and' I believe that they are among the most exploited people in our Nation. They contribute a great deal to the welfare and well-being of this country. We enjoy the very high living standards, and the average American family enjoys a better diet than does any group of people' in the world, and this has been made possible by the sweat and the sacrifice and the tears of these people who have cultivated and nour- ished the earth, and we believe that it is time that we recognize their right to share in the tremendous abundance and the good life which they help make possible. It is our judgment that there can be no economic or moral justifica- tion for denying agricultural workers the same measure of social PAGENO="0181" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 175 justice that other workers share, and we believe that they could not achieve that measure of social justice unless we bring them under the law so that they can enjoy the rights of collective bargaining. I would like to read into the record several short paragraphs that came in a long 12-page letter that I received the other day from a farmworker in New York State. They had read some of the material that we had put out, because we are making an effort to try to mobilize the American labor move- ~ment, to do a more meaningful job of organizing agricultural workers, and it was in response to that public appeal that we made that this woman, who works in the fields of New York State, wrote these words, and I quote: We are among something like 3,000 unorganized workers in this Upstate county. There are 40,000 of us scattered throughout New York State. We are mostly all of us Puerto Rican and Negro farm workers. Agriculture has devoured us. We work for $0.67 to $1.35 per hour. In Dunkirk vicinity, we are fighting on the one hand for an additional ten cents per hour, on the other hand for the protection of bare life itself. We are housed in camps with leaking gas, faulty electrical installations, kero- sene stoves, and deadly radiant heaters, with polluted drinking water and some- times with no water at all. We are housed as though we were hoes, wagons and tractor parts. And she continues: We need organizing, God knows we need it here on the farms. We work a 14, 15, 17-hour workday, and we work seven days a week. Time and a half is un- known. Holiday pay is unknown. Holidays are unknown. In a word, the relation- ship between work and rest has gone crazy, where farm labor is concerned. The long hours are accepted as a fact of nature, like thistle and the leaf mold. Almost no one has observed that they stand straighter than the thistle, the facts of low base pay. Tacawa County is a part of the Concord grape belt. Fantastic care goes into the cultivation of the vines, our care and our toil. Painstaking work, our work, goes into the preparation of the soil, that is to bear tomatoes or string beans *or other major crops. The ground is worked patiently, tenderly, it is worried over, it is turned over, spaded and hoed. It is braced with minerals, it is weeded, loosened, dusted with chemicals, sometimes irrigated. A fantastic amount of care, skilled labor, our labor, goes into the preparation of the ground and tending the crops. By contrast, the lives of the men and women who work the land are left a wilderness. No care or worry is lavished upon us. No one calls upon modern science to protect us against disease and over-exhaustion. No one takes the trou- ble to investigate our needs for nutrition or find out whether we are growing straight or crooked. We are like the needle that clothes everyone and yet is naked unto itself. We are treated as accessories to the grapes and tomatoes. We are used, then tram- pled. That is the tragic and terrible condition, in Tacawa, in Genessee County, where the pebbles are cherished, but the field of human workers is left to wither. This is the tragic story all over this abundant land of ours. Work- ers who make possible increasing agricultural abundance are denied their measure of economic and social justice. And when you look at their hourly rate that only tells part of the story, Mr. Chairman, because as we know, these workers do not work a full year. Last year, Congress took what we consider to be a long-overdue, but relatively small step. You included, roughly, 390,000 workers under the minimum wage law. That was a small beginning, and we would urge very strongly, with the greatest sense of urgency, that the PAGENO="0182" 176 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJL~f[JRAL EMPLOYEES Congress in this session take further steps to right these ancient wrongs that we have been doing as a free nation to our agricultural workers. The average wage in 1966, among agricultural workers, was $1.07 per hour, and the average wage for manufacturing workers was $2.75 an hour. Of the 3 million agricultural workers, out of the 3 million, only 600,000, it is estimated, worked more than 150 days. So if you take their hourly rate and translate that into an annual income based upon the short period of their employment, you will understand the level of poverty in which they are engulfed. Now, the wage increases that workers seek in the American economy are not made possible by an economic Santa Clause. Higher wages, improved benefits, greater security, all these things are possible out of our developing technology. If you look at the automobile industry, where we have had a fan- tastic increase in labor productivity, because we have had the appli- cation there of the most advanced tools of science and technology, of automation, of the tools of the computer-in 1946 as compared to 1966, in 1966 7 percent more automobile workers turned out 116 percent more cars and trucks. Now they were not the same cars and trucks. They were much more complicated, they had bigger engines, they had many accessories that did not exist in 1947, and yet the productivity increase in the field of agriculture has increased much more rapidly than has the increase in the manufacturing sector of the American economy. Workers in the manufacturing section have shared in the greater equity of that increased productivity. They have not realized their full equity, and that is why we keep going back to the collective bargaining table, but in the agricultural sector of our economy, where the productivity has been greater, the workers there fall further and further behind and are denied a smaller and smaller share of the fruits of their labor. In 1935, when the Wagner Act was enacted, when it became the law of the land that the right to self-organization, to the choice of a union and access to the processes of collective bargaining were built into the structure of the laws of this land, why weren't the agricultural workers included? Was it a matter of philosophy? Was it a matter of economics, or a matter of justice? It was a matter of pure and simple political expediency. The people who were managing that bill looked at the Congress and they said, `We are charting new ground in the field of labor- management relations, and if we include the agricultural workers, it may create some problems and, therefore, as a matter of expediency, we will exclude them." And the chaiman of that committee, Congressman Connery, said at the time that that legislation was being considered, these words, taken from the Congressional Record-and I quote: We hope that the agricultural workers eventually will be taken care of. If we can get this bill through and get it working properly, there will he opportunity later, I hope soon, to take care of the agricultural workers. It has been 32 years, and his hopes still have not been realized, and this is why we believe we need the greatest sense of urgency with respect to the legislation that you are currently considering. PAGENO="0183" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 177 Mr. James IR. Wayson, a specialist on labor-management relations in the Library of Congress, had these words to say concerning the legislation. He said: The clear indication is that the decision to exclude agricultural workers from the Wagner Act was taken on the grounds of expediency, not philosophy. And so what we need to do is that we need now to face up with both courage and compassion and do what is right, and undo what was done because of political expedience 32 years ago. The La Follette committee got into this question, and they made exhaustive studies throughout the country dealing with the problems of agricultural workers, and Mr. Henry Fowler, who now has the distinction of being the Secretary of the Treasury, was chief counsel of the La Follette committee and he said: Collective action by the hired workers in industrialized agriculture supple- mented by social action of the government agencies similar to that applied by other industries must become the order of the day. What we need to do is take what he proposed 30 years ago and make it the order of the day now, because for 30 years we have been paralyzed by indifference and inaction, and we believe that Congress has a moral duty, and serious social obligation now to bridge this gap that denies agricultural workers their rights as American citizens and American wage earners. Now, whenever you try to do something meaningful for people, there are always those people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and this is true whether the legislation deals with social security, minimum wages, the right to organize, or any other aspect of the prob- lems of a people in a free society. There are always those people who are prepared to get up early in the morning and work late into the night finding all the reasons why something should not be done, or why it is difficult, if not impossible, to do it. And so these people again are working overtime, and they are com- ing up with all the reasons that they believe represent obstacles in the way of extending the rights of collective bargaining to agricultural workers. And one of the things that they place great stress upon is the sea- sonal aspects of agricultural employment. Now, we all know-you don't have to be an agricultural expert to know-that you plant in the spring and you harvest in the fall, and that Mother Nature dictates the essential time schedule in agriculture. This is why agriculture econ- omy is much more complex than industrial economy. The Chevrolet Co. can step up production any time that they want to add more peo- ple, and put on an extra shift. But when you breed a sow in the spring, you can't turn over the production process halfway through the cycle. Mother Nature takes over. And when you plant a crop in the spring, Mother Nature takes over and determines that productive cycle, and agriculture workers are obviously related to that productive cycle which is dictated essentially by the laws of nature. But does that mean that this presents insurmountable problems with-dealing with how does a free society go about extending the rights of collective bargaining to workers who are in the sector of the PAGENO="0184" 178 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES economy in which the laws of nature have a great deal to say about the cycle of production? It is our contention that the Labor Board has already demonstrated the ingenuity and the capability of finding the ways to apply the rights to collective bargaining to many varied situations. The building trade is not the same as the automobile industry. The automobile industry is not the same as the maritime industry. The maritime industry is not the same as the canning industry, and the canning industry is much more nearly related to agricultural workers because they can the products that agricultural workers produce in the fields. And so we believe that those people who are working overtime be- cause they are committeed and have a vested interest in a continuation of the status quo, we ought to point out that these kind of people have always been around, and we need to work just as hard on the affirma- tive side of the question as they work on the negative side. Now, the legislation, we think, makes the approach in two basic areas: First, then, it applies the right to collective bargaining to agricul- tural workers and would give them the same privileges to exercise their right to shape their wages and their hours and their working con- ditions and the other things that affect their lives, as do other workers who have access to the collective bargaining process. And then in recognition that you are dealing here with a kind of an industry that has special problems, you provide the right to have hiring halls here as the law provides other industries that have special problems. The maritime industry and the building trades industry have the hir- ing hail, not because the law gives them special privileges, but the law recognizes that dealing with their problems under the circumstances that surround their kind of industry requires an approach to the hiring hall as part of the mechanism to make collective bargaining meaningful and workable and adequate. Now, as I have suggested, the canning industry and the food- pročessing industry is a parallel industry in terms of its seasonal aspects. You can fish when the salmon are running in the Northwest; you don't can them based upon an arbitrary managerial decision made in the front office. You can the fish when nature somehow motivates them to make their run upstream, and they are available to be caught. And you can fruit and vegetables when Mother Nature has made them available at the end of the productive cycle, and the agricultural workers are bent over harvesting them. Eighty percent of the cannery workers, whether they pack fruits and vegetables or whether they can fish on the west coast, are orga- nized, and they have access to collective bargaining, and it is utterly illogical, and I think recklessly irresponsible, to suggest that you can't take one step closer to the productive cycle and apply the same con- cepts and basic rights to the agriculture workers that you give the cannery workers, since they are both tied to the basic, same productive cycle. Then the question arises, if you give agricultural workers the right to collective bargaining, then aren't they going to subject the industry PAGENO="0185" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 179 and the economy to reocdurring crises of trying to flex their collec- tive bargaining muscles when we are at the peak of the harvest season, and aren't they, therefore, going to take undue advantage of not only the employer, but of the people in the community in general? Now this is the second argument around which they would build these insurmountable roadblocks because they have a vested interest in the status quo. Mr. Chairman, there are many things that I know very little about, but I do know a great deal about collective bargaining, and I know that a free society has a very basic choice to make when it wrestles with this problem that your economy is confronted with, and I be- lieve that the choice before us is very simple: either we extend to ag- ricultural workers the right of self-organization and collective bar- gaining which is enjoyed by all the others of the millions of wage earners in America, so that having access to that machinery we will put in motion those forces that are capable of building a rational and responsible basis upon which you can build sound and stable and re- sponsible labor-management relations. Now, the other choice is to deny these workers access to this kind of machinery, and say, "You are perpetually committed to live in an economic and social jungle. We can't give you the benefits other workers enjoy; we can't give you the access to the tools of responsible and rational collective bargaining. You have got to shift for yourselves in this economic and social jungle, and therefore you will have to develop out of your sense of desperation the instruments of social and economic struggle based upon a kind of guerrilla warfare, because the normal tools of the civilized free society are not made available to you, and so you are on your own." And out of a sense of desperation, and out of increased bitterness, out of a sense of hopelessness because they have been shut out of society these will determine the climate and the backdrop in which these people will struggle for their measure of justice. Because struggle they will. You know, the choice is not whether to do it the right way or not at all. It is whether to do it the right way or the wrong way. Now the right way is to say, "You will have access to the tools that everybody else has access to, and with those tools, working together with a sense of good will and a sense of common responsibility, labor and management will begin to build a structure in which stable, sen- sible, responsible, and constructive labor-management relations can evolve." But if you deny the tools, then the pattern of that relationship will be dictated by the forces of desperation and bitterness; because the struggle will take place. I have said many times on many occasions that the essential differ- ences-and I know about this firsthand because I spent a year in the German underground fighting the-fighting against Hitlerism, and I worked 2 years in the Soviet Union in an automobile plant under ,Joe Stalin, so that my knowledge about tyranny and totalitarianism is very real and practical. In a totalitarian soCiety you can get industrial peace in the absence of justice, because there is a bayonet in the back of every worker~ and if he dares to challenge the status quo, he can be lined up before a PAGENO="0186" 180 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTtJRAL EMPLOYEES firing squad, and if he is real lucky they may just send him to a labor camp. But in a free society, you can only get industrial peace and sound and satisfactory labor-management relations if they are built upon a foundation of economic and social justice, because when workers are denied their measure of justice, they are going to struggle for it, and so the agricultural workers are going to struggle for it, and the revolu- tion of rising expectation moves them just as it moves the people who are marching in Asia and Africa. They know that it is possible now to have the good life, and they know that they are entitled to their share of the good life, and if they are denied access to their share they are going to struggle, and when they sit around in their inadequate housing and they are hungry and their children are hungry, their bitterness will multiply in direct proportion to their denial, and they will dream up means of struggle, and out of that struggle will come more instability and a greater threat to the economic well-being of the total community than possibly could happen if we made the other approach. And it is that simple. We will either make it possible to do this ra- tionally and responsibly, or other forms of social and economic strug- gle will be developed. The thing that is so amazing is the ingenuity of the human mind. What they won't figure out to do if you deny them the right to do it the right way. Now I know that-I met with the growers in Delano. I went from the AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco in December of 1965, I ivent down with a small delegation to Delano where the grape strikers ~were struggling. The growers had refused to meet with the delegation of ministers and priests and rabbis the week before I got there, and they had some very bad publicity because of that, and I think they were a bit overly sensitive about their public image when I arrived. And they wanted to meet with me. And I quite willingly agreed. The mayor of the city worked out the meeting and it was right before the Christmas holidays. They were having a Christmas party at this grower's home, with much festivity, and I couldn't help but sense the tremendous contrast between what they were doing in their lives at that festive period as contrasted to the naked, stark poverty of the grape strikers and their families. We met in the library of this very spacious home, and I said to the grape growers, `Why don't you sit down in good faith as men of good will, moved by the spirit of this holiday, and sit down and work out your problems with the grape strikers? "They don't want to destroy your vineyards. They want to make a better life for themselves and their children out of working in your vineyards. "Your economic well-being and their economic well-being are in- separably tied together. You may own the vineyards, but you cannot produce your crops without their hands and without their sweat. You need each other. Why don't you sit down?" And they had two arguments: They said, "First of all, the law doesn't give them the right to collective bargaining. The Congress very specifically excluded them when the law was written, and, there- PAGENO="0187" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 181 fore, we have no legal obligation to sit at the bargaining table, because the law does not give them the right to bargaining collectively." And so the law itself helped create that strike situation, because the growers were using that as an excuse. They said, "We are not obli- gated." They said, "General Motors is obligated to sit at the bargain- ing table with you, but we are not, because if Congress wanted agri- cultural workers to have access to the process of collective bargaining, it would have been written into the law." So this is why it must be written into the law, so that everyone will know they do have a legal obligation to bargain in good faith with their employees when they choose to have a union through which they hope to solve their problems. The other question they said to me, "You know, we would be will- ing," a couple of these growers started out with a small plot and had worked on the land themselves, and they said, "If we worked out a decent wage here, how do we protect ourselves from the growers in Texas and the growers in Florida unless they do it?" And that is exactly the argument we got from every employer when we went to the bargaining table back in the early 1930's. They said, "If we give you a living wage, if we pay you overtime, if we give you vacation pay, how do we meet the competition if our competitor doesn't do it?" And that is why you have to do it by law, so that every grower has equal obligations under a Federal law. This is why the minimum wage is so crucial in this area. This is one of the problems that we find in marginal industries. A marginal employer says, "I would like to give you more, but my com- petitor is running away from his obligation, so if we raise the minimum wage so that there is a floor under everybody's obligation, then no one can get an unfair competitive advantage by exploiting his workers below that level." And so we spent most of the evening talking about minimum wages. They said, "We are in favor of a minimum wage, that would protect us, and if everybody did it, then our attitude would be different." That is why we say to the Congress, that only the Congress has the power and, therefore, the responsibility to deal with this problem by making it an obligation of all of these growers so that they all must meet their responsibilities. Now, the third argument that these people who have a vested interest in the status quo are raising is the family-size farmer. Well, they know that we are not asking the Congress to apply collective bargaining to a family-sized farm where most of the work is done by the owner and his family, or where they may have one or two hired hands. I worked on such a farm when I was a boy, and I want to say that the people who own those kinds of farms work pret.ty hard. The kind of farms we are talking about in general are large indus- trial farms where absentee ownership, where the people who own them, the most strenuous thing they do is to clip their coupons at the end of the year. These are the kind of farms we are talking about, and we know when we talk about agricultural workers that they are concen- trated in a small number of large farms. Three percent of all the farms in the TJnited States have a payroll of more than 50 percent of all the agricultural workers, and 6 percent PAGENO="0188" 182 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES of the farms have a payroll of more than 75 percent. These are the farms that we are talking about. And the people who raise these false issues know that, because they are not representing the small farmer. They are representing the large farmer, farms like the Kern Land Corp. It is something like the Gen- eral Motors Corp. We used to have a wonderful fellow in the ClO by the name of Leo Krzycki. He was just one of the most wonderful human beings that the labor movement was ever blessed with, and he used to describe the General Motors Corp. as the corporation with its headquarters in Wall Street and its hindquarters all over America. That is they way it is with the Kern Land Corp. Its headquar- ters are in an air-conditioned building. Its tentacles goes all over the world. It has acreage in the United States twice the size of Rhode Island. It is not a small farmer. These are the very large corporations who in violation of the laws of this Nation are being subsidized in terms of their access to wat~er and are being subsidized by the American consumer who pays as a consumer to maintain an artificially high price and then have to pay double by having to pay for that high price as a consumer. As a matter of fact, what we are urging you do by extending the Wagner Act and the present status of that legislation that grew out of the Wagner Act, to agricultural workers so that agricultural workers through the process of self-organization and collective bar- gaining can begin to get that increasing measure of security that they are entitled to, and their families need in terms of wages and working conditions, et cetera, that that will be a significant contribution that will help the family-sized farmer, because who competes with the exploitation on the big farms? Who competes with the underpaid migratory worker who works 14 and 16 and 18 hours, 7 days a week? Who competes with them? We don't compete on the GM assembly lines. They are not making Chevrolets. It is the family-sized farmer, and he meets that competition quite unsuccessfully when you look at how many farms are going out of existence, and he tries to meet it by exploiting his children and his wife and his family, and they have to compete. They have to stoop and hoe and pick and harvest in competition with the most exploited Americans, who are the agricultural workers, and if we can raise the living standards and the wages and the dignity of the agricultural workers, we will begin to make an indirect contri- bution to the economic well-being and the security of the family-sized farmer. This is the way we see it, and we think you cannot challenge this conclusion, because if half of the automobile industry was organized and the other half was unorganized, and the organized half was try- ing to raise its living standards and the industry said, "We cannot do it because the other half is unorganized because they are denied the right to organize," how far could we get in raising our living standards? That is precisely where the family-sized farmer is. As long as the migratory farinworker and the agricultural farmworker on the large, giant, industrialized farms are being exploited, a family-sized farmer must exploit his family and himself in order to compete. PAGENO="0189" EXTENSION OF* NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 183 Now one of the other arguments that are raised by these people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and who, without doubt, live quite well-it is amazing how a person who lives.well is always willing to talk about the other person who lives badly. We have seen this happen. This is the old double standard that we face at the bargaining table. These are the people who tell us, "If you make $800,000 a year, and if you are motivated by the thing called individual initiative, and you are trying to get $900,000 a year, that this somehow is economically sound, noninflationary and the highest expression of American patriotism." But if you are an $8,000 worker, and you are trying to get $9,000, that is highly inflationary and downright subversive. This is nonsense. It takes a kind of mental gymnastics to arrive at these cockeyed ideas. These people who are trying to hold down the agricultural workers are living high on the hog. They raise as a fourth point, "If you improve the lot of the agri- cultural worker, you are going to increase the cost of food," and this of course is supposed to mobilize the American housewife so that she is ready to march on Washington to see that you fellows don't raise the price of their grocery bills. What are the facts? The facts are that the index of the cost of living in 1966 went up 3 percent Food went up 5 percent But w'ts it because agricultural workers made such tremendous progress in raising their wages and improving their economic conditions? The answer is "No." Most of the increase in the cost of food was an act of God, and if you look at those items in the food basket where the real pressures were, you will find that the freeze on citrus fruits was a factor. On vegetables, in other areas of the country, the drought. These are the things that had more of an impact on the price of food than the wage levels of agricultural workers, and the Depart- ment of Labor made a study of this in. 1966, and it was published in February of 1967, and that report ha.s the following to say, and I quote: Farm labor costs are such a small fraction of the retail price of most fruits and vegetables that it is doubtful that they contributed significantly to the rise in the cost of living. They also, in the conjunction of the minimum wage bill to the very limited number of agricultural workers, had this to say in their study that was published in January of 1966, and I quote again: The greater wage bill increase required to adjust to a minimum wage in agri- culture is offset to some extent by the fact that in agriculture wages constitute a smaller proportion of receipts than do wages in low-wage industries. In agriculture- . . . . . And this is the significant part of this report.. . In agriculture, cash wages of hired workers were 7 percent* of čash receipts ~from marketing in recent years. Cash receipts do not include government pay- inents. . . . . . . .. . . . If you include Government payments,..it would be mi~ich less than 7 percent PAGENO="0190" 184 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Then it goes on: Thus, for example, an increase of 20 percent in the wage bill could be more readily absorbed in agriculture than in these low-wage manufacturing industries. And so the argument that in giving workers a living wage agricul- ture is going to have a tremendous impact upon increasing the costs of food does not have economics as a base for its contention. But again, it is one of those propaganda items. Now the agriculture industry is not poverty stricken, and the large growers are not standing in line waiting to see Mr. Shriver to qualify for a contribution under the poverty program. They are doing quite well, and I would like to refer you to the report, the article which was published in the Los Angeles Times, by a person that we consider to be quite an authority in this field because lie has done a lot of research work and a. lot of writing, Mr. Harry Bernstein, of the Los An~ei,es Times. He wrote recently these words, and I quote from the Los Angeles Times: The gross income for California agriculture went up from $3.7 billion in 1964 to $3.75 billion in 1965. An expert predicted toward the end of last year that the 1966 gross would finally hit about $3.8 billion, an all-time record which would have been well over one billion ahead of the nation's second largest farm state, Iowa. In fact, 1966 gross turned out to be even more. It was $4.08 billion, and this year's gross should be about the same. The combined net income for California growers in 1964 was $1 billion compared to $862 million in 1965. It rose to $936; million last year. As the gross continues to soar to record heights, the net income for farm is also rising since the number of farms continues to drop, as it has over the past decade. The net income which is the amount the growers realize after deducting costs of production, taxes and all other operating costs, was actually up 14 per- cent in 1966 over the 1960-1964 period. These growers are not poverty stricken. They do not need to be bailed out by the continued exploitation of agricultural workers. If you look at the facts that bear upon the increase in the cost of food, as I said, the biggest single factor was the behavior of Mother Nature. Right now in Florida-and I made a meeting in Florida the other day-it has the worst drought in 25 years. Well that will have an im- pact upon agriculture's production in Florida, and that impact wilT be much more marked and serious than anything the agricultural workers can possibly do. But if you look at the period 10 years preceding 1960, you will find that the cost of money went up 175 percent. The cost of fertilizer went up between 70 and 90 percent. All of these factors were much more significant in their impact upon the cost of food in the marketplace than was the behavior of agricultural workers. And so it seems to me that we need to keep these things in mind when we listen to this propaganda of the people who have a vested interest in the status quo. Now I believe, Mr. Chairman, that given the protection of the law~ given the right of self-organization and access to the collective~ bargaining process, that agricultural workers can and will be organized. PAGENO="0191" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 185 I have always felt guilty as a part of the leadership of the American labor movement, and I think it is one of the dark spots on the con- science of the American labor movement, that the American labor movement was not willing to contribute and to allocate from its re- sources the kind of resources needed to organize agricultural workers~ We in effect turned our backs on these people. Oh, we had a lot of noble resolutions, but you have got to measure the labor movement, not by how eloquent it is able to put on a piece of paper a policy declaration, you have got to measure its commitment by what it is willing to translate-what it is willing to do to translate' those words into action. And this means manpower, this means the allocation of resources.. This is one of my big arguments with the American labor movemenL that it hasn't done this job. The UAW is suggesting-and the IIJD has made a contribution-, we believe we ought to put at least $5 million a year into the task of helping agricultural workers to organize themselves. We are going to go ahead with this. We know that if the law is changed, and we urge that the law be' changed, that we then will be working in a more favorable climate, because then the growers can't say, "it was the intention of Congress not to include agricultural workers and therefore we have no legel obligation to bargain with agricultural workers." But we believe that with the law that will make `this clear that they are obligated to bargain, we can get on the march, and we can organ1z~ hundreds of thousands of agricultural workers, and we can give them acbess to collective bargaining. Now, I have been somewhat personally involved throughout the' UAW and the ITJD. We have been working closely with Mr. Chavez' and the grapeworkers in Delano. We have been the two sotirces of their main financial help, both in terms of their organizing effort, and in terms of their strike struggle. We know that more must be done, and we are going to try to help mobilize the American labor movement to make that greater effort. We are making a beginning in Texas under the most adverse and difficult situations. I am told `that you had people before your com- mittee from Texas. It is almost unbelievable the indignation and the denial of human dignity, and the abuse, and `the denial of social jus- tice that takes place in some parts of this great land of ours, and yet when you talk to these workers and you hear their story, it breaks your heart, and you have got to have a heart of stone, almost, to hold back the tears, and yet this is something going on. We are making a `beginning in F'lorida. There' are really three major groups. There is the California group who work their way up the west coast; there is the group in Texas, and they work themselves up through the Midwest; and your group in Florida, who `work up the east coast. And some of it spills over into the bean fields of Michigan, and the cherry ochards of Michigan, and we are try'ing to deal with that, but our hands are tied, because the law is not with us. We want our hands untied, we want the hands of the agricultural workers unt1ed so that' they can `have the tools, the legal tools, with which they can build their own `organization and they can get access to collective bargaining. PAGENO="0192" 186 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Their cry is a ~imple cry: They want no Special privileges. Their cry is for social justice, and we believe that that cry transcends par- tisan politics, that this is the kind of simple matter of basic human justice, of human dignity, of human morality, that Congress could unite on, and everybody could step up to their responsibilities. In no other aspect of our economic life is there such a serious moral gap between America's promise and its performance as we find in the lives of these people. This, I think, is a matter of conscience. We talk about helping the peoples of Africa. We talk about helping the impoverished peoples of Asia, and I have seen ugly, naked poverty in Asia. I have always said, "You can never understand human poverty intellectually. You can only und~stand it with your heart." We have unfinished problems in America. People go hungry in Asia and Africa, because they do not have access to the tools of abundance. People go hungry in America in the midst of plenty. There is less excuse for the denial of the social justice in America than any other nation in the world, because we are richly blessed. What stands between poverty and human abundance in America is social callousness, social indifference, and we urge the Congress to move and to act now to wipe out on the statute books of this country that serious legislative gap that denies agricultural workers the same rights and privileges as wage earners, that other wage earners enjoy and exercise, so that they can build their own organization, so that they will then have the democratic tools of collective bargaining, and with the use of those tools they can begin to win for themselves and their families that fuller measure of economic justice and human dignity which we think is entitled and is there for the having if they are given the rights. It is in that spirit, Mr. Chairman, that I urge you and your commit- tee to move with urgency on this pending legislation. Thank you. Mr. THoMPsON. Thank you, Mr. Reuther. As always, you are most eloquent and most instructive. Your formal statement is before us, and it contains some matters which I think should be in the record. So, without objection, your full statement will be made a matter of record at this point. (Mr. Reuther's prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF WALTER P. REUTHER, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), AND THE INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and members of the House Labor Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to ask Congress to act on an urgent matter-the right of farm workers to the protection of the Federal Government to organize, to belong to a union of their choice and to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining as do millions of other wage earners. Farm workers are the disinherited in our land-they are the have-not people engulfed in poverty in a land of plenty. For 30 years, while the~ rest of America has marched forward, farm workers have been left behind and haye been denied such basic rights as Sočial Security, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, workmen's compensation, and membership in unions. Last year Congress corrected one of these deficiencies by giving 300,000 farm workers on 33,000 of the nation's largest commercial farms, the right to a mini- mum wage of $1 an hour, with no guarantee of overtime pay. This was not much -but it was a small but important step in the right direction. PAGENO="0193" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 187 I am here today to urge that Congress continue to right the ancient wrongs ~lone to America's farm workers-the poorest of the poor and the most exploited. You know the facts, as well as I do. The average farm worker wage in 1960 was $1.07 an hour, while the average wage for manufacturing was $2.75 an hour-over twice as much.1 ~I'here are some 3 million people who do some farm work for wages during a year. Only about 600,000 work for more than 150 days of the year, And 400,000 to 500,000 constitute migrant farm workers, who seek jobs and incomes where they can-often without work or income or help of any kind ~for numerous weeks, Even more cruel~ is the amazing record of productivity for American ag~icul- ture not shared by farm workers. Their productivity has climbed from 103 per- tent in 1958 to 155.8 percent in'1966 using 1957-59 as a base year.' Much of the fantastic rise in farm worker productivity is a result of rapid mechanization plus more and better use of fertilizers, seeds, chemicals, and other forms of scientific agriculture. It means cheaper food and fiber for American consumers, We, therefore, have a compounding of injustice-farm workers wages are half the size of manufacturing workers wages, while farm worker productivity is going up twice the rate for the rest of the economy. 1. Farm, Workers Left Out of Law for Ea,pediency's Sake. The legislative history of the Wagner Act indicates that farm workers were left out of the basic labor-management law of the land in order to get the Wagner Act through Congress, Some arguments were raised by farm organizations to exempt farm workers because of farming's uniqueness. The basic reason was raw politics. Sup- porters of the Wagner Act felt farm workers would eventually be covered. They feared inclusion of farm workers would load the bill down and kill any chance of enacting the Wagner Act. Chairman Connery of the IlouseLabor Committee in 1935 said: We hope that the agricultural workers eventually will be taken care of If we can get this bill through and get it working properly there will be oppor tunity later, I hope soon, to take care of the agricultural worker." In his study of the legislative history of farm worker exemption James R Wason specialist in labor relations for the economics division of the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service says "The clear indication is that the decision to exclude agricultural workers ~from the Wagner Act was taken on the grounds of expediency, not philosophy." During the same period the LaFollette Committee was investigating the denial of free speech and assembly among farm workers. Its counsel is the now Secre- tary of the Treasury Henry Fowler. In a report on farm workers, the LaFollette Committee stated: Collective action by the hired workers in industrialized agriculture supple mented by social action of government agencies similar to that applied to other Industry, must become the order of the day." Order of the day indeed' That call for action echoes down the corridors of American history The farm worker s plight has been studied and pitied and studied again. Congress has a moral duty to respond now with legislation to right this wrong. 2 There Is Nothing Unique 4bout Industrialized Agrwultui e It has been argued that because farming Is seasonal and because harvest time puts farm operators at a vulnerable disadvantage, farm workers cannot and should not be organized into unions the same as industrial workers. Thousands of workers In processing plants are today organized into unions. Their representation elections are supervised and conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. There is no practical reason why the NLRB cannot use the same administrative ingenuity in setting up elections and bargaining units for field workers on large commercial farms which it uses In handling elections for workers in fruit and vegetable processing plants. Commercial agriculture is a highly profitable business. It has been ma~' more profitable by heavy government subsidies which are no reSpecter of size Of farm or size of income. The proposed legislation does two things: 1) includes farm workers under the basic labor-management act; and 2). provides for hiring halls in setting up a labor pool with contract rights on seniority, wages and working conditions. 1 WeIghted average of all farm wage rates on a per hour basIs, 1967 EconomIc Report to the President, p. 245. 82-132-67------13 PAGENO="0194" 188 EXTENSION OF. NLRA TO AGRICULTtRAL EMPLOYEES There is nothing essentially different about agricultural field workers when compared to workers in canneries or packing sheds. In California, nearly 80 percent of the fruit and vegetable canneries are organized. The work is seasonal, but the administrative procedures for setting up bargaining units and repre- sentation elections have not proved insurmountable. Nor can we .accept the argument that farming is more vulnerable to economic loss during a strike. Workers never welcome strikes. The strike weapon is the last resort in seeking economic justice. In a highly seasonal industry, workers who strike have as much to lose as an employer, perhaps more. If farm workers have unions with contracts setting forth wages, hours, and working conditions, they are apt to be more responsible, not less. Farm workers live in a jungle world today. Few rules, and not many regula- tions protect them from days without work, and work with little pay. Farm worker unions will certainly change that. Unions will civilize this huge, profitable industry. A union of farm workers that negotiates with large com- mercial farmers can give farm workers a voice in their daily work for the first time in their lives. Today they must work at, the whim of such giant, multi- million dollar enterprises as the Kern Land Company-twlce-the size of Rhode Island, fattened by lush government subsidies. Nobody is suggesting that unions be organized in family farms with one or two hired hands. Today the family farmer must send himself, his wife and children into the fields to compete against the miserable wages paid farm work- ers on giant farms. Farm work unions can change that. As farm worker wages rise farm family living standards will rise accordingly 3. There Is' Little ftelations1~ip Between Farm Wage~. a4id Food Prices. Some alarmists `say food prices . would rise precipitously . if farm `workers were paid a living wage. There is little evidence to back up this charge. The Cost of Living Index, during 1966.rose by 3 percent and food prices during this time went up .5 per~~ent. `But there is virtually no relationship between this and labor costs. Acts of God, .good and bad weather, have much more to do with prices, than labor costs. Congress cannot do much about the weather-but it can do something about low farm labor wages. "Farm labor costs are such a small fraction of the retail price of most fruits and vegetables that it is doubtful that they contributed significantly to the rise in the cost of iiving." (Farm Labor Situation in 1966, U.S.. Department of Labor, Feb. 1967.) ` . ` ` `.. ` `. The impact of the minimum wage among agricultural workers was forecast by a Department of Labor study in January 1966 - "The greater wage bill increase required to adjust to a minimum wage in agriculture is offset to some extent, by the fact that in agriculture, wages consti- tute a smaller proportion, of receipts than do. wages .in the low wage industries. In agriculture cash wages of hired workers were 7 percent of cash receipts `from marketings in recent years' (cash ą~c~ipts do not include government pay- ments.) Thus, for example, an increase. Of `20. percent in the wage bill could be more readily absorbed in agriculture than in these low wage manufacturing industries Another study by the Department of' ~abor in 1961 showed that hired labor costs rose less than any other item.. Interest costs were up 175 percent in the ten years preceding 1960 while fertilizer and taxes went up 70 and 90 percent respectively during the same time Labor costs rose less than any other item during this time Much of the food price increase last year occurred among fruit and vegetables. Recent reports by the California Department of Agriculture show that Cali fornia agriculture-where much of this tyje' of farming is concentrated-is enjoying substantial profits. , - A `summary `of the facts prepared by Harry Bernstein of the Los Angeles Times notes: . ` ` ."The gross income for California agriculture went up from $3.7 billion in 1964 to $3.75 billion in 1965. , ` "An experts predicted toward the end of last year that the 1966 gross would finally hit about $3.8 billion, an' all-time `record which would have been well over $1 billion ahead of the nation's second largest farm state, Iowa. "In fact, 1966's gross'turned out' to'be even morO-$4.08 billion-and this year's gross should be about the `same. ` ` ` ` ` "The combined net income for California growers in 1964 was $1 billion com- pared to $8G2 million in 196~ It rose to $936 million last year. PAGENO="0195" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 189 "And as the gross continues to soar to record heights, the net income per farm is also rising since the number of farms continues to drop as it has over the past decades with the movement from rural to urban life. "The net income, which is the amount the grOwer realizes after deducting costs of production and taxes, was actually up 14 percent in 1966 over the 1960-64 average on a per farm basis." Mr. Chairman, the profitability of big agriculture is helped by big inputs of non-rural capital in addition to government subsidies. The prize-winning subsidy is given by the American taxpayers to the Kern Land Company and other agri- cultural giants. Low-cost, government-financed irrigated water, provided in direct violation of the 160-acre limitation is another big factor in heavy profits reaped by California and Arizona agricultural combines. 