The Politically Mediated Labor Market

The demand for labor in the mid-1800s was satisfied in a variety of ways. Family farms carried out most chores themselves, hiring labor on occasion from other farm families when harvests did not overlap. Other, larger enterprises sought out Native Americans from the abandoned missions and Chinese workers who had left railroad construction projects in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona (McWilliams, 1971:58–67).

As farmlands were improved and market possibilities expanded with better transport facilities and urbanization, the demand for labor increased. Indeed, as viewed in the late 1860s, the only real obstacle to further growth in the agricultural economy was labor (McWilliams, 1976:152). The extreme importance of adequate and timely supplies of labor was accentuated by the sensitivity of crops to temperature variations (which could hasten or delay a harvest by several weeks) and by the economic vulnerability of many firms to the loss of all or a portion of their seasonal output. The uncertainties of weather and market price argued against the creation of stable and permanent employment of the labor necessary to work only two to five months out of the year. Equally important, the investment in sufficient numbers of skilled or, at least, permanent employees would make employers vulnerable to wage negotiation or strikes at harvest time.

While regional demands for labor were satisfied by using local labor pools through the 1860s, a regularized labor system began to take shape in the latter part of the decade. At root was the disemployment of large numbers of Chinese immigrant workers following the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1860 (London and Anderson, 1970:7–8). Though state and federal legislators helped to stimulate the movement of the Chinese into agricultural labor markets

through direct importation, another issue was also important in the creation of that labor pool: opposition among domestic white workers and unions to the potential use of the Chinese as replacement labor in the expanding factories and mines (McWilliams, 1971:67–109). The militance of both organized labor and urban merchants (who feared competition from Chinese entrepreneurs) helped close off alternative employment to fieldwork. Furthermore, the lack of political rights and the generally low status of the Chinese made them virtually incapable of mounting a sustained battle against either labor or agricultural capital. As early as 1854, the California Supreme Court ruled that Chinese immigrants would be restricted in their legal and political rights along with blacks and Indians (McWilliams, 1971:68). Thus, the Chinese formed the core of the first regularized supply of labor for agriculture.

The history of the Chinese labor force is important at several levels. First, the availability of Chinese labor facilitated the expansion of agricultural production. The large and relatively stable labor pool spurred investments in land improvement and increased plantings. As McWilliams notes, "The value of California farm land came to be capitalized, ultimately, upon the basis of actual and anticipated profits accruing from the extensive use of cheap labor." The amount of acreage under irrigation climbed steadily in the 1870s and 1880s as did the volume of fruits and vegetables marketed and sold to the canneries (Taylor and Vasey, 1936a , 1936b ). The expanding agricultural economy of the Southwest therefore came to bank heavily on the availability of Chinese labor.

Second, the vulnerable political and economic position of the Chinese workers served not only to limit their alternatives in employment but also to undermine their capacity to bargain over wages and working conditions. Backed by local police and merchants dependent on farm business, employers dictated the terms of employment to Chinese gangs and enforced the movement of workers from one production area to the next. Formal and informal committees of ranchers organized to formulate "acceptable" wage scales in order to prevent price competition in their own ranks (Fisher,

1953:chap. 5; McWilliams, 1971:74). These committees, in turn, became the foundation for later cooperative labor supply and union-busting efforts.

Third, low wages, unsanitary conditions, and migrancy combined with the already disadvantaged position of the Chinese to attach a low status to farm work in general. Farm work (particularly that of hired labor) had historically been viewed two ways in the United States: as a temporary station occupied by younger men trying to make a stake in order to purchase their own land, or a condition of servitude characterized by indentured labor and slavery. The Chinese farm worker was mired between the two statuses: never openly referred to as a slave but never as highly valued socially as a hired hand on his way to becoming a farmer. Differences in language and custom further isolated the Chinese. Because the immigrants accepted the brutal conditions of employment out of need and powerlessness, growers and rural populations came to view their (i.e., the Chinese) migrancy and low living standards as a group trait rather than a condition of employment. Adaptive behavior became a symbol of the inner character of the workers themselves. Equally important, that negative connotation (along with the undesirable conditions of employment) served to discourage the influx of domestic workers who might have been able to demand an upgrading of conditions (McWilliams, 1971:76; London and Anderson, 1970:chap. 1).

The Southwest's growing agricultural economy thus was fueled by the creation of an abundant and politically ostracized supply of low-status labor. However, the actual construction of a labor system, that is, an organized system of labor recruitment and allocation, did not develop until the supply of Chinese workers became problematic.

The opening rounds in the battle over Chinese labor were fired as the giant railroad projects declined in the 1870s and Chinese workers began to spill into urban centers, especially San Francisco, and into the mining districts. Organized Anglo workers in the cities and mining districts confronted the dilemma of wage competition and undertook a campaign of harassment against the Chinese. The entrapment of citizen

workers in a contest with Chinese immigrants fueled union opposition to legal protections for aliens and contributed to the xenophobia and anti-black bias that characterized segments of the labor movement in other regions of the country (see Bonacich, 1976, analysis of the role of white labor unions in the curtailment of employment of black workers during the same period). In an effort to shore up their endangered labor market position, Anglo unions terrorized Chinese workers, struck businesses and mines employing the Chinese, and boycotted goods produced by the immigrants.

