Monday, July 11, 2022

BACK FORTY - FIELD LESSONS

BACK FORTY - FIELD LESSONS

Photoessay by David Bacon

Food and Environment Reporting Network - The Back Forty

https://thefern.org/blog_posts/back-forty-field-lessons/

 

 

Santa Maria, CA - 5/18/22 - Snow peas are a rare crop among the miles of Santa Maria fields devoted to broccoli and lettuce.  Each of these crops demands from growers a unique cycle and system for planting and cultivation, but for workers the labor makes a constant demand - speed.  Almost all crops are harvested on the piece rate, and to make any money a woman or man must work so fast that the movement of hands becomes a blur.

 

Not long ago I pulled my car to the side of the highway when I saw a crew almost hidden in tall rows of vines.  It was a small group, working for a small grower, Bautista Farms, harvesting snow peas.  

 

Read the rest of this story at the Food and Environmental Reporting Network.  https://thefern.org/blog_posts/back-forty-field-lessons/

 



SANTA MARIA, CA - 18MAY22 - Enrique Acuña works in a crew of Mexican immigrants picking snow peas for Bautista Farms.

 



Ivan Gallardo reaches into the vine to grab snow peas.

 



Ivan Gallardo has his cellphone by his ear under his hood, and laughs as he hears a joke told by a member of his family in Mexico.

 



Ivan Gallardo's hands have to work fast, grabbing a bunch of peas at a time, without damaging them.

 



The expression on the face of Pedro Gallardo, Ivan's cousin, reveals the concentration it takes to do this work.

 



Pedro Gallardo's bucket is almost full, as it hangs from his belt while he picks.

 



His bucket full, Pedro Gallardo slings it over his shoulder and carries it down the row to the weighing station.

 



Pedro Gallardo passes his cousin Ivan, who is still picking, as he carries his full bucket down the row.

 



Pedro Gallardo empties his bucket into a bin so that it can be weighed.

 



Sofia, a picker in the crew, stops for a moment with her full bucket.

 



Sofia manhandles the bin she's filled so that it can be weighed. 

 



Alberto Vasquez, a young worker, empties his bucket into a bin.

 



Berto Bautista, owner of Bautista Farms, puts a bin of snow peas onto the scale to be weighed.  Workers are paid by amount they pick, measured by weight.

 



After weighing a bin, Berto Bautista carries it to the truck for sorting.

 



Jorge Ariza sorts and checks the harvested snow peas.  He fills shallow boxes that won't crush or damage them, which are then stacked onto the truck taking them from the field.


Wednesday, July 6, 2022

SHOULD L.A. GET A NEW DEAL FROM ITS POWERHOUSE PORTS?

SHOULD L.A. GET A NEW DEAL FROM ITS POWERHOUSE PORTS?
By David Bacon
Capital & Main, 7/6/22
https://capitalandmain.com/

 
At the peak of last year's supply chain crisis, the typically invisible operations of the nation's ports came under a glaring media spotlight. But with the focus on consumer frustration, little attention was paid to whether massive public investment in the ports was producing commensurate benefits to the public.

A report released last week raises a host of questions about the country's largest port complex - the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Produced by the Economic Roundtable, a nonprofit research group, "Someone Else's Ocean" looks at the role of the ports and the overall labor force, the California economy and the public benefits that the ports are required to provide under law. The report was funded by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which is currently negotiating a contract with the Pacific Maritime Association, an employer organization representing the companies that run the shipping lines and operate the cargo terminals in all U.S. mainland ports on the Pacific Coast. The last contract between the union and the companies, negotiated in 2015 and extended in 2019, expired on July 1, creating a big pile of issues that dockworkers want resolved. One of the thorniest is the impact of automation on the docks, especially sharp in Los Angeles and Long Beach where two terminals have already been automated.  

Capital & Main spoke with Daniel Flaming, president of the Economic Roundtable, about the outsize impact of the ports and the effort to protect the interests of adjacent communities. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.



Capital & Main: The report says that three international shipping alliances control 83% of container movements around the world. It sounds like longshore workers are David facing a global Goliath.

Daniel Flaming: These aren't mom and pop operations doing stevedore work. These are under the control of companies in Asia and in Europe. They've been exempted from antitrust law in Europe, so they're able to set shipping fees collaboratively rather than engage in competition.  They juggle cargo between ships of different lines and coordinate schedules. In effect, they're able to operate as a gigantic single company to their own great profit. So it's very difficult for a small group of workers to negotiate their survival and favorable employment terms with these giants.