4. What WiU Happen to People Whose Jobs Are Eliminated By Farm Heck- anization? There is a recurring theme among critics of protective legislation for farm workers. Employment of field workers is sometimes regarded as akin to public charity. Some witnesses before congressional committees have indicated much stoop labor in the fields is done by workers who might otherwise be unemployed. Mr. Charles Creuzinger, President of the Vegetable Growers Association of America, told the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor: "The supply of qualified agricultural labor is far below our industry's needs. To get the crops harvested, we must employ many, people considered by many as unemployable; the unskilled, the young, the aged, the lazy, et cetera, who are neither capable or willing to work hard enough to earn even the present mini- mum wage.... Such individual as a marginal worker does not have the motiva- tion in the first place to produce in the same manner in which a normal individ- ual produces and thus, it will have a tendency to increase the relief rolls again." V V V V V The relentless mechanization, on both large and small American farms is tak- ing its toll in reducing the farm population, especially hired farm workers. Supporters of farm labor unions and higher incomes for farm workers must recognize that great social upheavals will occur. This ,is happening at the present time in the Delta region of Mississippi. V A private report to the Office of Economic Opportunity tells how human misery is accelerated by farm mechanization: "The employment problem in Fayette County (Tennessee). is acute. One farmer who last year employed eighteen families for example, this year has one family working for him. The rest of the workers have, in most cases, been permitted to' remain on the land but they have' no income. This is typical, and since the V County~ already . has the unfortunate distinction of being the fourth poorest County in the country, new employment opportunities must be createdfast." This tragedy is repeating itself over and over again in every part of America with a large rural population. For many poorly, paid farm workers, there is little hope for them to stay on the land. They need. special adult reading courses, special training, and other emergency assistance-to make up for years of educa- tional and social neglect. There is useful work for them, to do. The answer to their troubles is not to `stay crouched like animals at the edge of huge farms, living off scraps of food, Vtheir children denied schooling, tossed from place to place like human flotsam, living at the very bottom of human existence. Job opportunities to stoop, to hoe, to pick, to cut crops in the fields are dimin- ishing-and unionization and mechanization will undoubtedly hasten this trend. The answer must be remedial catch-up education as part of the war on poverty. V A new day for the rural poor must dawn-and unionization of farm workern may accelerate the pace. We must see the problems clearly and do something to help those whose lives are dislOcated. V V 5. Will Unions Be Willing to Organize Farm Workers? The question is often raised that once the National Labor Relations Act is changed to permit unioniz- ing farm workers-would any unions be will to organize such workers, who are paidlittle, move frequently, and work for short periods of time? Speaking as President of the Industrial Union Department and of the Unjte~' Automobile Workers, I can say we have resolved long ~ago to help organize the working poor. We have every intention of continuing to do this. When the grape workers struck in Delano, the IUD and the UAW were the first major labor organizations to respond to their call for help. As a result their c'ause did not falter and they scored an unprecedented breakthrough in union recognition for farm workers and eventually negotiated a union contract. PAGENO="0196" 190 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULT~JRAL EMPLOYEES The Delano experience is an exceptional case. Without any basic law or ma- chinery to protect unions among farm field workers, the prevailing situation in the United States resembles guerrilla warfare. Farm worker unions launch a campaign here or there. The massive power of large farmers and their wealthy allies can break the will of most farm worker unions lacking any legal standing. What has happened over the years in canneries and processing plants is a fair indication of what we can expect among farm workers. Many of their opera- tions have short seasons. While many cannery and processing workers are re- cruited locally, their contracts are like the kinds of agreements which might be pegotiated for farm workers. The recently-negotiated contract at DiGiorgio in California, demonstrates that organizing of farm workers is possible, that practical contracts can be written and agreed upon, and that farm workers have a genuine desire for union mem- bership. The auto industry before the days of the UAW had short work sessions and workers were treated with total disregard. in those days we heard the same dismal predictions about the impossibility of ever unionizing auto workers. To- ~day auto employment is stable, wages are higher and workers have won sub- ntantial fringe benefits and yet the auto industry is more profitable than it was 30 years ago. 6. The Need for Congressional Aetiom. Farm workers are living on the thin edge of human existence. An eloquent and moving portrayal of their abject poverty was recited by an American Friends Service Committee worker who lived among migrants along the eastern seaboard. A trained accountant with a sensitive grasp of human problems, Mr. Scott Neilsen told a Senate subcom- mittee how machinery and animals on large commercial farms got better treat- ment'than workers and their families: "At the grader shed where I spent 2 weeks the farmer had at one time ani- mals and they had cups for cows to drink water out of, and on the grader machine itself they had water to wash the potatoes but they had no running water for the humans." Farm workers degraded this way get an average income of between $1,100 to $1,500 a year. The right of farm workers to organize, join and belong to labor unions with the full protection of federal law is a fundamental part of the help they need. Two Republican U.S. Senators, George Murphy and Paul J. Fannin, expressed the growing view this year that "the principle of collective bargaining is the heart and soul of American labor relations" in their dissent to the 1967 report of the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. While they disagreed with the hiring~ hall approach as the way to represent farm workers, they neverthe- less stated "these~ questions are not insoluble." Americans of all political creeds have a moral obligation now to grapple with the dire poverty which condemns thousands of their fellow Americans who work in the fields. Many farm operators who resist the very thought of unioniz- ing their own workers would be better off if federal laws provided a floor of decency below which no other farm operator could fall. The right of farm worker unions to function on a par with other unions will accomplish this goal. At one time sweatshop conditions were widespread in the garment industry. Various things were done-minimum wages, unionization of the industry, among others-to drive the sweatshops out of business and to reform them. Employers who pay good wages, who provide good housing, and who treat their workers well, needprotective legislation as much as workers do. Congress must fill the legislative gap which deprives thousands of farm workers from partaking of the fullness of American life. As it has in every other industry and occupation it touches, membership in labor unions with the full protection of federal law can enable farm workers to improve their lot, enhance their lives, and offer their children the opportunity they have been so long denied. The hour is late and justice `has been denied too long. It is urgent that Congress act now to right this wrong by providing agricultural workers the legal pro- tection, organization, and the right to bargain collectively so that they may achieve a sense of human dignity and economic benefits of first-class economic citizenship. I urge you to enact H.R. 4769 to help achieve these goals. Mr. THOMPSON. I notice that our colleague, Mr. Scherle, of Iowa, a member of the full committee, is here. You are welcome to come up and participate, if you like. Mr. SCHERLE. Thank you. PAGENO="0197" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTURAL EMPLOYEES 191 Mr. THOMPSON. Mr Reuther, essentially what Mr. O'Hara's legis- lation is asking is that agricultural workers be given the very same rights as other workers and nothing more. A number of the opponents of the legislation seem to envision an immediate and enormous organization of farm workers throughout the United States, when in fact all that this legislation would do would be to give agricultural workers the same right that industrial workers have. Thirty percent of them must petition or show evidence that they would like to have a union, then there is a campaign under NLRB procedures and rules, and then the decision is made as to whether or not they want to be represented. So I agree with you that although social justice is the ultimate end, it is by no means guaranteed. The only thing that H.R. 4769 guar- antees is the right of that worker to organize. Why, aside from the moral aspect of it, are you and the United Auto Workers so deeply interested in this legislation, Mr. Reuther? Mr. REUTHER. To begin with, to respond to your first point, it seems to me that we need to make the people understand that the agricultural workers are asking for nothing more than other workers have, and that they are entitled to nothing less than what other workers have. Mr. THOMPSON. This would give them nothing more, would it? Mr. REtTTHER. That is exactly right. It would give them nothing more. This would only give them access to a democratic tool, the right of self-organization and the right to bargain collectively if they comply with all the other rules of the Labor Board and they have a vote and vote by majority vote, or the company involved uses a card check-it gives them nothing more than any other worker, and it seems to me that no one who is concerned about establishing sound and constructive labor-management relations can possibly object t& this, because this is the only basis upon which you can build sound management-labor relations. The UAW is deeply committed to this. As a matter of conscience, as a matter of social justice, but also something broader than that: We believe that social justice, like peace and freedom, are essentially in- divisible. We do not believe in a free society that you can have your freedom and your measure of social justice in a vacuum, that ulti- mately all of these basic values around which a free society is built, are essentially indivisible, one in their relationship to the other, and you can make them secure for yourself only as you make them universal. Only as you make social justice, freedom and peace and these other values universal can you protect them for yourself. Anc~ then there is a further interest. As a matter of simple, sound, economics, if we could raise the wages of agricultural workers and give them a greater measure of equity out of the wealth that their labor makes possible, we will be broadening the market. We will be generating high velocity purchasing power. and they will be much more important consumers of industrial production. How many new automobiles do you think the average migratory worker buys with an income of around $1,200 to $1,500 a year? Mr. THOMPSON. I imagine he buys a fifth-hand one. Mr. REUTHER. In most cases they don't even get that, they are trans- ported in old beat-up trucks, with their families and their worldly belongings in the back end. PAGENO="0198" 192 EXTENSION OF NIRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. We heard an interesting story from Professor iTlaughton, who rode in Cesar Chavez' automobile, and Mr. O'Hara, -who has just left for a rolicall, suggested that Mr. Chavez could use ~an American automobile. He uses a, beatup Volvo now. Mr. REtJTHER. I heard of that incident. Mr. THOMPSON. Not that the Volvo is not good, or that we don't believe in trade, but 1 think it. might be well if you could send one of your Detroit products out there. Mr. REUTHER. We shall be approaching Mr. Chavez on a very friendly basis on this problem. Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman, with a bad leg, it takes me twice as long to get to the floor. I am going to have to go back. What is your plan for the continuation of Mr. Reuther's people? Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Reuther, how much time do you have for the members? I know they have questions. Mr. REUTHER. I am available. I have one other meeting late this afternoon. Mr. THOMPSON. Why don't we suspend for 20 minutes? Mr. O'Hara or Mr. Bradčmas will preside then. (Whereupon, at 3 :15 p.m., a recess was taken, the subcommittee to reconvene at 3 :45 p.m., the same day.) Mr. O'HARA (presiding). The Special Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor will resume its con- sideration of the bill before us. At the time the subcommittee recessed, Mr. Walter P. Reuthčr, pres- ident of the TJAW, had finished his statement. Questions are now solicited from the members of the committee. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Dellen- Tback. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say to the witness that I was not a member of any of his Tiocals at the early stages of my career, and unfortunately we don't *7have any plants in my section of Oregon, but I do have a lot of farm- workers, and I was very much impressed by much of your testimony. There are a couple of points, though, Mr. Reuther, on which I would like to ask your opinion. I have both read through your testimony and listened to the elab- oration of it as you were going through, and I am concerned about what your feeling would be on the instability of fluctuating nature of the work forces involved in areas like mine, where there is a migratory work force that comes through. I see a point of distinction with the work force as opposed to the migratory force, as I am sure you have in your locals. Can you comment on how this could be handled? `Mr. REtTTHER. I believe if you will look at situations in the absence of the collective bargaining situations, you will always find more instability than when you get the collective bargaining aspect~ As you increase wages; make their employment more attractive, you get built-in stability in the work force, and part of the instability in the agricultural field is not only the nature of the industry, which is highly seasonal, and workers move from crop to crop and move about the country, hut the very fact that the industry does not pro- vide thcse workers with the kind of w'iges and working conditions PAGENO="0199" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTURAL EMPLOYEES 193 ~nd fringe benefits that they can get elsewhere, builds into the labor force greater forcesOf instability. I am confident, based upon my years* of experience in the labor movement, we have greater stability in our work force today than we had before the union, a great deal more. We have more today with a pension program than we had before we had a pension program. As we improve the conditions, and we make each job more attractive, we build automatically into the work force an increasing degree of stability, and I believe that the experience of the grapeworkers under the Schenley contract, and now the DiGeorgio contract will bear this out. You give them 5 years, and you will find they will develop a core of stability which will be supplemented by new workers. It may be workers who are only in the work force temporarily for a given crop, but as they improve their lot, they will automatically be- gin to take on the greater stability in the work force. So you cannot measure the instability in the past, which has been based on many factors, which will be changed at the point when you have a collective bargaining relationship. Mr. DELLENBACK. I know in the southern area of Oregon one of the crops of significance is the fruit crop. There is some work off the heavy season, but it is not a case of whether they want employees in Other periods, hut the heavy work is concentrated in a short period of time. Are you suggesting that what would happen is that for that short period of time workers would emerge in that local area who would work that short period and not the rest of the year, or, are you sug- gestin~ that there would be a stable force that would appear in that area the same time each year? Mr. RETITHER. I think that what will happen is you will develop a labor market area which will encompass a given number of crops in a geographical area, and those workers who are mobile, who move from crOp to crop, will ultimately form a basic core of the labor force, will be tied into a collective-bargaining unit, and they will have to be supplemented by temporary workers. I believe you could, over a period of time, develop a very stable core~ of people who rely essentially upon this asa full-time job, and they will make up the membership of that core which would* be supple- mented then by people who may only come into an area in terms of a given crop, or several given crops. Mr; DELLENBACK. During your main testimony you spoke of three points of origin: California, Texas and Florida. And *they sweep north. Since we are part of the west coast group, there would be a work force that would commence in ~Ca1ifornia some place, and as the sea- son advances, it of course would move into the Oregon area and then into Washington, and here would come the stability, as you see it, iiecessary to have this sort of relationship? Mr. REUTHER. If you had a contract that said to a worker: Based upon your c~l1ëetive bargaining ri~hts, you will be the first person to be Ihired by this organization or fruitgrower, you were there last year and be will bire you first. : S S Now~ that worker goes up there. He has no assurance that he, as he makes his way north, that when he gets to Oregon he will be employed PAGENO="0200" 194. EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULThRAL EMPLOYEES However, under a union contract, he would know that if that grower needs 200 pickers and he is there at the beginning of the crop harvest that he will be employed. Knowing. that gives him the security, because he is a part of a stable work force, and it is around these kinds of concepts that you can build stability. How do you expect the woker to go from southern California to the northern part of Oregon or the southern part of Washington just in the hope that he might be hired by the grower? He might decide not to make it. He might find something else that attracts him on the way up; but if he knows when he gets there he has got first choice, because he has got seniority, and until that seniority list is exhausted they are not permitted under the contract to hire new workers, he then has the kind of security to have him show up to harvest that crop in Oregon. It is these things, and the justice of better working conditions and better housing, these are elements out of which you will build increas- ing labor stability. In the absence of these, you will have an unstable labor supply. Mr. DELLENBAOK. I don't argue with you. I don't consider myself as part of the vested interests you referred to. Mr. REUTHER. It is oood to know that. Mr. DELLENBACK. f am genuinely searching for information on this as we go along. Mr. REtTTHER. I understand. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would you see difficulties in having the same workers equally well able to perform various types of labor-for ex- ample, in our area again, it is primarily picking that is involved. Down south it is stoop labor, and somewhere else it is something else. It may take skill to do slightly different things. Would you see the same group moving north to do these things, or would they have to be good at this, and that and something else? Mr. REUTHER. I think there is no problem of the ability of the worker to do the jobs. Take pruning, which is highly skilled. You have to know what part of the growth to cut away. If you cut away the wrong growth on the grapevines, there won't be anything to yield on next year. But in stooping and picking; there is no problem. We train people in the automotive industry where the tasks are highly complex, and it is amazing how' a person can be versatile if he is given the opportunity. So I do not think that is a real problem. Obviously the grapegrowers, they will have a corps of people they will want to maintain the year round~ These will be people who do their pruning, because the grape cycle has a longer cycle than some other agriculture. So they will retain people on as near a year-round basis as possible, so they won't lose them. The people who would be moving would be doing what you call stoop labor and doing the picking of the crops. I don't see any prob- lem at all with the problem you raise. Mr. DELLENBACK. I don't intend to continue too long with this, Mr. Chairman. While I recognize the validity of what you talk about in terms of the equalization of the rights of labor in one field and another-I can PAGENO="0201" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 195 :see much merit in this-do you see any points of serious dissimilarity in what could be done to a fixed investment by a strike, in a pear ~orchard, at a crucial time where, if the picking is not done in a very :short time the whole crop is gone, as opposed to a strike in the industry with which you deal primarily? Would you see this giving rise to any restrictions on agriculture on the right to strike? Mr. REUTHER. I would say that that is no greater a problem or no lesser a problem with respect to the harvesting of the crop than it is *in the processing of that crop in the cannery. Supposing the cannery workers decided to strike just at the peak *of the salmon run? That would be just the same kind of problem. How do you deal with that problem? As I suggested in my testi- mony, there are two ways of dealing with it. One is a rational way of giving these workers access to the collective bargaining process, so you can work out agrements before that kind of a crisis. The other way is to turn your back on it and let them develop the tactics of guerrilla, warfare. There is no other way. Either by using the democratic tools of col- lective bargaining, or let it flow out of the bitterness of guerrilla ~warfare. I say that the growers and the canners and everybody else involved in t.he management side of the problem are in a much more secure and *protected position if it is worked out through collective bargaining. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would you see any relaxation of prohibitions on the courts having the power to issue injunctions? Let's assume there were a. strike at a critical time-hopefully there would be none-but assume there was one at a critical time. In this field of agriculture, should the courts have the power to come out with very swift injunctions in order to stop irreparable damages? Mr. IREUTHER. When you are dealing with human problems, no one has the judgment to judge the equities of other people. In that situation, action, in each situation, always with the knowl- edge that the total community has a greater equity, and that that -transcends the equities of labor or management. When that spirit breaks down completely, there are no simple answers to that question, and I don't care what court of law, or the Congress, or the Presidency, no one has any pat answers that will solve those kinds of problems. What we need to do in a free society is to work to make the tools of democracy more adequate, and hopefully that men of good will- using those democratic tools-will find the means of resolving their own problems within a framework of a policy that serves the basic ńeeds of our whole society. You ask hypothetical questions in the automobile questions. Thirty years ago when we began to organize, there were a million hypo- thetical questions raised about what would happen in this situation on that and could the companies afford our demands? What has happened? We have made great progress. An automo- bile worker's economic well-being today reflects tremendous prog- ress over what it was 30 years ago, but the industry has also made great progress. PAGENO="0202" 196 EXPENSION OF NTJRA `TO ~AGRICULTUR'AL `EMPLOYEES I think the same thing would be true in the agricultural field. You never can make lasting progress excepting as you share it with every- body else, and `the agricultural workers `are no't shariiig, and to the `~extent that they are' denied their equity, then `it penalizes the whole' economy. ` Mr. DELLENBACK. And this was in. large part what you said iii your testimony, or in part what you said, and I think you said it very eloquently. , " ` ` `; I am concerned abou't some of the hard `problems that it seems to me do underly even if we both accept this basic broad-scale philosophy~ Mr. REUTHER. Don't you agree, Mr. Congressman, that if you have rules that regulate ,the conduct of labor and management, and they are civilized, reasonable rules, and both parties are to live within the' framework of those reasonable and civilized rules, that that approach gives you a better possibility of building' sound, responsible, and ra- tional relationships than the absence of, those rules, where everyone is on his own, and you are working in a jungle? Mr. DELLENBACK. I accept the thesis that you propound. My ques-- tion is, What should be the rules? May I ask one more brief one, and then I will stop, Mr. Chairman?' `Would you see in this point of distinction that you have made be- tween large employers and the small family, any particular number' of employees where you would draw the line, where in a family farm. of one or two or how, many' workers would you say we would ex- cept these, whereas if we go to a hundred or 500 or 50, we would of course expect coverage? Is there a number that comes to you as a breaking point on cover- age or noncoverage? Mr. REUTHER. I think when a farmer works his `own land and members of his family participate in the working of their own land, and they hire two or three hired hands, I consider that a family-size' farm. I do not think that the Congress will have a great difficulty in drawing the line of demarcation in what constitutes a family-size' farm and what constitutes a farm group that ought to be covered by the legislation. This is a problem you have with all other kinds of legislation, whether it is minimum wage, fair labor standards-where do you draw the line of demarcation? I don't think that is a difficult matter. Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you see a temporary line drawn there, or a `permanent line? Mr. REUTHER. I think you would draw a line with an open mind, and that ought to be subject to: review if there are changes that occur in the future. I don't think that any legislative decision should be made for eter- nity. I think this ought to be made subject to review. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I say to you that I am sorry to leave. It is not because I am not interested in the rest of the questions. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you. I would like to comment on a couple of points you made. ` ` First, I would like to comment on the regularity of the habits of migratory workers inspite of the seasonal nature of their work. PAGENO="0203" EXTENSION OF NLFA TO AGRICFLTTJRAL EMPLOYEES 197 Studies of migratory workers indicate that they tend to follow the same work pattern year after year. Indeed they tend to continue ta work for the same employers I think we could expect that if this legislation were adopted, giv- ing these workers seniority and rehiring rights, this pattern would be~ reenforced, and we would have even more regularity and stability in this labor force than we already have. As the witness has pointed out, there are numerous seasonal indus- tries. Canning and fruit and vegetable packing are the most obvious examples. But. there are many others including gift wrapping, Christ~ mas card operations, toy manufacturing, the resort industry, and so on, I would think that even in the automobile industry, if one of the Big Three were struck at the precise time of their model čhangeover~. the situation would be similar to the situation in agriculture. Mr. REtTTHER. Every industry has a more vulnerable point, and obviously that is always a factor in collective bargaining, as it ought to be in a free society. Mr. O'HARA. That is right, and the employers will seek to have no- strike provisions in their contract, and a contract expiration date that does not coincide with their peak labor-demand period. If collective- bargaining agreements in the agricultural field had similar pi~ovisions, any attempt to strike at harvest time wOuld of course permit recourse to the procedures of the Labor-Management Relations Act. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ford, do you have any questions? Mr. FORD. We are very pleased to have our neighbor from Michigan here. We have heard testimony here in the past few days that indicates that in some instances the provisions of section 8 of the act are being invoked against agricultural workers on a secondary boycott situa- tion, primarily, while at the same time the Board has held they are not employees, properly so, under the present condition of the statute. We find that the law at the present time which has been interpreted by the Board to make all employees of an organization: which iiiicludes any employees who are covered by the act, empioyees~ for the purpose of enforcing the obligations under the act, but the act doesn't similarly extend the benefits of this act to~ all employees because some in the organization are members. Do you have any comment on that? Mr. REUTHER. This is, I think, a very simple illustration of how we treat agricultural workers as third-rate American citizens. We subject them to all the~ limitations and restrictions of the act, and we give them none of the benefits and protections of the act. That is a typical example of how we have trampled on the basic rights of these people. What amazes me is that they have been as patient as they have been. . I can assure you that if I were a worker in the fields, I would have tried to do something about this a long time ago. Mr. FORD. I was quite young when I read, "The Grapes of Wrath." That was a long time ago, and the conditions haven't changed. The testimony that has been elicited in connection with this legislation is a replay of a very vital period in the development of this country. PAGENO="0204" 198 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES I would like to observe in connection with Mr. Dellenback's obser- vations that if the act were extended to agricultural workers it would not only carry positive benefits to the workers that have been covered so thoroughly by your testimony, but the very specific responsibilities in section 8, particularly, that go to both sides, particularly with respect to injunctions. A question of injunction in the case is always the specific matter that is before the court, but the injunction does become available in many instances where it is not now available. It is conceivable that on the hit-and-run basis you could, one by one, either systematically or accidently put a lot of people out of business. But should we cover them by the act, the court would be available to prevent this sort of attack and maintain stability until such time as the collective-bargaining agreement was worked out. The emergency strike provisions would certainly be in effect here. But isn't it true that at the time that you organized the automobile industry it was in a certain sense a seasonal employment business? As a boy growing up in Detroit, I remember that we counted on a long, long unpaid vacation every year in our family, and automobile workers did consider themselves to be really seasonal employees. They, like schoolteachers, had to find another way to eat during that long, hot summerS Mr. REtrrriER. Your memory is very accurate. The automobile indus- try was notorious for the seasonal aspects of its employment. They brought hundreds of thousands of people from the South and worked theiri a few months, and then dumped them on the streets. Some of them got on the welfare rolls and some of them went back home. There was a tremendous fluctuation in the levels of employment. The union has made a tremendous change in that, and if you isolate one thing, and that is the SUB program, it is amazing. When the com- panies had to carry a larger burden of the unemployment cost, they stabilized their working schedule. As long as the workers had to carry the greater part of the cost, the companies did not have the incentive to do anything about it. Mr. FORD. One other point raised by Mr. Dellenback was the possible problem with regard to the hypothesis of having a prehire arrangement where you take a person from one part of the country and in advance commit yourself to his hire without knowing whether the kind of crop he was picking would equip him with skills to handle the crop in your own State. As a matter of fact, isn't it true that presently the same sort of thing is done with people who engage in the business of supplying farm labor in blocks of 30 people, 50 people, or whatever is demanded, and don't the growers now rely on some other person to pick people that will be qualified to do the work they are seeking the employees for? Mr. REUTHER. A grower could not operate unless he was a very large grower and he has his whole recruitment mechanism himself, he could not work without the service of these contractors who really go out and recruit and sell the manpower to the growers. Under a hiring hall arrangement, this could all be formalized as a mechanism between the workers through their union and the em- ployer and the growers association. This thing would obviously work much smoother, and the grower would have greater assurance of having PAGENO="0205" EXTENSION OP NLRA TO AG~ICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 199 available an adequate and competent force than he can in the present situation. Mr. Foiw. Thank you very much for your testimony. In closing, I would like to observe that I don't know whether this committee would have very much optimism in considering this legisla~ tion after the 32 years since the chairman of the committee said we ought to do something quickly. We in Michigan are very much aware of the change that the one~ man, one-vote decision has brought about in the makeup of our delegation, and in other parts of the country; and I do not know whether we would be considering the piece of legislation at this time with the hope that after 32 years it might survive in this Congress if it weren't for the other projects that you in organized labor have engaged in, not directly connected with your own specific problems of representing your people in questions of wages, hours, and working conditions, and I thank you for that contribution, and for your testimony today. Mr. O'HAR4. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Mr. Scheuer? Mr. SCHEUER. I wish to express my appreciation for the wonder- ful testimony we have had from the witness. It isn't often I disagree with even minor points made by my col- league, Mr. Ford, but he did mention that both the conditions and the expectations of the agricultural workers of 30 years ago remain the same today, and I think it is really pretty clear to all of us that around the world, including the agricultural workers, that we have had an explosion of rising expectations, as you referred to in your testimony,, and that these rising expectations are all-pervasive and infectious, and I do not think that, absent action on the part of Congress, we can expect the agricultural workers to continue in the same fashion-the fashion of passive acquiescence and blind ac- ceptance-in which they have functioned over the past generation. So it seems to me that to avoid very urgly and unattractive mani- festations of this resentment, and frustration, the time for us to act is now. I would like to press with just one further question or two on the point that my colleague, Mr. Dellenback, was making on the question of stability and peace in the agricultural industry, because I think all of us, as Congressman of either party, are concerned with the continuity of production in agriculture as well as in the industrial sector of our economy. For example, on the union shop, can you give us any thought out of your own experience with the union shop in the industrial sector of our society, as to whether we should intervene in the agricultural sector with the union shop and provide this structural mechanism for employees and employers to negotiate their grievances and their work conditions-whether this would contribute to continuity of production and labor peace, or whether it would be a negative environ- mental factor which would be troublesome, and would interfere with the flow of foodstuffs to the market? I think all of us would hope that the passage of this law at least would not interfere with continuity of production, and that perhaps it might even enhance industrial peace and the flow of production. PAGENO="0206" 200 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Does your generation of experience working with organized labor and the structure of the union shop give you any insight a~ to what we can expect from the agricultural sector if we intervene and make the union shop possible? Mr. BEtTTIIER. I believe that, the union shop which, incidentally was built into the Schenley agreement and the DiGiorgio agTeement, would be a constructive force and would contribute much toward stability. I would insist, No. 1, that the workers democratically determine this, and if this is their will, then I believe that the union shop would be a constructive step, because so long as the union is insecure, if the union feels that its very existence is constantly, being challenged or threat- ened in the employer-řmployee relationship, an insecure union can never.be a responsible union. It takes. a strong, stable union to develop a sense of responsibility and to carry out its contractual commitments, and I think, therefore, trying to find the structure on which you could get the strongest union, I always qualify that, it must be a democratic union. I don't want a strong union built on an autocratic control of a few people at the top, but a democratic union is a union that I think will give greater stability because it will be strong enough to meet its obli- gations under the contract.. , Mr. SOHE1IER. Would you say that this surmise of yours has been borne out in the 31 States that permit the union shop as against the 19 States where the union shop is prohibited? Mr. RErTTHER. I think the proof of the pudding is that the General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., United States Steel Corp., all these cor- porations~'that started out with a built-in bias against the union shop concept, all came to the conclusion that the union shop is necessary to build a responsible, stable, collective-bargaining relationship. I believe there is no question about it, if they could have their way they would be in favor of extending that principle to every State and eliminate the State obstacles that, stand in .the way in those States where we have the so-called right-to-work law. Mr. SOHEUER. And you would say that the. absence of the right to work law has not interfered with production, or union unrest? Mr. REUTHER. Not necessarily. The union shop has been a stabiliz- ing force. I might say this: If we are suddenly confronted in the General Motors Corp. with a decision, if we were faced with it, that we, the TJAW, were going to pass out of existence, that, would be the most serious crisis the General Motors management would have to face in its history, because in the absence of a strong union, you would have total chaos. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Scheuer, if you would permit me, I would say I recall well your fine speech at the time 14-B was being considered by `the last Congress, in which you pointed out a business magazine survey ivhich indicated that those employers who had the union shop the IEon~est liked it the niost. I think t.hat point is certainly valid here. Mr. SCHEUER. I always forget my accumulation of knowledge from Congress to Congress. [Laughter.] And I do not want to have anyone think that with preknowledge of the witness' point of view I was lead- ing him. . . Mr. O'IIARA. I just want to make a few points. PAGENO="0207" EXTENSION OF ~LRA TO AGRICULTURAL `EMPLOYEES 201 We have had representatives of the* major faiths before us in the~ last few days, and Mr. Dellenback asked the same questions of them as lie did of you. I finally asked them, "Gentlemen, are you here to favor the same rights for farmworkers.as for other workers under labor-management relations act or are you here to favor giving agricultural workers only part of the rights other workers have?" I would like to ask you that question: Do you think we should act to give these farmworkers just part of the rights enjoyed by other workers, or should we treat all workers equally? Mr. REUTHER. I repeat what I said earlier: They are entitled to no imore and no less. They ought to be given equal treatment under law as, all other workers. , Mr. O'HAIL&. I think that ,is the essential point, and that is why 1 TOL. one will not listen for one moment to the demand that we write a'~ jurisdictional standard into this legislation for farm employers. There are no jurisdictional standards in this 1egisl~tion fo~ any other employer in America. The question is, Do they affecteommerce or not:?' If the answer is "Yes," thanit is up to the Board, afterafull ifl~5ti ,gation of the nature of- the industry, to set its own jurisdictional.stand- ~irds according to the, particular problems that industry, has. The Board has set varying jurisdictional; limits to fit, the nature. of different industries. For instance, a newspaper enterprise must have a~ $200,000 gross volume 1~o be withii~ the Board'~ jurisdictiou; radio, TV, telegraph and telephone a $100,000 gross volume; transit system, a, -$250,000 gross volume; business in the territories and District of Co- lumbia, plenary jurisdiction; public utilities, a $250,000, and so forth. Jf administrative determination of jurisdictional questions is good -enough for every other employer in America, it should be good enough for the agricultural employers. . , . *.. ` Would you ~agree? .. . . , ... . . Mr. REtTTHER. I agree. . . - Mr. O'HAit~&. I wish to say that I think your testimony is the best; that we have had on this bill. About ,a million copies of it should be printed and sent all over the couptry, because I think you have. ex-'. pressed better than I have ever heard expressed the.need for this legis- .lation. , But let me make this point: I would gather from your statement -that you are completely determined as the president of the T.JAW, as the president of the ITJD, and as an individual with a conscience, to go forward and do what is necessary to help farrnworkers to organize `themselves. ` . - , Is that correct? Mr. REUTHER. That is correct. As far as I am concerned as a human `being, and as far as I am concerned as an officer of these organizations, we are totally cop'imitted and we intend to follow through on this -commitment. Mr. O'HARA. And if they are going to be able to organize through `the peaceful, democratic process of a secret ballot election, a fter a showing of interest; that is the way it will be done. But if they are not permitted recourse to that peaceful machinery, what, from your experience in the labor movement, before and after the Wagner Act, PAGENO="0208" 202 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES will be the way they are going to organize? "What tactics will they be forced to use if they `don't have' recourse to `a `peaceful representation? Mr REUTHER. Well, they are going to have the tactics of the jungle,. because when men rare dCnied `aCcess to the `pi'ocedures of a. free society, procedures that are rational and responsible, when they are denied `those opportuthtie~ `by sOciety, then they, in desperation, will revert to the tactics of the jungle. Mr. O'HARA. In other word~, they `are going to have to strike right at harvesttime, and do whatever else they can to inflict economic dam- age on that employer in order to gain recognition. If the machinery is opened to them, it is obvi~us that these emi~loyees could gain recogni- tion by a peaceful elCctioll condučted by the NLRB. Mr. REUTHER. You will be amazed how many ways they can figure out `hOw to skin this cat, and under the circumstances where they can inflict the greatest damage on the employer, because they will be motivated by bitterness and frustration, where sound labor-manage- ment ought to be motivated by justice. Mr. `O'HAn~&. I agree with you, farmworkers are going' to organize, and they ought ,to, be able to do it in a `peaceful way, or they will do it by whatever method is most effective to that end-by bringing eco- nomic pressure. I think the greatest step Congress can take toward preventing `disruption would be `to adopt this legislation. As I have said, your statement on this question has been outstanding, and I hope the UAW will see fit to have some reprints n~ade'and get it around the country. Mr. REUTHER. May I end on an optimi~tic note, Mr. Chairman? My `friend, Congressman Ford said, and `the rest of us are aware, that 32 years is a long time `to' carry out the expressiOn of the House committee'who steered the Wagner Act through Congress'back in 1935. Thirty-two years is a long time, but on the civil ,rights front it took a hundred years. That was a great moral issue, and finally its hour had come, and the conscience of America finally caught up with itself and we acted a hundred years late on the civil rights front. This, I also consider a great moral issue, and I believe that the very fac,t that the' great church organizations are responding, I think more and more people are becoming aware that this is a moral question, this is not just an economic question, this is not just a labor-management problem. This is a'great moral qtiestion of how does man live with his'. fellow man in a free society that is built on the values of the worth and dignity of every human person. That doesn't mean you have to be the president of a corporation, or~ a Congressman, or the president of a big union to be entitled to your' worth and dignity. Everyone is entitled to theirs. As we make this a political question, this is a great moral question, and only in making it so can we bring' to bear upon the problem what is essenti~d. That took us a hundred years, and we won through on the civil rights front in 1964 and 1965. We haven't completed that job, but we made steps. If you pass the legislation you have before you, you will have made. a step, but you will not have completed the job. When I get discouraged about the 32 years, I look at the civil rights~ front. Many of us were arguing that many years ago. PAGENO="0209" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 203 I organized my first civil rights picket line in 1931. It took a long time for that to bear fruit. But we aroused the conscience of America, and if we can get to Amer- ica on this issue on the same basis of the inhumanity of what is going on, the injustice of what is going on, and make it into the kind of moral crusade I think it must be made into, we will win through. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you. The Special Subcommittee on Labor will stand in recess until Fri- day, May 12, 1967, at 10 a.rn., in room 2175, when we will hear testimony from representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and the National Coun- cii of Farm Cooperatives. (Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene Friday, May 12, 1967, at 10 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building.) PAGENO="0210" PAGENO="0211" EXTENSION OFNATIONALLABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D C The subcommittee met at 10 15 a m, pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon Frank Thompson, Jr (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Present Representatives Thompson, O'Hara, and Ford Also present Hon William J Scherle Staff present Peter W Tredick, counsel, Jeunesse M Zeif man, clerk. Mr. THOMPSON. The subcommittee will be in order, for the continua- tion of hearings on H R 4769 We have two witnesses this morning Our first is Mr Matt Triggs, the assistant legislative director of the American Farm Bureau TF'ederation Good morning, Mr. Triggs. Mr TRIGGS Good morning, Mr Chairman Mr O'HAita Would the chairman yield for a moment ~ I am delighted to have Mr Triggs here to testify on a mattei con cerning agriculture. On all previous occasions his testimony has been ~on educational matters. Mr. TRIGGS. I welcome the opportunity. Mr. THOMPSON. You may proceed with your statement, as you wish, Mr. Triggs. Would you prefer to read it, or enter it into the record :and then comment on it? Mr. TRIGGS. I would like to read it. Mr. THOMPSON. Please do. STATEMENT OF MATT TRIGGS, ASSISTANT LEGISLATION DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. TRIGGS. We welcome the opportunity to present the views of the American Farm Bureau Federation relating to the proposal to extend the National Labor Relations Act to agriculture. As a distin- guisheci member of the House used to say, "There is no pancake so flat it does not have two sides." Today, we will look at the other side ~of this particular pancake. 205 PAGENO="0212" 206 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES First, farmers are the most vulnerable employers in the world. Most of the previous witnesses have suggested we would make this argument, and indeed we will. It is an argument of strength and substance. While most industrial or commercial concerns may suffer a reduc- tion in profits as a result of a strike, it is rare for them to be disas- trously affected. They can usually close down their operations and sit out the strike with nominal losses, in many cases with no losses at all.. For example, despite the long-continued steel strike in 1959, the profits of most steel companies in that year were about the same as in 1958 and 1960. The situation in agriculture is strikingly different. It is not possible to close down a farm. Crops must be harvested and cows must be milked when ready. This, particularly, is true in the fruit and vege- table industries, where most farm labor is employed. The time to expect a strike is at harvesttime because this is the only time most farmers employ substantial numbers of workers. A success- ful strike when a perishable crop is ready to harvest would entail much more than a reduction in profits. Most likely it would result in (1) no income for the year and (2) a loss of money invested in bringing' the crop to harvest stage-which may run up to $500 an acre or more. A loss of this size would bankrupt many farmers. Thus the farmer is in no position to stand a work stoppage. He is under terrific economic pressure to get his crops `harvested. It would be difficult to resist* any demand at harvesttime which would prevent a workstoppage, no matter how unreasonable or arbitrary the demand might be. Any union which is able to obtain control of the farm labor' supply would have farmers at its mercy. Now, this concern the farmers have with respect to their vulnera- bility has been referred to in this hearing as a myth. But we would' be indeed naive if we accepted such assurances that there really isn't any reason for farmers to be concerned about what unions would do with this power if theyhad it. OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR (1958 DOLLARS) Farm Nonfarm 1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 $1.03 1. 35 1.78 2.39 2. 50 $3.10' 3. 64 3.90 4.55 4. 68~ Source: "Indexes of Output per Man-Hour for the Private Economy," BLS, March 1967. As you will note in this table, although output per man in agri- culture has increased from $1.03 to $2.50 in the past 16 years, it is still only 53 percent of the output per man-hour in nonf arm operations. This is, we submit, a fact of crucial significance. I hope the corn- mittee will agree that the output per man-hour for farm operators is more than the output for hired workers, so that the output per man-hour of hired workers is substantially less than the $2.50 indi- cated here for all agriculture. This table is taken from the indexes of output per man-hour for' the private economy of the BLS. I have extra copies available if any' member of the committee would like to see it. PAGENO="0213" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 207 Thus, although agriculture is gaining, is narrowing the ~ap per- centa~ewise, productivity per man-hour in agriculture remains corn- paratively low. Wherever we go in the world, real wages are deter- mined primarily to productivity. This is no less true in U.S. agri- ~culture. Thus there is mighty little fat for the unions to slice off. They would soon draw blood. FARM C05T5 AND INCOME A crucial element affecting farm incomes is that in an inflationary economy, farm costs rise faster than farm incomes, and are becoming a steadily larger percentage of gross returns. This is illustrated below. And we set forth in this table the trends in growing farm income, production expenses, net income, and the ratio of expenses to gross income. FARM INCOME-GROSS AND NET [Dollar amounts in billions] Gross income Production expenses Net income Ratio ex- penses to gross income (percent) 1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 $33.1 33.4 38. 