Unions were not alone in their opposition. Small manufacturers who were incapable of withstanding strikes and boycotts and who could not use Chinese labor as efficiently as larger firms joined the fight against the importation of Chinese immigrants (McWilliams, 1971:72–74; Majka and Majka, 1982:21–36). Employers in the service sector who found themselves in competition with Chinese entrepreneurs pressed for restrictions on the immigrants' entry into business. Urban politicians, in the name of civic betterment and labor peace, sought to appease unions and employers by removing Chinese settlers and prohibiting farm workers from "wintering" in the cities. Finally, small farmers who relied on little or no hired labor suffered from the deflated market prices for their crops resulting from the low cost of Chinese labor. The campaign of political pressure and harassment culminated with congressional action in 1882 to suspend Chinese immigration. It was followed by the Immigration Act of 1885, which prohibited the use of foreign contract labor (London and Anderson, 1970:8).

Though the tumult over Chinese labor created significant economic and political headaches for agriculture, the large employers and processors of agricultural goods were not bereft of resources or political support. Furthermore, while the Chinese experience demonstrated the vulnerability of agricultural enterprises to fluctuations in labor supply, it did not prompt a decrease in the scale of production units or in the intensity of production. Rather, the exclusion of the Chinese accentuated the importance of the large producers to the regional and national economies. Uncertainties in the

market for fruits and vegetables resulted in higher prices for consumers in the expanding urban markets. The sugar beet industry in the Southwest, which had already come to prominence for the national economy, appeared directly threatened by the collapse of the Chinese labor supply. The railroads, which had expanded broadly into the rural areas of California, banked heavily on the commissions they charged for transportation and crop brokering and on the inflated value of land they had acquired as right-of-way.

Faced with the potential for considerable growth in an expanding economy yet limited by the curbs of Chinese immigration, large employers, processors, and their financial backers sought to replace the laissez-faire politics of labor supply with a more systematic approach to creating and maintaining adequate sources of labor. Labor recruitment organizations, which had previously been regional in character, began to make linkages across production areas and crops (Chambers, 1952). Statewide conventions of growers met to discuss state and federal legislative strategies (Fisher, 1953:103–105). State and local political action committees were formed and funded by membership dues and contributions from the financially powerful canneries, refineries, railroads, and banks (Chamber, 1952).

While the Chinese experience demonstrated the vulnerability of agricultural enterprises to fluctuations in labor supply, it did not promote a decrease in the scale of production units or in the intensity of production. As suggested above, the exclusion of the Chinese instead accentuated the importance of the large producers to the economy of the Southwest. As the furor over Chinese labor slowly subsided, consortia of large farmers, canners, and refiners (particularly in the rapidly expanding sugar beet industry) sought successfully to open up other labor pools (McWilliams, 1971:105–110). Capitalizing on the economic potential of the domestic sugar market (protected by high tariffs) and the already high level of concentration in the industry, refiners and growers persuaded Congress to sanction the importation of Japanese and Mexican workers (McWilliams, 1971:105–110). By 1910, over 70,000 Japanese and nearly 100,000 Mexican workers were

weeding and harvesting southwestern crops (McWilliams, 1971:106).

With frequently successful efforts on the part of Japanese workers to bargain over wages and to acquire their own land, employers focused their energies on establishing a more durable labor system built around Mexican nationals (McWilliams, 1971:110–116). Acquiring Mexican labor had never been a problem for growers: poorly fed peasants and refugees from the battles of the Mexican Revolution streamed across the border in large numbers (see Gamio, 1930). But to simultaneously insulate the labor supply (i.e., restrict its employment to agriculture) and prevent it from becoming a political and economic burden on local communities, external supervision of the labor force was needed. Thus, in 1926 a grower spokesman in Washington, D.C., urged Congress to "get us Mexicans and keep them out of our schools and out of our social problems" (cited in McWilliams, 125). Congress responded by lifting sanctions on the influx of Mexican workers and gave local communities the right to refuse relief to unemployed Mexican migrants (London and Anderson, 1970:28).

At the same time that lobbying efforts at the federal level were bearing fruit, employers expanded and intensified their organization at the state and local levels. In the period of the 1920s and 1930s, powerful employer associations emerged in the Southwest. Among the most influential were the Agricultural Producers Labor Committee, the Western Growers Protective Association (of which most lettuce firms were members), the San Joaquin Valley Labor Bureau, and the Associated Farmers (McWilliams, 1971:188–95; Fisher, 1953:103–118; and Glass, 1966). With overlapping memberships, these organizations enrolled the majority of large agricultural producers in the Southwest.

Though some of these organizations, like the Western Growers, ostensibly sought to regulate marketing procedures, their primary focus was on regulating labor. For example, the Associated Farmers grew out of a collaborative effort of the California Farm Bureau Federation and the state Chamber of Commerce to deal specifically with labor issues

(McWilliams, 1971:231). In that regard, they served two major purposes: controlling the supply of labor and prohibiting the entry of unions. Labor supply functions were handled through regional employment centers that generated employer estimates of demand, recruited labor from Mexico, and distributed the workers among firms. Employer organizations also provided staunch and unified opposition to the encroachment of trade unions in the fields. By decrying the "red menace" of communist and socialist unions (e.g., the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packinghouse and Allied Workers, and the Industrial Workers of the World) and declaring their defense of the free farming enterprise, the Associated Farmers, Western Growers, and others marshaled support for continued labor importation and opposition to unionization. Though farm worker organizations occasionally succeeded in winning wage increases, most of their gains were temporary (Jamieson, 1945; Galarza, 1964, 1971; Weiner, 1978; Jenkins and Perrow, 1977; Majka and Majka, 1982).