In addition to discrimination, favoritism and corruption, the hiring hall system also hurt the workers because of poor administration. Often the UFW sent too many workers to a ranch, other times they could not send enough. sometimes the workers had to wait long hours for an assignment. Or sometimes the workers were sent too late to pick the perishable crops. The very first grower that signed a contract with Chavez in 1966 had to plow his rotted vineyards under because Chavez did not send enough workers on time. The immediate effect of this was less work and pay for the farm workers.
But this poor administration had long-term effects also, forcing some growers in to bankruptcy. Late in 1966, Chavez signed a contract with a second company, the DiGiorgio Corp. The UFW created many problems for the company, but the most important one was that it could not supply enough workers. This was due partly to UFW disorganization and partly to its unpopularity among pickers.
But these problems soon had a major effect on the DiGiorgio ranches, which began suffering losses. Consequently, the company began cutting back on planting, investment and production. By 1968, employment on one of its largest ranches had fallen from 2500 to 400. By 1970, the company had shut down its Sierra Vista ranch in Delano, costing the town 1500 jobs. Later the company shut down other ranches in the San Joaquin Valley.
The bankruptcies and cutbacks due to UFW disorganization were in addition to the effects of the boycott. The boycott itself had forced many growers, especially smaller ones, to shift into another crop or go into bankruptcy.
As a result, Chavez's boycotts and UFW disorganization have been major factors in causing declines in table grape planting. By 1971 growers had cut back planting by 4000 acres in the Coachella Valley and 8000 in the San Joaquin.
This translates into less jobs for farmworkers, and less hours for those who could still find work.
Moreover, many of the UFW's own regulations cut the working time of the farmworkers. For example, the UFW has prevented pickers from working overtime during peak harvest seasons. Teen-age children of the farmworkers had formerly found summer employment in the fields, but the UFW no longer allowed this. The union also ordered periodic slowdowns which lowered the pay of workers mainly dependent of piece rates.
The result of this discrimination, corruption, poor administration and harmful regulation has been a decline in the total yearly earnings of many farmworkers who have had the misfortune of being forced into the UFW. One worker who showed his income tax returns to a reporter had made $7547 in 1969. In 1970, after a year's membership in a union he didn't want to join, he had made $6532 or $1200 less.
His experience was not unique. Giorgio Aglipay, whose statement heads this column, reported that all his co-workers had suffered a loss of income in the UFW. Retail stores in Delano in 1971 reported declines of 25 to 40 per cent in business.
In 1972, members of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, a group of Protestant churches, went to the fields in Delano and interviewed more than 200 farmworkers in the UFW, asking them what they thought about the union.
One farmworker told Dr. Paul Gaston, who had admitted he was pro-union before he undertook the study, "The UFW took away all out rights, we can't work for the farmers where we have worked for years, husbands and wives can't work together, we have no say as to where we go. We can't complain. We are told to keep out mouths shut or we won't get an assignment. We are treated like sheep. We have no power at all, there is no such thing as freedom of speech. There is no election, there is no way for us to say what we like or don't like."
Another farmworker told an interviewer, "Before the UFW we could work 8 hours a day. Since the UFW our hours have been cut back. There are too many people being brought in here from other places. There is really only enough work for local people."
"We get no benefits from the UFW," another worker said. "Instead we get fined for all sorts of things, $25 for being late with dues, $5 for missing UFW meetings, $200 for speaking against the UFW, but we don't get anything back for all that money."
One grape picker explained that some workers lived 70 miles away from the UFW meeting places and had no transportation. Yet they were fined if they missed a meeting. He also said workers have to pay dues even during months when they do not work.
The workers feared this would happen if they let anyone get control over their jobs and that is why they never supported Chavez or his strikes. Their experiences with the hiring hall confirmed their fears and this is the major reason why many workers have joined the Teamsters or, in the words of Time "appear ready to shun both unions."
Chavez's major effect on farmworkers, therefore, has been to cause a loss of jobs and a decline in annual incomes. Along the way Chavez also trampled a few basic rights, like freedom of speech and association.
It is clear that those who have supported the boycott have hurt the very people they are trying to help by forcing farmworkers into this nightmare "union." Those who have been supporting the boycotts ought to re-evaluate their positions and think about what they are really doing to the farmworkers.