2 45.9 49. 3 $19.4 21.9 26. 2 30.7 33. 2 $13.7 11.5 12. 0 15.2 16. 1 58.6 65.5 68. 6 66.9 67. 4 Source: "Farm lncome"-USDA. (Does not include inventory changes.) * It is this last column to which I would particular'y like to direct your attention. The percentage of gross farm income represented by farm costs has been steadily increasing, although in the past 2 years it is not quite as large as in 1960. The upward trend in costs relative to gross income is continuing. Farm prices in 1967 are running about 7 percent less than in 1966, gross income will be down, production expenses will be up, net farm income will decline at least a billion dollars (and that is a very con- servative estimate) and the ratio of expenses to gross incomes will reach an all-time peak of about 70 percent. Farmers must get their returns-their labor return and their capital return-from the 30 -percent. In April of this year farm prices- averaged 72 percent of parity, -the lowest parity ratio since 1936. I would like to make a correction in our statement at this point: The concluding phrase of this sentence should be corrected to read, "the lowest parity ratio since the summer of 1934." The cost-price squeeze in agriculture is hurting farmers bad. Farmers are being killed by costs. Farmers are more indignant about the current situation than I have ever known them to be. The margin is thin. Farmers are leaving agriculture for more gain- ful employment at a rate exceeding 100,000 a year. Enactment of H.R. 4769 would narrow the margin still further and hasten the out- migration from agriculture. PAGENO="0214" 208 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES RETURNS ON FARM INVESTMENT The First ~ational. City Bank recently reported (Monthly Eco- nomic Letter, April 1967) that the average return on net worth of 3,850 of the leading corporations in 1966 was 11.2 percent after taxes. How does this compare with agriculture? I regret to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is an error in our* state- ment as distributed to the committee a week ago. I made a mistake in picking up the total assets of farmers rather than the net worth. This: statement shouldread: As of January 1, 1966, the net worth of U.S. farmers was $214.2 billion, with a net farm income of $16.1 billion in 1966. Mr. THOMPSON. Excuse me. Did you say the net worth of U.S. farms,, or farmers? Mr. TRIGGS. Farmers. This is a return on investment in agriculture of 7.5 percent, even if no allowance at all is made for the labor andi management of farm operators. If it is considered that the labor return should be $5,000 per farm family, the return on investment in agriculture in 1966 was zero. The data on farm versus corporate' earnings is not comparable for a number of reasons. Discount the comparability as much as desired because of these reasons, it is still clear that there is a striking difFer- ence between earnings on investment in agriculture and industry. TOTAL RETURNS FROM FARMING In 1966, which was a good year and much better than 1967, the aver- age net return per farm was $4,955. This is both a capital return and a labor return for the farmer and members of his family who work on the farm. Average investment per farm in 1966 was $57,100. This is the bare investment in land and buildings only. If we add, as we should, livestock and farm machinery, the average investment per farm would be $65,960, and even this figure does not include working capital. A very minimum figure for working capital is $5,000 (and this is a very essential part of farm operations) and the real investment per farm is around $70,000. We know of no other occupational endeavor involving similar management skills, similar risks, and similar investment, with as low' returns as those of farmers and ranchers. Now a word about the use of average data. We would be the first to agree that the use of average data, as used above, is not entirely satisfactory. But, we know of no reason to suppose that if similar data were available for the fruit and vegetable industries, which do employ most farmworkers, that the situation would be different than for agriculture generally. Discount the data as much as you please- it is clear that there are some major differences between industry and agriculture. Now, let me pause at this point. During the verbal discussion, Mr. Meany told the Committee, "The Bank of America owns all these big: farm factories." PAGENO="0215" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 209 I would like to read a telegram addressed to me from Richard Owens, secretary of the California Farm Bureau dated May 3, which reads: The following statement is from the Bank of America. While the Bank of America does finance substantial crop production and other agricultural enterprises in California, as a national bank it neither owns nor operates any farms or ranches, and cannot do so even if the bank acquires farm land by foreclosures. The law requires it to be sold as promptly as possible. Mr. THOMPSON. I am sure you realize that Mr. Meany was referring to the loans made by the batik, and did not mean to portray the Bank of America as the physical operator of farms, any more than the Farm Bureau Federation itself is a farmer. Essentially it is an insurance company, isn't it? Mr. TRIGGS. No, that is a very relatively unimportant part of the total Farm Bureau operation. All I can do is quote what Mr. Meany said, and I have an exact quote, I was here, and I copied it down at the moment. I am sure that is what the record will indioate. To continue. We would submit to the contrary that the percentage of all farms owned by banks is negligible, and that the family farm, although larger and using more capital, is still the dominant form in U.S. agriculture. In 1963, the House Agriculture Committee reviewed the changing situation in agriculture with respect to family farms. Incident to this review was an analysis of census returns over a long period of years by the Department of Agriculture. The following is quoted from thereport of the Secretary of Agricul- ture `~o the Committee on Agriculture: For the purpose of presenting general statistics, those farms that use less than 1.5 man years of hired labor are classed as family farms. Those farms that use 1.5 or more man years of hired labor are classed as larger than family farms. Mr. THOMPSON. To help me, would you please tell me, because I don't know, what is a man-year of hired labor? Mr. TRIGGS. That is a man working 12 months in the year. Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, 365 days of employment? Mr. TRIGGS. Not working every day in the year. It is the usual num- ber of days worked. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, 52 weeks times 40 hours, for instance, that would be a man-year? Mr. Tuicos. Yes. Now, continuing with the quotation from the Secretary of Agricul- ture: Contrary to what seems to be a general impression, the role of the family farm in the American agricultural economy has been increasing in importance in the latest years for which we have figures... 1. Although the number of farms has been steadily decreasing-from 5,209,000 in 1944 to 3,701,000 in 1959-the proportion of family farms increased from 94.5 percent to 95.7 percent during those years. 2. Even more important, between those years the family farms increased their share of total farm marketings from 66.5 percent to more than 70 percent. PAGENO="0216" 210 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES I have copies of the full report here, if any member of the committee would like to look at it. Mr. THOMPSON. For the purpose of this discussion, do I understand that they say a farm using less than one and a half man-years of labor is a family farm, and all others are m another cFissification ~ Mr. TRIGGS. The report referred to them as "larger than family farms." Mr. THOMPSON. Then the statement goes on to say that although the total number of farms has decreased by nearly 2 million, the propor- tion of family farms increased from 94.5 to 95.7 percent. Mr. TRTGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. THoi\irsoN. In other words, 95.7 percent of the farms in the United States use less than 1.5 man-years of labor? Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. So that it would be obvious, wouldn't it, that they are increasing their productivity on those farms with less-even though the farms are growing in size-with less than 1.5 man-years of hired labor? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. So that in effect, really, the farms which use sub- stantial amounts of labor are the very large corporate-type farms. TRIGGS. Let me continue, because I am coming to this point. I would like to comment in this connection, Mr. Chairman, that in our opinion the dividing line between what the Secretary defined as a family farm and what he has defined as a farm that is larger than a family farm, is far too low. There are thousands of farmers, fruit and vegetable farmers in par- ticular, who employ no workers during 9, 10, or 11 months of the year, or perhaps one hired man, or a little casual labor, but who employ 15 or 20 men during a short harvest season of perhaps 6 or 9-6 or 8 weeks. Under the Secretary's criteria, these farms are classified as "larger than family farms," and we would submit that in fact most of these ~farms are family farms. Mr. THOMPSON. Actually, we have heard testimony that the bill be- fore us would affect only 3 percent of the farms in the United States. Mr. TRIGG5. I would have to disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. There is not any close relationship. Mr. THOMPSON. You can't conceive of a labor organiztaion trying to organize a farmer such as the one you have just described, one who has a hired man, uses casual labor during 9 months, and then for a very short harvest season employs as few as five or 10 agricultural ~workers? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, I can conceive of it. They are signing up farmwork- *ers in Florida at the present time. They have signed an asserted 30,000 farmworkers, and these farmworkers are coming north to work on farms of all sizes. Mr. THOMPSON. Where would the union organizers find either the energy or the personnel to go after 3.7 million farms? Mr. TRIGOS. I don't think they have an easy job of it, that's for sure. Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think we need to worry much about it. Mr. TRIGGS. I am perfectly free to admit that we are talking about a relatively small segment of American agriculture in this area. PAGENO="0217" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPL0YEES~ 211 It is not just the size of farm involved, it is the kind of crops they- produce. Mr. THOMPSON. Are the DiGiorgios' members of the Farm Bureau ?~ Mr. TRIGGS. I don't know. I would suppose that they are. We are up to the farmers and the NLRB. Most businesses follow the practice of employing an attorney or" attorneys to provide counsel with respect to the many complex prob- lems involved in their relationship with labor unions tinder the rules,.. procedures, and provisions of the Natonal Labor Relations Act. This is indeed a complex area of law and only `competent and special- ized attorneys who follow the shifting policies and interpretations of NLRB and the courts are able to give sound advice' with respect to- these problems and relationships. There are some farmers who would and could do likewise if `they were covered by the act. But the majority of affected farmers cannot afford `the costs of continuing legal consultation and wouldi be over- whelmed by `the legal problems associated with the administration of the act. Now we `have a paragraph on the impact on consumers. `We' include- it because members of the committee have asked previous witnesses~ about the effect the bill would have on consumers. No precise answer can be provided to this question because there- are too many variables which would apply differently in different areas: and for different commodities. The two major variables would be: (1) How much, if any, wage increases would unions `be able to obtain above'- those that would occur anyhow? (2) Is new technology available which would enable farmers to offset increased wage costs by a reduction in' the number of workers hired? We would hope that farmers would be able to shift to consumers all of the increased costs involved. Ordinarily it is difficult for farmers. `to pass on increased costs to consumers. Consumer prices' are not* affected unless farmers are hurt badly enough by the increased costs: to reduce production. This does happen. For example, the termination of the bracero pro-~ gram hurt California. growers of strawberries and asparagus badly' enough that they reduced the acreage of these crops.' Mr. THOMPSON. Well, in connection wit'h strawberries, I have some'- interesting statistics. Increases of 35 to 40 cents in the hourly pre-. harvest rate and 15 to 3~ cents per 12-pound tray of strawberries at harvest time raised the 1965 field labor costs by an average of 1.1~ cents: a pound. Both the seasonal average price to the producer and the average~ retail price rose by a'bout t'he same amount or more, indicating that. labor costs had in fact been passed on to the consumer. Mr. TRIocms. I `think in this case that labor costs have been passed. on, and perhaps your wives `have noted tha't the price of strawberries: and asparagus in produce markets has been higher, quite a bit higher,, in the past couple of years. `Mr. THo1~nsoN. Mr. Triggs, have you read, or are you familiar with- the contracts recently signed between the United Farmer Workers Organizing Committee and the DiGiorgio Co.? `Mr. TRIUGS. Yes, I am. PAGENO="0218" 212 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. ThOMPSON. Do you know that the contract contained no strike, no lockout clauses? Mr. TRIOG5. I am familiar with that fact,Mr. Chairman, yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Just how, then, can you be so sure that bringing farmworkers under the act would increase strikes and conflict? Mr. TRIGGS. Mr. Chairman, much of the attention of this committee has been focusedon the DiGiorgio case. Mr. THOMPSON. Because it is a success story from both the workers' and the company's viewpoint. Mr. TRIGGS. We would argue it would be most unrealistic to base national policy on the D1G-iorgio experience. I think Digiorgio is the country's largest farm-it is a large operation, it is not typical of California, and it is not typical of the Nation, and to look at the DiGiorgio case and write policy- Mr. THOMPSON. And yet you would have us believe by your testi- mony that these unions will be going around to 3 million farms and trying to organize them, asking for card checks, for proof that one- third of the 10 workers want a union, and calling the NLRB in and call an election. Mr. TRIGGS. I have given you a wrong impression, if I have given you that impression. The 3 million farms would not be involved. Pri- marily the fruit and vegetable industry would be involved. Mr. THOMPSON. As a matter of fact, you know, right now there is unrest and there are strikes in Texas and elsewhere. These are going to continue, notwithstanding what happens to this legislation. As a matter of fact, I would predict that they are going to increase in number, in unpleasantness and perhaps in violence unless there is some legal mechanism by which there can be an orderly process for agricultural workers to seek to increase their wages. Now this bill is not going to increase the minimum wage for agri- cultural workers. You seem to say here, "Well, what difference would it make, really, because how much, if any, wage increase would unions be able to obtain over those which would occur anyhow without winners?" Mr. TRIGOS. There will be a real struggle in every situation between farmers and unions if they proceed to try to organize farmers without the act or with the act. Mr. THOMPSON. It is. going to be infinitely worse without the act. Mr. TRIGGS. We will take our chances without the act, as one of the parties to the conflict. Mr. THOMPSON. You are brave. Mr. TRIGOS. That is virtually a unanimous position of the farmers. Now we come to a crucial point, the effect on workers. I think it is important to avoid the oversimple answers to problems that aren't really answers at all. For example the major effect of the extension of minimum wage legislation to some farmworkers and sharecroppers is the disemployrnent of tens of thousands of workers in the south- eastern States and an acceleration of mechanization of farm opera- tions. Unfortunately those who are being disemployed by this process are those least equipped to find alternative job opportunities. The welfare and poverty problems in many areas have been magnified. PAGENO="0219" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 213 The supposition that the welfare of farmworkers would be enhanced by the proposed bill fails to recognize three important factors: First, the demand for farm labor is elastic. In the period 1950-6G ~each 1-percent increase in real farm wages was accompanied by a 1.7-percent decline in farm labor employment. It is commonly assumed that this decline in farm labor employ- ment is due to mechanization. This is an over-simplification. What causes mechanization? Mechanization is very expensive. It requires heavy investment by farmers of "hard to come by" capital. Farmers make such investments only when this will result in lower costs. The trend in wage costs is the driving force. Mr. TnoivrPsoN. They are mechanizing, aren't they? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, because farm wages have been rising. Mr. THoMPsoN. And they will mechanize at any time when they can lower their overall costs. Mr. TRIGGS. This is correct, and the crucial factor is wage costs. The crucial factor affecting the rate of mechanization and the number of people employed is wage costs. Second, if we add to the expectation of higher wage rates resulting from enactment of the bill-and farmers would expect an all-out drive for higher wages, if we were to do that-the concern that farmers would have because of their vulnerability, as discussed above, we would create two major incentives for farmers to expedite the substitution of capital for labor. Third, and very important, any significant increase in costs of pro- ducing fruits and vegetables in the United States will result in trans- ferring production of high labor requirement crops* to Mexico. The potential to do this in Mexico is fantastic. Imports of fruits and vegetables from Mexico have increased seven times since 1955. Data relative to this situation is set forth below. Value of UjS'. imports of fruits a~ul vegetables from Mewico Source: Foreign Agricultural Service Report, March 19~37, USDA. As you will note, it indicates that the value of U.S. imports of fruits and vegetables from Mexico has increased from $15 to $107 ~million in an 11-year period. The nature of this trend will be indicated by the fact that the increase in the 1 year, 1966 over 1965, is Jarger than any previous 5- year increase. In this connection you will be told, and perhaps have already been told-in fact an article to that effect has been put in the Congressional Record on two occasions-that this Mexican development is not very important because it is noncompetitive out-of-season produce. The fact of the matter is that the largest item, about half the total is fresh tomatoes, which compete with Texas and Florida and hot- ~house tomatoes. The increase is from 66 million pounds in 1955 to 359 million pounds in 1966. The second largest item is frozen strawberries. Imports of :frozen strawberries from Mexico increased to .12 million pounds in 1955 1960 1965 .1966 $15, 493, 000 45, 306, 000 73, 064, 000 107, 454,000 PAGENO="0220" 214 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICuLTURAL EMPLOYEES 1955 to 83 million pounds in 1966. Frozen strawberries are, of course, competitive 12 months in the year. Even the small amount of Mexican produce that is out of season is still competitive, because everything on the produce counter is com- peting for the housewife's dollar. A trend as strong as this may be expected to continue. Mexico has large acreages of land on the west coast adaptable to the production of fruits and vegetables. The upward trend in imports of such prod- ucts would be accelerated by any substantial increase in wage costs or labor controversy. Since Mexico produces and sells to the United States primarily those fruits and vegetables which require large amounts of labor to produce, an acceleration of such imports would result in displacement of comparatively large numbers of farmworkers in the United States. So, while some workers would gain from the economic power the bill would place in the hands of labor uthons, others would be hurt by a sharp reduction in farm employment. We suggest that the number of workers who would be hurt would be considerably larger than the number who would be helped. Farm wages have been going up and will continue to go up. But any program that would have the effect of accelerating this trend would have undesirable consequences to both workers and farmers. We summarize our statement. Thus, there are some very real differences between industry and agriculture: The vulnerability of farmers. Productivity per man-hour in agriculture. The income position of farmers. A very elastic demand for labor in agriculture. We submit that these factors are adequate justification to oppose enactment of the bill. (The appendices referred to follow:) APPENDIX A SEASONALITY OF HIRED FARM LABOR EMPLOYMENT-1966-SELECTED STATES IThousands of farmworkersj Month New York . New Jersey Pennsyl- vania Ohio Illinois Michigan Florida Texas Call- fornia Wash- ington Oregon January February~~ March 19 20 27 6 6 7 11 14 14 8 10 17 17 19 27 15 18 21 105 103 100 32 58 72 148 145 142 12 17 22 8 11 14 April May June 32 42 43 14 20 20 17 20 32 18 29 37 29 43 48 21 27 42 97 97 67 83 118 155 160 187 216 38 44 60 52 19 63 54 July August September - October 45 47 46 32 29 26 18 13 27 25 26 21 35 31 33 21 48 39 31 38 56 45 34 30 45 45 54 65 131 119 188 171 238 261 228 54 36 29 46 21 16 8 November_ - - 23 7 14 17 31 18 95 103 162 16 9 December~ 21 6 13 7 20 16 96 58 141 11 Source: "Farm Labor," USDA. Annual average hired farm labor employment-United States-AS~clected years' [Thousands of workers] 1930 3, 190 1940 2, 679 1950 2, 329 1960 1, 869 19435 1,482 1,357 Source: "Farm Labor," USDA. PAGENO="0221" Year Feed Livestock Motor supplies Motor vehicles Farm machinery Farm supplies Building materials Seed Wage rates 1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 105 106 97 104 109 113 83 100 96 107 86 95 101 102 102 78 87 102 113 117 78 87 107 119 124 94 98 100 103 104 81 92 102 101 103 109 114 101 113 110 73 89 109 125 135 Source: "Farm Cost Situation," USDA. Estimated man-mont/is of seasonal hired farm labor, 1966 Vegetables Fruits Cotton Tobacco Grain illay Nursery stock All other Total Annual average Source: "Farm Labor Developments," USDL, January 1967. (Does not Include perma- nent farm employees of about an equal number.) APPENDIX B [From the Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1P67} ExPoRTs or U.S. FRUITS, VEGETABLES SHRINK AS FOOD PROCESSOBS SET Ur PLANTS ABROAD U.S. food processors~ eyeing market potentials in economically growing foreign countries, are setting up fruit- and vegetable-canning plants around the globe. As a result, U.S. exports ot these items already are shrinking, and experts say for- eign-processed fruits and vegetables eventually could flood into the U.S. and compete with those grown and canned here. Americans have operated food plants outside U.S. borders since the turn of the century. In recent years, however, the pace of overseas development in fruit and vegetable canning has quickened considerably. Rising labor costs~ increasing transportation rates and technological advances overseas are convincing more and more U.S. food companies that profit margins can be widened by processing foods for foreign markets in foreign plants. The rapid growth of foreign fruit and vegetable processing has made serious dents in export levels of the products. Exports of canned vegetables steadily drop- ped to 138 million pounds in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1966, from a peak o~ 245 million pounds nine years ago, according to the Agriculture Department. Exports of canned fruits, though buoyed through the early 1960s by swelling Eu- :rOpean demand, are now starting to slip, declining to 503 million pounds in fiscal 1960 from 550 million pounds in 1964-65. IMPORTS MAY REPLACE EXPORTS Apparently the trend will continue. "We're looking at all corners of the globe at the moment," says Charles Angin,procurement director forS&W Fine Foods inc., a division of San Francisco-based Di Giorgio Corp., which recently farmed out custom-packing of 20 fruit and vegetable items to European processors. "Eventually most (U.S. canned fruit and vegetable exports) will be eliminated." While cutting exports, the new foreign plants are assuming more of the produc- flon once turned out by U.S. facilities. That means, food companies admit, that some operations on U.S. soil must be closed or slowed down, throwing some em- EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 215 INDICES OF FARM COSTS 1957-59=100 1, 787, 000 1, 542, 500 821,400 674,900 395,200 229,600 200,400 1,565,200 7,466,200 622,200 PAGENO="0222" 216 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES ployes out of work at least temporarily. But Mr. Angi'n, for one, expects expand- ing domestic demand from a growing population will soften the overall impact on U.S. growers and processors. Nevertheless, experts believe American-owned plants in foreign countries may operate so efficiently before long that foods proces.sed outside the U.S. will flow back across the borders and complete fiercely with domestic products. Pine- apples, strawberries and tomato paste processed in U.S.-owned Mexican plants have been exported to the U.S. recently. A Libby, McNeill & Libby plant started last year in Spain has used inexpensive Spanish labor to produce hand-packed Spanish green. olives that are marketed here in competition with less-desirable U.S. machine-packed olives. California Packing Co., San Francisco, producer of Del Monte brand foods, says it is studying the possibility of growing asparagus in Mex.ico for export to the U.S. OPERATIONS IN MEXICO Mexico's `abundance of inexpensive labor has drawn many U.S. food processors south of the border. Until 1065, American food processors in the Southwest were able, to hire low-paid Mexicans who crossed the border during harvest time. under. the Bracero labor program. When the program was allowed to expire at the end of 1964, some U.S. processors simply followed the cheap labor back to Mexico. One `of the largest U.S. processors. in Mexico, H. 3. Heinz Co., Pittsburgh, brought' in experts from Hawaii to improve production of the once-discredited Mexican pineapple. Since Heinz began its improvement program. three years ago, pineapple yields have jumped to 65 tons per hectare (about 160 tons an acre) ~from 45 tons (about 110 tons an acre), Heinz says. Production of canned pineapples in Mexico increased .to 75,000 ton's last year from 60,000 tons in 1964, ~nd an output of 90,000 tons is forecast for 1968. The high tariffs established by the six Common Market nations of Western Europe-West Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Luxem- burg-encourage U.S. food. processors. to'start fruit and vegetable plants there. "Europe is building a wall around itself," says S&W's Mr. Angin. Extremely high duties, `especially in the Common Market countries, are pricing and will continue to price U.S. exports out of the market, he says. S&W plans to replace some of its foreign custom-packing operation's with overseas facilities of its own.. U.S. TECHNOLOGY CONTRIBUTED "What it boils down to is that eventually we will have to move our operations close to the market' we produce for," says William A. Busick, executive vice president of operations for Chicago-based Consolidated Foods Corp., which re- gently acquired a plant in the Netherlands. Libby, `also headquartered in Chicago, has added two European plants to i'ts overseas roster in the past five years. Campbell Soup Co., Camden, N.J., has expanded its Italian tomato `and asparagus plant to supply Common Market countries with soups and V8 vegetable juice. Ironically, American dollars and technology have contributed heavily to the advances in European canning and agriculture `that have made overseas foods competitive with U.S. products. Until recently, American exports were cheaper and of higher quality than European products. .1 would like to take just a minute, Mr. Chairman, to go over these attached' `appendices with you. This first table shows the variation in farm employment during a season for selected States. Take, for example, your State of New Jersey. Farm labor employed increased from 6,000 in the winter months to 29,000 in July, nearly five times as much. The seasonality explains why it is so common to have a surplus of farm labor during 9 or 10 months of the year and a critical shortage in perhaps 2'or 3 months. It also explains why it is quite possible to have a surplus of labor in some areas at the same time there is a shortage someplace else. The next table in Appendix A discloses the sharp decline in farm labor employment. During the first 4 months of 1967, the downward trend is continuing. As of April, farm labor employment was 61/2 PAGENO="0223" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 217 percent below April of 1966, and 29 percent below the 1961-65 aver- age. The next table shows indexes of farm costs. It illustrates trends in prices of farm inputs in the past 16 years. It will be noted that the prices of some inputs have been fairly stable, the prices of motor ve- hicles and farm machinery have increased substantially, and then over in the last column, that the upward trend in farm wage rates is the sharpest trend of any. Farm wage rates have increased 85 percent since 1950. But the aver- age prices received by .farmers as of April 1, 1967, were 5-percent lower than in the year 1950. Incidentally, the index of farm wage rates of April reported by the Department- Mr. THOMPSON. Do you have any statistics on productivity on those years, the increase in productivity? Mr. TRIGGS. Those would be .indicated in the table on page 2, which indicate that output per man-hour has gone from $1.03 in 1950 to $2.50 in 1966. Mr. THOMPSON. So wages went up 85 percent and during the same time productivity went up over 100 percent. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, but we have also made the point, Mr. Chair- man- Mr. THOMPSON. 150 percent. Mr. TRIGGS (continuing). That the productivity of the average worker who is still engaged in hand harvest, and that is where most of them are employed, has been static, has not changed in the past 25 years. Mr. THOMPSON. Can't part of this be attributed to the mobility of the farmworker? If .a fellow is a migrant worker and is, let us say, harvesting a crop in Maryland, and learns that he can make 10 cents an hour more in nearby New Jersey,. he will go . there, won't he? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, he will. Mr. THOMPSON. Isn't this a factor in the instability of the work force? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. We do have to keep in mind in this~ connection that of the total farmworkers, about 10 or 11 percent is migratory. Mr THOMPSON Yes Mr. TRIGGS. The balance is local labor. People who are resident in the areas, go to work during the summertime, such as high school students. Mr. THOMPSON. Such as the strawberry crop in Washington and Oregon, for instance. Mr. TRIGGS. This is handled almost altogether by local labor. Mr. THOMPSON. Families do this. Mr. TRIGGS. And because of the provisions that Congress made in the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is continuing. Mr. THOMPSON. They insisted it is good for the children? Mr. TRIGGS. I would say it is. It is supported by the community and the churches. The last table shows that vegetables and fruits are the commodities in which the largest number of seasonal workers are employed. The last, appendix B, briefly, we have noted the steady increase of imports of fruits `and vegetables from Mexico and this appendix is PAGENO="0224" :218 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTURAL EMPLOYEES a feature article from the `Wall Street Journal, from May 1, looking to the future. Let me read a paragraph. U.S. food processors, eyeing market potentials in economically growing foreign countries, are setting up fruit and vegetable canning plants around the globe. As a result, U.S. exports of these items already are shrinking, and experts say foreign-processed fruits and vegetables eventually could flood into the U.S. and compete with those grown and canned here. And then: While cutting exports the new foreign plants are assuming more of the pro- ~duction once turned out by U.S. facilities. That means, food companies admit, that some operations on U.S. soil must be closed or slowed down, throwing some employees out of work at least temporarily. Nevertheless, experts believe American-owned plants in foreign countries may operate so efficiently before long that foods processed outside the U.S. will flow back across the borders and compete fiercely with domestic products. Domestic jobs are reduced in number when our competitive capacity in export markets is reduced. They are reduced in number when im- ports have increased, and the enactment of this bill, in our opinion, would have a major impact on this situation, materially reducing the competitive capacity of the fruit and vegetable industry in the United States. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Pur- suant to the committee's request, copies of our statement were delivered to you a week ago today, and since you have .had some time to analyze tour statement, I await your questions with trepidation. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. I noted that you had analyzed earlier statements. Mr. TRIGGS. I did the best I could. Mr. THOMPSON. This is good, because we are trying to learn as much as we can. I do read the Wall Street Journal, and I also, referring to the Mexi- can situation, have an article from a paper printed right next to Mexico, "The California Farmer." And let me read part of that to you. They take the position that the Mexican imports aren't nearly so devastating economically as one would indicate. This says: We boiled down to the bare truth, and the information we garnered seemed rto lead to a simple conclusion: "If you can't make a go of farming in California, ~you'll never strike it rich in Mexico." This is not to say that money is not being made in the vegetable industry in Mexico; some growers and distributors have managed highly successful deals, but not, we feel, at the expense of the U.S. industry. And for every dollar made, there is every likely one lost, for it is not uncom- mon for an enthusiastic grower to go south, only to come back with his "tail between his legs," so to speak. It's a risky business and the problems are great. Certainly our statement that growers in the U.S. aren't suffering because of Mexican imports is counter to virtually all of the news stories which have circu- lated in this State. But we feel we can justify the statement, and intend to do so. This writer interviewed a host of growers, distributors, and agricultural asso- ciation officials and no matter whom we talked to, our figures always seemed to add up to the same sum, "If the U.S. has a short crop, then there is money in Mexican product; if the U.S. has a big crop, Mexican growers fall on their faces." To illustrate this point, let us quote Walter Holm, one of the more successful distributors of Mexican produce in Nogales, Arizona, and also a financial backer of a Mexican growing operation. "It costs from $2 to $2.25 just to get a lug of tomatoes to the border, and this doesn't include growing costs," llolm said. These costs were verified by every other person and agency we consulted. Consequently, when growing costs are considered, a grower has to get at least ~3.1O for a three-layer lug of tomatoes to break even. PAGENO="0225" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 219 Angus MacKenzie, a buyer, from Coast Marketing Company, which also has a financial arrangement with a Mexican grower, probably put this into proper perspective with this: "The cost per acre of growing in Culiacan is a lot less per acre, but not less per package." MacKenzie should know whereof he speaks because his firm also has a tomato operations in San Diego County While San Diego giow ers can boast yields of 2000-2500 boxes per acre he said growers in Culiacan must content themselves with 500-600 marketable lugs This ignores even further, though, the, fact that farm economists might be worrying about overseas operation and the development of farms elsewhere and the importation of foodstuffs into the United States. Sociologists are worried about the population growth and how throughout the rest of the world people are going to have . enough to eat in the future, even to the point of developing methods by which fish can be processed and flour made, and planting crops in the sea. I really don't worry. very much about the development of . land in Mexico. As a matter of fact, I wish they would develop it faster. (The newspaper article referred to follows:) [From the California Farmer, Mar. 18, 1967] LAND OF PROMISE-IF YOU'RE LUCKY By Alton Pryor You're thinking of moving your farming operation to Mexico? If so, you might be well-advised to hang onto your homestead until you've sur- veyed the situation from every angle. In a mere five days' investigation of the Culiacan area of Mexico, where the winter vegetable deal flourishes, California Farmer feels it uncovered sufficient information to determine that Mexico doesn't necessarily house the coveted golden egg. When boiled down to the bare truth, the information we garnered seemed to lead to a simple conclusion: "If you can't make a go of farming in California, you'll never strike it rich in Mexico." This is not to say that money is not being made in the vegetable industry in Mexico; some growers and distributors have managed highly successful deals, but not, we feel, at the expense of the U.S. industry. And, for every dollar made, there is very likely one lost, for it is not uncommon for an enthusiastic grower to go south, only to come back with his "tail between his legs," so to speak. It's a risky business and the problems are great. Certainly, our statement that growers in the U.S. aren't suffering because of Mexican imports is counter to virtually all of the new's stories which have circu- lated in this State. But we feel we can justify the statement, and intend to do so. This writer interviewed a host of growers, distributors and agricultural asso- ciation officials and no matter whom we talked to, our figures always seemed to add up to the same sum "If the U.S. has a short crop, then there is nioney in Mexican produce: if the U.S. has a big crop,.Mexican growers fall on their faces." To illustrate this point, let us quote Walter Holmn, one of the more successful distributors of Mexican produce in Nogales, Arizona, and also a financial backer of a Mexican growing operation. "It costs from $2 to $2.25. just to get a lug of tomatoes to the border, and this doesn't include growing costs," Ilolm said. These costs. were verified by every other person and agency we consulted. Consequently, when growing costs are considered, a grower has to get at least $3.10 for a 3-layer lug of tomatoes to break even. Angus MacKenzie, a buyer for Coast Marketing Company, which also has a financial arrangement with a Mexican grower, probably put this into proper perspective with this: "The cost per acre of growing in Culiacan is a lot less per acre, but not less per package." MacKenzie should know' whereof he speaks, because his firm also has a tomato operation in San Diego County. While San Diego growers can boast yields of 2000-~500 boxes per acre, he said, growers in Culiacan must content themselves with 500-600 marketable lugs. . 82-132--67----15 PAGENO="0226" 220 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Culiacan growers harvest more than the 500-600 boxes mentioned, but, because of a self-imposed restriction, cannot ship any fruit which grades below 85 per cent U.S. 1. Even if it weren't necessary to cull so heavily, Mexican growers would not reap the yields that San Diego growers experience. For one thing, as Angus. MacKenzie explained, "In Mexico, we're growing in the winter. We have cold nights. The vines can be loaded with blooms and we get three cold nights in a. row and they are all knocked off." There is a reason for the heavy culling other than the restriction of the growers themselves, and this is the distance the fruit must travel to reach its ultimate destination. There is a 2-day period from the time the fruit is picked until it reaches the border at Nogales and is sold. Fruit which could easily reach a major market in good condition from San Diego, would deteriorate considerably with this added waiting period. The culled tomatoes aren't a complete loss, as they are sold on the Mexican. domestic market, but can hardly be considered a profitable operation. The West Mexico Vegetable Distributors Association at Nogales figures that only 40 percent of the tomatoes harvested meet U.S. No. 1 shipping requirements. The other .60 percent, classified as No. 2's and culls, are sold on the domestic market for 8.00 to 12.50 pesos (64 cents to $1.00 U.S. currency). This includes the cost of the crate which is about 32 cents in U.S. money. Tomatoes account for about two-thirds of the produce volume shipped into the U.S. from Mexico, with cantaloups running second, but considerably lower in number than tomato shipments. The Mexican crop comes off at the same time Florida is harvesting vegetables, and therein lies the success or failure for growers in Mexico. If Florida has a* good year, it doesn't matter what Mexican growers do. They can't compete. It's when Florida experiences a serious setback. such as a major freeze, that Mexican production comes into play. And then, this imported production is not grabbing markets from Florida grow- ers. They are merely shipping what Florida is unable to produce. It's a matter of supply and demand. Labor is plentiful, and compared to American standards. is considered cheap. Even this might be disputed when you consider an operation like Horaclo Cam- pana's and his three partners. Campana said they farm 600 hectares, or the equivalent of 1500 acres. For the 7-month growing season, it is necessary to employ 800 persons. A tractor driver earns 30 pesos a day, while a woman tying tomatoes to poles can make from 20-25 pesos per day. A peso is equivalent to eight cents American. If you figure that each of these workers puts in 25 days a month earning an average of $1.75 per day, it doesn't take a mathematician to see that the total labor bill comes to a sizable $245.00 a year, and this is a conservative estimate. Mexican growers have many problems which U.S. growers don't face, such as acquiring machinery and parts (and at exorbitant prices), added freight and export duties just to get the produce into the U.S., and difficulty in acquiring packing materials. All of these things will be explored in future installments. At the same time, we do not want to underrate the tremendous potential of the west coast of Mexiëo as a supplier of vegetables. Certainly the potential is there and should. we feel, be explored. As Carlos Bennen, who operates a packing house and works with a Mexican growing opera- tion, said, "Mexico has the potential to feed the entire North American con- tinent." But certainly this is not an overnight development. While the importing of fruits and vegetables from Mexico might appear to be a one-way street, nothing could be further from the truth. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, in 1064, Mexico bought $1,023.000.000 worth of goods from the United States. During the same year. Mexican sales to the U.S. were $600,000,000. In our next installment, we will take a closer look at a Mexican growing opera- tion. detailing some of the problems we mentioned previously. In future install- ments. we will concentrate on some of the costs involved. Mr. Tuiccs. I have read that article to which you refer, and it is quite true that U.S. farmers who have gone down to Mexico and tried to grow crops in Mexico run up against some kinds of problems that PAGENO="0227" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 221 they find very difficult to deal with, and most of them have not been satisfied with their experience. Some have. Some are doing very well- Mr. THOMPSON. You know, the Mexican worker is an intelligent human being, and as those lands are developed he is going to seek hi~ share of the profits through increased wages. These things have a tendency to level off. In the meantime, the Amer- ican farmer is trying to improve his lot and I, for one, am for that. For instance, on the other side, the Farm Bureau testified on behalf of a bill by Senator Aiken and others to control some unfair trade prac- tices and to allow farmers to get together for marketing in such a way that it won't violate the present law. I am a sponsor of that legislation in the House, because I am in- terested not only in the worker but in the farmer who is going to employ the worker. The Farm Bureau's statement in the Senate said, and I quote: Producers want to work together to earn a higher net income in a market- directed economy. Now, I think that that is a reasonable thing, and I hope that it comes about, and that you can do it. I particularly hope for that for the dairy farmers in my area of New Jersey, `who are suffering terribly. .1 don't know of a dairy farm in the area of New Jersey, which I represent; which would be organized if agricultural workers would be granted rights under the NLRB. I don't think there is one that employs enough workers at any time so that the unions would have any interest in it. Mr. TRIGGS. First let me express our appreciation to the chairman for introducing H.1R. 6172. What this bill and many similar bills do is to prohibit a buyer from discriminating against the farmer solely be- cause the farmer is a member of a cooperative or bargaining association. It does not require any farmer to become a member of a bargaining association, nor does it require any buyer to buy from the cooperative association. Mr. THOMPSON. I subscribe to that philosophy. Now, if agricultural workers are allowed to organize or are brought into the NLRA, not one of them will be required to join the union. Not one of them will be. Mr. TRIOG5. Mr. Chairman, the contract in the DiGiorgio case- I use that because it is the only one I know of-c-- Mr. THOMPSON. That is why we use it, too. Mr. TRIGGS. It does require a union shop arrangement. Mr. THOMPSON. How did that come about? Mr. TRIGGS. By voluntary agreement. We will not oppose that by voluntary agreement. Mr. THOMPSON. Your cotton farmers in the South, and I assume they are members of the Farm Bureau, they are the victims of a closed shop under the Cotton Act, aren't they? Mr. TRIGGS. Mr. Chairman, you have got two questions before me. Let me finish the first one, and then I will come to that one. If this were all your bi]l H.R. 6172 does for farmers, if this were all that H.R. 4769 did, that is, to recognize the right of workers to join a union if they choose to do so voluntarily, and to prohibit discrimination against a worker solely because he is a union member, and if this were introduced as an independent bill, not a~ an amendment to the National PAGENO="0228" 222 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Labor Relations Act, I am confident we would not be here to oppose the bill, but 4769 does far more than that. This is a miniscule part of the bill. It establishes the principle-it authorizes compulsory union and checkoff s- Mr. THOMPSON. In what way ? Mr. TRIGGS. Because the National Labor Relations Act authorizes ]t. Mr. THOMPSON. Compulsory unionism? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. TI0MP50N. That is not so, that is absolutely not so. This is an oblique return to the 14(b) question. Mr. TRIGGS. Which Jam glad to note is now dormant. * I haven't quite finished~ though. The bill before the committee includes authorization for I won't say "compulsory" but union shop. Mr. TIIo1~rPSoN. There is a difference, isn't there? Mr. TRIGGS. And a requirement for checkoffs- Mr. THOMPSON. If, as a matter of contract, checkoffs are agreed upon? Mr. TRIGGS. And requires it applies to collective bargaining with a union, it includes hiring halls and preemployment contracts, and these are the pa~rts of this bill that we are opposed to. We are not opposed to the right of people to join an organization and protect their interests. Mr. THOMPSON. What you are really saying is that you are opposed to the sections of the National Labor Relations Act which allow as a matter of national policy the organization of workers into unions. Mr. TRIGGS. No, we are not opposing those features. We are not opposing * the extension of those features to agriculture. Mr. THOMPSON. You don't mind it at all as long as you are not re- * quired to bargain with them. They can join a union, and you are perfectly happy so long as you don't have to bargain with them? Mr. TRH~GS. Most farmers in the country do bargain with their work- ers, will talk to a committee of workers representing the whole group, but that is quite *a different proposition in our view as compared with the proposition of forcing them to deal with the union. Mr. THOMPSON. I would credit most farmers with being willing to talk to their workers. But some wouldn't in California. They wouldn't even talk to the clergy, but they, no doubt, represented a small group. My questions are not based on any personal hostility. Mr. Trucos. I appreciate that. Mr. THOMPSON. Just from a deep conviction that you are as wrong as you think I am. Now, Mr. Scherle, from Iowa, is here. He is not a member of the subcommittee, but he is a member of the full committee, and I would like to give him an opportunity to ask you questions. Mr. TRIGGS. Let me comment, that I appreciate the gentlemanly treatment. Mr. THOMPSON. I once had an agreement with the Farm Bureau. The agreement I had was with respect to the migration of the red- winged blackbird up the east coast. I have a very glowing letter from PAGENO="0229" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 223 them that I have framed, and I show it to people once in awhile to show that the Farm Bureau and I have agreed. Mr. Scherle? Mr. SOHERLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I am here as a vitally interested spectator this mOrning. Mr. THOMPSON. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. I realize you come from a farm area. Mr. SCHERLE. A big one in Iowa. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Triggs, you say you are opposed to the applica- tion of the National Labor Relations Act to agriculture. Would you specify what provisions of that act you don't want applied to ag- riculture? Mr. TRIOGS. We are opposed to the provision requiring the farmer to deal with the union. We are opposed to the hiring hall arrangement. We are opposed to the preseason employment arrangement, and we are opposed to the union shop. Mr. THOMPSON. It may be a matter of semantics, but- Mr. TRIOGS. It may be. The worker has little choice in the matter. That is what we are trying to give him. Mr. O'HAit~&. If I may sum it up, you are not opposed to any pro- visions of the ac.t, except the requirement that the farmer bargain with the labor organization once it is certified as the representative of the workers; right? Mr. TRIGGS. This is the crucial point. Mr. O'HARA. And you are opposed to the prehire arrangements and the union shop both of which would be possible if the NLRA is extended to cover agriculture. Is there anything else? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, also to the preseason contract. This we would sug- gest, is inconsistent with the whole purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, which is designed to give workers a voice. Mr. O'HARA. That is a part of the hiring hall- Mr. TRIOGS. The preseason contract is entered into before the work- ers are employed. They would have no choice as to whether they wanted any representation or as to the terms of the contract. Mr. O'HARA. Then we will add a fourth item to which you object: the preseason contract. The requirement that the grower bargain with the labor organiza- tion, would only apply once a secret ballot election had been conducted and a. majority of the employees had indicated that they wanted the labor organization to bargain for them with the growers. Isn't that right? Mr. TRIGGS. Not as long as these preseason contracts and hiring hall arrangements are in the bill. Mr. O'HARA. At some stage we are going to have to have an election which goes through the regular certification procedure. Mr. TRIOGS. I don't read your bill that way. It appears to exclude the necessity for an election when you have a preseason contract. Mr. O'HARA. It is true that an agreement can be entered into under the NLR.A without an election if the union and the employer volun- tarily agree to it, but if the employer has a good faith doubt about majority status of the labor organization, he can request an election before he is under any obligation to bargain. Isn't that correct 2 PAGENO="0230" 224 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULT~tIRAL EMPLOYEES Mr. TRIGGS. This provision is voluntary so far as the farmer is con- cerned; yes, but we would presume that there would be many strikes over this very factor. Mr. O'HARA. All the NL~A requires is that the bargaining take place after an election has established that the labor organization rep- resents a majority of the employees. That is the only thing you are compelled to do under the act along the bargaining line. Is that right? Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct. Mr. O'HARA. What you are in effect saying is that you don't want the grower compelled to bargain with the organization, even though the organization has been selected by a majority of the employees. It wouldn't matter to you if every single employee of that grower wanted the union to bargain with him. You still wouldn't permit it to bargain with him? Mr. Tumos. This is a correct statement of our position, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. You have made a great to-do about the seasonal nature of this industry as the basis for opposing the application of the NLRA to agriculture, but you don't want to consider the problems of seasonality when it comes tQ a hiring hall arrangement. Hiring hall arrangements generally do not exist in industries with a stable workforce. But such arrangements are very necessary where employment is seasonal and of a relatively short duration. My recollection is that President Eisenhower proposed that the act be amended to establish hiring hall provisions for seasonal industries in general. As a matter of fact, the Congress only did it with respect to the construction industry, but it did it~ because it felt that this was an industry that had a seasonal fluctuation in its employment pattern. You are willing to say that seasonality poses particular problems that argue against NLRA coverage, but if coverage is extended to agriculture you wouldn't want any recognition of the seasonality factor in determining whether a hiring hall should be permitted? Mr. TEIGGS. .1 think the committee is presented with the horns of a dilemma on this, because if hiring halls are approved, and preseasonal contracts, we abandon the thought that the workers themselves have anything to say about representation, or the contract. On the other hand, if we are going to hold an election after the workers have come to work, the election is held, and the whole con- troversy is involved in the middle of the harvest season. In our view, both alternatives are deplorable for farmers, and we just aren't going to choose between them. Mr. O'HARA. Elections are conducted in almost all cases in an orderly fashion, without any significant interruption of the produc- tion in the particular industry. I don't see how the holding of an election under NLRB supervision in the agricultural industry would be any different. Mr. TRIGGS. It would be followed by an attempt to negotiate a con- tract, and this is where the conflict would be. Mr. THo~rPsoN. Mr. Fields, Executive Secretary of the NLRB, described the other day some of the efforts made by the NLRB in the process of having 25 million workers vote since the enactment of the act. He described trips by NLRB peOple to trawlers-in other words, out at sea-and in every conceivable place. PAGENO="0231" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 225 Obviously the NLRB has made a prodigious and successful effort to be where the workers are, and to facilitate the whole election process in an orderly fashion. Mr. TRIGGS. I wouldn't argue~that~the election is not possible, the physical arrangement. I didn't intend to say. that. I don't think I did. Mr. TIIo~iPsoN. You just don't want it to happen? Mr. TRIGGS. I just don't want it to happen. Mr. O'HARA. With respect to the union shop~ provisions we have gone over all the points to which you object. This is something you and I are never go1ng to agree upon, and there is no sense in beating it to death. Mr. TRIGGS. That's right. Mr. O'HARA. I do want to clear up the record on one point before we move on. The Labor Management Relations Act, does not permit compulsory union membership. We went all over that during debate on 14(b), and I am sure you will agree with my analysis. Under the provisions of 8(a) (3), as interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board and by the courts, even though the contract says that the worker has to join the union by a certain day and retain membership in the union, in fact he cannot be required to do so. He can only be required to pay the equivalent of initiation fee and dues to the union. Mr. TRIGGS. He must proffer to pay the dues. Mr. O'HARA. Yes, an equivalent amount of the dues. Now, tell us if you would, how marketing orders under the. Agri- cultural Adjustment Act- Mr. TRIGGS. Marketing orders? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Mr. TRIGGS. That is a pretty big order to ask me offhand. The marketing orders provide a cafeteria of programs. Most of them relate to quality control, third-party inspection, and similar things. The marketing order may provide for orderly marketing. In other words, a regulation of the number of cars shipped per week. It may provide-well, those are two of the key provisions. In order to undertake a marketing order, normally two-thirds of the farmers must agree to it. Mr. O'HARA. The marketing order will also frequently involve con- siderations of how much producers subject to the marketing order can produce. Mr. Tiucos. No. Mr. O'HARA. And can sell? Mr. TRIGOS. Can sell, although not a regulation of total sales, but a regulation of weekly distribution. Mr. O'HARA. When a marketing order referendum is held among the producers and more than two-thirds of the producers of that commod- ity express their approval of the proposed marketing order, what hap- pens to the less than one-third who don't want to go along? Mr. TRIGGS. They must go along. Mr. O'HARA. They must go along? Mr. TRIGGS. I really need to point out a substantial difference here. lit is not compulsory that the members-that the farmers who are participating turn over to the marketing association the possession or the marketing of the crop itself. PAGENO="0232" 226 EXTENSION OF N'LRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES The marketing order surrounds the marketing of the crop with cer- tain restrictions, but there is no compulsory marketing mechanism provided. Mr. O'HARA. But the practical effect of it is that once a marketing order is agreed to, producers in that industry must conform to the provisions of the marketing order? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. This takes the place in many instances, and is often preferred, because it is more flexible-it takes the place of a State law or a Federal law, really, relating to quality, packaging, and that sort of thing. Mr. O'I-lIAn~. In addition, sometimes we have situations under mar- keting order procedures, where an assessment is made against, let us say, a hundredweight of pea beans, or whatever it may, be for trade promotion; right? Mr. TRmGs. There are some commodities for which an assessment for trade promotion is authorized by the act. Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HAu~. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. That is what I was referring to, of course, with the cotton farmer. He has absolutely no alternative. This is the equivalent of something that has been outlawed for some time under the NLRA, the closed shop. The cotton farmer has absolutely no alternative but to contribute $1 per bale of cotton far research and advertising. If he doesn't want to do it, that's just too bad. He has to do it. Do you object to that? Mr. TRIGGS. That reminds me, Mr. Chairman, I didn't answer your question, because I had too many questions in my mind to follow logically. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, the farm bureau opposed the cotton checkoff bill, because we believed this was one more example of the subordination of the individual to the group. Mr. THOMPSON. I am glad to hear that. Mr. TRIGGS. Although we were not able to defeat the enactment of the proposal, we were able to-or the authors decided to include a provision to provide for the refund of an assessment that had been made on a farmer and deducted from his sales return. He can fill out a specified form and obtain a refund of that assessment. The collection is compulsory, but the farmer can get the money back. But even if the assessment were compulsory, this is not comparable to a closed shop or a union shop. The funds can be used only for two purposes: For trade promotion and research. To be comparable with a closed shop, a union shop, we would have to have~ a situation in which all cottongrowers were required to turn over their cotton to a particular association for marketing. Mr. O'HARA. Well, let's get back to the marketing order situation generally. Is the organization you represent opposed to all of the marketing orders now in existence which as a practical matter require producers of that commodity to comply- Mr. TRIOGS. We have opposed some marketing orders. We have op- posed recently a proposed marketing order for turkeys, because we PAGENO="0233" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 227 felt that it in fact involved a control of turkey production, and we were opposed to that. We were succesful in opposing that. Growers voted it down. We have opposed from time to time a proposal for a national market- ing order for potatoes. Now, this is a little difficult subject to talk about, because the term "marketing order" is used for such a wide variety of programs; some marketing orders serve one purpose, some serve quite a differ- ent purpose. We generally have favored those marketing purposes designed to establish quality standards, packaging standards, orderly marketing, and that sort of thing, but have opposed any use of the marketing order procedure as a basis for the control of production. Mr. O'HARA. Yes; but on occasion you have supported marketing orders which have- Mr. TRIGGS. And have supported legislation, and do support the bill, the legislation now in existence. Mr. O'HARA. So the idea of compulsion doesn't totally outrage you. You feel it is proper, sometimes at least, if those minority growers who don't agree get stuck with the marketing order anyway ~ Mr. TRIGGS. We don't think it goes as far as this bill before the committee. Mr. O'HARA. I think the situation is analogous. Here we have a sit- uation where a majority of the workers agree they want a union. All of the workers in the unit are then represented by the union and are bound by the contract whether they voted "Aye," or "Nay," in the secret ballot election, and they have to contribute dues or the equivalent of dues. I don't see a lot of differences between that and many marketing order situations. But let us go on to the other subjects. You have spoken of the terrible perils of increasing farm wages- bringing about mechanization, bringing about movement to Mexico, bringing about higher consumer prices. It seems to me that this is much the same sort of argument that occurred in connection with the bracero program, and as a matter of fact, in the. 2 years~ since that time, we haven't seen the dire results that were predicted. When we were talking about that program you said that all food an~l vegetable prices would skyrocket. Now you are confining yourself to those staples of the workingman's diet, asparagus and strawberries. Mr. TRIGGS. I think you are misstating our position with respect to the bracero program. The bracero program was terminated at a time when farmers had already made substantial progress from some 445,000 braceros her year. in, I think, the year 1966, to about 177,000 per year in the last year of the program. The adjustment that was made in 1965 was much less painful than it would have been 6 or 7 years earlier. Mr. O'HAmiA. Yes, but I can recall very well, your arguments went to the question of all fruit and vegetable prices, and I would like to call your attention to some actual consumer index information as to what has happened to the prices of vegetables- Mr. THoMPsoN. Would the gentleman yield for one question? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. PAGENO="0234" 228 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTUI~AL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. What is your attitude toward the green card work- ers from Mexico who come back and forth across the border into Arizona and other States to work on crops? Mr. TRIGGS. I don't know that we have any attitude toward that problem. Mr. THOMPSON. Your members use them, don't they? Mr. TIUGGS. Yes. They are people who have in the past applied for admission to the United States. They are eligible to become citizens of the United States just as an Englishman or German is if he im- migrates to this country-' and wishes to become a citizen. The unusual thing about it- Mr. THOMPSON. Except, of course, if one intends to become a citizen, one must come and stay for a period of time. These workers commute. Mr. TRIGGS. Well, some of them do, and-along border stations. Many of them commute once or twice a year. Mr. O'HAa~. If I can get back to the-the bracero program ter- minated, I beli~ve, after the 1964 growing season. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. For the years of 1965 and 1966 the Consumer Price Index for fruits and vegetables rose only 2 percent, which is less than the total increase in the Consumer Price Index during that same period. So in general I think it is safe to say that we didn't have any substantial price increase as a result of the termination of the bracero program. Mr. TRIGGS May I comment on that, Mr. O'Hara? We are subjected to hearing it constantly said that farmers pre- dicted disaster, the crops would rot in the fields if the bracero program were not renewed. I suppose some farmers who were personally affected did say that. We did not. We did say that the adjustment should have been made more gradually. We did say, and do say now, that substantial tonnages of crops would have been lost if the Secretary of Labor had not ad- mittčd substantial numbers of Mexican braceros in 1965 and 1966. I think an adjustment has now been made, although I wouldn't say that in the case of an occasional instance, sugarcane in south Florida being an example, we can do without foreign labor without some pain- ful adjustment. Mr. O'HAn~. I think that the adjustment wouldn't be very difficult. As you have pointed out, if farm prices rise too high, there is going to' be mechanization, and that is something which none of us opposes. I think it also ought to be pointed out that labor costs represent only about 7 percent of total farm receipts. Thus, even if there is a substantial increase in labor costs, it wouldn't represent much of an increase in total costs. Mr. TRTGGS. Did you say 10 percent? Mr. O'HARA. Seven percent. Mr. TRIGGS. I think it is a little larger than 7 percent, but not much. It is in that area. Of course, this varies by the kind of commodity you produce. If you produce grain, labor cost is a negligible proportion. If you pro- duce strawberries, it is very important. Mr. O'HARA. We are talking about all agriculture. I understand the gentleman from Michigan has to leave shortly. I would yield t& him if he has a question. PAGENO="0235" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTIIRAL EMPLOYEES 229 Mr. FORD. Thank you. I notice at the beginning of your statement, Mr. Triggs, that you pointed out to us that you are representing here 1,703,000 family mem- bers and 2,770 county farm bureaus. Are you speaking for the Michigan Farm Bureau today? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. I am speaking on behalf of a policy in which the Michigan Farm Bureau participated in developing. Mr. FORD. Has the Michigan Farm Bureau or its officers been asked specifically for a position on this legislation? Mr. TRIGGS. No, sir. Mr. FORD. Has the Michigan Farm Bureau been asked specifically to take a position on the question of whether farmworkers should be covered by the National Labor Relations Act? Mr. TRIGGS. The Michigan Farm Bureau did participate in our national meeting, proportionate to their total membership, at which they had the same voice as other States with a comparable member- ship, and this policy was adopted with complete unanimity. There was no objection raised. Now, we do not, after we have done that, then go back to each State farm bureau and ask them, "Do you agree with all these policies ?" We assume that since they had a role in developing those policies, that they agree with them, although each State farm bureau, by agreement with the American Farm Bureau, has the right to object to any particular policy that has been adopted at an annual meeting and to indicate that they cannot go along with it. No State has done SO in this instance. Mr. FORD. Who would have represented Michigan in the annual meeting? Would the State have been represented by an opinion poll tai~en of Michigan farmers, or would ~omeoue like Dan Reed be at the meeting and vote by a show of hands? What do you have to show the support of your over 1 million members of a piece of legislation like this? Mr. Tnioos. I will tell you the ideal situation and admit that it~ doesn't always work. Mr. FORD. With respect to this legislation, you say you are speaking for 1.7 million people who are opposed to this bill. Now, how did you determine that a majority of those 1.7 million members you speak for are opposed to this legislation? Mr. TRIOGS. We start out with a resolutions process at the county farm bureau level. Mr. FORD. Were the county farm bureaus in my State of Michigan asked to take a position on this legislation, and have they been canvassed? Mr. TRIGGS. There has been no poll taken. Mr. FORD. Mr. Reed, a personal friend whom I don't often have the opportunity to agree with politically, and whom I have seen often since this session of Congress started and since this legislation was introduced, has never sent even a post ca.rd to me or said a word in our several conversations of concern for this legislation. I wonder if you are speaking for the Michigan Farm Bureau when you tell us that farmers in my State are opposed to this legislation. Mr. TRIGGS. I thmk we are, Mr. Ford. Let me say that our policy-.-- PAGENO="0236" 230 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. FoRD. That is based upon your interpretation of what you think general policy statements mean when applied to this specific legisla- tion, and not a specific inquiry with regard to the legislation itself. Mr. TRIGGS. No, we have a specific policy statement on the extension of the National Labor Relations Act to agriculture, have had it in our book for as long as I have been with the American Farm Bureau. Each policy is subject to revision at each annual meeting, at which the delegates from the State farm bureaus may raise and do raise questions with respect to modification of any policy. Mr. Foiu~. I would like to say that we do appreciate, I appreciated it when I was in the State legislature and I appreciate it here, that at the beginning of the year, befOre any legislation is introduced, we get a very compact and a very thorough little book from the Farm Bureau that gives us an opinion on everything that might happen, and I know of no~ other organization that gives us that much advance notice that they are going to be against or for something that early. Mr. TRIGGS. That is the Bible I go by. Mr. FoRD. Your statement indicates on page 1: Most of the farmers who would be affected by this proposal are Farm Bureau members. Farm Bureau is a general farm organization with 1,703,908 family members in 2770 County Farm Bureaus in 49 States and Puerto Rico. Is DiGiorgio, Schenley, Hardin Farms of Texas, are they members of the organization? Are you speaking for them? Mr. TRIGGS. I don't have any information yes or no. I would expect that they would be. The big farmers don't make very good members from our standpoint, because they tend to- Mr. FoRr. When you collect their dues, I am sure you will be inter- ested in that. Mr. TRIGGS. The very large farmers you refer to, and there are only a few of them, tend to be involved in other businesses, they tend to be more closely associated with chambers of commerce. Mr. FORD. But are they not farmers who are most likely to be first affected by enactment of this legislation? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes; I would say that. A great many of the commercial farmers are members of the Farm Bureau. Mr. FoRD. You don't have any knowledge that a member of the Schenley family works on one of your farms? Mr. TRIGGS. No. Mr. FORD. Now, with respect to the prehiring arrangement. One of your objections to this legislation was the preseason con- tracting. I notice that you are speaking here for the farmers in 49 States and in Puerto Rico. A good many of the farmers that are members of your organization in several States that employed Puerto Rican labor, as a matter of fact, enter into preseason agreements regularly; don't they? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes; this is correct. Mr. FORD. The Puerto Rican agreements are probably the most so- phisticated hiring agreements for the bodies shipped into the agricul- tural areas of this country. They cover wages, hours, working condi- tions, and living conditions, and the rate of pay is specifically set out by category; isn't it? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0237" EXTENSION OF NI1RA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 231 Mr. Foi~. Your farmers enter into that agreement with a broker, and he goes to Puerto Rico and recruits the labor through his organi- zation there, and delivers people subject to a contract that they have no part in drawing up, and a contract that in fact was made long before the season starts. Is this not true? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. Foi~. Isn't that a preseason contract? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes; it is. Mr. Foim. It is not objectionable to you? Mr. TRIGGS. I think it is warranted in that case, because these folks come from a far distance. Mr. Foiw. When you do it as a preseason contract, regardless of who the parties are or who was consulted about its contents, how does that kind of a preseason contract, in principle, fail to place the farmer at the same disadvantage that you indicated you thought he would be in if a labor union was involved? Mr. TRIGGS. I think we would be concerned about the preseason con- tract if it were negotiated with a labor union representing the workers in Puerto Rico. Mr. Form. Then it isn't the fact that the contract is entered into be- fore the season starts t.hat bothers you, it would only be that the con- tract is entered into before the season starts and a labor union repre- sented the employees in arriving at that contract? Mr. TRIGGS. We are concerned with the unionization of farmworkers, yes. Mr. FORD. Then when you offer preseason contracts as an objection to this legislation you don't really mean all preseason contracts are objectionable, only preseason contracts where labor organizations would be a party to the contract? Mr. TRIGGS. That is correct. Mr. FORD. I am not trying to be personal in this, but were you with the Farm Bureau when the Taft-Hartley Act was adopted? Mr. TRIGGS. I was with the California Farm Bureau at that time. Mr. FORD. Do you know what the position of your national orga- nization was on the adoption of the Taft-Hartley Act? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, in general, and that was a long time ago- Mr. FORD. If I may refresh your recollection, you were very strong supporters of it. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. FORD. Do you think the position of your organization has changed? Would you still say that your organization thinks the Taft- Hartley Act was a good law? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes; because it was an improvement over the Wagner Act. That doesn't mean we endorse everything that was in the Taft- Hartley Act. We are strong supporters of the concept that workers should have a free choice to join or not to join a union. Mr. FORD. I am sure that you know the Taft-Hartley Act was a complete repeal and rewriting of the Wagner Act, and that the NLRA which we have been talking about all during these hearings is the Taft-Hartley Act. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. PAGENO="0238" 232 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. And this is an act that your organization helped to pass. Mr. TRIGGS. As being preferable to the Wagner Act; yes, sir. Mr. FORD. All right. At the time you endorsed this legislation, did you think it was good legislation, for the country, that it was a good national policy to have uniform regulations of dealings between labor and management so that we would, as many of the supporters of that act said, contribute to labor peace? Mr. TRIGG5. I think, Mr. Ford, that we didn't go so far as to make any such assumption. All that our position was based on was that the `Taft-Hartley Act was an improvement over the situation that existed -then. That, of course, is the situation we commonly faced- in all legis- lative matters. V - - Mr. FORD. Are you saying, then, that given the alternative between the Taft-Hartley Act and the Wagner Act, you would support the Taft-Hartley Act, but given the alternative between the Taft-Hartley Act and no labor legislation of this kind, you would prefer none? V V Mr. TRIGGS. I don't know. We do believe that the Taft-Hartley Act should be amended in numerous respects. V V V Mr. FORD. But would you support Its repeal? Mr. TRIGGS. We supported the amendments of the Landrum-Griffin bill to the Taft-Hartley Act, but we have no position favoring repeal of the present legislation. V Mr. FORD. Let's put it this way: Do you feel it is to the best interests of this country to have a national policy governing the orderly meth- ods of collective bargaining between labor and management, such as the Taft~Hartley Act provided for? Is that a good national policy? Mr. TRIGGS. We believe it is desirable to have a strong labor move- ment in the United States- V Mr. Fonu. I don't - ask you for an opinion on whether organized labor is desirable. Is it desirable to have Federal law that makes uni- form throughout the 50 States the regulation of the respective rights of labor and management, such as the Taft-Hartley Act? V Mr. TRIGGS. I don't believe we have anything in our policy that spe- cifically deals with that question. Our policy deals oniy with those things that we would like to change. We accept the existence of the Taft-Hartley Act without specifically endorsing it or opposing it. Mr. Foim. Do you think it is desirable that the people in th~ auto- mobile industry, for example, are under the restraint of the Taft- Hartley Act not to engage in secondary boycotts? V V Mr. TRIGGS. We believe in that prohibition as one desirable thing in the Taft-Hartley Act. - Mr. Foiw. And would that be a desirable restriction on farmwork- ers, also? V Mr. TRIGGS. Certainly. Mr. FORD. Would - you feel other restraints against faVVrmworkers, that the labor practices should be extended to the farmworkers as Vwell~ V Mr. TRIGOS. If there were an extension of the act to cover agricul- ture, we would favor that provision with respect to unfair labor prac- tices; yes, sir. That is a big "if," you understand. PAGENO="0239" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 233 Mr. FORD. You do not understand that if this legislation is adopted ~d1 those restraints against unfair labor practices would be extended to farm labor? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. FORD. And there is not any restriction at this time? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, there is with respect to secondary boycott. Mr. FORD. With respect to farm labor? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. Foiw. Do you believe that to be the fact today? Mr. TRIGGS. I believe this is so provided in the Taft-Hartley Act by the amendments of 1947. Mr. FORD. To correct you, the record is replete with the definitions here, but as a matter of fact, there is no legal restraint against the farmworker in regard to this act. If he belongs to a labor organization which has in its membership employees who would be covered by the act, then by the fact of his `association with those covered employees, he becomes subject to the restraints of this act, but if he is not defined as an employee by that association in the act, he neither receives the benefits, nor is he sub- ject to the restraints of this act. Now, do you think that that is a healthy situation, looking down he road, that is liable to produce peace between labor and manage- ment in this great industry that you represent, the farmers of America? Mr. TRIGGS. I think that if the act is going to be extended to farm- workers, that all of the prohibitions against unfair labor practices should be applicable to unions in agriculture, but we are not favor- ing the extension of the act for this reason. Mr. FORD. In your prepared testimony, sir, you included the article, from your appendix B, the article from the Wall Street Journal of May 1, 1967. What caught my attention is this was the fact that the article actually is talking about American capital, and American food-proc- essing companies who are taking the American capital to a foreign country and producing a product not for the market of that country, or for export to other countries, but a product that they are going to import back into this country. Do you think that is an undesirable use of American capital? Mr. TRIGGS. Not necessarily at all, but we do point out that in the case of Mexico, as an example, that there is a growing amount of American capital in the processing industry in Mexico, and that that product is coming back to the United States in competition with our own products. This is not all undesirable, but an expansion of this endeavor, which might be encouraged by what we would consider to be the threat of unionization, would be harmful to American farmers. Mr. FORD. Reading from your prepared testimony here, we have companies like Libby, McNeil & Libby, S&W, DiGiorgio, Del Monte, listed as companies that are using American capital to construct plants in Mexico for the purpose of producing and processing food for sale in the United States. Do you think that we ought to be considering any restraints on this kind of foreign investment? PAGENO="0240" *234 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr~ TRIGGS. We have no policy that would permit me to say that we should. We do notice that an expansion of-lets say strawberries, as an example-in Mexico, an increased importing of fresh strawberries, and processed strawberries from Mexico into the United States, that there is a rising demand for import tariffs or restrictions on straw- berries from Mexico, and there have been several bills introduced in boththe House and the Senate on this point. This disturbs. us, because looking at the interests of agriculture as a whole, we have a major stake in expanding foreign trade-not protectiOnism. Mr. FORD. I had already mentioned some of the names. It appears that some of the people who are doing this are members of your or- ganization, but the particular thrust of the article that you presented to us as an exhibit is not criticism of what the potential danger might be in Mexicans growing strawberries and processing them and send- ing them up here, but the potential danger of the expansion of Ameri- can companies which also own American farms, going into places like Mexico to raise specific crops, and, I assume, take advantage of what- ever differences they seem to think are there, including the climate, and compete with their own American farmers. The last paragraph of your exhibit says: Ironically American dollars and technology have contributed heavily to the advances in European canning and agriculture that have made overseas foods competitive with U.S. products. Until recently, American exports were cheaper and of higher quality than European products. As I read that, what the author is saying is that the real threat to the importation of foreign-grown products is not coming from for- eigners, but coming from American capital engaging in this practice. Now, separating the two, and I want to say that I agree with you, I am not a protectionist, either, and I don't think that would solve our problem. This committee has been concerned in another subcom- mittee with the growing use of American capital which goes to a foreign country, produces a product that is not even sold in that foreign country-for example, almost every computer that is sold by major companies in this country today is being wired in the-either Hong Kong or Taiwan. We ship them there. Almost every toy that you can find now in the average toy shop in this city is manufactured by the big names in toy manufacturing in this country, and it now has at least some part of it manufactured in an American-owned factory, an American-owned factory in Taiwan or Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, Mattel manufactures parts for the toys as- sembled in this country by their competitors. This is American capital that goes to that country not to take any advantage of any world market or to expand outward in the world market or get our share of the world market, but to take ad- vantage of the very cheap labor of Hong Kong and bring the product back in here to compete with American businesses. Does this concern you in the same way that this article here seems to be of concern to you, when you consider other products, other than processed food products? Mr. TRIGGS. Well, I have no policy in our Bible that would permit me, or direct me, to answer your question. PAGENO="0241" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTIJRAL EMPLOYEES 235 We do favor a free flow of capital, but this, I admit, is a problem- well, I just can't answer your question, Mr. Ford. Mr. FORD. We in Michigan are intrigued by the General Motors ad for the Opel, which is being manufactured in Germany, and those of us that still live under the fiction of the automobile capital of the world are wondering about our American stockholders manufacturing those cars over there, and I don't think we are going to hear very much complaint from your industry about these imports if some of your major members are the people involved in making a profit. So I suggest that the exhibit that you have given us here may have some bearing on the overall problem that I have just enumerated but really, frankly, shouldn't be intermixed with the question of rights of Ameri- can farmers and their employees to avail themselves of the collective bargaining process. Mr. TiuGos. We did not submit that exhibit as an argument against that practice. Mr. FORD. Except this kind of article is the kind of thing, you see, from which you can quote, and scare the devil, if you will excuse the expression, out of the average family farmer, and that is what you have done with most of your testimony, and why I was concerned in the beginning as to whether or not you were speaking for the family farmers of my State. I would be very much surprised if the farmers in my State, would subscribe to the very strong opposition you have indičated here to the concept of this legislation. Mr. TRIGG5. I think they do, Mr. Ford. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Triggs, on the question of preseason agreements, Mr. Ford has brought out the facts with respect to the agreements in- volving Puerto Rican workers, I believe. Isn't it also a fact, leaving Puerto Rican workers aside, that dur- ing the existence of the bracero program, the standard arrangement was the preseason agreement on what wages woTild be, what work- ing conditions would be and so forth? Those braceros didn't go willynilly about the countryside looking for work. Mr. TRIGGS. There was an agreement between Mexico and the United States- Mr. O'TTIARA. That is right. Mr. TRIGGS (continuing). Setting forth in considerable detail the terms of employment. I don't say we favored it. We knew it had to be. Mr. O'HARA. You supported the program, even though that was a part of it? Mr. TRIGG5. Yes; we supported the bracero program even though that was a part of it. Mr. O'I-IARA. Isn't it a fact that under present circumstances when a grower wishes to obtain seasonal farm labor the most usual practice, at least for the larger processer, is for him to make arrangements ahead of time with a crewleader-~----- Mr. TnTGG5. This is very common. Mr. O'HARA (continuing). And the arrangements he makes prior to the harvest season will cover wages and working conditions? Mr. TRIGGS. It is a contract voltintarily entered into. 82-132-67-----16 PAGENO="0242" 236 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Mr. O'HARA. So are these contracts between the labor organization representing the farmworker and the grower. Mr. TRIGGS. Of course, in the case of the crewleader, the farmer sir, is not required to negotiate with the crewleader-he makes an offer, "This is my offer of employment." The crewleader may make a counteroffer and they reach agreement. But there is nothing compulsory about the process, any more than the compulsion of one worker- Mr. O'HARA. You are getting back to the compulsion to bargain. The preseason arrangement is common in agriculture, at any rate with respect to harvest workers, and you don't object to the preseason arrangement that Mr. Ford brought out? Mr. TRIGGS. There are all sorts of preseason arrangements made. Mr. O'HARA. All right. Let me get back to S. 109 for a minute. S. 109 would permit-indeed, would encourage-the development of agricultural marketing programs and the growth of marketing associations. As I understand it, the association would then bargain with the processor. Mr. TRIGGS. There are many bargaining associations in existence now, sir. Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. Now, could you envision a marketing association and a processor, entering into a contract under the terms of which the processor would agree to buy only from members of the association? Mr. TRIGGS. I suppose that could happen. I don't know of any cir- cumstances where it happens now. Bargaining associations are at the best a very weak weapon. Mr. O'HARA. Doesn't it happen nowadays quite often in milk? Mr. TRIGGS. There may be some instances. I don't know. By and large, the bargaining association is a fairly weak instrument, and it just doesn't have the power and strength to monopolize the selling of the commodity, or to enter into any kind of exclusive relationships. This is the general situation. I couldn't say that it never existed. Mr. O'HARA. But at any rate, if the situation were such that the marketing association can obtain such an agreement from the proc- essor, you wouldn't object to that, would you? Mr. TRIGGS. I don't suppose we would. There are all kinds of exclu- sive relationships in the business community, where a supplier of General Motors enters into an exclusive contract to provide that par- ticular part. Mr. O'HARA. But you do object to any contractual arrangement, such as in the hiring hall, under which the grower would agree to deal only with the members of the labor organization? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. On the point that you raise, I would think that if bargaining associations ever got to be strong enough, that they could foreclose and monopolize the market and keep other growers out of the market, and that this then would be a problem that we would have to look at and maybe the Congress would have to look at. The fact of the matter is that bargaining associations have not ob- tained that degree of economic strength, and I very frankly doubt that they ever will. PAGENO="0243" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 237 Mr. O'HARA. You are not willing to wait for farm labor organiza- tions to achieve that degree of strength before you establish re- strictions. You know the farm labor organizations don't amount to a hill of beans right now. Mr. TRIOGS. That's correct. Our members frankly fear that if the farm labor associations were to obtain this authority provided in this ;act, that they would become a very potent influence in the agricultural picture. Mr. O'HARA. You are not willing to wait until they do, as you are in the case of the agricultural marketing association? Mr. TRIGOS. No, sir. Mr. O'HARA. Let's pursue S. 109 for just a minute. You are in favor of S. 109 not because you favor associations. You have an ultimate objective, I take it. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. What do you think the ultimate benefit to farmers will `be of farmer marketing associations? Mr. TRIGG5. As you of course appreciate, Mr. O'Hara, one of the fundamental problems in agriculture is that farmers have inadequate market power, because they consist of many individuals dealing with a comparatively few buyers. We hope that by promoting the organization of bargaining asso- ciations farmers will get a little stronger voice in the market picture. Mr. O'HAI~. And they will use that stronger voice toward what end? Mr. TRTGGS. To get the market price. Mr. O'HAiuA. To get better prices?. Mr. TRmGS. Yes~ We don't believe that a cooperating marketing association can, or ever will be able to fix the price at the level they choose. Their role is to try to find where the market price ought to be on the basis of a complete examination of the marketing situation facing a particular commodity. Mr. O'HARA. Certainly, but the immediate objective is higher prices? Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, sir. Mr. O'HARA. And you can see that that might in some instances result in higher prices to the consumer? Mr. TraGOs. No. [Laughter.] Mr. THOMPSON. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Who is going to absorb the increased price that you are going to get? Mr. TRIGGS. I don't think we will get an essentially larger price. I don't think that the economic strength of the bargaining association under the most favorable associations will ever permit it to write the Price. It will permit it to get, we hope, the price that is warranted by the market, and sometimes prices are lower than are warranted by the market. Yes, the consumer will pay- Mr. THOMPSON. I understand that, but let's assume that you get more strenath at the marketplace, and therefore get higher prices, and I am for this. Who is going to absorb the higher prices? PAGENO="0244" 238 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLT~UHAL EMPLOYEES Mr. TRIGGS. It will be passed along to the consumer. It will be hardly discernible in the total, but it will be passed on. Mr. THOMPSON. What effect would increased wages, where they are an average of.7 to 8 percent of the cost of productivity in agriculture, what substantial effect. do you envision that that would have on con- sumer prices? Mr. TRIOG5. I think our statement does not make a big pitch for the impact on consumers. I do not think it will have any major impact on consumers. There will be some increase in prices, depending on the extent to which workers through unions authorized by this law might be able to write terms and conditions of employment. Mr. O'HARA. Just one more question, and then I think I will be through. If producers could effectively band toget.her in a farm marketing association, the processor who buys from them, if he is going to stay in business, is going to have to bargain with that association. He won't be able to maintain production because there won't be enough people outside the association for him to buy from. Ideally, I think that i& the way you would envision it working. For instance, in my own area, almost all of dairy farmers belong to the Michigan Milk Producers Association. The distributors have to bargain with them, and indeed they do. As a practical matter they have to, and that is how they determine how much they pay for their milk. By the same token, if the bean producers in my area who produce 90 percent of the pea beans in the United States were to band together effectively, Stokely-Van Camp, Heinz, and the rest of the people who buy large quantities of pea beans would have to bargain with the asso- ciation. So with respect to your objections, you don't really mind too much if processors have to bargain with processing associations, but you do object when growers have to bargain with workers associations. You don't mind hiring halls or pre-season agreements when they involve braceros, but you do object when arrangements are made under the NLIRB, or with a crew leader-with respect to the union shop, and the obligation of the workers to support the union, and abide by the arrangements the union makes with the employer when the majority want to do so. Now you object to that, but you don't object to marketing orders that put farmers- Mr. TrnGGS. You ask me a lot of questions. Mr. O'HAiiA. I am not asking, I am summing up. Mr.. Tniaos. A bargaining association is voluntary, no farmer is compelled to join it, no processor is compelled to deal with it. Now it is theoretically possible, theoretically possible, that a suffici- ently large percentage of growers would join the bargaining associa- tion that they would have almost a monopoly position as sellers. That is theoretical, but it doesn't happen. Thinking of the two strongest bargaining associations I know of, the California Canning Peach Association and the California Canning Pear Association, they don't have all the growers by a long ways, maybe 50 or 60 percent of them, and they don't have the ability to write the contract to determinethe price. PAGENO="0245" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGEICTJLTIJRAL EMPLOYEES 239 They do have a better voice in it than they would in the absence of a bargaining association. Mr. O'HARA. Glenn Lake, who is the president of the Michigan Milk Producers Association and a former constituent of mine, sits down with Sealtest and the other dairies in the Detroit milk area, and he bargains with them, and they determine the price, and that's the price that is paid for the milk for everybody. Mr. TRIGGS. I think there are possibilities in the dairy industry for a more effective bargaining function than in most industries. Mr. O'HARA. I would suggest that the objections you have to this legislation you are not willing to apply to other situations, but only in this situation, and I think that the questioning and the responses have made this clear. I would like to make just one further observation, and that is your fear of labor stoppages, strikes, disruption, and so forth. Last year under the NLRB covered industries, 25 million man- days were lost due to work stoppages. That represents less than .2 of 1 percent of total worktime. Thus, if the agricultural exemption is withdrawn I don't think the work stoppage problem would be of the magnitude you suggest. Furthermore, not being covered by the act is no guarantee against a work stoppage, is it? Mr. TRIGGS. No. Mr. O'HAi~&. And I am not at all persuaded that there would be more work stoppages if NLRA applied than if it did not. Mr. TRIGGS. I think there would be. It is a difference of opinion. Mr. O'HARA. I think that is a debatable report. Mr. TRIGGS. Yes, it is. But the income picture of farmers and the productivity per worker picture in agriculture is simply not enough to pay for what we expect the unions would demand. Mr. O'HARA. On the productivity argument, you pointed out wages went up about 80 percent, and productivity went up about 150 per- cent. But you say, "Ah, yes;' but, that productivity increase is not due to the workers, but to the mechanization." In the auto industry, do you think' the workers are trimming bolts faster than they used to? Do you think steelworkers are running on the job instead of walking? ` The human male hasn't changed much in 16 years. Productivity is due to a lot of things, but we say in other areas of endeavor that the workers are entitled `to share in the productivity increase, and I don't think you can prevent a similar increase for the agricultural worker by saying lie is not a better worker. Mr. TRIGG5. If the production per man-hour was as much as it is in industry, `then the wage rate in agriculture would be far higher than it is, and in time we may get to that point. Mr. O'HARA. At any rate, I think they are entitled to share in some of the productivity gains that have been made. Mr. Chairman, I have ta.ken too long anyway. Thank you, Mr. Triggs. I have had a very intere'sting day. Mr. TRIGOS. I appreciate the courtesy of the committee. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Triggs, I just wanted to add to something that I asked earlier, and to add a statistic to the record with respect to the "Green Card" workers from Mexico. On January 11, a sample count was taken of the daily commuters from Mexico and they numbered 43~000 daily. PAGENO="0246" 240 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULThRAL EMPLOYEES In Arizona 5,600, nearly 17,000 in California, just a handful, 17, in New Mexico, and nearly 20,000 in Texas. So you see that this problem is not quite so simple as to say that they commute largely on a semi- annual basis. Mr. TiuGt~s. Your statement is quite correct. The elimination of daily commuting would certainly change the situation. I suppose in that case most of them would commute just twice a year instead of daily. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Triggs, for your patience. Our next witness is Mr. Richard O'Connell, the Secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. STATEMENT OF RICHARD O'CONlcELL, SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OP FARMER COOPERATIVES Mr. O'CONNELL. I have a brief statement, and I won't keep you from your strawberries rornanoff. Mr. THoMPsON. I am going to have a Michigan product, cherries jubilee. Mr. O'CONNELL. I wish you would, the crop is very large. I am Richard T. O'Connell, Secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The national council is a nationwide federa- tion of farmers' business associations engaged in the marketing of agricultural commodities or the purchasing of farm production sup- plies, or both, and of State cooperative councils. The organizations making up the council are owned and controlled by farmers as the marketing and purchasing departments of their farm business op- erations. As we understood H.R. 4769, it will extend the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act to agricultural employees. We further understand that if this measure is enacted into law that a farmer may he forced to bargain with labor organization whether or not the status of a labor organization has been determined by the wishes of the majority of his employees; that employees continued under employ- ment will be required to become union members on the seventh day of employment if they are to hold their jobs; that a farmer will be re- quired to go to the union hiring hall and give preferences to the work- ers referred by the union and quite probably under the qualifications determined by the labor organization; and there may be established a seniority system for workers employed as agricultural laborers. From the standpoint of an organization representing farmer coop- eratives, we fail to understand the reasoning behind the so-called pro- tection of the National Labor Relations Act. Basically, labor unions and farmers cooperatives have similar goals-the increasing of the bagaining power and improved income for their members through joint action. Farmers who belong to farmer cooperatives do so voluntarily. There is no organization from the "top down" in a farmer cooperative, which we believe possible for covered industries under the National Labor Relations Act. Farmer cooperatives are owned and controlled by farmer members. They join or withdraw on a voluntary basis, depend- ing on the economic benefit they derive and their belief in the type of operation. PAGENO="0247" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 241 We question whether we would want such an arrangement among farmers and their cooperatives as organized labor wants for farm- workers-the mandatory requirement of belonging to an organization~ We believe the voluntary route to encourage farmers to become meni- bers of the cooperative, because of the real merits of this type of action,. and much more difficult, I might add. The records show that this has been reasonably successful. The latest estimate by the Bureau of the Census indicates there are an estimately 3.1 million farmers (1964) and 60 percent of the farmers hold 7.1 million memberships in farmer cooperatives (1965). And I don't be- lieve the error will be over 3 percent when comparing the two different years. The average farmer belongs to at least two cooperatives, voluntarily and with no other encouragement than an opportunity for economic betterment. Farmers, in organizing their cooperative, expect and receive encour- agement from the Federal Government in carrying out their activities. We believe labor organizations should have the same encouragement. But we question the "protection" of agricultural laborers when recent history has shown the inability of labor unions to organize many farmworkers on a voluntary basis. Most people join organizations for selfish reasons-to improve their economic position. The lack of success of labor unions to organize farm- workers in previous attempts indicates that workers themselves are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about organizing into a union. It is our contention that those who believe that the agricultural laborers are an unfortunate group and need improvement, and if the agricultural workers themselves believe the same, then there certainly is a sufficient stimulus to entice the workers to join an organization for their economic betterment. We support this approach if they so wish to move in this direction. We see serious repercussions in agriculture if the exemption to the National Labor Relations Act is removed. Agricultural operations and industrial operations are not identical. When a strike occurs in indus- try, machines can be stopped by shutting off the power, the fires can be banked in a steel mill and the doors closed leaving only requirements for minimum maintenance. There is an adverse affect on management and labor in these situations, sales and profits decline, wages are stopped and there is `economic difficulty for the worker. But rather' rarely is there deterioration of capital and its earning power. Now let us look at agriculture. When a farmer plants his crop, or has an orchard, which takes 3 to' 7 years to come into full production, no switch, no banking of fires, no' reduced sales, no drawing money from strike funds, will occur. W'hat you will have is complete collapse of the farmer's operation, if a strike occurs at a time when harvesting must be done. Harvesting is not something like a steam shovel for which the power' can be shut off, and with a minimum amount of maintenance until the strike is over, be started up again and continue at the same level of efficiency as when the strike began. Frequently, 2 to 3 days' delay in the harvesting of a crop will `either reduce the quality of the crop, thus reducing the income of the farmer, or it will be completely destroyed. PAGENO="0248" 242 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES If unionization comes among farmworkers, at harvest time the farmer will have two alternatives, either capitulate to any union de- mand or witness a collapse of his farming operation. These limited alternatives available to the farmer in a situation where a dispute exists, eliminates any basis for believing that equality of bargaining power can exist between a farmer and a union. In conclusion, we believe that significant differences existing be- tween agricultural and industrial operations, the perishability of farm crops, and the disparity in bargaining power between a farmer and the combined forces of organized labor are forceful arguments for the retention of the agricultural exemption under the National Labor Re- lations Act. Therefore, we recommend this committee defer action on H.R. 4769. We appreciate the opportunity to make this statement. Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. O'Hara, I know you have to leave shortly. Do you have any questions? Mr. 0'l-IARA. I want to thank the witness for appearing. His state- ment is one that expresses an honest point of view in a temperate man- ner, even though it is not one that I find myself in agreement with. I notice you were here all during the testimony of Mr. Triggs. Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir. Mr. O'HAimA. There was extensive discussion with Mr. Triggs about the l)Oints he made, and you heard Mr. Triggs' responses to the ques- tions from the committee. Were there any of those responses that you recall that you disagree with, or take exception to? Mr. O'CONNELL. Mr. Triggs was on for 2 hours and 10 minutes, and I cannot recall all his responses. Mr. O'HARA. You don't recall offhand- Mr. O'CONNELL. I can't think of any. Mr. O'I-IiARA. Assuming we asked you all the same questions we asked Mr. Triggs. [Laughter.] Mr. O'CONNELL. I might comment on when Mr. Chavez was here, and I am not saying our information from California is complete, ac- curate or unemotional, but in his planning to obtain representation for his workers on a voluntary basis, he was in the process of building a very good program. In fact, as I understand it, he didn't plan to make his move with DiGiorgio, Schenley, or anyone else in the Delano area until 1968. He was building some collateral forces with the gas station and credit union when AWOC came in and muddied the waters. One big problem you have in California and one thing which con- cerns us is the jurisdictional dispute. If I understood Mr. Chavez correctly, one of his greatest problems was not with the growers in the Delano area, but with other unions involving j urisclictional disputes. I don't know whether you made that point specifically with Mr. Triggs, but if Mr. Chavez or those like him can build up an organiza- tion like he is building on a voluntary basis and if they wish to nego- tiate with a farmer and even bring in persons such as Professor Haughton, for arbitration, we have no objection to this. As I under- PAGENO="0249" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 243 stand it, Professor Haughton said that one of the beauties of the ThGiorgio contract was that it was strictly voluntary. Mr. THo~IPsoN. You realize that if farm workers were undërNLRA that pulling and tugging between labor unions would be an unfair labor practice? Mr. O'CONNELL. But in the meantime the farmer would suffer adversely. Mr. O'HARA. That is part of the problem, and I would agree with you on that point. But I would further observe, as Mr. Thompson has, that this problem has occurred outside of the NLIRA and if anything, the application of the NLRA to the industry would result in a lessen- ing of that problem. Mr. O'CONNELL. Unless I amnot reading things correctly, the juris- dictional problem is growing significantly among unions. Mr. O'HAn~&. There is no protection n~w against that. If the Labor- Management Relations Act were to be applied to agriculture, the grower would have some protections against that sort of thing. The act provides that once a particular union has been certified as the collective bargaining agent for a particular group of workers, competing unions are placed under certain rectrictions with respect to their own actions. Mr. O'CONNELL. For a period of about 1 year, I believe, but there is nothing stopping them from contacting the workers in that year. Mr. O'HARA. No, no. There are several restrictions. First, if there is an existing contract arrived at under the certification procedure, the competing union cannot picket for the purpose of organizing those same workers. Secondly, if there has been an unsuccessful effort to obtain NLRB certification, for 12 months thereafter the union would be prohibited from using organizational picketing. That is my understanding without checking back on the law. Con- sequently, the grower has more protectioil with NLRA coverage than he does without it. I concede that jurisdictional disputes are a prob- lem, but I say the problem is not worsened by the adoption of this legislation. It would be somewhat improved from the growers' standpoint. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to keep Mr. O'Connell. He has been sitting here with us all morning and I don't think we ought to pester him. I just think that there is a simple difference of opinion. Mr. TiIo~IPsoN. I promise not to pester him. I just have a few questions. I don't understand on page 1 of your statement, where you say: We further understand that if this measure is enacted into law that a farmer may be forced to bargain with a labor organization whether or not the status of the labor organization has been determined by the wishes of the majority of his employees. What do you mean by that? Mr. O'CONNELL. As I interpret your bill, Mr. Chairman- Mr. THoMPsoN. It is Mr. O'Hara's bill. Mr. O'CONNELL. Excuse me-Mr. O'Hara's bill-the pressure could be placed on the farmer by union representatives and if the farmer as a single employer was not able to withstand that pressure then he PAGENO="0250" ~244 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES could sign a contract with the union, whether or not his employees vote for that contract. Mr. THOMPSON. He can do that now. * Mr. O'CONNELL. It was my understanding DiGiorgio had an elec- ~tion to determine which union they wanted. Mr. THOMPSON. But before they did, they had signed with the Teamsters. Mr. O'CONNELL. I am misunderstanding it then. He had signed for an agreement, and the election would take place 30 days afterward. Mr. THOMPSON. That was the second election-the second time, rather. Mr. O'CONNELL. I stand corrected then, Mr. Chairman. ~Mr. THOMPSON. I don't think you realize, either, Mr. O'Connell, with respect to the prehire, this is entirely voluntary on the employer's part. Mr. O'CONNELL. It may appear to be voluntary, Mr. Chairman, but in order to get workers it may not be so voluntary. If he has oniy one source of workers- Mr. THOMPSON. He uses prehire contracts now in a very real sense. Mr. O'CONNELL. That's right, and it is on a voluntary basis~ Mr. THOMPSON. And it would be here. Mr. O'CONNELL. Not necessarily. If an organization was able to sign up most of the workers, a ma- jority of the workers, and I think this is feasible if this act is passed, then the farmer would not have a choice. Yes, he would have a choice, "either/or," "Take these or none." That is the choice. Mr. THOMPSON. I happen to think that the organization which you represent is not only necessary but very healthy, and I have an enor- mous amount of respect for them, and I agree with your statement fully where you point out the voluntary nature of them. I might point out, too, that'whether or not you believe it, the ques- tion of membership in a labor organization is equally voluntary. There are some 60 million people in the job market in the United States today, and only about one-fourth at the most are organized, belong to labor unions. There is no indication that-or perhaps I have gotten Mr. Twiggs' statement mixed up with yours. Mr. O'CONNELL. It is Mr. Triggs, Mr. Chairman- Mr. THOMPSON. I was thinking of that English model. (Laughter.) Mr. Triggs is a little heavier, everywhere. (Laughter.) Here is the statement. You say: But we question the protection of agricultural laborers when recent history has shown the inability of labor unions to organize many farmworkers on a voluntary basis. I can't for the life of me-first, you would oppose their organizing when you consider that they won't organize, and second, of course, you do ignore the terrible difficulties which were encountered by Mr. Caves and his colleagues and the restraints which were placed on them by hostile police forces, hostile prosecutors. If you believe just one-half of the testimony which Mr. Chavez and his colleagues presented to us, then you must believe that they have an extremely tough row to hoe. PAGENO="0251" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 245 Mr. O'CONNELL. I think there were two questions there, Mr. Chair- man. The reason this sentence is in there about the inability of labor organizations to successfully organize the farrnworkers is that if farmworkers really wanted to belong to the unions, I think the de- mand would be great for them to do so. So the demand, in our view, is not coming from the farmworkers, and it is not coming from agriculture. Mr. THOMPSON. Where do you think it is coming from? Mr. O'CONNELL. I think it is coming from the labor organizations. Farmworkers are the last large group of employees to be organized. Mr. THOMPSON. What is your opinion, sir, as to the economic status of the agricultural worker? Mr. O'CONNELL. In relation to the farmer, I think it is the equiva- lent. Mr. THOMPSON. You think the farmer is that hungry and that de- ~prived? Mr. O'CONNELL. I am saying in terms of investment and return on capital, and there are exceptions to this, the average farmer is not in the same financial position as the farmers which have been cited fre- quently in these hearings. Mr. THOMPSON. You don't really believe, do you, that the average farmer~ in the United States is going to be subject to an attempt to organize his workers when he has-if Mr. Triggs' statement is ac- curate-so few workers, hired workers? Mr. O'CONNELL. I think the average farmer in the fruit and vege- table industry will be organized if this legislation is passed. You asked a question of one of the witnesses- Mr. THOMPSON. You can't really believe that if you don't believe that the workers won't voluntarily join the union, sir. Mr. O'CONNELL. Those same workers in the fruit and vegetable in- dustry-and this is going to cover most of the workers involved in these industries. If I recall a question that .was asked, or a statement made by one of the previous witnesses, the implication left in my mind is that 2 percent of the farms pay 67 percent of the total agricultural wage. Mr. THOMPSON. That statistic, I believe, is accurate. Mr. O'CONNELL. The implic.ation I believe remains is that this legis- lation would only cover these large corporate farms, or factories in the fields. In Mr. Triggs statement, if I can remember the data accurately over 50 percent of the man-days used in agriculture is in the fruit and vegetable industries. Therefore according to the U.S. Census for Agri- culture in 1964, there was a total of 23,223 farms typed as commercial vegetable farms and 57,255 typed as fruit and nut farms. This totals roughly 80,000 farmers. These 80,000 probably cover 60 percent of the wage bill in agriculture. There are 3.1 million farmers in the United States, and 2 percent of this total is about 60,000 farms. The statement by itself, Mr. Chair- man, of the 2 percent of the farms paying 67 percent of the agricul- tural wage bill is correct, but I think it leaves an implication that these are only large farms. . . . The average farm* in the United States in tree fruit production is 19 acres, and the average vegetable farm has 23.4 acres. Farms of 19 and 23 acres are not huge corporate farms. PAGENO="0252" 246 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLT[JRAL EMPLOYEES Mr. THOMPSON. Of course not. The little ones aren't the ones that are going to be organized? Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes, sir; because they are going to use 50 or 60 workers or even a hundred workers during a period of about 6 weeks. Mr. THOMPSON. If that is the case, then they probably would make an ef~ort- Mr. O'CONNELL. But their averagegross income was $7,536 in 1964. That is-income for the family management and return on investment. Mr. THOMPSON. What was that? Mr. O'CONNELL. The average income from vegetable farms in 1964 was $7,536. That is vegetable farms, not for tree fruit farms. I wasn't able to interpolate the data on the tree fruit reflecting their income, because it was in potrnds or tons. There were too many variables in the prices of the different commodities in fruits to obtain the average income. Mr. THOMPSON. I have no further questions, and I thank you for your statement, and I appreciate the fact that we did take a long time with Mr. Triggs. Mr. O'OONNELL. It is quite all right. Mr. THOMPSON. Quite logically, you might not agree with every answer of his, but we would follow largely the same line of question- ing with you, so it would be largely repetitious. Mr. O'CONNELL. We want to keep our autonomy as an organization. Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate that. We are not trying to identify you with his organization or his answers. We know he is flatly opposed to the legislation, and you simply ask that we defer action on it. [Laughter.] I don't know for how long. There is a rule against perpetuity, you know. Mr. O'CONNELL. I will be happy to discuss that with you. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, thank you very much. We will now recess these hearings. We hope to go on a field hearmg soon, and, if indicated, will possibly return to Washington for further hearings. The subcommittee will now adjourn, subject to call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.) (Mr. Cesar Chavez submitted the following material, reference on p.70:) SIERRA VISTA RANCH, BORREGO FARMS. DEAR FRIEND: As you probably know, you are eligible to vote in the election to be held at Sierra Vista Ranch on August 30. The polls will be open from 7: 00 a.m. until 10: 00 p.m. We think that it is important that you vote if you possibly can and we will help provide transportation if you need it. Di Giorgio has agreed to this election because the Governor desired it, and because we think it will put an end once and for all to the harassment of Di Giorgio employees. Chavez has agreed to stop his picketing and name-calling if he loses the election. The ballot will be printed by the American Arbitration Association, which will conduct the election. The ballot will have three choices: NFWA-AWOC, no union, and the Teamsters Farm Workers Union. We think that you should vote for the Teamsters Farm Workers Union. PAGENO="0253" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 247 You are eligible to vote, but you must appear at the voting place in order to vote. We hope that you do vote. The majority of your fellow employees have indicated that they want a union to represent them. We think you should have a union if you want one. A vote for no union is a wasted vote. Before you vote, however, please consider very carefully how you should vote. Why does Di Giorgio care how you vote? For several reasons Di Giorgio cares very much. Di Giorgio must bargain with the union which wins, and reach an agreement with it. Di Giorgio has dealt with the Teamsters in many places for a long time. More than 600 of Di Giorgio's non-agricultural workers are Team- sters, and we have signed many contracts covering these employees. We have found that the Teamsters are a responsible union. They are too- but they are fair. They do not resort to name-calling and phony strikes. They don't have to. They also represent a lot of cannery workers and some agricul- tural workers. There is no need for us to tell you about the tactics used by Chavez and the NFWA because you have seen them. We very much regret the harassment and unpleasantness his agitators have put you to for the last 10 months and we hope by this election to settle the matter, as we have said. We think that he NFWA- AWOC has nothing to offer you and we think that it would be a mistake to vote for them. Your vote is very important because this election will be decided by the major- ity of those actually voting. So please make an effort to vote. I think your best interests would be served by voting for the Teamsters, but the final decision is up to you. Sincerely, R~ L. Mynu, Director of Personnel. E. C. FONTANA, ~Super'tntendent. SIERRA `VISTA RANCH, Augnst 29, 1966. To Onr Employees: Some of you may have seen the latest editions of the phoney right to work "newsletter". This piece of trash is definitely not put out by Di Giorgio. We don't know who is putting it out, but we are trying to find out. One of the news- letter bears the name of Gary Allen. Gary Allen called Dick Myer Saturday and said that he knew nothing about it-The newsletter is a complete phoney and we urge you to pay no attention to it. It may be put Out by some nut. As we have said before, put it in the wastebasket with the rest of the garbage. We also hear that NFWA is claiming an overw helming victory in the bal loting at Borrego Spi~ings. The facts are that 22 people voted and the ballots will not be counted until August 31. So the NFWA claim is a typical NFWA rumor wholly without any foundation in fact. In tomorrow's voting, we urge you to vote for the Teamsters Farm Workers Union. We know the Teamsters are a responsible union, with money and experi- ence to back up their members, and to look out for their interests. Also, keep your patience: We know that the past few weeks have been trying times, and we very much appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, E. C. FONTANA, Superintendent. P.S.: Remember that a "no union" vote is a wasted vote. `Vote Teamster. PAGENO="0254" 248 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES JUNE 23, 1066. To: Employees of Sierra Vista Ranch. Employees of Borrego Farms. The ballotfor voting tomorrow will look something like this: Do you want to be represented by a Labor Union? YesD NoD if you do want a union, which union do you want to represent you? You should mark an "X" in either the yes or no boxes, ~nd you should write in the name of the union you prefer. You can write in any union you want to, including Teamsters or the National Farm Workers Association, even though they have not consented to this election. Remember, this will be a secret ballot, and your right to vote will be protected.. R. L. MYER. wg, ~ __ YE .DOR WLNTIBE LP.W.!~, ALL THEY EAV~ `I'O C~R~1S~ A PIC~I'1 L~L VO'J~E LP.V.AS, YQ~ ~aOB!~ ?1ND ~SEI2~ A. ~ic~wr LINE, OR ON: .ac~ WM)1f~P~CH FOfl ~L. ~ AWOC TE&MST~S I~A ~-.-_~_~r ~ - ~ sifl~ PAGENO="0255" APPENDIX STATEMENTS AND LETTERS FROM PROPONENTS OF H.R. 4769 STATEMENT BY STEVE ALLEN, FOUNDING MEMBER, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ON FARM LABOR I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, a voluntary, nonprofit organization of which I am a member, and whose purpose is to gether and present information about farm labor practices and policies. "The committee discussed this matter carefully in executive session and de- cided not to include agricultural workers. We hope that the agricultural workers will be taken care of * * * I am in favor of giving agricultural workers every protection, but just now I believe in biting off one mouthful at a time. If we can get this bill through and get it working properly, there will be opportunity later, and I `hope soon, to take care of the agricultural workers." These were the words of Representative Connery, sponsor of the bill that in 1935 became the National Labor Relations Act. It is now 32 years since Con- gress took its first bite, and agricultural workers have been excluded four times since, when the Act has been amended. The father of the National Labor Relations Act, Senator Wagner, had included farm workers in his draft of the bill; when it emerged from Committee they' were specifically excluded for "administrative reasons." Denied the reasonable processes of organizing and settling disputes under NLRA, farm workers have been forced `to go their own way and have `had virtual- ly no option but to strike in order to force negotiations. In essence, the struggle over the years has been to try to establish grower recognition of a union represent- ing the workers. Wages, working and living conditions, and hours are usually the sensitive issues which touch off a strike, but the overriding question has been whether or not the employer will sit down ,an'd negotiate with his workers.. The indignities to which farm workers have long been subjected because they lack strong unions would be impossible to discuss `here in rightfully lengthy detail. But a quick , peview of recent months shows that the abuses continue unabated. A few examples: In Western New York state alone, three migrant workers have been killed in the last nine months by fires in their ramshackle dwellings. A strong union would be able to demand enforcement of housing and health codes dealing with farm labor camps. A minister and a labor organizer were arrested on the charge of "disturbing the janitor in performance of his dnties" as they conducted a prayer vigil on the steps of the starr Cownty Courthouse in Tewas. The existence of a lawfully `protected farm workers' union would help deter local authorities from acting with such disregard for civil liberties and the right of free speech. In Florida, wo'rker representatives were turned away from a grower meeting with their list of grievances. The workers had no recourse bu1t to' g~ out on strike. A legally recogxiized union of workers could have gained access to the growers for a negotiating meeting, and their differences could have been settled without resort to a strike as the only solution. Incidents of violence on the part of a few growers and local authorities have occurred even during the past two years. On the struck ranches in California, pickets `have `been sprayed with insecticide, and one picket was run over by a truck. Not even the `bloody war in Vietnam has seen an atrocity as vicious as that suffered by `a long-time union organizer who was attacked and tortured br two men, a~ yet unidentified, who forced a broomstick with a nail attached up his 249 PAGENO="0256" 250 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES `rectum; the resulting internal injuries may be permanently disabling. The strikers deserve great credit, in my view, for maintaining their commitment to nonviolence in the face of such brutalities. Enactment of the bill you are con- sidering would `do much to eliminate the present atmosphere of lawlessness with its attendant violence. What of the other effects of this bill on growers? Some growers have argued that because agriculture is "different" it should not be subject to the same legislation `as other industries. They have claimed that bringing the collective bargaining process to the fields would result in rotting crops and financial ruin, if workers chose to strike during the harvest season. Surely these arguments will sound familiar to you gentlemen. They are echoes from the distant past when leaders in various industries assured us that financial disaster would follow if unionization was permitted in the automobile, steel, general manufacturing, construction and other industries. Was American `busi- ness brought to its knees? Obviously exactly the opposite happened. Business today is bigger and more profitable than ever. One is reminded, too, of the `dire predictions that if Congress were ever to stop the massive importation of poorly paid foreign workers growers would suffer financial ruin. Again the predictions were mistaken, assuming that they were honest in the first place. The 1967 farm labor picture is `brighter for growers than it has been in years and California growers particularly are reaping record- breaking profits. As a wealthy mail, a capitalist myself, I approve of this. I hope that next year's profits for growers are higher still. But I also hope that wealthy growers will be as willing to share profits with their hard-working employees as are successful leaders of other industries. Now it is in'deed of valid concern that a total strike, even of short duration, could effectively destroy a whole crop. The National Labor Relations Act, how- ever, was amended years ago to include processing workers, those who work both in commercial canneries and in field packing sheds. These workers, now `strongly unionized, `deal with crops in their highly perishable state just as do the un- organized field workers. According to Father Austin P. Morris, S.J., in an article written for the California Law Review, "The only arena in which agriculture's evaluation can be validly tested, how- ever, i's actual experience. The thirty years' experience of the food processing industry has sufficiently demonstrated the poverty of farmers' thinking about unionism." Other examples of successfully organized farm operations include the sheep- shearers-highly seasonal skilled laborers `who have been organized `since the 1890's-and the dairy industry, which is "in many areas highly organized from top to bottom including field workers * * n'." (Austin P. Morris, S.J.) The field workers in Hawaii have been protected since the 1940's, along with other industrial workers, under the state's "little NLRA'." Field workers are entitled to hours, wages, working and living conditions equivalent to those main- land industrial laborers. `Tile economy is characterized by its stability, prosperity, and lack of crippling labor strikes. Thus, not only does agricultural labor organizing find its `precedent in the equally seasonal construction, lumber, and garment industries already organized, but also in isolated situations within agriculture itself. From these exceptions in particular, growers should be reassured of the outcome. As a result of the recent victories on the Schenley and DiGirogio ranches in California, farm work- ers all over the country are increasingly deman'c1ing the right to unionize, and this right should be protected by law without delay so that conflicts, long and costly for both growers and workers, may be mimmized. Congress ought not to view this problem as a bitter controversy pitting man- agement against labor. Rather there should be efforts to promote negotiations so that `bdth si'des might profit. Labor-management history *shows that there is a workable, American way of accomplishing this morally obligatory end. STATEMENT BY INTERNATIONAL OFFICERS, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION We welcome the opportunity to~ submit a brief statement in support of HR. 4769. There can no longer be any excuse for not according agricultural workers the same rights and benefits enjoyed by workers in other industries. `The ILWU is the cOllective bargaining representative for smne 15,000 sugar and pineapple workers in the State of Hawaii. Our members include all classi- PAGENO="0257" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 251 fications employed in both industries, from field workers to sugar mill and pineapple cannery workers. Both groups have been organized for twenty or more years and during that time have emerged from a quasi-colonial situation to full industrial citizenship with wages and fringe benefits comparable to those enjoyed by workers in nonagricultural industries. Just over a year ago we signed a new agreement in the sugar industry which brings the present wage rate for the lowest classification to $2.02 per hour~. The comparable pineapple mininium is $1.93. Average hourly. earnings in sugar, tak- ing into account the higher classifications, and including fringes, are in excess of $3.000. Both industry groups have comprehensive medical plans, pensions, paid holidays and vacations, sick leave and severance pay. flours of work have been reduced to 8 per day and 40 per week, with overtime thereafter. While we recognize that there are significant differences between plantation workers in Hawaii and farm workers on the mainland, many of them migratory, we believe our experience entitles us to be heard with regard to the bill now before this Subcommittee. We might add that our experience with the longshore industry on the West Coast, is also relevant to the problems facing this Subcommittee. When we started to organize longshoremen back in the early `30s, work was largely casual. There was a basic problem of organizing hiring and dispatch in such a way as to decasualize the work force and thus to insure both a decent living for the man and a stable labor supply for the industry. These objectives were accomplished by the jointly operated and maintained hiring halls which now exist in all West Coast ports. The improvements in wages and conditions for the sugOi and pineapple work- ers in Hawaii and for the longshoremen here on the Coast have been primarily the result of organization and we believe that the presently shocking conditions of mainland migratory agricultural workers will only be fully corrected by the pressure of self-organization. We agree with Secretary of Labor, W. Willard Wirtz, that, "* * The lesson of national experience is that in a highly organized and pluralistic society any group which lacks the means of collective action drops back to what eventually becomes an intolerable disadvantage." This statement occurs in his recent report entitled "Year of Transition; Sea- :sonal Farm Labor, 1965," p. 27. Nevertheless, it is equally true that self-organization can be assisted, and the stubborn resistance to unionization on the part of most of the big growers can in part be overcome, by appropriate legislation. This is our experience. Our suc- cess here on the Coast in 1934, though primarily the result of the determination of the longshoremen themselves, was assisted by the adoption by Congress of Section 7 of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was later expanded into the Wagner Act. Section 7 declared it to be national policy to further col- lective bargaining. The subsequent organization drive throughout California industry was in great measure facilitated by the Wagner Act. Similarly, in Hawaii, our organizing efforts in sugar were in considerable measure `assisted by representation elections conducted in the sugar milling industry by the NLRB. The historic collective bargaining agreement recently worked out with the DiGiorgio Corporation is indication of major changes that are taking place in the area of labor relations on the farms, at least in California. But the agree- ment was reached only after a bitter strike and intervention by the Governor of Califoinia to set up arbitration machinery. We believe, and our experience demonstrates, that if the law provides reasonable procedures for the establish- ment and carrying on of collective bargaining, both parties, and the public generally, will benefit. We are therefore strongly in support of H.R. 4769, which would extend NLRA coverage to include agricultural workers. The passage of this bill will not, In itself, overcome the disabilities suffered by farm workers, but we believe NLRA coverage is a necessary prerequisite to unionization if it is to be achieved without undue friction and dislocation. POLICY STATEMENT OF GENERAL Boaim OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL CONCERNS OF THE METHODIST CHURCH From a religious point of view, man is a tenant-steward of the soil because, ultimately, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." A responsible ethic requires accountability both to man and God for the use of the soil and for 82-132-67-17 PAGENO="0258" 252 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES the processes utilized in producing food, fiber, and fuel. One of the major ethical issues which is related to the use of the soil by agribusiness is the economic con- dition of the farm worker. Historically, The Methodist Church has had a strong interest in the welfare of both the farmer and the argicultural worker. This interest was summarized in recent General Conference statements. "We believe farmers, other agricultural workers, and those displaced by mechanization should have opportunity to earn a fair income." "We would call attention to the economically disadvantaged everywhere, including the migrant laborers who are very essential in providing our nation's food. We pledge ourselves to the improvement of their conditions of life." Also, "We stand for the right of employees and employers alike to orga- nize for collective bargaining, protection of both in the exercise of their right, the responsibility of both to bargain in good faith, and the obligation of both to work for the public good." The agricultural sector of the United States' economy has so developed the production of food and fiber that it is possible to meet the basic needs of the population for these goods and to export food and fiber to meet needs in other countries. This is a moral good. However, it has `been accomplished through the substitution of capital for people with the result of the displacement of farm- worker families and small farmers to an existence outside the economy. It has also been accomplished through low wages for workers who occupy a disadvan- taged bargaining position. These inequities must be corrected and the social costs of agricultural efficiences borne by the total society. The General Board of Christian Social Concerns of The Methodist Church makes the following policy recommendations: 1. Agricultural workers, including migrant and other seasonal workers, should be included under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act so that the worker may vote to join or not to join a union. 2. The coverage of agricultural workers, including seasonal workers, under federal minimum wage legislation should be expanded and the minimum brought up to the standards of other workers. 3. Federal child labor laws should be extended to include agricultural occupation.1 4. Local, state and federal education and job training centers should be es- tablished and expanded to meet the needs of those agricultural workers and farmers who have been displaced from the economy by technological change. 5. Unemployment and workmen's compensation should be extended to cover agricultrual workers. 6. Small farmers should be aided to become economically viable by expansion of governmental programs of loans, technical assistance, and aid to self-help developments such as cooperatives and housing. 7. Programs of the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to aid migrants and other seasonal workers should be supported and extended. We commend to the churches the social acceptance of our brothers, the farm workers, so that during a period of technological transition the worker and his family may find the support of community resources and at~ the same time make a contribution to the enrichment of society. REPRESENTATIVE ACTIoNS, OFFICIAL CHURCH BoDIES ON POLICY, COMPILED BY THE MIGRANT MINISTRY, NCO MIGRANT LABORER "Recognizing that mutual association with others to achieve legitimate ends is a basic need and right of all in a free society, we recommend prompt enactment and implementation of legislation which will extend minimum wage, unemploy- ment compensation and National Labor Relations Act coverage to farm workers. "We encourage local churches to set up study-action groups on collective bar- gaining so that the issues may be clear and policies determined."-Passed at Annual Meeting of the American Baptist Convention-May 1966 1 No limitation, however, should be placed on the employment of children by their parents on the home farm, or someone standing in the place of a parent; provided that such work On the home farm does not jeopardize the health, education, or welfare of the child. PAGENO="0259" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 253 CHRISTIANITY AND THE ECONOMIC ORDER "We believe in the use of such opportunities for political action as are consist- ent with Christian principles. We urge Christians to view political responsibilities as an opportunity for Christian witness and service. "We believe special protection should be provided for women and children as well as migrant workers and others especially vulnerable to exploitation. "We stand for the right of employees and employers alike to organize for collective bargaining; protection of both in the exercise of their rights; the respon- sibility of both to bargain in good faith; the obligation of both to work for the public goocl."-Excerpt from the Social Creed of The Methodist Church-Methodist Discipline, 1956. MIGRANT AND OTHER SEASONAL FARM LABOR Recommendations-The 175 Assembly: "1. "Calls upon presby~teHes and churches to give urgent attention to the problems of migrants and other seasonal workers; to take concerted action at all levels to implement the recommendations that follow; and to be guided in addi- tional efforts by the National Goals of the 5th Decade of the Migrant Ministry of the United Presbyterian, as stated in the report of the Board of National Missions and adopted by this General Assembly. "2. "Calls upon the Congress of the United States to enact a legislative program that will safeguard the rights and interests of migrants and other seasonal farm workers containing the following provisions: "a. An appropriate extension of the principle of Federal minimum wage legislation to migrant and other seasonal farm workers. "c. Appropriate extension to migrant and other seasonal farm workers of collective bargaining protection and benefits through the National Labor Relations Act. "6. Supports the organization of workers in ways which would enable them to negotiate with, employers and to exercise their rights and responsibilities in working for helpful objectives, for the agricultural economy. "8. Urge growers and processors, as they face the prospect of organized farm labor, to react in ways which will encourage the development of responsible col- lective; recognizing that responsible collective bargaining is more likely to be achieved when it is not irresponsibly opposed."-Excerpt from General Assembly Journal Part I, 1963 page 322 & 323 United Presbyterian Church in the USA THE CHURCHES AND MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL LABOR "We urge our local churches and their members to seek solutions to the basic problems of migratory workers in agriculture. We pledge ourselves to support the following: 1. `Extension of a Federal minimum wage to agricultural workers. 2. `Extension of the services of the National Labor Relations Board to or- ganizations of farm workers."-Excerpt from Statement of the General Synod of `the United Church of Christ, Adopted July 7, 1961 and "commended to the churches for study and action." The United Lutheran Church in America presents these principles: "God has abundantly provided the resources of the earth primarily for human benefit. God gives more than daily bread. He desires for everyone fullness of life. God expects all `to'share the burdens of daily life. `As a corollary to the above Christian principles, the Church stresses certain fundamental duties: 4. `It is the right of every man to receive a wage eommensurate with his abilities and, wherever feasible, in cooperation with his co-workers, `to share in the direction and management of his labors. , 11. `It is the right of every man to organize with his fellow workers for col- lective bargaining through representatives of his `own free choice."-Board of Social Missions, United Lutheran Church (previous to 1962) , AGRICULTURAL MIGRATORY WORKERS "We note with approval the creation of `a permanent President's Committee' `on Migratory Labor in the federal government. We encourage' more: vigorous~ efforts in behalf of federal and state legislation to extend the federal minimum wage, to improve housing facilities, health, education and welfare services, and transporta- tion safeguards for migratory farm workers. PAGENO="0260" 254 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES `We urge the continuation of current efforts at responsible and democratic labor organization among these workers. We favor extending to them by law the right of collective bargaining and access to the services of the National Labor Relations Board on a par with other wage workers in industry. We call upon employers in their efforts to gain human dignity, self-respect, and economic security through the well-tested device of union organization."-Excerpt from the Resolution Adopted by General Assembly of the National Council of Churches December 8, 1960 CONCERNING ECONOMIC JUSTICE FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS "Be it resolved that this Assembly go on record as supporting the principle of legislation to include farm workers under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of the United States and The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act of Canada so that they may form voluntary associations and bargain collectively with their employers; and "Be it resolved that this Assembly urges that the permanent church-related migrant ministry staffs, as well as those employed in a transient ministry, be en- couraged to solicit the cooperation of the local churches and the parish clergy to assume their rightful responsibility in the struggle of farm laborers to achieve dignity and an adequate standard of living locally and in support of appropriate state, provincial and national legislation; and "Be it resolved that The United Christian Missionary Society be requested to join with other responsible groups related to the National Council of Churches of the United States and the Canadian Council of Churches, and with Catholic and Jewish groups, to undertake immediately a vigorous dialogue with the miii- isters and lay leaders of our congregations concerning this ministry of involve- ment in extending the democratic process to farm workers and undergirding their standard of living; and "Be it resolved that the Division of Christian Life and Mission of the National Council of Churches of the United States and the Department of Social Relations of the Canadian Council of Churches be asked to channel the results of economic studies dealing with agricultural wage indexes, now being developed, to state and local migrant ministry committees and to denominational agencies and boards to the end that we might all understand the complex economic problems of those to whom we minister: the farm worker, the grower and the whole indus- try; and "Be it resolved that this Assembly go on record as recognizing that there are organizations of farm workers struggling for the right to organize and bargain collectively for higher wages and better working conditions, a struggle which places all of us under God's judgment and lays upon us the mutual need for repentance and amendment of our ways."-Excerpt from Resolution No. 75 Adopted at Dallas Assembly, Department of Christian Action and Community Service, The United Christian Missionary Society. NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, Washington, D.C. May 10, 1967. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Ilepresentatives, Washington. D.C. DEAR CONGREsSMAN PERKINS: The legislation before the Labor Subcommittee which would extend protection of the Wagner Act to farm workers prompts me to write to you concerning the need for legislative protection comparable to the Wagner Act to provide farmers with similar authority in their relations with processors and others in the marketing chain with whom they deal. I will comment further concerning the legislation to extend Wagner Act pro- tection to farm workers, but first I want to acquaint you with the resolution adopted by delegates to our recent National Farmers Union Convention at Okla- homa City. The resOlution is as follows: "Agriculture needs a comprehensive law, comparable to the Wagner Act for labor, to enable farmers to manage the production and marketing of their products. "Such legislation should make possible establishment of producer marketing boards, with power to negotiate prices with the government and with processors or handlers. PAGENO="0261" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 255 "This type of authority has been proposed from time to time in the form of the Family Farm Program Development Act of 1959 and the Agricultural Enabling Agreements Act of 1961. "Now, this concept has been given new impetus by the recommendations of the National Food Marketing Commission for the creation of agricultural market- ing boards. "Through these marketing boards, family farmers should have a voice with the Secretary of Agriculture in determining support prices or payments, storage rates and other decisions whether by USDA or other agencies which have an impact on the opportunity for farmers to achieve full parity returns. "To provide such boards with full authority to bargain effectively, we urge that existing laws be amended to authorize extension of Federal marketing orders and agreements to producers of fruits, nuts, vegetables, eggs, oilseeds, farm forestry products and other commodities, which do not now have such authorization. "Such new legislation and amendments should clearly reaffirm that the basic purpose of the marketing boards and marketing orders is to assure ample sup- plies and reserves and to obtain parity prices and income for producers; should provide that a Federal marketing order for any commodity may be operated on a nationwide scale if a majority of producers approve; that the use of producer allotments and quotas be authorized subject to approval of producers in the market order areas." As you can see from the above resolution, Farmers Union very strongly supports extension to family farmers the same force and effect of law that has made it possible for workers in the economy other than agriculture to negotiate on an equitable basis. While the delegates to the National Convention of Farmers Union took no action in regard to coverage of farm workers under the Wagner Act, it is apparent that family farmers would not be adversely affected by this legislation. It is recognized, on the other hand, as the National Advisory Commission to the U.S. Department of Agriculture said: "The family farm will not earn favorable return on its own labor when hired labor is chronically cheap. The opportunity for family farms to compete and earn satisfactory returns for their labor will be enhanced if wages and working conditions for hired farm labor are subject to the same protection under the law as are other workers." Best wishes. Respectfully, TONY T. DEGHANT. STATEMENT OF RALPH HELSTEIN, PRESIDENT, UNITED* PAOKINGHOUSE, FooD, AND ALLIED WORKERS, AFL-CIO My name is Ralph Helstein. I am President of the United Packinghouse Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO. a union of more than 125,000 food processing workers in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. We are pleased for this opportunity to speak on behalf of millions of workers who toil in our rich and abundant fields. We wish these hearings were unneces- sary. They would not be needed, if American agriculture faced its responsibility by accepting mature collective bargaining. All of us are aware that farm workers have been consciously and consistently excluded from most every piece of progressive legislation enacted during the last forty years. While their industrialized, urban counterparts organized repre- sentative trade unions and benefited from newly acquired political strength, farm workers remained ignored and excluded. Racked by abject poverty, poor health and squalid living conditions, farm workers represent the most disadvantaged group of working men, women and children in our country. This was not a mere accident. What clearly happened is that a consistent pattern of discrimination was forged and maintained by an alliance of agribusiness and their friends in Congress to maintain conditions that would preserve a cheap and abundant source of farm labor. More powerful than their numbers would suggest. the agribusiness community is able to legislate farm workers into a form of economic slavery. Agribusiness's influence rests on public acceptance of a myth developed and propagated by powerful interests in the farming community. This myth is that somehow farming and all agriculture is different from other forms of commerce. Yet, the facts do not support this conclusion. Farming of the 1930's does not PAGENO="0262" 256 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AQ~RICULT'tJRAL EMPLOYEES resemble farming of the 1960's. The public was duped into believing that farming is a rough and troubled business staffed by independent yeomen farmers with the help of their "hired man." In truth, however, farming is big business, grossing mOre than $3.8 billion in California alone, controlled by large industrial enter- ~rises who's success depends on their very size. This is the real structure of agriculture: First, between 1940 and 1960 the total number of farms fell from 6.4 million to 3.5 million-a decline of more than 45 percent.1 While the absolute number of farms were declining, the size of farms were increasing. With a 5 percent rise in farm land, the average size of farms increased from 175 acres in 1940 to 303 acres in 1959-an increase of more than 73 percent.2 Farms with more than 500 acres (9 percent of all farms) accounted for 61 percent of land in farms during 1959.~ This situation led one student of agriculture to remark that "it would be hard to drive farmers out of farming faster than present economic conditions have been doing for years." Second, although the 19,979 large-scale farms which marketed $100,000 or more farm products represented only four-fifths of one percent of the 2.4 million commercial farms, they accounted for one-sixth of all commercial farm products sold during 1959, and employed more than 20 percent of all hired farm workers. Moreover, thirty-two percent of all farm products sold in that year were marketed by only three percent of all farms classified as Class I commercial enterprises with sales of $40,000 or more. These farms employed 35 percent of all hired farm labor.5 Third, and most important, roughly half the farms in the nation employ no farmworkers, but rather rely on family labor. Another thirty percent of the farms spend less than $500.00 a year on hired labor. Only six percent of all farms have a wage bill of over $2,500.00 a. year.6 In other words, the real impact of collective bargaining would fall on the top 12.9 percent of American corporate farms which paid 70.7 percent of the total farm wage bill in 1959.~ Fourth, according to one source, "concentration of land ownership has grown along with its rising cost until today the nation's 100,000 biggest farms control about one-fourth of all our farmland resources. For many years now, about one- third of all farm land has been bought by purchasers who are not farmers." 8 Gentlemen, we are talking about the cream of American agriculture. We are discussing enterprises that reap millions of dollars in profits from the land. We are examining business enterprises representing billions of dollars in invested capital, managed by some of the best equipped technicians in our society. We are not talking about the small family farm with its one or two hired hands. When this is realized, the supposed .distinctions between industry and agri- culture diminish. Enterprises in both sectors are characterized by their similar- ities, not their differences. Both are huge corporate organizations, both employ vast numbers of workers and both are immensely profitable. Labor costs are just one of many production costs to the industrial farm as well as to other large businesses. Yet, this labor component is the one factor that separates industry from agriculture. The industrial concern, more often than not, will be required to bargain with his employes over the terms and conditions of employment or will be forced to match terms negotiated elsewhere. However, the industrial farm is under no obligation to bargain, because its employes are denied bargaining rights. Consequentiy, large commercial farms pay much less for their labor than do other industrial concerns. Added to this legal advantage were two subsidies-one direct and the other indirect. Most corporate farms profit handsomely from crop subsidies that re- move much of the risk from their operations. Other corporate farms received an indirect labor subsidy for the fourteen years that Public Law 78 was on the law books. However, these giants of farming did not have to pay the dues of legal responsibility to their employes that industrial concerns have done since 1935. 1 U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division, Hired Farm Workers, Submitted to the Congress January 1966, p. 6. 2 Ibid., p. 8. 3lbid. Austin P. Morris, S.J., "Agricultural Labor and National Labor Legislation," California Law Review, vol. 54, No. 5 (December 196(3), p. 1980. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division. Op. Cit., p. 9. 6 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Farm Labor Market Developments (August 1964), p. 9. Austin P. MorrIs, S.J., Op. Cit., p. 1983. 8 National Advisory Committee on Farm Labor, Poverty on the Land, Washington, D.C. (May 1964), pp. 49-50. PAGENO="0263" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 257 Statistics indicate there exists a degree of economic concentration in parts of agriculture that matches any to be found in basic manufacturing. In view of this, the continuation of a farm policy that treats huge industrial farms as if they were small, frontier affairs of the 10th Century is nothing less than ludicrous. If it were not fOr the disgraceful effect on farm workers, one could almost laugh at the unreality which permeates the public sector's dealing with agriculture. What are the farmer's objections to collective bargaining? First, farmers object to collective bargaining because it would destroy the harmonious relationship between farmer and worker. We maintain and ask any grower to dispute the fact that this relationship is a thing of the past. Farm workers are hired by the hundreds and thousands at each corporate farm, pre- venting any possible relationship with their employer. Moreover, farm workers are sheltered in barracks and hOuses away from the "main house." Finally, personnel directors manage the workers today, not the farmer. Second, farmers fear that strikes will "wipe them out" because of the per- ishable nature of their crops. We believe this fear is misfounded. For almost twenty years, farm workers in Hawaii were protected by a little labor relations act which extended collective bargaining rights. Wages and fringe benefits have improved, while agriculture, especially sugarcane and pineapple, `has prospered. For over thirty years, our union has had favorable `bargaining relations with producers of perishable products, such as meat, eggs, milk and cheese. For the last ten years, we have held contracts with packers and processors of farm commodities, such as melons, lettuce and tomatoes. During this time, a strike never ruined a grower, nor did unreasonable demands lead to a business closing. We invite any member of this committee to Investigate our bargaining relation- ships in the packing sheds of California and Arizona. We ask that worried growers inquire too. For everyone will find the same thing, a mature and mutu- ally acceptable bargaining relationship based on respect, not fear or economic coercion. In this regard, the former governor of California has said: "There will be arguments presented against giving collective bargaining rights to field workers because such rights might endanger harvests but this is not persuasive. Pack- inghouse and shed workers have not disrupted harvest operations, although they are in a position to do so." ° In point of fact, this same objection was raised to exclude shed workers from N.L.R.A. coverage. Moreover, for the first time in many, many years there is bargaining between farmers and farm workers. Contracts between the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO and Schenley Industries and Di Giorgio Cor- poration demonstrate that it can be done. So, the union can come to the farm, as it came to the food industry, in peace and cooperation. Third, farmers often express concern that unions will eventually control their operations. We find this difficult to believe, because there is little evidence sup- porting such a conclusion. Organized workers in the industrialized sector do not control the companies which employ them. They have little to do with manage- ment on a day-to-day basis. It would seem that the farm community has not heard of "management pre- rogatives." Management runs the business, whether it be on a farm or in a factory. Workers have no real interest or competence in that area. They are concerned with working conditions, wages and fringe benefits, not with pro- cluction, sales and distribution. Fourth, farmers believe that collective bargaining will push production costs upward and "squeeze" the farmer out of business because of his inability to pass higher costs on to consumers. Because of our parity policies, the farmer does not face a completely uncertain market. Rather, given the rising world demand for food-stuffs, the farmer faces an expanding market. Moreover, costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, which are reflected in an increasing consumer price index. Finally, the farmer withholds land from culti- ration and even plows cultivated land in order to realize a better price, which reflects some degree of market control. So, the farmer is not the victim of un- certainty that he would have us think. In summary, one student of the problem stated: "It must be observed, how- ever, that the earlier efforts of agricultural interests to exempt the food proc- ~ Quoted In Austin P. MorrIs, S.J., Op. Cit., p. 1985 82-132-67-18 PAGENO="0264" 258 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES essing industry from the provisions of the NLRA were based on identical argu- ments and fears. Organized labor was going to ruin agriculture through its con- trol of processing plants and packing sheds. Because of the same vulnerability and the same perishability of the products, the arguments were just as plausible then. But thirty years' experience has demonstrated that this hypothesis, how- ever sound on paper, was little more than fictitious fabrication." 10 The time has come to allow farm workers to determine their wages and work- ing conditions. At this late date, it is time to bring industrial democracy to the farm from the factory where it has flourished for thirty years or more. The time to act is now before rising aspirations of farm workers themselves turn farms into battlegrounds. Farm workers are on the march in California, Texas, Wisconsin and Florida. They sense the `sweet smell of victory emanuating from Delano. They will not be denied that which was refused for so many long and bitter years. It is to the advantage of everyone concerned-farm worker, grower and pub- lic-to bring the rule of law to chaotic industrial relations on the farm. The public interest demands the promotion of industrial peace whether on the farm or in the factory. Until farm workers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act, there can be no peace. Until laws determine the ground rules between farm employer and farm employee, there will `be unrest. Until farmers agree to initiate mature collective bargaining with their workers, many of the fears of farmers could be realized. Thirty~two years ago, a Representative of Congress stood in the House and uttered words which are as pertinent today as they were then: "I, therefore, respectfully submit that there is not a single solitary reason why agricultural workers should not be included under the provisions of this bill (Wagner Act of 1935). (The same reasons urged for the adoption of this bill in behalf of industrial workers) are equally applicable in the case of agricultural workers, in fact more so as their plight calls for immediate and prompt action." ~ GENERAL ItESOLIJTION UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION MIGRATORY WORKERS Whereas: Migratory workers are the most disadvantaged group in our popu- lation with below-minimum wages, substandard health and housing, and re- stricted opportunities for their children; and Whereas: Protections of social legislation established for the benefit of indus- trial workers are non-existent constitutes special discrimination against the agricultural worker and his family; Therefore be it resolved: That the Unitarian Universalist Association send letters to Senator Harrison Williams, Jr., the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Agriculture and to the President's Committee on Migratory Labor. urging them to recommend to Congress passage and vigorous enforcement of the legisla- tive program that has been drawn up by the Senate Sub-Committee on Migratory Labor which will accomplish the following:, (a) Provide for an agricultural minimum wage (Resolution S. 1122) (b) Prohibit agricultural child labor (S. 1123) (c) Provide for the education of migrant children (S. 1124) (d) Provide for the education of migrant adults (S. 1125) (e) Require the registration of agricultural labor contractors (S. 1126) (f) Assist in the providing of housing for domestic farm labor (S. 1127) (g) Make the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act applicable to agriculture (S. 1128) (h) Provide for the stabilization of the farm work force (S. 1129) (i) Supply improved health services for migrant families (S. 1130) (j) Supply improved welfare services for migrant children (S. 1131) (k) Establish a Citizen's Council on Migratory Labor (S. 1132) (Vote: For-385, against-iS.) 10 Ibid., p. 1087. Ii Ibid., p. 1954. PAGENO="0265" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 259 POVERTY Whereas, the president of the United States has stated that one-fifth of all American families have resources inadequate to meet their basic needs and has announced a war on poverty in America and has called for a cooperative effort to deal with its causes and cures; Whereas, the blight of poverty is most keenly felt by members of unskilled minority groups, workers displaced by automation, the aged, migrant workers, and the residents of chronically depressed areas; Whereas, societies of the Unitarian Universalist Association have a compelling responsibility in this cooperative effort; Therefore be it resolved: that the Unitarian Universalist Association urge the individual societies and their members to support the President's proposed pro- grams to: 1. Expand and improve programs for economic development in chronically depressed areas; 2. Provide adequate education and vocational training for youth and re~ training for displaced workers; 3. Recognize and meet the needs of the aged; 4. Appropriate special school aid funds to accelerate education for cultur- ally deprived children; and Be it further resolved: that Unitarian Uxiiversalists individually be urged to enter into person to person relationships with those who are economically, social- ly, politically and culturally deprived to the end that all citizens may fulfill their highest human potentialities. Be it further resolved: that our churches and fellowships be urged to expand opportunities for the cultural advancement of the socially disadvantaged in their communities. AGRICTJLTTIRAL EMPLOYMENT Whereas, the United States has made consistent progress in the past decade in promoting the welfare of its people by passage of labor and social legislation, such as collective bargaining, minimum wage, social security, workmen's compensa- tion and child labor regulations, but has geRerally excluded certain categories of workers, including agricultural workers; and Whereas, the poverty of agricultural workers is well documented and among the most severe of any group deserving of aid in the national war against poverty; and Whereas, the degraded impoverishment of these "excepted" workers disgraces the richest of nations, drains welfare funds and impairs the economic and social health of the community; and Whereas, competitive disadvantages hinder each state from independently correcting this evil, Be it therefore resolved: that the Unitarian Universalist Association reaffirms its 1961 resolution on Migratory Workers asking for collective bargaining rights for agricultural workers, extension of the minimum wage and hours legislation to cover male and female agricultural workers, extension of the protection of child labor laws to children working in agriculture, and creation of a voluntary farm employment service under the United States Employment Services; and now ~further urges Federal and State legislation to: 1. Broaden the coverage of farm workers under the Social Security in- surance programs; 2. Extend and expand the Migrant Health Act; 3. Further restrict programs providing for the temporary importation of foreign contract farm workers and the so-called green card immigration system; 4. Extend state unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation laws to include agricultural workers, together with the establishment of an interstate system to maintain up-to-date records of all payments made, and to pool contributions made by employers in different states. (Adopted by greater than a two-thirds majority vote.) PAGENO="0266" 260 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN, Washington, D.C., July 7, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Chairman, Special Labor Subcommittee, House Committee on Education and; Labor, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: The National Council of Catholic Women at its con- vention in Miami Beach, Florida, October 5-8, 1966, passed the following reso- lution relating to "Farm Workers :" "NCCW supports the inclusion of agricultural workers under the coverage of the Minimum Wage Law and Social Security legislation. We further endorse an increase in the minimum wage for all workers in order to provide `a decent living standard. "Social justice demands that we recognize the rights of all groups to organize for the welfare of their members, and we urge continued support for such movements. We urge that agricultural labor be brought into line with the dignity achieved by industrial labor by including agriculture in the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act." The National `Council of Catholic Women is a federation of approximately 14,000 local, state, and national organizations of Catholic women, composed of nearly 10,000,000 Catholic women. We would appreciate your entering this statement in the hearings on H.R. 4769, which would make provision for including agricultural labor under the National Labor Relations Act. Respectfully yours, MARGARET Mi~r~zy, Eccecutive Director. [Telegram] WASHINGTON, D.C., May 10, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives: On behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People I am extending congratulations to you on your efforts to see that agricultural workers are given the right to organize and bargain collectively under the National Labor Relations Act. Our organization has long been interested in trying to make certain that the persons who work on the farms and in the fields are given the same benefits that our country has made possible for other `employees. We strongly support `the pending legislation. It will `be appreciated if you will make this telegram a part of the `hearing record. CLARENCE' MITCHELL, Director, Washington Bureau, NAACP. STATEMENT BY CARLOS MooRE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TISAMSTER5, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am here to represent the views of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, `Chauffeurs, Warehousemem and Helpers `of America. I am appearing on behalf of General President Hoffa, General Vice President Fitzsimrnons and the General Executive Board. `Despite legislation that dates back to 1935, the American farm worker is still without adequate protection under the law. Phi's does not only include the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining, but even the child labor laws are legally circumvented. The farm worker has `been denied such rights as Social security, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, workmen's compensation and membership in unions. In 1966 Congress enacted Public Law 89-601 which extended some of the benefits of `the Fair Labor Standards Act to approximately 300,000 agricultural workers, leaving `about one an'd `a `half million laborers unprotected. If the farm worker fails to get `statutory coverage, his efforts to obtain recognition and to obtain agreements will have to depend on force and pressure. And admittedly this will `be expensive, not only to the laborer, but to the agriculture establishment itself. PAGENO="0267" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 261 National Labor Relations Board coverage is needed by the farm worker because only a totally blind person could avoid seeing the plight of the Ameri- can farm worker. He is underpaid, with no sense of security; few have permanent homes and their future in retirement is based on the bleak welfare roles of states, counties and cities. The farm worker has for the most part, bad working conditions, with aThso- lutely no job security. He must endure the exploitation of his children too, sharing with them the same dismal past, present and future. If he is granted the guarantees of the National Labor Relations Board, much of what we have seen concerning his plight can disappear. But right now the farm worker is faced with unfair labor practices, violence when be protests, from scabs and police, plus his political exploitation by ambitious men. Without the protection of the NLRB, the farm worker has no chance to organize into an effective negotiating unit. The Trade Union story of America is a broad story of success. It is the story of a better and a more dynamic society, a society which strangely enough has forgotten the working men, women and children on the farm. We tell the world daily of our great food supplies, our surpluses and our monumental gifts of food and fibre the world over. It seems ironic, indeed, that the agricultural worker supplying this magnificient beneficient to mankind, is the one who must suffer the most. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters urges the adoption of H.R. 4769. But, further, we look on it only as one piece of legislation badly needed. We must continue to fight for our agricultural workers, and to remove them from the roles of second class citizens, denied by every law in every political subdivision in this country of ours. This extension of the National Labor Relations Act, to extend to farm workers needed protection, is adequate, basic and belated. Thank you Mr. Chairman andmembers of the committee. STATEMENT BY NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE The National Consumers League has for over half a century concerned itself with the problems of the migratory agricultural worker, and welcomes the op- portunity to express its views to this Committee. Organized in 1899 to articulate consumer concern with respect to the conditions under which consumer goods and services are produced, the League began its study of the problems of agricultural workers with an investigation of field and cannery workers in New Jersey as long ago as 1906. For over 60 years now the League has campaigned for better work- ing conditions for this most discriminated against segment of American workers. Some progress has undoubtedly been achieved, but the unhappy fact is that in 1967 most farm workers are still denied a share in most of the social reforms which have been extended to industrial workers in our economy. It is long past the time when agricultural workers should be elevated to full participation in the benefits of our working community. The League, therefore, strongly en- dorses the bill before you to bring agricultural workers and employers under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, so that organizing of farm labor and collective bargaining can be conducted in the fair and orderly manner which experience has demonstrated can be beneficial to all segments of our economy. The .absence of orderly collective bargaining procedures has resulted in dis- orders and strife in the Rio Grande Valley and earlier in California that are reminiscent of the early chaotic days of labor history in this country. Once again workers have been beaten and jailed and harassed as they have attempted to organize to obtain for themselves the right long enjoyed by most other workers to improve their working conditions. The rules of jungle warfare again resulted in brutalities and chaos that could have been avoided under the more civilized restraints of legal recognition and rational procedures of our enlightened in- dustrial economy. Nobody gains from such happenings-neither the worker, nor the grower, nor the consumer. And this kind of undesirable occurrence will only be repeated, over and over again, unless the Congress takes steps to bring in- dustrial democracy to the farm by extending the right of collective bargaining to farm workers. Unless you act soon, the farms will be turned into battle- PAGENO="0268" 262 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULPURAL EMPLOYEES grounds, and this country will be faced with a social explosion in our rural areas just when unrest and agitation in our cities are reaching unmanageable propor- tions. The need for Federal legislation to protect the farm worker has long been recognized. Over 20 years ago the LaFollette Committee, after the most thorough investigation of agricultural labor conditions ever conducted in the United States recommended: "Legislation must assure the enjoyment of the same rights, standards of living, and status to labor in * * * agricultural industry a's is afforded by our laws and customs to other labor. No less measure of public intervention will suffice. "The first and fundamental public policy which the Committee recommends is the enactment of such legislation as is necessary to protect the rights of agricul- tural labor * * * to organize and bargain collectively." (Senate Report No. 1150, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. 394, 1942) Today, when agriculture has increasingly become big business, when only 3% of the farms employ over one-half of all full time workers, there is less justification even than in 1942 for differentiating farm labor from other workers. The National Consumers League is convinced that as a moral issue alone there is no alternative but to extend to farm workers this most basic, democratic right-the right to be represented by a union of their own choice. And as an economic issue, the League is convinced that passage of legislation extending collective bargaining rights to farm workers would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the growth of our economy. Opponents of this measure before you base their opposition in part on the threat of increased costs. They are afraid that organized farm workers will demand high wages, and they envision dire results from consumer resistance to higher food prices. In the first place, the National Consumers League has always strongly believed that consumers do not want lower costs which depend on the exploitation of the workers who produce consumer goods. This is a responsibility consumers must assume. A willingness to pay a price necessary to support an adequate wage is an accepted principle in our daily economic life. Wage negotiations in industry continually remind the consumer of his own stake in industrial wages. Increased costs due to industry's decisions are a common occurrence. Moreover, since farm worker costs are such a small part of the retail costs of farm products, there is no valid reason to expect outrageous increases. With the decreasing percentage of the consumer's food dollar going to the farmer, the effect on the consumer of an increase in farm labor wages is much less than in those industries where labor costs are the most significant factor in arriving at retail prices. Actual studies in recent years provide data suggesting that the value of all inputs of labor at the farm level is a relatively small part of the retail price. For most of the selected labor-intensive farm products-it was un- der 10%. Therefore, increases in consumer prices of food resulting from increases in labor costs would be moderate. A study made some five years ago (Donald L. Brooke; Florida Agricultural Experiment Station) revealed that a 25% in- crease in field labor costs in seven Florida crops would add less than a one cent per pound increase. At double the pay, tomatoes would go up two cents a pound; cabbage, one-half cent a pound; celery, 20 a bunch; sweet corn, 20 for three ears. Consumers have accepted much higher increases than these with very little change in buying habits. Thirty years of experience of organization of workers in the food processing industry, where the same arguments of cost and perish- ability of products were made to attempt to exempt these workers from NLRA coverage, has demonstrated the speciousness of these arguments. Moreover, if having the legal right to organize enables farm workers to obtain higher wages, the whole economy can benefit from their increased purchasing power, from their removal from relief rolls, and from their increased tax pay- ments. With present wages averaging from $h100-$1500 annually, it is self- evident that increased annual incomes for farm workers will benefit the work- ers. We contend it will also benefit the economy, and will not be an undue hardship o~i consumers. Members of the Committee, the National Consumers League submits that pas- sage of this bill is morally and economically long overdue. We urge your prompt action to extend to agricultural workers the same rights to bargain collectively so long enjoyed by the industrial workers of our great country. PAGENO="0269" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 263 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD IN CONVENTION ASSEMBLED JULY 24-28, 1967, OTTAWA, CANADA Farm workers in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, in the Delano, Calif., area and elsewhere in the United `States have tired of subpar wages and miserable living conditions. These workers have attempted to better their lots by forming a union, the' United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-OIO, and attempting to bargain for contracts with the corporate farms that employ and exploit `them. However, because farm laborers are not afforded the protections of the federal National Labor Relations Act, they have been subjected to every form. of harassment, intimidation and economic and "legal" sanction by the business and "law enforcement" agencies of the areas in which they have attempted to gain the bargaining rights so long enjoyed by the rest of the U.S. labor force. These farm laborers must be brought under the protection of the National Labor Relations Act-now--in order to gain a chance for the modest but comfortable existence enjoyed by U.S. industrial workers. The 34th Convention of the American Newspaper Guild calls upon the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives to pass without delay the bill now before it that would grant to farm laborers the protections of the NLRA. NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE `CONFERENCE, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1967. Hon. JAMES G. O'HARA, Rayburn House OjJlce Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. O'HARA: The National Catholic Rural Life Conference has long advocated justice for farm workers. In numerous testimonies before Congress and in other public appearances, we have made known our interest and concern tor these long-neglected and severely deprived ci'tizens of America. As the en- closed policy statement indicates, the Conference `believes that no piece of legisla- tion would more effectively answer the needs of farm workers than Congressional recognition of the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their employ- ers under the rights and privileges accorded by the National Labor Relations Act. If this right of self-determination were to be given to the farm workers, they through their own efforts, would be able to stabilize their socio-economic standing within the community and would take their rightful place alongside other workers in all segments of the American economy, who for more than thirty years have enjoyed the protections of the Act. The extreme hardships and human deprivation suffered by those farm workers in Delano, California and Rio Grande City, `Texas to ob'tain union recognition are well known, as are the disadvantages the strike has had for the employers and the public. We believe it is time that an orderly procedure should be established for allowing these poorest of America's poor to organize. Therefore, the Conference heartily endorses your bill H.R. 4769, which would bring farm workers under the protection of the National La'bor Relations Act, thus providing them with the legal machinery to resolve future labor-management disputes which might arise in the field of agricultural labor. The Conference regrets that our Washington representative was unable to be in Washington to testify during the recent hearings on the bill, but endorses the statement presented by Monsignor William J. Quinn, Bishops' Committee for the Spanish Speaking, and asks that the statement be considered as our own and that this letter be added to the written record along with the statements of other religious groups. With every good wish, Very sincerely yours, REV. JAMES L. VIZZARD, S.J., Director of Washington Office. PAGENO="0270" 264 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES NEWS RELEASE-POLICY RESOLUTION ADOPTED, ERLANGER, KY., JANUARY 19, 1967, BY THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGRICULTURAL WORKERS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT We re-affirm our defense of the right of agricultural workers to form unions and to bargain with their employers and also the right of farm operators to bargain for fair prices. We shall continue to labor for the protection of the just rights of workers, employers and the public at large in this matter. We urge the Congress `to `amend the National Labor Relations Act, so as t'o make its provisions applicable to agricultural workers and their employers. We are convinced that application of the provisions of the NLRA to agricul- tural workers and their employers will serve the `best interests of both groups and of the public a't `large. In the absence of orderly worker-employer bargaining procedures, strikes, boycotts, violence and bitterness often occur. Bringing the services of the National La'bor Relations Board to agriculture will protect the just interests `of all parties and assure a minimum of injury to the common good. TESTIMONY OF WORKERS DEFENSE LEAGUE The Workers Defense League appreciates this opportunity to express its strong support for the proposed amendment to the National Labor Relations Act (H.R. 4769) which your Committee now has under consideration. This amend- ment would rectify an injustice `of more than thirty years' standing by removing the exclusion of agriculture from the NLRA and thus extending protection of the right `to collective bargaining to farm workers who have rightly been called "forgotten Americans." The result of these decades of neglect can be seen in the fact that farm workers rank lowest in annual income `of all the nation's occupational groups. The average hourly wage for all farm workers in October, 1966, was $1.18 an hour; the range was from 74 cents in South Carolina to $1.58 in California, and eight states aver- aged less than $1.00 an hour. The average manufacturing worker was paid $1.47 more an hour-more than double. Obviously, `most farm workers live beneath the poverty level. The exclusion of agricultural workers from NLRA protection was supposedly because agriculture was different and `small farmers had to be protected. This argument was never true-small farmers must compete in the market against products produced by hired farm workers, and the low wage of the worker drives down the income of the small farmer as well. But in this day of giant agribusi- ness and absentee corpor'ate farmers, it bears no resemblance to the fact. Half of United States farms use no hired labor at all. Only 2.7 of the farms pay half of all farm wages, and 6 per cent of them pay 76 per cent of the wage bill. The public is often aware of the worst results of the poverty of farm workers: miserable housing and health; children at work instead of in school; the escape to the cities without resources to cope with the urban situation. And government has begun to make efforts to help particularly through the migrant programs of the Economic Opportunity Act. But the most basic thing of all is to enable the farm workers' to help themselves-to gain, through collective bargaining, a living wage that would' ena'ble them to care for their families as other workers can. Since the last century farm workers have tried repeatedly to organize into unions and to improve their conditions. Their efforts were always beaten back- by injunctions and recourse to strike-breaking local ordinances; `by evictions and by violence. The California grape strikers two years ago met the same tactics. and today in Texas more than `a hundred have been jailed and the brutality of the Texas Rangers has aroused public concern and protest. It has been said that farm workers (like agriculture) are different-that `they cannot b~ organized. But theniass-productiOn industries which now are organized by- our greatest' unions were never successfully organized until after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. Other industries that are also seasonal (and often with low capitalization, family-type companies) like `construction and the garment industries, have been successfully organized and have found th'at this brought stability to the industries themselves. Examples of successful farm- labor organization do exist, though they are scattered: Seabrook in New Jersey now has a long history of unionization; Hawaii has complete organization, and in California a firm `beginning has at last been made. PAGENO="0271" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO. AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 265 Yet the human cost of unionization is far too great. The procedures of NLRA were finally used in the grape strike negotiation and settlement. A year and more of strike and strife and suffering could have been avoided had they been used at the beginning. The way to avoid costly harvest strikes which employers so dread is to set up procedures for orderly, labor relations in advance. Employers who-historically and recently-have, refused to talk with their employees, even returning registered mail unopened, would do so if the law insisted. (Nearly all employers are~ recalcitrant until after unionization.) Organized workers would have spokesmen responsible to them, and therefore able to negotiate and assume responsibility in regard.to the employer.. Employers would find benefits other than increased stability. They would find themselves in a better competitive position in attracting workers, ar~d the labor supply problem would be greatly eased. Better conditions make better .workers~ National protection of workers' organization also would help to prevent unfair competition between different states or producing areas; an unorganized state or area now has an unfair advantage as against the state or area where union organization has begun and conditions have improved. Equal treatment under federal law is needed not only for workers, but also for employers. The agricultural market is now nation wide, as is the corporate ownership of the largest agricultural producers. And the problem of agricultural workers, .too, must be faced on a national basis. Organization of farm workers, once collective bargaining rights are estab- lished, will not solve the problem of farm worker poverty overnight. But it is an essential part of the process. Farm worker unions, like other unions, will move from the struggle for recognition to that for decent wages; from there to health and welfare plans and to cooperation with the larger community for the common ends of all. From forgotten Americans, they will become full Americans, sh.aring all aspects and benefits of their own superb productivity and of the na- "tional life. But first they need, deserve, and must have, equal justice under the law. We are confident that Oongress can do no less than repair the inequity of thirty-three years by amendment of the National Labor Relations Act through S., 8 and H.R. 4769. WASHINGTON-NORTHERN IDAHO COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, Seattle, Wash., August 9, 1.967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Chairman, Special House Snbcoinmittee on Labor, Raybnrn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. . DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: There is `before your committee a bill HR. 4769 dealing with migratory labor. The Washington `State Council of Churches has on numerous occasions, as one of `the pioneers in work among migrailts, `gone on record favoring the extension of protection to farm laborers that other workers in our country are afforded. We are asking, please, that the following resolution passed `by the General Assembly of this Council of Churches `at our annual meeting in November, 1966, be placed into the record of your committee. RESOLUTION CONCERNING LABOR LEGISLATION Agricultural labor, like all segments of industry, is privileged to organize for the purpose of seeking better working conditions, larger gains commensurate with their contribution in the processes of production of goods, and more of the ameni- ties of life. Agricultural labor organizations should be protected and restricted ~by laws in the same manner as is `true in other industries. The Washington- Northern Idaho Council of Churches supports the extension of the National Labor Relations Act to farm labor, to the end that the processes of labor relations in agriculture may be defined and regulated. Thanks for your interest in this matter. I am sure that the sixteen denomina- tions we represent in Washington and Northern Idaho will follow with keen interest what is done with this legislation. Sincerely, EVERETT J.' 3~NSEN, General Secretary. PAGENO="0272" 266 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICIJLTrURAL EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE FLORIDA CHRISTIAN MIGRANT MINISTRY' "In light of our purpose, the Florida Christian Migrant Ministry calls upon the Congress of the United States to eliminate the legal exemptions which have pre- vented seasonal and migratory farmworkers from benefiting from the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act and accessibility to the services of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board. "Mindful of the current unrest among seasonal knd migratory farm workers, the Florida Christian Migrant Ministry affirms with conńdence that a greater meas- ure of justice in agricultural employer-employee relationships will be beneficial to all-worker, employer and consumer. Flourishing attitudes of condescending su- periority, cynicism and paternalism, on the one hand, and inferiority, hopeless- ness and hostility on the other, will be. replaced by new feelings and new rela- tionships as more just and equitable structures are brought into being in agri- cultural employment with the passage of HR. 4769." RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MIGRANT MINISTRY, JANUARY 20, 1966, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE OHIO COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, MARCH 22, 1906 Whereas we recognize that mutual association with others to achieve legiti- mate ends is a basic need and right of all ma free society, this applies to agricul- tural workers equally with other economic groups, such as farmers' cooperative bargaining associations. Forms of organization for deniocratic and self-determin- ing participation in economic, political, civic and other areas of life and work, by which farm workers seek responsibility to advance their status will be en- couraged. Specifically included within the general right of association is the right to organize into labor unions and to bargain collectively with employers. Laws and other public policies which have been established to regulate this rela- tionship between employers and employees to establish justice, and to protect all the parties involved should be extended to include agricultural wage workers. Therefore, (1) We support the efforts of the Farm Workers Association of California to achieve recognition of collective bargaining rights. We recommend to local migrant committees, local churches, denominations and the Ohio Council of Churches, the endorsement of the strike objective of securing collective bar- gaining rights. <2) We urge that the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act be ex- tended to include farm labor. (3) We recommend to local migrant ministry committees, local churches, de- nominations and the Ohio Council of Churches, the endorsement of the Cali- fornia strike objective of securing collective bargaining and further recommend support for it by providing funds. OREGON COUNCIL OF CHITRCHES, Portland, Oreg., August .9, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPsoN, Chalrrna'a, Special House Subcommittee on Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN THo~IPsoN: We would like to have the following state- ment placed in the record of the Special House Subcommittee on Labor: The Commission on Migrant Ministry and the Executive Board of the Oregon Council of Churches urge enactment and implementation of legislation for the inclusion of farm workers under the provision of the National Labor Relations Act, with appropriate amendments, and accessibility to the services of the N~- tional Labor Relations Board. Dated: March 16, 1967 Thank you. Sincerely yours, BARBARA J. CoATvs, Interim Director, Migrant Ministry. 1 From the "Statement of Policy and Program of the Florida Christian Migrant Ministry" adopted at the Annual Meeting March 29, 1967, In Avon Park, Florida. PAGENO="0273" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 267 INTERFAITH RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE IowA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IOWA CATHOLIC CON- FERENCE, AND THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE Whereas: We believe that mutual association with others to achieve legitimate ends is a basic need and right of all in a free society. This applies to agricultural workers equally with other economic groups. For~ns of organization for demo- cratic and self-determining participation in economic, political, civic and other areas of life and work, by which farm workers seek responsibility to advance their status will be encouraged. Specifically included within the general right of association is the right to organize into labor unions and bargain collectively with employers. Laws and other public policies which have been established to regulate this relationship between employers and employees to establish jus- tice, and to protect all the parties involved should be extended to include agri- cultural wage workers. The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 193~5 to regulate this relationship, but agricultural labor has been specifically excluded from the law's provisions. Whereas: We support the efforts of all farm workers to achieve recognition of collective bargaining rights, recognizing that their efforts call attention to a nationwide problem, and that the success of their efforts will have far-reaching implications for the plight of all agricultural and migrant workers, including those in Iowa. Whereas: We are convinced that application of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act to agricultural workers will serve the best interests of growers and the public at large. In the absence of orderly worker-grower bar- gaining procedures, strikes, boycotts, confusion and bitterness often occur. Bring- lug the services of the National Labor Relations Board to both growers and workers will protect the just interests of both parties and assure a minimum of injury to the common good. Therefore: 1. We recommend that the church bodies in Iowa go on record in support of amending the National Labor Relations Act, so as to make its provisions applicable to agricultural labor in collective bargaining. 2. We recommend that churches support the efforts of such workers' peace- ful and non-violent struggle, and that they prayerfully consider their respon- sibilities in light of this situation, and extend all possible aid with gifts of food, money, and personal involvement. 3. We recommend that churches and church members communicate their concerns in these matters to their senators and representatives in the United States Congress. Adopted by General Assembly, Iowa Council of Churches 1/20/67. ILLINOIS COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, Springfield, Ill., August 9, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Chairman, Special House Subcommittee on Labor, Rayburn House Office Build- ing, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: Enclosed find two policy statements, one from the Board of Directors of the Illinois Council of Churches, an organization of twelve Protestant denominations in the state of Illinois; the other from the Central Illinois Conference of the Methodist Church, one of the member denominations of the Illinois Council of Churches. Both of these statements indicate a growing support for the inclusion of farm labor under the National Labor Relations Act. Although these statements do not represent the opinion of every person in the Central Illinois Conference of the Methodist Church or the member groups of the Illinois Council of Churches, they do indicate that a large number of concerned churchmen feel that the time has come to discontinue the exclusion of farm labor under the National Labor Relations Act. I would like very much to have both of these statements placed in the House record. I certainly hope that you personally and the House Subcommittee on Labor will do everything you can to move House Bill 4769. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely yours, FAY H. SMITH, Associate Secretary. PAGENO="0274" 268 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES RESOLUTION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR FARM WORKERS AND SUPPORT OF THE DELANO, CALIF., FARM WORKERS STRIKE Whereas the Board of Directors and the General Assembly of the Illinois Council of Churches have previously resolved to support the extension of col- lective bargaining rights to agricultural workers by providing coverage under the National Labor Relations Act; and Whereas we endorse the goal of the National Goals of the 5th Decade of Migrant Ministry pertaining thereto (which reads as follows) "Mutual association with others to achieve legtimate ends is a basic need and right of all in a free society. This applies to agricultural workers equally with other economic groups. Forms of organization for democratic and self-deter- mining participation in economic, political, civic and other areas of life and work, by which farm workers seek responsibly to advance their status will be encouraged. Specifically included within the general right of association is the right to organize into labor unions and bargain collectively with employers. Laws and other public policies which have been established to regulate this relation- ship between employers and employees to establish justice, and to protect all the parties involved should be extended to include agricultural wage workers." Whereas it is both natural and just that farm workers should participate in the decision-making process about wages, working conditions and automation; and Whereas the right to bargain with strength as free men has consistently been denied farm workers; and Whereas most employers in the Delano, California area (Kings and Tulare Counties) have indicated no willingness to enter into negotiations, therefore: (1) We support the National Farm Workers Association and the Agri- cultural Workers Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), in their current strike efforts and urge them to continue until such time as their just demands are recognized. (2) We call upon our denominations to engage in a program of education and action setting forth statements endorsing the Delano Farm Workers strike and giving material support such as money and food, (lard, pinto beans, coffee, and flour are urgently needed), and that these statements and actions be reported both to the national offices of the denominations and the Illinois Council of Churches. (3) We call upon President Johnson to support and Congress to enact federal legislation extending the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act so that it includes agricultural workers and so that the minimum wage be extended to cover agriculture. Approved by the Board of DirectorS, June 1, 1966. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CENTRAL ILLINOIS CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH Whereas farm workers have organized to bargain with their employers in Delano, California, Starr County, Texas and Wautoma, Wisconsin; and Whereas the bargaining efforts in the above places have been marked with disorder and hardships for both employees and employers; and Whereas leaders of Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish faiths have joined with other groups to form the National Campaign for Agricultural Democracy with the sole purpose of including agricultural workers under the National Labor Relations Act; and Whereas the Board of Christian Social Concerns and the~ Women's Division of the Methodist Church are financially supporting the National Campaign for Agricultural Democracy; and Whereas Methodists are very much involved in eight Migrant Councils within the boundaries of the Central Illinois Conference of the Methodist Church; and Whereas in 1966 more than 20,000 migrants came to work in Illinois; Therefore: We call upon President Lyndon B. Johnson to support and the 90th Congress to enact federal legislation extending the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act to include agricultural workers. PAGENO="0275" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 269 CALIFORNIA MIGRANT MINISTRY, Los Angeles, Calif., August 18, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Chairman, ~pecia1 House Committee on Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. THo~rPsoN: Following is an excerpt from the 1967 Statement of Legislative Principles adopted by both the Northern and Southern California Councils of Churches. The excerpt is the entire section of the Principles entitled Agricultural Workers. We would like to have this excerpt printed in the record in support of HR 4769, a bill which will extend the protections of the NLRA to farm workers. "Whether migratory or settled, seasonal agricultural workers are one of the most deprived segments of our affluent society. "A number of current trends increase their deprivation: the rise in food prices, the ever increasing mechanization and automation of the agriculture and the consequent need for fewer agricultural workers; and the decrease in the number of farmers. "The poverty of seasonal agricultural workers usually means inadequate hous- ing and sanitation, insufficient medical and dental care, inferior nutrition, educa- tional retardation, and isolation from established communities and their institu- tions. Economic failure and community rejection also cause a sense of personal worthlessness and purposelessness. "Recognizing that community service--e.g., health care, child care, education, job training and re-training-must be extended to agricultural families, we place the highest priority upon legislation that will undergird family income and sup- port agricultural workers in efforts to help themselves through organization. "Specifically, we favor legislation designed to: (a) Protect the right of agricul- tural workers to organize into labor unions and to go on strike when necessary. (b) Provide for union representation elections at farms where a significant part of the work force seeks to be represented by a labor union. (c) Extend com- pulsory unemployment insurance to include agricultural workers." Cordially, WAYNE C. HARTMIRE, Jr. PAGENO="0276" STATEMENTS AND LETTERS FROM OPPONENTS OF H.R. 4769 NEW YORK FARM BUREAU, INC., Glenmont, N.Y., May 19, 1967. Hon. FRANK J. HORTON, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HORTON: Farm Bureau members are greatly concerned about what the impact might be if the National Labor Relations Act were ex- tended to agriculture. Agriculture is different from industry and the difference is even more pro- nounced in New York because our agricultural products are largely of a perish- able nature. "Farm factories" cannot be closed down at will as can an industrial plant-crops keep on growing, hens keep on laying eggs and cows have to be milked at least twice a day. Strikes are labor's greatest weapon. Farmers with crops ready to harvest and cows to milk are particularly vulnerable to strikes and if crops are nOt harvested and moved to market in the short period available, an entire year's loss of income is incurred. We believe enactment of this bill into law would accelerate mechani- zation of farm operations thereby tending to reduce farm employment which would first be felt by the less skilled workers, a group whose lot we are all trying to improve. There are other features of this bill which would be detrimental to agriculture, force farmers out of business, decrease the supply of farm products and increase their cost to consumers. We urge your opposition. Yours sincerely, C. K. BULLOCK, Legislative Director. INTERNATIONAL APPLE AssoCIATIoN, INC., Washing~ton, D. C., May 16, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Ch~airman, $pecial ~ubcominittee on Labor, House Education and Labor Com- mittee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: We are unalterably opposed to the enactment of HR. 4769. It was regrettable that the Subcommittee determined it was "impossible" to grant our request to present the views of our membership during the hearings which closed on May 12. HR. 4769 would extend the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act to include agriculture. It would require a farmer to recognize a Union as the bargaining agent for his workers and enter into a collective bargaining contract with the Union, enforceable by the National Labor Relations Board and the Fed- eral Courts. The terms of the farmer employer-Union contract could: 1. Establish a Union hiring hall by requiring farmers to fill job openings from Union referrals; 2. Require Union membership as a condition of employment within seven days of employment; 3. Permit a Union, which has not been recognized by an election as repre- senting a majority of the farmers' workers, to bargain with the farmer; and 4. Specify minimum experience qualifications and provide for seniority in employment to govern promotions. Except for the construction industry (and agriculture, if `this bill is enacted) a Union hiring hall is not specifically provided for in the N.L.R.A. Likewise, an employer is not required to bargain with a Union unless it has been established by a bona fide election `that `the Union represents a majority of his employees, 270 PAGENO="0277" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 271 with the two noted exceptions. By the same token, Union membership, as a con- dition of employment, is not required within 7 days, but within 30 days of em- ployment in other industries. Under this bill a Union could sign up two employees (they could be two tem- porary migrant harvest workers) and then demand that the farmer bargain with the Union. If the farmer refused, the Union, with the use of a sound truck and a picket, could claim a "labor dispute". Then, in turn, the U.S. Employment Serv- ice would refuse to refer farm labor to the "struck" employer. Additionally, a Supreme Court decision of a few years back would permit the Union to picket the consumer entrances of retailers using the farmer's products and hand out "educational" verbiage to consumers, advising them not to buy that particular farmer's product. Further, we think it is logical to assume that con- sumers confronted with the "educational" advice not to buy "Farmer Jones' apples" would be mentally impressed not to buy any apple's as they shopped in the picketed retail store. Therefore, complotely innocent apple growers would suffer. To date, Congress in its wisdom has excluded agriculture from the National Labor Relations Act. Undoubtedly, this exclusion exists primarily because Con- gress has recognized the cutreine vulnerability of the agricultural producer. This same ewtreme vulnerability ewists today-and will continue to exist for years to come. In fact the agricultural employer is, without a doubt, the most vulnerable em- ployer in the world relative to irreparable damage from compulsory collective bargaining as provided in H.R. 4769. Factories, assembly lines, offices-yes, even steel furnaces-can be closed down during a strike without suffering disaster (and often without serious economic impact). However, a farmer must harvest his "crops" when they are ready-a strike at harvest would mean bankrup~tcy. The fruit grower heads the list in vulnerability. An apple grower spends 8 to 10 years bringing his "factory" (apple trees) into production. During those years he commits a sizeable capital investment before he harvests a crop that even comes close to matching current production expenses. A capital investment that cannot be "converted" to a different enterprise without incurring very material expenses, a substantial loss of time, and a complete loss of the capital investment that he has made in bringing his orchard into bearing during the first 8 to 10 years. In considering the effects of HR. 4769 it is vital to understand that an apple grower with 100 acres of bearing orchards will have "sunk" a minimum of $30,000 in currant production ewpenses before he starts to harvest time crop. A strike at harvest could mean a complete loss of the $30,000 and probably bank- ruptcy. To deliver a usuable product `to the consumer throughout our 9 to 11 month storage period, apples must be picked at the optimum stage of maturity. Even a strike of one week's duration would mean disaster. (On this point we are attaching a letter one of our members recently sent `to his Congressman re H.R. 4709. We believe it will be helpful in your consideration of the impact of the bill on fruit growers.) What about the agricultural workers? Will `the bill really help them? Con- ceivably, it might raise wages in the first few years after enactment. With the growing scarcity of harvest labor, growers would just about agree to anything if confronted with Union demands at harvest time. The grower would have no bargaining power. However, for the long pull, the bill, in our opinion, would result in growers attempting to substitute capital for labor in the form of increased mechaniza- tion. Mechanization is not easy and is exepnsive, but it will be done if the eco- nomic facts justify the capital investment. Mechanization means loss of jobs-and in our industry loss of jobs for people who cannot afford `to be out of work-unless they go on welfare rolls. Recent developments in the California processing tomato industry and with sharecrop- pers in the Southeast brought about by the recent amendments to the Wage- Hour Law are "excellent" examples of what happens in the way of unemploy- ment and swelling of relief rolls when growers are faced with an unrealistic and unprofitable economic situation. You might ask, "Why not pass on the increased costs to the consumers?" We would hope that same were possible, but it "ain't just so" because of the perish- ability of horticultural commodities and the competitive system of distribution that exists. PAGENO="0278" 272 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES History and statistics clearly indicate that the fruit grower finds it exceeding- ly difficult to pass on increased costs to the consumer. For example, while wages for all hired farm labor jumped over 31% from 1957 to 1965, and prices paid by all farmers increased 12% and the marketing bill for fruits and vegetables (ex- cluding farm value) climbed 37.5%, the growers' share of the retail cost of frnits and vegetables has remained remarkably constant during that period, ranging from 24% to 28% (see Agricultural Statistics, 1966). Actually, the in- crease in wages and prices paid by fruit growers, as well as the marketing bill of fruits and vegetables, exceeds those averages shown above, which are for all of agriculture. Just a quick reminder on exports, imports and balance of payments and the effect of H.R. 4769 on same. Fruit crops have a high labor requirement. Any sig- nificant increase in growing and marketing costs will result in the production of such crops being "transferred" to other countries-such as the case of Cali- fornia strawberry production "moving" to Mexico in recent years. Further, increased costs could result in our losing our export miiikets. World apple and pear production is increasing rapidly and competition in world markets is very keen. In 1965-66 U.S. apple and pear exports contributed in ex- cess of. 25 million dollars to our balance of payments position. Increased costs will definitely lessen our competitive position in the world markets. In fact, we saw some evidence of this fact this season in the United Kingdom, our principal export market, when French apples were "substituted" for U.S. apples because of cutthroat pricing. Transfer of U.S. production to other countries and loss of export markets can only result in loss of jobs for many workers-workers who often are not readily employable elsewhere. We sincerely urge you and your Committee members to carefully evaluate the adverse impact on the nation, the workers, the growers and the consumers if H.R. 4769 were enacted. It will be appreciated if this letter is incorporated in the Hearing Record. Sincerely, FRED W. Bunnows, Etvecutive Virxs President. Wall Street Journal for 4/25, stated hearings are starting this week on the possibility of including farm workers under the National Labor Relations Act with a good possibility of this occurring not later than next year. This is an extremely serious matter to us because we do not know anyway we can effec- tively collectively bargain with union representatives of our farm workers, ex- cept possibly a very brief interval before we start to grow a crop. At that time. if we saw we could not establish a wage scale that would justify growing a crop, we could let a farm lie idle, even though in the case of orchards, it might mean the loss of our trees. Once we start to grow a crop, however, we have, by harvest time, invested in the growing of that crop just about all the money we have in the world. Probably most farmers, at that time, have additionally invested in the growing of that crop about all the money they can borrow. At that point, what bargaining power does a farmer have with union representatives of his workers? The an- swer is just about none. A farmer could be forced to agree to just about anything that would mean some salvage of the harvest of the growing crop. I realize theoretically this should not happen because union representatives should see that putting a farmer out of business, also puts that farmer's em- ployees out of a job. However, in actual practice, our experience with Teamsters' Union over the past 28 years, indicates that this is not a factor that is given any consideration at all. The union bargaining representative takes the attitude that if we can not afford to pay what is asked, our employees are better off establishing themselves in some other line of work. This is a little tough on the farmer who has his life savings invested in a farm that quickly becomes worth- less if not taken care of. Personnally, I do not see any solution for collective bargaining with farm workers, except compulsory arbitration in the event of a dispute. I would concede the possibility of free collective bargaining before a crop has been started be- cause at that point a farmer could quit the business and at least salvage the money he has in the bank; but once a crop has been started, then I think the only possible protection for a farmer is compulsory arbitration in the event free PAGENO="0279" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 273 collective bargaining can not arrive at an agreement, and I admit compulsory arbitration is no happy solution either. It is just by far the lesser of two evils. What do you think are the possibilities of such a solution? Sincerely yours, MID-SOUTH MILK Pnonucnus ASSOCIATION, Memphis, Tenn., Jvne 28, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., House Office Building, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR Mn. THOMPSON, Jr.: The Mid-South Milk Producers Association is a co-operative milk marketing association representing 600 Grade A Milk Producers. We have members in south west Kentucky, west Tennessee and north- ern Mississippi and we are interested in the welfare of our producers. We understand that you are a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor and that your Committee is now giving consideration to HR. 4769. If this bill were permitted to be passed by Congress it would permit farmers to make collective bargaining agreements with a Union representing farm laborers without requiring the Union to show that it represents a majority of the employees. In the event a Union did represent a majority of farm laborers it Would be an unfair practice for the farm owners to refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union. The collective bargaining agreements could require, as a condition of employment, that all employees join the designated labor organization. If this bill were passed by Congress it could increase the cost of milk produc- tion unless there were corresponding increases in prices to producers. In view of the present economic outlook for dairy farmers coupled with the tremendous influx of dairy imports it is unlikely that there would be a corresponding in- crease in producers prices. Great numbers of dairy farmers have already gone out of busim~ess because of the bleak dairy farmer income picture. Dairy farmers would be particularly vulnerable to a labor dispute, their already too low income could be further re- duced. It is necessary to milk dairy cows twice daily and of course the milk is highly perishable, a labor dispute at the production level would be particularly harmful. Injecting labor disputes and strikes into the production of milk would be harmful to the stable and dependable domestic supply of milk and dairy products which dairy farmers have been able to supply to the American Consumer. We sincerely hope that H.R. 4769 would not be voted out of your Committee. Yery truly yours, Ross B. CLARK, SECRETARY-MANAGER. NATIONAL APPLE INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., May 17, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR MR. THOMPSON: In behalf of all apple growers, and of agriculture in total, we strongly urge that agricultural workers should not be included in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, as proposed in H.R. 4769. At a time when strikes are becoming increasingly crippling to many industries and no satisfactory guidelines of responsible control have been achieved, provid- ing a similar potential in agriculture would be disastrous. While non-farming businesses suffer substantial losses in delays of product manufacture, delays in building completion, unwarranted infliction of incon- venience and punishment and financial loss to innocent people too involved in any way in the issues of labor controversies, and similar losses and tragedies, the potentials for similar bargaining tactics in agricultural production could prove completely disastrous to many agricultural businesses and would exact a high price indeed from the public at large. A strike called at apple harvest time, for example, really leaves no bargaining alternatives at all. The apple producer would have to acquiesce to any and all demands in a few short days, or ztand to lose his entire apple crop and a full year's investment and work and ulti- mately his farm operation. Cows have to be milked regularly. Fruits and vege- tables have to be harvested when ready, etc. Delays and tie-ups in these areas PAGENO="0280" 274 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES of food production could be far more critical than in any other segment of the economy. In a time when farmers are already squeezed unduly in the complexities of today's economy, and low incomes in agriculture are turning management and capital elsewhere, surely stringing the bow of organized labor with a mandatory labor organizing and strike "tool" is not in the best interests of agriculture, labor, or the public at large. With consumer concern about high food costs, with already existing shortages of qualified agricultural workers, with farmers al- ready absorbing excessive costs passed down to them from other segments of agricultural processing and marketing, placing agricultural workers under the National Labor Relations Act is to attempt to "solve" an already serious problem by compounding it. The economy changes, and agriculture has to change and is changing with it, of course, but for heaven's sake, let us not expect the American farmer-the agricultural producer-to struggle to keep pace, with his hands tied behind his back and a multiplicity of added burdens on his shoulders. We respectfully urge that this is not the time to add agricultural workers to the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act. Sincerely, FRED P. COREY, Eaecutive TTiee President. STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. CREUZIGER ON BEHALF OF THE VEGETABLE GROWERS AssOCIATION OF AMERICA Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles M. Creuziger, a vegetable grower from Sturtevant, Wisconsin. I own `and operate, in partnership with my sons, a 650- acre vegetable farm, growing potatoes, cabbage, onion sets, and soybeans. I discontinued growing carrots and red beets for lack of qualified labor, replacing the carrot and beet acreage with soybeans. As an employer of local farm workers and domestic migrants. I am personally interested in the legislation pending before this Committee. In addition to operating my own vegetable farm, I am privileged to be Presi- dent of the Vegetable Growers Association of America. It is in this capacity that this statement is being filed with your Committee. The Vegetable Growers Association of America is the only national associa- tion of vegetable growers with over 40 associations representing membership in 32 states. The membership of our Association is composed of medium-sized family-operated vegetable farms, including the small market gardners that sur- round the large eastern municipalities and the larger commercial family-operated vegetable farms of the southeast and midwest. I `am grateful for this opportunity to present our Association's views on the legislation now pending before this committee. Our Association is opposed to this bill, in which it is sought to amend the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. Under the Act, Section 7, employees have a right to self-organization to form, join, or assist in a labor organization, etc. This bill gives special consideration to the building industry and to agricultural labor. Under Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, we find the following provisions: (a) Provides for representatives and elections for the purpose of col- lective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes and such a group shall be the exclusive bargaining agent. (b) Provides for the determination of the bargaining unit by the Board. (c) Provides for the earnings or representation questions affecting com- merce; rules and regulations, also for who may file a petition and for the conduct of the elections, for the application of election rules, provides for a one year rule on elections on eligibility of strikers to vote and run off elec- tions, and provides for the unit determination. (d) Provides for a situation for enforcement or review. (e) Provides for the election to rescind Union security agreement. (f) Provides for filing by the Union of its by-laws. (g) Provides for annual reports for Union; contents. (h) Provides for affidavits showing Union officers free from Communist party affiliation or belief. PAGENO="0281" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 275 The question is: Why is it sought to shortcut this procedure and make it pos- sible for a Union of agricultural workers to be recognized by the employer with- out following the rules which are applicable to other groups? Further, I see no reason why the law should provide for exceptions to par- ticular types of labor organizations because, under the proposed bill, you may enter into a contract even though the majority status of such labor organiza- tions has not been established. Under the amendment of Section 9 of the proposed bill, you may provide for an agreement which requires conditions of employment, membership in the labor organization after the seventh day following the beginning of employ- ment, or the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later, and requires the employer to notify the labor organization of the opportunities for employment with such employer, or give such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified `applicants for such employment, and the agreement may specify mini- mum training or experience qualifications for employment or provide for priority and opportunities for employment based on length of service with such employer in the industry in the particular geographical areas. it would appear to me that this legislation is designed to force agricultural laborers into `a Union organization without requiring the Union to meet certain specifications presently provided for by the law, the reason undoubtedly being that it is difficult, plus the cost involved in organizing groups that may not be concentrated in a particular area, thus imposing upon the employer conditions which may not prevail in his area, but which may prevail in other areas. As an example: In an area in which there is concentrated industrial oppor- tunity, conditions for agricultural labor may be entirely different than in an area which is primarily agricultural. This type of legislation is not good because it gives certain types of industry, and those who work therein, advantages over other industries and under such circumstances, there is `always a possibility for abuse of the individuals who may be involved in the particular Industry. Personally, I cannot see this approach to the subject, since this bill is dis- criminatory in favor of two particular groups, namely: the construction in- dustry and the agricultural industry in the unionization of its workers. This bill extends to agriculture the provisions of the Nation'al Labor Rela- tions Act, as applicable to the construction industry. It requires a farmer to recognize a union as the bargaining agent for his workers and enter into a col- lective bargaining contract with the union enforceable by the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Courts. The terms of the farmer-employer union contract could: (1) Establish a union hiring hall by requiring farmers to fill job openings from union referrals; (2) Require union membership as a condition of employment within seven days of employment. (3) Permit `a union which has not been recognized by an election as representing a majority of the farmers' workers to bargain with the farmer; and (4) Specify minimum experience qualifications and provide for seniority in employment to govern promotions. The union would have such a monopoly over labor and. such power to destroy the farmer, that from a practical standpoint the union would in effect be setting hourly wages for the whole of agriculture. A farmer could be made to bargain with the union even though none of his employees desired to join a union. The union could make a demand upon the farmer to bargain, state the wage it demanded, threaten the farmer with a strike unless he signed the contract. Provisions in the bill force the worker to join the union whether he wishes to or not. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the persistent efforts to secure the passage of such legislation as H.R. 4769, must be construed as an indication that the union bosses will not take "no" for an answer. No one from a non-labor sector of private life-except do-gooders and well- intentioned but misguided busybodies, has ever appeared before this subcommittee to endorse this legislation. These people are not farmers, in all probability they have had no experience in agriculture, they do not understand agriculture in all its ramifications. * Do they know that only 6.5 percent of our people are engaged in agriculture? Do they know that American agricultural production is the envy of the world, and that the American people are the best fed people in the world? PAGENO="0282" 276 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES I would like to observe that it would be most definitely unfair against the American farmer and the consuming public to pass this legislation. It could mean the strangulation of our food supply by a relatively few persons. * The absolute power that would be vested in the unions by this proposed measure would lead, in my opinion, to the total corruption of our way of life, or the demise of the agricultural industry as w~ know it today. Why would Congress consider imposing such likely disaster on our Nation's vegetable growers? We strongly recommend that action on this bill be deferred. STATEMENT BY JOHN HEINEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES My name is John Heiney. I am Executive Vice President of the National Council of Agricultural Employers. The Council j;~ presenting this statement in behalf of agricultural employers in 36 states accounting for hundreds of growers, and for the vast majority of farm workers engaged in the production of perish- able fruits and vegetables. The Council wishes to express its opposition to H.R. 4769 which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make its provisioi~s applicable to agriculture. It is notable that numerous amendments have been proposed through the years to this end but since its inception agriculture has been exempt in the judgement of the Congress. Agriculture has not changed in that it was a basic factor in our economy in 1935, has continued so for 32 years, and is so today. It is significant that the Congress again is being asked to do what the labor unions cannot do for them~selves. The Council is not opposed to workers belonging to unions; or to any other organization they choose. The Council is opposed to a regulation that compels employment solely of workers who must join a union as a condition of employ- ment and who jeopardize the grower's very existence through the instrument of a strike capable of destroying a crop. Farm workers theiuselves have shown no interest of consequence in belonging to labor unions. Efforts of unions to organize speak for themselves. It is significant that ~leorge Meaney has stated that his organizers were sent to California five years or so ago, an expensive program, and three years ago he was compelled to report no success. Recently, he says, there have been suc- cessful strikes by Cesar Chavez. (He referred to the DiGiorgio contract, obtained on the dubious and inconclu!sive merits of the secondary boycott). No single fact is more notable in considering this bill than the incontrovertible fact that farm workers in California are not flocking to the union standard. Mr. Meaney and his aides have almost 400,000 farm workers as prospects. Virtually none, over a period of years, have become union members. D~spite all that has been said about the farmer not being at the mercy of nature, the fact ~emains that a cucumber or melon will not change its maturing habits to satisfy a labor union or the NLRB. Proponents of this bill speak of unionizing in the canning industry, an ally of farming but unrelated in respect to labor unions. They say: if you have a union in a cannery you can have one in the field. This is not true. The processor is favored with a number of advantages not given the grower. For example, Mr. Walter Reuther illustrated the point with the canning of fish. A cannery can shut down for whatever reason and the fish continue to swim about until called for. Tomatoes, corn, beans, asparagus, peaches, plums-a dozen other fruits and vegetables develop overnight and must be harvested or lost. Melons often must be picked twice daily. A punitive act by a labor union in 24 hours could destroy a grower, who is controlled by conditions of no influence on the canner. Those who engage in first processing after the harvest can operate successfully under collec- tive bargaining. It is important to note that this applies not only to fruits and vegetables but to all perishables, including grains and dairy. Farm parity figures show that the farmer is in a cost-price squeeze. Mr. Reuther has referred to his experience in collective bargaining in the auto industry, but Ford or GM solves the matter of rising costs simply by upping product prices. The farmer's costs are up. A farm tractor that cost $1,800 in 1949 costs $7,000 today. Labor costs have increased substantially over the years. Unionizing of farm labor will increase the farmer's costs of doing business and unlike the auto manufacturer the raising and selling of perishable merchandise doesn't PAGENO="0283" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 277 adapt itself to passing the costs increased along to the consumer. Government figures proudly proclaim that the cost of living index for food is down. Mechanization, say the proponents of this bill, will rescue the farmer faced ~with the problem of paying higher wages. This does not recognize that mechani- zation costs are high. The smaller farmer can't afford to buy machinery and he could be forced out of business if mechanization is the major factor. A machine has almost revolutionized the harvesting of cannery tomatoes in one area. Ma- chines are being experimented with for peaches and apples, cucumbers, lettuce, and other crops but they generally are not in use because they are not yet per- fected. Serious labor problems confront every grower except in cannery tomatoes today. The American housewife, for example, can forget strawberries indefinitely if she's waiting for a lower price due to machine harvesting. At best, the farm labor situation today is a series of contradictions, no one of which can be improved by the labor union through the unionizing of workers. It is argued by proponents of this bill that the average migrant farm worker gets no more than 150 days maximum work per year, and therefore can't earn a "decent living". Unionizing has no bearing on the number of days a migrant works. What has bearing are weather changes, lengths of harvests, the desire to earn money, the worker's own abilities or tastes in working crops, capabilities and adaptabilities, and the ability to shift to better employment as offered. In respect to wages: researchers consistently learn that the supply of farm workers is not dependent on wages; they report many influences on where the worker works, at what, and for how long. The best workers will locate the best harvests and will receive premium wages while others confine their work weeks to four or five days-a self-established wage limit. Time and money goals are popular with farm laborers, adding to the aggravation of work force shortages. It is this organization's experience that peak harvest migrant labor cannot be managed, that farm labor can not adjust to the administrative limitation demanded by a labor union. This organization points out that if this bill becomes law the agricultural em- ployer is disadvantaged by general industry. Before a union could force col- lective bargaining on a GM, for example, there must be an election and some evidence of majority will. Under H.R. 4769 the union could force farm labor bargaining and lawfully enter agreements which would require membership in the union as a conditiorj of employment. When Subsection (f) ~vas added to Section 8 of the NLflA, the Congress spe- cifically provided that nothing in that amendment "shall be construed as author- izing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law". The bill presently under consideration doesn't contain such a provision. It ap- pears to this organization that by this bill farmers would be deprived of the protection which the Congress felt was necessary and desirable at the time that Section (8f) was added. The bill may have the effect of eliminating the effects of the mandate with respect to the construction and building industries. Through the years the Congress has recognized the difference between agri- culture and industry. Today as in the Thirties the farm segment is most de- pressed in our economy. Labor has advanced but agriculture is still depressed. An auto factory can shut down without depriving the consumer greatly. Shut down agriculture and we have a famine. The farmer can quit, if pressed too far. If he is pushed to a point of no return economically he can fold just like New York's Herald-Journal-Tribune, lie is in a terminal position: the processor either passes his losses on to the consumer or back to the farmer. The farmer has no place to go except that he can stop raising fruits and vegetables and shift to crops that will keep him alive financially. No labor union can deliver a work force in agriculture that can improve the present heterogeneous makeup of workers. Some work fast, some slow; some work every waking hour, some quit after four days because they have earned a time or money goal; some are males, some females; some of the best are boys; some are drifters; some have families to carry along; some are unemployable in industry; ethnic backgrounds range from the Mexican to the American Indian. In conclusion, the National Council of Agricultural Employers is not opposed to farm workers belonging to labor unions or any other organization. The Council is opposed unqualifiedly to farm workers being forced to belong to a union in order to obtain work. We fail to see how the unionizing of the farm worker will assist PAGENO="0284" 278 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICTJLTVRAL EMPLOYEES him in improving his way of life and we do not see how it could be of benefit ta the farmer. The union would profit, through swelling their financial coffers. Further, the so-called farm labor problem today is more a social one than agricultural. We are sympathetic to the churchmen who support the bill but see no connection between a sincere and earnest desire to improve living conditions, for example, of the migrant worker, and the forcing of these workers into labor unions. It is our belief that unions would not solve the social problems involved and would endanger the processes of harvesting the country's food supply. The American farmer is desirous of eliminating the causes of today's farm labor work force shortage. He is providing housing that is not required of the industrial employer in his obtaining and retaining of workers at a cost of millions of dollars in the face of a diminishing need for field labor; he is spending huge sums in the recruitment of labor from far distant states; he is faced with a work reservoir consisting in too uncomfortable a degree of inexperienced hands, city unemployed, elderly, women and youths. We repeat, the farm labor problem today is not one of wages, it is a basic general shortage of men capable of, and most important, interested in performing agricultural labor. Research has steadily proved that only a fraction of the working men in this country would do farm labor by choice. Mr. Frank Potter of the Department of Labor has stated that in his opinion passage of this legislation would not solve the farmer's labor shortage problems, observing that agricultural labor is in truth "unattractive". Higher wages would attract some workers-but as anyone knowledgeable of the farm labor situation today knows any farm worker who chooses to can earn a daily return comparable with industrial wage rates. These workers are sought by all growers. We are opposed to this bill because of difficulties in adapting labor union membership to a floating work force and the vagaries of nature. Agriculture cannot be compared to the construction industries if for one reason alone: con- struction can be turned off and on; crops must be harvested on the terms of nature alone. Farm workers move from crop to crop, area to area, and the administrative problems of union membership would be enormous. It must be shouted again in clear tones: the agriculturalist is concerned with perishables, produce in field and orchard that waits for no human being. We are opposed for the same basic reasons that guided the Congress for 32 years in exempting agriculture under the NLRA; to the placing of production of what we eat, the exposing of our food sources to the mechanics of strikes and the drawn-out strategies of the labor unions-outside the NLRA. We cite the inability to adapt the industrial concept to farming as the reason Congress has not acted in 32 years, not as the result of a political trade as claimed by Mr. Meaney. STATEMENT OF BERNARD J. IMMING, SECRETARY, THE UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION The United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable *Association, with headquarters in Washington, D.C., represents all factors in the production and marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables. Its 2,700 member firms handle fully 7~% of all the commercial marketings of fresh fruits and veqetables in the United States. This Association believes that HR. 4769, which would make the provisions of National Labor Relations Act, as amended, applicable to agriculture, totally disregards the nature and special requirements of agriculture, including the fresh fruit and vegetable industry. This statement will be limited to a few com- ments on the special nature of agriculture, and is intended to emphasize the detailed presentations of other organizations opposing this bill in direct testi- mony before the Subcommittee or in written statements filed for the record, as well as to state this Association's own opposition to H.R. 4769. While it is true that changes in our national economy and in industrial pro- duction have been phenomenal, there simply can be no change in the fundomental nature of agriculture-fruits and vegetables must he grown, for example, and the nature of their growth to maturity is esentially seasonal. There is no change in the fact that crops mature at cer~ain times-a process which fundamentally is beyond the control of man-and that they must be harvested when ready. It is not possible for the grower to speed up the l~arvesting, to delay it, or to spread it out beyond a certain extremely limited period of time, depending on the crop. It seems quite clear, then, that the farmer would be ~n the most vulnerable bargaining position imcginable if he were forced to operate under the provisions PAGENO="0285" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 279 of the National Labor Relations Act. The farmer must have labor to harvest his crop when it is ready, or in the alternative lose his entire year's investment. The prospect is frightening. Nowhere in industry is an employer required to assume such a vulnerable bargaining position. The result of the enactment of HR. 4769 would be to subject the grower to an injustice not inflicted on any other type of employer. The practical effect of the passage of H.R. 4769 surely would be to accelerate the already established trend to move agricultural production outside of the United States, and consequently to expand even more rapidly the imports of fresh fruits and vegetables from foreign countries into the United States. Records of the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the past decade document the trend. At stake is a further deteroriation in the balance-of-trade situation, as well as the health of U.S. agriculture. In still another respect, the special requirements of agriculture are such that it would be almost impossible to apply the administrative procedures necessary under the National Labor Relations Act. Such things as the almost overnight changes required in the size of a farmer-employer's work force at harvest time and again during the growing season, the migrant nature of the agricultural labor force inherent in the seasonal nature of fruit and vegetable production, and so on. At their 63rd Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., February 1, 1967, the members of this Association adopted the following resolution: "It is again apparent that the Congress will be asked to consider and enact legislation dealing with the agricultural labor force of the United States. Among the legislation confronting the Congress and the nation are bills which would subject agricultural labor to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act or its equivalent, and proposals for the recruitment, training, placement, and transportation of migrant farm labor by or under the auspices of the Secretary of Labor. "We reaffirm our opposition to these proposals, for we believe they are not in the true national and industry interest." In conclusion, we submit that HR. 4769 does not recognize the essentially different nature and special requirements of agriculture which would make the application of the National Labor Relations Act to agriculture unjust, imprac- tical, and not in the best interests of the citizens of the United States. WAYNE COUNTY GROWERS & PROCESSORS, INC., Marion, NY., May 19, 1967. Mon. FRANK HORTON, Longwortlb House Office Building Washington, D.C. DEAR FRANK: We held our Annual Meeting yesterday and much discussion took place and serious concern is felt should the following bill be passed. The Proposed Bill HR-4769 and the corresponding bill S-8 would end exemp- tionS of Agriculture under the National Labor Relations Act. We are opposed to a regulation that compels employment only of workers who must join a union as a condition of employment and which jeopardizes the growers very existence through the instrument of a strike at harvest time. A field or vegetable crop will not change its maturing habits to satisfy the pressures of a labor union or the deliberations of the National Labor Relations Board. Just one act by the Union not only could destroy the entire crop but the farmer as well. Therefore, Be It Resolved that we are opposed to any regulation that compels employment of workers who must join a union as a condition of employment. Be it further Resolved that we contact our Legislative Representatives and express our opposition to this Bill. This was unanimously passed and inserted in our minutes. Please give this serious consideration and we hope your vote Will be along the lines we are thinking. Very truly yours, MARIoN I. ~OHN5ON, President. PAGENO="0286" 280 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION or NURSERYMEN, INC., Washington, D.C., June 2, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Chairman, House Special Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: The American Association of Nurserymen wishes to take this opportunity to express its views on H. R. 4769, which would make provisions of the National Labor Relations Act as amended applicable to agricultural workers. We believe that this bill does not take into consideration the nature and the special requirements of agriculture, which include an ex- tremely limited period of time to harvest crops. Farmers, including nurserymen, must harvest perishable crops when the combination of maturity and weather make it possible. If the crop is not harvested at that time, the nursery farmer may well lose his investment of many years and suffer loss of income for the coming years. Such losses could indeed bankrupt many nurseries. Products of nurseries may be handled only during limited times each year. A strike during these times would put the farmer in jeopardy of catastrophic losses. It seems clear that farmers are the most vulnerable employers in the world. In the industrial and commercial world a strike may reduce profits, but it is rare for one to destroy a business. The situation in agriculture is quite different. We believe that the enactment of H. R.. 4769 would subject the nursery grower to an injustice not inflicted on any other type of employer simply because he cannot close down his farm and, after a strike is settled, pick up where he left off. This Association believes that passage of H. R. 4769 would result in unneces- sary conflict between agricultural employees and workers. Enactment of this bill would, without doubt, accelerate the mechanization of nursery operations. Unfortunately, those who would become unemployed because of mechanization are those who are least equipped to find an alternate job opportunity. The nursery industry feels that the factors mentioned above are adequate justification to oppose enactment of this bill. Sincerely yours, ROBERT F. LEDERER, E~vecutive Vice President.. STATEMENT BY J. J. MILLER, EXECUTIVE VIcE PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS LABOR COMMITTEE My name is J. J. Miller. I am Plxecutive Vice President of the Agricultural Producers Labor Committee. This Committee is presenting this statement on behalf of approximately 98 percent of the citrus and avocado growers and estab- lishments where citrus and avocado fruit is prepared for market in the states of California and Arizona. AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY Summarized, this Bill compels compulsory unionization of agricultural labor with membership in the union required after seven days, and with a hiring ball through which the farmer must procure his labor in the first instance. Looking to the purposes of this Bill, this would give to the unions a monopoly over agricultural labor, so that the unions could effectively control the food supply of the nation through control of the labor which produces this supply. This, in our opinion, is against public policy. DESTROYS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Owing to the nature of agriculture and the need to harvest the crops at certain periods, there is already inequality of bargaining power between the farmers and the unions. To give the unions these additional powers would destroy any semblance of collective bargaining.. UNCONSTITUTIONAL The National Labor Relations Act has been held constitutional on the ground that it involves the production of goods for interstate commerce. It has been the accepted legal concept that production of goods for comnierce reaches only the handling of the product after harvest and does not reach the production, harvesting on the farm, and transportation of the prtjduct from the- farm to the establishment where it is prepared for market. PAGENO="0287" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 281 This statute seeks to have the Federal Government take over all the well- established intrastate activity of farming. We do not believe that the Courts of the United States are willing to destroy the Constitution in this manner. Any regulation of labor relations covering farm labor should be done under State Law so that a State Board can properly handle the multiude of local problems involved in production of farm crops. UNWORKABLE IN AGRICULTURE While this type of statute might be effective in the construction industry, where supplies can be acquired as needed, which is not seasonal and deals largely with non-perishable products, and the labor cost can be passed on to the owner who is paying for the construction, such a set-up is not workable for agriculture. It is true that work in construction involves changing occasionally from one project to another, still the work in relation to the various projects is more Or less permanent and continuous. The factors involved in the work-planning, starting time, building supplies, labor and internal costs, methods of operations, and the like-can be adequately anticipated and controlled. This is not true in agriculture. The time when a crop is harvested depends upon maturity and weather con- ditions, over which the farmer has no control. The farmer's work for the entire year may be tied up in this crop. He is not in a position to bargain at that time because a strike or other coercive activity would destroy his entire year's efforts. Except in cases of acute shortages, the farmer is not in a position to pass on added costs to the consumer. He must take what the market will pay for his product in competition with other agricultural products produced in his Own area, as well as in other states or in foreign countries. His wage structure must be held within the limits of the funds he receives from his products and cost of operation. Otherwise it is im- possible for the farmer to stay in business and offer jobs to workers. The wage structures in industry cannot be automatically applied to agriculture, as would be the tendency if industrial unions should gain control of the labor supply of agriculture.~ Before any effort is made to bring agriculture under the National Labor Relations Act, a thorough study should be made of the economic factors involved in each crop in each area of each state, as there is a great difference in the production, preparation for market, and marketing of these crops, and any method that would substantially interefere with these processes would tend to cut down production and increase costs to the consumer. AGRICULTURE BEING HINDERED Already increased production costs are driving agricultural production out of the United Sttaesinto foreigii countries. A Bill of this kind would add impetus to the trend of agriculture to leave the United States and go to where land costs and taxes are less and labor is more plentiful. This Bill would thus not be in the interest of either labor or the consumer. Our competition is active and aggressive. In terms of world-wide competition, a recent report of the California Depart- ment of Agriculture stated that "it was apparent that developments in the European Common Market as they related to agricultural commodities would probably affect many agricultural industries in California adversely." Some of you already realize the impact which Mexico is beginning to have in this area. Frozen strawberry imports into the United States from Mexico zoomed to a record high of over 82 million pounds in 1960, a whopping 00 percent over 196~. Nearly ten years ago frozen strawberry imports from this source totaled only 14 million pounds. Fresh market strawberry imports from Mexico during 1966 were more than double those the previous year. A similar story can be told about exports of vegetables to the United States from Mexico where the production costs are low. PAGENO="0288" 282 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTTJRAL EMPLOYEES Mexico could substantially knock United States grown farm products out of competition. This, it seems to me, is something not often considered. Examples of Mexican imports of farm products into the United States that are directly competitive with many crops are indicated in the following charts: Pole tomato acreage has continued the sharp upward trend of recent years. Production from such `acreage is several times' that of other type plantings. Preliminary acreage of several winter vegetables on the west coast, with comparisons for the past two years follow: [In thousands of acres] Planted acreage Commodity 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67' Tomatoes: Pole 16. 1 20. 0 23. 7 Green or bush 14.9 9.6 4.9 Cherry . 8 1. 2 2. 2 Peppers ~ 5 4. "~ 6. 4 Cucumbers 3. 8 4. 6 4. 3 Cantaloups 10. 9 12. 4 9. 7 Watermelons 2. 0 1. 7 ~ Peas 2.1 4.2 3.0 Beans (green) 1. 2 1. 6 2. 0 Squash .4 .7 1.6 Eggplant .4 .4 .5 1 Preliminary. Source: Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washisgton, D.C. Total U.$. in~orts of fresh market fruits and vegetables from Meii'ico by rail, truck, or boat [In cars and carlot equivalents] Calendar year: Anrostflt 1954 8, 589 1955 ~, 99t? 1956 8, 168 1957 8, 843 1958 14, 778 1959 16, 682 1960 ~ 638 1961 12, 598 1962 16,492 1963 19, 786 1964 19, 892 1965 20, 878 1966 21, 544 Source: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Shipments, annual reports issued by USDA, Consumer ~ind Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Market News Branch, Washington, PAGENO="0289" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTUEAL EMPLOYEES 283 U.S. imports of fresh strawberries from Mexico; season., November-May2 Season: Pounds 1958-59 51, 000 1959-GO 540, 000 1900-61 387, 000 1901-62 966, 000 1962-63 2, 449, 000 1963-04 3, 794, 000 1904-05 5, 183, 000 1965-66 9, 778, 000 Commodity 1964 1965 1966 Beans 376 412 271 Cantaloups Carrots 4,064 31 4,578 42 3,211 109 Cucumbers Grapes Grapefruit 573 17 53 1,310 28 1,480 36 Mixed-miscellaneous melons 2 149 175 137 Onions Oranges Puss 800 2,459 243 949 1,556 223 1,264 1,055 274 Peppers Plums 598 793 6 1,095 Strawberries 292 412 839 Tomatoes Watermelons Total 8,204 2,033 8,492 1,902 9,964 1,809 19,892 20,878 21,544 1 Includes number of rail carloads and number of truckloads adjusted to represent amounts equal to railcars. 2 Probably mostly honeydews. Source: Compiled from Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Shipments, annual, issued by USDA, Consumer and Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Washington, D.C. U.S. imports of frozen strawberries from Mexico 1 Calendar year: 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1905 1906 Pounds 14, 063, 000 25, 017, 000 29, 817, 000 32,281, 000 34, 550, 000 39, 720, 000 51, 846, 000 82, 826, 000 1 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. ~ Source: Foreign Agriculture Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. U.S. IMPORTS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM MEXICO FOR FRESH MARKET; 1964, 1965, AND 1966 CALENDAR YEARS [In cars and carlot equivalents 11 ~82-132-67-19 PAGENO="0290" 284 EXTENSION OF NTJRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES As further example, not long ago a single nursery in the Coachella Valley shipped in excess of 500,000 orange tress to the Hermosillo area of Mexico. These are enough trees for a planting of approximately 5,000 acres. The same nursery also shipped seed to Mexico in 100 pound lots. It is estimated that enough seed has been shipped to Mexico to plant 20,000 acres. Citrus in Mexico is being planted with the aid of loans by the Mexican Govern- ment. One of the prime purposes is to export to the U.S. Market. Already increased price competition from foreign producers is cutting into agricultural sales, particularly in relation to canned goods, and canners constitute a market for a substantial portion of agricultural production in California. CARS AND C/L EQUIV. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SHIPMENTS FROM CALIFORNIA AND MEXICO BY MONTHS 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Federal-Stata Market News Servica PAGENO="0291" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 285 For example, in peaches exports account for 15 to 20 percent of the production, and this product is in competition with products from such countries as Australia and South Africa, where the production is highly subsidized, and whose exports are their main sales outlets. Asparagus from Formosa is in competition with United States products in appearance and at a lower cost. Owing to the elimination of the Bracero Program and with attendant increased labor costs, some major packing companies have been required to raise prices on cans of fruits and vegetables more than 20 percent, and the farmer is not getting a commensurate increase in the price paid to him. While canners to some extent can designate a price for their product, the farmers and the handlers of fresh fruits and vegetables do not have that advan- tage, primarily because their production must be moved to market as it is harvested and packed, and in most instances a market glut exists at that time, so that the farmer must take what the market demand indicates. CONSUMER PRICES UP * If a monopoly is given to unions over agricultural labor, there would tend to be a standardization of farm labor rates closely related to industrial rates. This would fail to take into consideration the economic differences between industry and agriculture, and the wide variation in growing conditions in the different areas and at different seasons, which bears upon wage rates, hours of work and working conditions. To raise wages and hours of work in line with the areas most capable of paying these added costs would undoubtedly destroy production of perishable corn- modities in numerous places throughout the United States, shorten the available supply, and thus increase consumer prices. UNION WOULD DICTATE WAGES It is the practice in agriculture to use piece rates in many of its operations, particularly in harvesting. These are incentive rates and vary widely with the area and crops produced. These tend to relate wage rates to production and stabilize the permanent costs. Any effort to put a minimum guarantee under piece rates tends to remove in- centives and forces the employer to discharge those who are unable to meet the minimum. This forces more and more people onto welfare and eliminates job opportunities for students, housewives, those entering the labor force for the first time, and particularly those who could not consistently earn the equivalent of the guarantee or the minimum wage. The union would have such a monopoly over the labor and such power to destroy the farmer that from a practical standpoint the union would in effect be setting hourly wages for the whole of* agriculture and eliminating incentive wages. INTERFERENCE WITH RECRUITING The union's insistence on elimination of the Bracero Program and the union's inability to perform on its representations that it could furnish adequate labor at harvest time indicates the inability of unions to supply the labor needed in agriculture. Instead of the unions being able to find additional qualified workers, this Bill would in effect drive all present agricultural workers into unions. The unions have not shown the ability to train or supply qualified workers. The citified worker already under union control has neither the desire nor the ability to perform agricultural work, and the higher the agricultural wage be- comes the less able is the farmer to use the type of worker who likes agriculture but who cannot perform efficiently enough to keep the unit cost in line with com- petitive areas. If the farmer were required to first make application to a union hiring hail before he could recruit elsewhere, he would find it practically impossible to obtain necessary labor when he needed it, particularly at harvest time. The union would obviously have to depend upon the United States Employment Service to supply the seasonal labor. The experience of farmers in California has shown that this Service, however hard it tried to get qualified agricultural labor, could not do so, either in intrastate or interstate recruitment. PAGENO="0292" 286 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICUL1~URAL EMPLOYEES ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS The administrative problems for the National Laboi Relations Board to handle representative elections and collective bargaining under this Bill would be insurmountable. A union could represent the workers even though the the union were unable to get 30 percent for the purposes of an election. A farmer could be made to bargain with the union even though none of his employees desired to join the union. The union could make ~. demand upon the farmer to bargain, state the wages it demanded, threaten the farmer with a strike unless he signed the contract; and the only choice the farmer would have would be to accept the union's pro- posal or have his crop destroyed by a strike. There. is no equality of bargaining power or any justice in this type of compulsion. Obviously, the union could coerce the employer into a contract without even having an election, and good faith bargaining would be a thing of the past. If the farmer requested an election, the Board would have to determine the appropriate unit, the eligibility of workers to vote, and what constituted a representative payroll for election purposes. In the time it would take under present procedures to accomplish these things, the farmer's perishable crop could be rotting in the field. Because of the large number of small and medium size farmers who* have only a few employees during the year, and then a substantial number during the harvest season,~ the determination of the unit for bargaining purposes and the handling of an election to get a representative crew would be prac- tically impossible. For example, in asparagus the regular crews during the growing season are usuafly small, hut during harvest season the harvesting crew may be ten times the number of regular employees, so that in otder to get a representative crew for election, purposes elections would have to be held at harvest time. Tho~e voting in the election one year might be entirely different than those who would be present for harvesting during the next seasonL This would tend to lead the union to demand a contract on a crop basis for all the producers in an area or the state, which would destroy the freedom of collective bargaining by the growers and would tend to set up large labor blocs that would destroy any equality of bargaining power. Section 2 (4) of the proposed statute provides that the agreement may con- tain a provision specifying the minimum training or experience qualifications for employment, and priority in opportunities for employment based upon length of service with such employer, in the industry or in the particular geographical area. This would permit the union to set up qualifications for union membership which would be beneficial to its operation, and arrange a seniority program for an entire geographical area whereby such members would have individual preference for desirable jobs. This would probably mean that the union would not be able to furnish workers excent those which met union qualifications. so that t'he farmer could not rely upon the union to furnish the great number of seasonal employees who would not meet union qualifications. This, together with the provisions that they must join the union within seven days, would in fact give pi-eferential hiring to only a small segment O~ the workers needed. and discrimination against and deny membership to the remainder: and the union might require an emnloyer to discriminate against his emnloyees who may be qualified to do the work to the statisfaction of the employer but not meeting union requirements. While the pronosed statute does not specifically provide that an employer must execute such a contract. tie economic status of a farmer, as before nointed out, i~ ~iieh that for all uractical purnoses he would be compelled to sign the contract that the union proposed. SUMMARY In summarizing then, it is our position that this statute would so operate as to he against nublic nolicy, would tend to destroy collective bargaining, would present a serious Constitutional question. would seriously interfere with and tend to disrupt agricultural production and increase consumer prices. PAGENO="0293" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 287 It would interfere with the necessary recruiting of agricultural labor and probably result in discriminatory practice by the union contrary to the provi- sions of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. L. H. MOORE CANNING Co.., McAllen, Teco., May 30, 1967. Hon. KIKI DR LA GARZA, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR KIKI: It appears to me that ag~icultural labor now having a floor under their wages starting with a $1.00 per hour as of the first of last February, is quite a forward step. This minimum wage is going to advance over the com- ing years which will bring their agricultural wages more in line with industry. I feel that the agricultural community does need a little time to accomplish this change over, without the addition of the National Labor Relations Act being place on their shoulders at the same time. Why don't we give agriculture a little time to get in step before we add this improvement. Thanking you, I am, Sincerely yours, Luwis H. MOORE. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., June 27, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr. Chairman, Special `Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. THOMPSON: Presently under consideration by your Subcommittee is a bill-HR. 4769-which would amend the National Labor Relations Act so as to make it's provisions applicable to agriculture. At the Federation's last annual nieeting, its `dairy farmer members adopted a resolution opposing elements such as unionization of farm laborers which would result in an increase In the cost of milk production unless these factors are accompanied by corresponding increases in prices to dairy farmers. Under present economic and industry conditions, it is unlikely that increased costs of production which would result from unionization of farm employees would be reflected in higher prices to dairy farmers. `During the past few years, unusually large numbers of dairy farmers have' discontinued their farm operations.. This has been due primarily to the in- ordinately low returns derived by dairy farmers compared with the capital `invest- ment required, the high cost of production, and the time-consuming and back- breaking labor required of the farm `owner. This exodus of dairy farmers resulted, early in 1960, in a reasonable balance between the supply of milk and dairy products and market requirements so that farm prices improved to some degree. However, as prices improved, increasingly large quantities of dairy products were imported so that the modest increases in prices which dairy farmers had been receiving receded. At the present time, almost unlimited quantities of dairy products are being imported. It would seem~ therefore, the American dairy farmers are caught in a near hopeless vise of high domestic costs of production and low-priced foreign produced products. Under such circumstances, unionization of farm laborers which would almost certainly increase the cost of milk production without resulting in a corres- ponding increase in prices to producers would cause additional numbers of dairy farmers to go out of business and further diminish the domestic supply of milk and dairy products upon which American consumers have grown to reply. One of the largest single elements of a dairy farmer's cost of production is the labbr cost. Usually, laborers employed by American dairy farmers receive well above minimum wages. In addition to their salaries, many dairy farm employees are provided with housing and board. Since the cost of production is abnormally high under present conditions, unionization could only cause additional numbers of dairy farmers to go out of business. D'airy farmers would be particularly vulnerable to a labor dispute since they are the producers of a highly perishable commodity. A labor dispute at the production level would be particularly harmful to the farmer. Such a dispute PAGENO="0294" 288 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES would also disrupt the domestic supply of wholesome milk and dairy products which has been made available to American consumers. For these reasons, the National Milk Producers Federation is opposed to en- actment of HR. 4769 and urges that the bill not be approved by your Subcom- mittee. We respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the record of hearings by your Subcommittee on this matter. Sincerely, E. M. NORTON, Secretary. STATEMENT OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY FRUIT GROWERS' AssoCIATION, INC~ The Frederick County Fruit Growers' Association, Inc. represents 160 fruit growers in the Northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and West Virginia.. The growers will produce approximately 8 to 10 million bushels of apples in a normal crop year and w-ill employ about 5,000 workers to harvest the crop. The Frederick County Fruit Growers' Association, Inc. is composed of growers who are included in the 3% who would be affected by HR 4769, as Secretary Wirtz puts it, and the 97% whom the Secretary apparently thinks would not be affected. We would take exception to the Secretary's opinion that only 3% of the farms would be affected and we take exception to his use of the average farm worker's wage being "today some place between $1,100.00 and $1,500.00 a year." On April 18, 1967, Mr. John Francis Foy, Regional Administrator, Region III, Department of Labor, sent a telegram to the Virginia State Farm Place- ment Supervisor in which one complete sentence read: "Growers Winchester area should be informed that available Supply of workers for apple picking has increasingly tightened." (Complete telegram attached for the record.) Let us assume that the growers who would be affected by HR 4769 are unionized and the union controls the already tight supply of apple pickers. Is it not sensible then to suppose that the 97% whom it has been argued would not be affected by this bill would not have any labor with which to pick their apple crop? Now can it be said that any apple growers will not be affected by HR 4769? When the Secretary states that the average farm worker's income is some place between $1,100. and $1,500. per year, depending on which of several measures is used, he leaves the subject immediately and does not explain how he arrives at those figures. Neither does he quote his source of information. If the Secretary includes in his averages all farm workers, part time as well as full time-then, of cour~e, his averages would be low. For example, an average worker picking apples in 1966, the last normal crop year in Virginia, for the ten (10) week picking season earned $1517 per hour. If he worked 48 hours each week, he would have earned $728.16. If this was the only farm labor he per- formed, his "farm worker's income" would fall considerably below even Mr. Wirtz' extremely low figures. We doubt that any thoughtful man would throw away a tasty, juicy Red Delicious for the reason that the person w-ho picked it was underpaid. Representative members of this Association who would fall into the class which would be directly affected by HR 4769 report that the average year-round farm worker's income, exclusive of supervisors, for 1966 was: Grower A-averaged $1.35 per hour for 48 weeks at 48 hours per week or $3,110.00 per year. Grower B-averaged $1.25 per hour for 48 weeks at 48 hours per week or $2,903.00 per year. And it must be remembered that the 1966 apple crop for each of these organiza- tions and all the rest of the members of this Association was only 25% of normal. The secretary rather naively suggests that the burden of absorbing all the risks and costs which are subject to the "whims of nature" are being borne by those who work in the fields. The worker has invested nothing until he steps on the field and begins to invest his energy. The farmer has bought and leased the land, cleared and tilled the soil. planted his trees, sprayed, pruned and nursed the trees for years, bought the tools and machinery, erected quarters for harvest labor and prayed that when the trees mature, he will not feel a freeze, witness a drought, see a blight, or fail to get labor to harvest what crop he might have. Will he now have to add one more prayer? After the money is spent and after all the risks are taken-then and only then does the harvest worker enter the picture. PAGENO="0295" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 289 The Association feels that what it presented to the Congress in reference to this subject in April, 1965 is still germane today and bears repeating verbatim at this time: "Unions are an established fact of life on the American scene. They serve a needed and useful function in large industrial establishments. Their value is unquestioned. There is serious doubt, however, that the unrestricted power given the union is in the best interest of growers, unions or workers. "Farm operations often are large and employees numerous. The desire of employees to improve their conditions is only natural. The overriding question is the question of strike at harvest. Crops mature as nature develops them. We can observe and flex with the development but we cannot control it. No group should have the life or death power to rule or ruin given in this bill to the unions. "The growers' entire stake is in the crop . at harvest time. For most crops this is a relatively fleeting moment of time if the corps are to be harvested at optimum quality and produce the maximum return. Nobody is able to `nego- tiate' at this time. It can be only blackmail when coupled with the threat of crop loss. No subject can be considered on its merits under such conditions. "Provisions in the bill force the worker to join the. union whether he wishes to or not. The grower must bargain with the union regardless of the size of the union group. A dissident minority, under current Employment Service rules as few as two, could declare a `labor dispute' and cut the employer off from U.S. Employment Service referrals. "There are unions operating on farms. They have not been conspicuously successful nor have `the unions been able to fill the full labor needs of the em- ployer. Whether unions are needed or not has no bearing on this subject. "We feel that agricultural employers should have the same rights and priv- ileges as an industrial employer, particularly the right of dealing with estab- lished majorities of his workers. The dissatisfied and the malcontents are present in every group. To give them the power of stopping a harvest opera- tion is to cater to anarchy. Likewise, the employees should have the privilege of freedom of choice to join or not to join. Much agricultural employment is of short term duration; the worker may feel that the length of employment is too short to justify paying union fees. This should be his prerogative." VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT CoMMIssIoN INTEROFFICE OOMMUNIOATION To: Manager-Winchester. Attention: Mr. David 0. Nellis, Farm Placement Supervisor. From: State Farm Placement Supervisor. Subject: Telegram Received From Regional Office Pertaining to Wages. Please inform Frederick `Oounty Fruit Growers Association and other interested growers of details contained in following telegram received today from Mr. John Francis Foy, Regional Administrator: "Bureau `and Florida agency representatives on Florida Pooled Interviews Itinerary report uncommitted fruit crews being exposed first to Virginia and West Virginia apple orders but are rejected employment commitments these orders in favor of more attractive piece rates to workers and higher override to crew leaders being offered in apple orders from other states. Reported also that two or more crew leaders who previously have brought workers to ew- ployers in Winchester and Martin'sbu'rg area should be informed that avail- able supply of workers for apple picking has increasingly tightened. Many em- ployers from other states, notably North Carolina, `have increased their piece rate and override offers in effort to offset strong competition. There are growing doubts that worker supply states will be able to recruit successfully for Win- chester growers in coming months in face of more attractive offers from competing employers. Since employers who desire to maintain eligibility to request foreign workers will be required to provide round trip transportation for workers who complete the season, negotiations are now underway with Puerto Rico Department of Labor `to make workers available on short term contracts with these employers. The earnings guarantee required by Puerto Rico matches the $1.35 adverse effect guarantee applicable to Virginia. Accept- ance of these orders by Puerto Rico may ease the Winchester domestic worker shortage." PAGENO="0296" 290 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES Our recruiter reports by telephone that most apple picking orders from other states, except West Virginia, now carry a wage rate of 200 plus 50 to crew leader. Crew leaders are primarily interested in amount of override and are not too impressed with the $1.70 per hour crew guarantee. B. B. PERRY. * Date: April 18, 1967. DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE Co-oPERATIvE ASSOCIATION, INc, New 17~.k, N.Y., June 29, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr. House Of/ice Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON: My attention has been called to the severely adverse effect which the proposed bill H.R. 4769 would have on dairy farmers and their families across the country if it were passed. As I understand it the bill seeks to amend the National Labor Relations Act so as to make its provisions applicable to agriculture. `I am a dairy farmer and have been elected an officer of the Dairymen's League through the elective process available to its 15,000 dairy farmer-members. I have found absolutely no sentinient among farmers for the idea represented in the bill H.R. 4769. And to require farmers to make collective bargaining agreements with a union representing farm laborers without requiring the union to show that it represents a majority of employees is even more unthinkable. Since milk is a highly perishable commodity, a labor dispute at the farm, or production level, would not only be harmful to the public good but would place the farmer in an extremely vulnerable position. His income is already at toO low a level and in case of a labor dispute be would have no means to secure an alternate income. The American dairy farmer has provided the American consumer with a stable and dependable domestic supply of milk and dairy products over many years. Labor disputes and strikes would imperil the sta- bility of the entire dairy supply system from the farm to the consumer. The last few years we have seen great numbers of dairy farmers go out of business because of the weak dairy farm income picture. I have no doubt that the injection of labor unions together with collective bargaining into the Ameri- can farm system will result in mbny, many more farmers leaving the farm immediately. Because of the reasons stated above, on behalf of the members of this or- ganization, I sincerely urge you to vote `no" in any consideration of bill HR. 4769. Sincerely, EUGENE J. VANDENBORD, Member of Ewecutive Committee, First Vice President, Treasurer. STATEMENT OF CECIL WILLIAMS JR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL or ARKANSAS The following statement is submitted to the Special Subcommittee on Labor by Cecil Williams, Jr., executive vice-president, Agricultural Council of Arkansas, regarding HR. 4769, a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, so as to make its provisions applicable to agriculture. Arkansas farmers are deeply disturbed about the possibilities of this legis- lation. They feel very strongly that due to natural conditions and the economics of farming, agriculture does not lend itself to unionization. If the provisions of NLRA are extended to agriculture, unionization of farm labor will be relatively easy. As we understand the Act, the NLRB would be obligated to call an election if only 30 percent of a farm's employees sign a petition asking for an election. Theoretically, three employees on a farm having nine employees could determine if all the workers are to be unionized. Once a farm is unionized, union leaders would certainly pick crucial times in the crop year to make contract demands. For most crops there are three crucial periods-plantiflg, cultivating and harvesting. A crop can be completely lost during either of these periods. The planting season VflI'1G~ with ~iff6r6m~ crops from two weeks to two months. Usually there is `a critical period of three PAGENO="0297" EXTENSION. OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 291 to five weeks when. the.weeds must be removed from thecrop or it will be totally lost to foreign vegetation. Harvest periods for crops have a wide variation of time. For perishable crops, two or three days can be crucial. Grain and fiber crops can withstand extended harvest periods without total loss. However, de- layed harvest of any crop causes loss of value. A strike during any of the crucial periods in the life of a crop could cause serious economic loss to any farmer. For many farmers, it could cause bankruptcy. Modern day American agriculture consists of well over two million firms. The capital necessary to begin a new agricultural enterprise is still low enough to have relatively free entry into the business. Agriculture is therefore a highly competitive industry characterized by strong competition from within and with- out. There are far too many people engaged in the production of major com- modities to even attempt price fixing~ Government controls of acreage have nOt been very effective in raising prices, although of great benefit to agriculture. Even if producers could get together to buoy prices, the tremendous competition from synthetics to a commodity such as cotton would make such an effort totally ineffective. Synthetic producers would be delighted to see cotton farmers raise their prices. Obviously producers of many commodities will be unable to raise their prices to compensate for in- creased costs that will be brought about by passage of this bill. Clearly, farmers will have to absorb these costs. As the cost of production forces many farmers out of business, their land will either remain idle . or be taken over by farmers with diversified interests. There is also the possibility that large sums of non-farm capital will be attracted to agriculture. In any case the new corporation-type farm will not be in busi- ness to earn a living but to return a profit to stockholders. Regardless of which course farming takes, consumers will assuredly have to pay higher prices for the necessities of life because much of the competition will be removed from farming. For the good of agriculture and the nation, the Agricultural Council of Arkansas strongly recommends that agriculture not be brought under the National Labor Relations Act. NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C., May19, 1967. Hon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., Committee on Edwcation and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. THOMPSON: The National Cotton Council would like to have its position on H. R. 4769, a bill to bring farm workers under the National Labor Relations Act, contained in the hearing record on that bill. The National Cotton Council is the overall organization of the raw cotton industry representing cotton farmers, cotton gunners, cotton merchants, cotton warehousemen, cotton spinners, cottonseed crushers. and cotton cooperatives. \~\Te are opposed to the enactment of H. R. 4769. Cńrrently, farmers are caught in a vicious cost price squeeze. The relationship of prices received by farmers to prices paid by farmers is the lowest it has been since the middle `30's. The index of prices paid by farmers is at an all-time high. Accordingly, they are in no position to have to pay the additional costs generally involved in dealing with their workers through a union. In addition, it is absolutely impossible to expect that farmers would be in any position to bargain with the union repre- senting their workers if a strike were threatened at harvest time. Farming is totally different from an industrial plant which can close down operations for a few weeks or a few months and thereby eliminate a very sub- stantial part of its costs which would mean that the net income for the year would not be affected greatly. On the other hand, farmers who do not have the labor to harvest a crop timely would lose the entire year's income but would still have incurred `all of the cost of production except that for harvest labor. Those who are not in a very strong financial position could be completely wiped out in one year if they were forced to lose a crop because of a labor dispute. Accord- ingly, we urge that the Committee disapprove H. R. 4769. It would be appreciated if this letter may be made a part of the hearings. Regards. Sincerely, J. BANKS YOUNG. PAGENO="0298" 292 EXTENSION OF NLRA . TO AGRrCTJLPtJ.RAL EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MissrssirPi Mr. Chairman and members. of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to present to the Committee my views concerning the effect which the enactment of H. R. 4769 would have on farmers and on farm workers, particularly in Mississippi. The crucially important fact relating to the issue as it involves the welfare of farm workers in Mississippi is the precipitous decline in farm worker employ- ment in the State. This has created substantial unemployment among farm work- ers with associated problems of poverty and welfare. This development has resulted in an out-migration of farm workers from rural areas. Many such people have ended up in urban slums in northern cities. The scale of the reduction in farm labor employment in Mississippi is indicated by the following table. HIRED FARMWORKER EMPLOYMENT IN MISSISSIPPI 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 January 18,000 17,000 19,000 16,000 15,000 February 26,000 26,000 29,000 22,000 17 000 March 43,000 40,000 37,000 38,000 29 000 April 71,000 66,000 52,000 47,000 36 000 May 98,000 84,000 89,000 64,000 44 000 June 82,000 74,000 84,000 61,000 45 000 July 45,000 60,000 52,000 46,000 August 61,000 56,000 47,000 44,000 September 149,000 120,000 105,000 83,000 October 114,000 100,000 102,000 78,000 November 48,000 36,000 33,000 32,000 December 20,000 19,000 16,000 13,000 Annual average 65,000 58,000 55,000 45,000 -...-`......`.-......- ...... `.-. ...~ .` Source: "Farm Labor" Reports, USDA. The sharp downward trend in farm worker employment will be noted. The reduction in the first six months of 1967 is particularly acute. Farm worker employment was down 25% below the same months in 1966. The situation is comparable in other farming areas of the nation. This represents primarily the impact of the extension of minimum wage legislation to farm workers. Unfortunately the full impact of the minimum wage legislation on farm worker employment has not yet been felt. As the minimum wage goes to $1.15 next year `and $1.30 in 1969, further adverse consequences on the employment of farm workers is inevitable. The effect on the people so disemployed is disastrous. Unfortunately most such disemployed workers have few qualifications which enable them to find em- ployment elsewhere or in other occupations. The relationship between the above recital of the factual situation in Missis- sippi and H.R. 4769 is this: The enactment of HR. 4769 would create an addi- tional incentive for farmers to substitute capital for labor by the purchase of labor `saving equipment. This, of course, will also be the situation in other farm states. Mechanization of farming operations is not an independent process. The rate of mechanization depends upon the outlook with respect to labor costs and labor conflict. Farmers do not invest capital in mechanization-and it is, an extremely expensive change for farmers who are chronically short of capital to make- unless they conclude that the sum total of the factors affecting their future out- look compel them to do so. Farmers in Mississippi have by no means exhausted the changes they can make in response to a difficult labor situation. The incentive for them to change their farming operations `by investing in labor saving equipment and other ad- justments that would be stimulated by the enactment of HR. 4769 would result in a substantially greater disemployment of farm workers than would otherwise be the case. This incentive would be established even where no immediate efforts to unionize farm workers were made as a result of the enactment of H.R. 4769. Farmers would `anticipate trouble ahead and would adjust their plans and operations `to be in the best possible situation to deal with the problem as it may develop. In analyzing the impact of the proposed extension of the National Labor Relations Act to `agriculture, it is important to understand the drastic effect PAGENO="0299" EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES 293 unionization could have on farmers' incomes. The farmer is uniquely vulnerable *to strikes and labor disputes. Most businesses involved in a strike or labor dispute can close down their operations and sit out a considerable period of negotiations before starting up again. While such businesses may suffer some losses from a strike or labor dispute they are not usually disastrously affected. The situation in agriculture is strikingly different. Farm operations cannot be halted because of a labor dispute. The harvest of crops, and other farming operations, must be undertaken on a timely basis. If they are interrupted, especial- ly at harvest time, because of a labor dispute, farmers can not only lose their income for the year, but also lose overhead costs and direct expenditures which have been invested in bringing the crop to the harvest stage. Thus if unions could acquire control of the farm labor supply, and could acquire ability to undertake an effective strike, then farmers would be helpless to resist their demands even 4hough they might be arbitrary and unreasonable. It is said that NLRB might establish jurisdictional standards that would exclude many farmers from the jurisdiction of NLRB. But it is not clear that this would represent in practice an actual exclusion. If the larger farmers in *the community are subject to the Act, and if labor unions are able to establish what is contemplated in the bill, that is, pre-season contracting and hiring hail arrangements, it seems most unlikely that other farmers could avoid being pulled into any conflict and settlement pattern that might develop. The current economic picture of the farmer is also involved. I need not labor the fact that returns on farmers' labor and investment are comparatively low. Farmers are currently caught in a squeeze as farm costs steadily rise more rapidly than farm revenues. The result has been that increasing numbers of farmers are leaving agriculture for more profitable employment elsewhere. For the State of Mississippi this is reflected in the following data excerpted :from page 7 of Volume 1, Part 33 of the 1964 Census of Agriculture. J~Tunjber of farms in Mississippi 1930 312, 663 1950 251, 383 1935 311, 683 1954 215, 915 1940 291,092 1959 138, 142 1945 263,528 1964 109, 141 Any increase in costs to farmers resulting from placing in the hands of unions the coercive economic power provided in H.R. 4769 would still further narrow the already narrow margin between revenues and costs, and force many farmers into bankruptcy. Those that would survive would be the larger farmers who were able to acquire the capital to mechanize their operations and enlarge their holdings. It is irrelevant to assert that this is likely to occur anyhow. This may be so in the long run. But the rate at which farms are mechanized and consoli- ~dated into larger units-and therefore the number of people, both farmers and farm workers, who would be adversely affected at any one time-would be ac- ~elerated by the enactment of H.R. 4769. Unionization is supported by some as a matter of conviction and principle, s~s an answer to the problems of all segments of workers, as a right that every group of workers should have. I do not concur with the idea that unionism is a concept that should be uniformly applicable in all circumstances, irrespective of the impact on those directly involved. In the case of agriculture, I would submit that unionism would be harmful to farmers and harmful to workers. It wouldn't do anybody any good. I therefore respectfully recommend to the Committee that H.R. 4769 not be ~approved. PAGENO="0300" 294 EXTENSION OF NLRA TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF HON. E. C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for the opportunity of presenting `this state- ~inent in opposition to HR. 4769 which has for its purpose amending the National Labor Relations Act by bringing farm labor under its provisions. The bill as written would victimize farmers by placing wage force operations under the direction and control of a costly Federal Agency and put farm labor under the yoke of paying compulsory homage to a horde of Labor Union leaders. The bill goes fa'rther than laws which are already on statute books applicable to various segments of industry. Let's see what the bill does: It would grant farm workers the right to organize, to bargain collectively, and to engage in other concerted activities. `It authorizes farmers to make pre-hire agreements~ covering farm workers with a labor organization. "The pre-hire agreements would be permitted as follows: "1. The contract may be entered into before the majority status of the Union has been established. "2. The agreement may require employees to join the Union seven days after their employment or after `the effective date of the contract, whichever is later. "3. The agreement may require the employer: a. To notify the Union for opportunities for employment. b. To give the Union the opportunity to refer qualified applicants for such employnieiit. "4. The agreement may specify minimum training or experience-Or provide for priorities in opportunities for employment." Even if this legislation were desirable, the timing is wrong completely. We are engaged in an all-out struggle with communist aggressors who seek "to bury us." All energies of the Nation are needed to win this war so that our gallant men can come home nad engage in making for a better America in their communities. Social experiments such as this legislation would authorize can very well wait until peace comes. The results of this legislation would be: 1. It would hurt `the over-all wage earner as much as it would do damage to the wage payer as the cost of food would go up. 2. It would make fewer farm jobs available as producers of food and fiber would speedily move to mechanization. 3. Food production would decline as under the proposal the workers could go on strike if an acceptable contract could not be agreed upon between the farmer and hi's workers and such strike could* very well come during the harvest season. Vital and essential food would go unbarvested and rot in the fields. With the expanding needs as populations continue to soar over the world farmers should be receiving incentives to increase their production to meet the needs of our people and to meet our export objectives and for food for peace assist- ance to friendly peoples in the underdeveloped countries of the world. Only last year an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act was approved to bring agricultural workers under its provisions for the first time at a minimum wage rate of $1.00 an hour. Within one year `and one-half a 30% increase ($1.30) in that rate will be paid farm workers starting in February, 1969. This wage law has thrown a large number of farm workers off the farms and out of a job. As labor costs go up, imports are brought into the country, and mechanization in agriculture accelerates, many more of these unskilled workers will be out of work and added to the Nation's relief rolls. The net income of American agriculture in `the year 1967 totaled 15.5 billion dollars, but in 1947 the net earnings were 17.1 billion dollars. While the farmer was earning a lesser net worth the National income is expected to reach about 640 billion dollars in 1967 when compared to 1947 it was 199 billion dollars. It is costing the farmer considerably more to grow the food and fiber, yet his earnings are less. The passage of this legislation would work a severe hardship not only on farmers and their workers, but this added wage rate to agriculture would have a telling effect upon various industries that serve the farmer with fertilizer, farm implements, seed, insecticides, shipping containers, and transportation. These various industries would probably cut their production and reduce their workers in order to make a profit. I hope that this legislation will not be approved by your Committee or the CongressL I appreciate the opportunity of giving you my views with respect to this bill. 0