The State of California grants the ports the right to use the land for the benefit of California residents. But in reality shipping is controlled by three global conglomerates that also own most of the terminals in the ports. So the ports wind up serving the interests of foreign manufacturers and foreign shippers rather than California residents.

Capital & Main: The report says dockworkers in San Pedro Bay earn an average hourly wage of $62.44. What impact does this high level wage have on local communities in the San Pedro and Los Angeles area?

Daniel Flaming: It has a powerful, multiplier effect. It enables the workers themselves to be homeowners in many cases, rather than precariously housed. In Los Angeles, as well as the Bay Area, that's not a trivial matter. And in the San Pedro area, the immediate area around the ports, the buying power of dockworkers accounts for about 34% of consumption by the community - restaurants, doctors, grocery stores, hardware stores. That makes ILWU members an important economic force in the community.

Capital & Main: Yet the report also states that union longshore workers are making $89,560 a year, while workers in local communities overall are making $34,345, which is an enormous difference. Doesn't this make longshoremen an island of high wages in a sea of low wages? What should the union do about this?

Daniel Flaming: Nearly three quarters of shipping containers leave the port empty. They come in full, and go out empty. Those outgoing empty containers could be filled with goods we might make, including high tech products. So in terms of the relationship between higher wage dock workers and the lower wage workers who are their neighbors, part of what we recommend is that the port should support durable manufacturing industries - export industries.

In addition, the truckers who come in and out of the ports make up the biggest body of workers whose jobs are linked to the docks. They work very long hours for a little over minimum wage. Yet the ports are a capital-intensive environment, which means a lot of money is invested in equipment and in cargo, and the ports are publicly owned. People who work there should earn a decent living. The port truckers should earn at least the prevailing wage for construction truck drivers.  

Capital & Main: There's a long history of efforts by port truckers to organize themselves in various ways. The ILWU also has an historic organizing strategy called The March Inland - the idea of organizing the workers who handle the goods as they move off the docks. Would supporting those efforts be one way of trying to attack this differential in income?

Daniel Flaming: Absolutely. On the one hand you have truly gigantic foreign global shipping interests, and on the about 8,000 registered longshore workers labor on the docks in LA - 13,000 if you add in the casuals [workers who get jobs on a daily basis in the hiring hall, but who are not yet registered - ed.]. Longshore workers a small force in the face of these shipping giants. This situation really calls for labor solidarity in the ports.

In addition to the truckers, railroad workers are also having a miserable time of it. The trains are understaffed and the equipment sometimes is in poor repair. Construction workers are on the docks making improvements. Then inland there are the blue-collar manufacturing workers.

Capital & Main: One of the hardest-fought issues in negotiations between longshore workers and the shipping companies is the automation of the docks. Can you detail the job losses that have been cost by automation in Long Beach and Los Angeles?

Daniel Flaming: There are two automated terminals in the ports, one in Long Beach, one in Los Angeles. The automation began at both in 2012 and was completed in 2015. In Los Angeles the terminal is called TraPac, which stands for Trans-Pacific Container Corporation. That terminal received a public subsidy of 40% of the cost of automating operations, which is not legal. The terminal's lease was negotiated and afterwards the port paid for the cost of automation without raising the lease rate. In Long Beach they took two outdated terminals, filled in the ocean between them, and created one much larger automated terminal.

We estimated that 582 jobs were lost at these two terminals - jobs that would have existed if they hadn't automated. If automation spreads to more terminals, those losses will be much larger.

Capital & Main: Presumably this is what terminal operators want - to eliminate jobs as a way of eliminating costs, right?

Daniel Flaming: Well, automation is very expensive. It was a billion and a half dollars to automate the Long Beach container terminal, and close to $700 million to automate TraPac. One governmental body, the International Transportation Forum made up of 34 countries, says there's a 7% to 12% loss in productivity at the automated terminals because they lack a steady rhythm of cargo movement. What automation does offer the shippers is that they don't have to deal with dockworkers and they don't have to deal with the union. A foreign manufacturer can have straight throughput to their consumers in this country without having to deal with American labor.

Capital & Main: What could the ILWU propose in negotiations that would put a break on job losses?

Daniel Flaming: Their existing agreements call for maintaining the labor force, but our report shows, in fact, that jobs have been destroyed. That's an issue they can take to the bargaining table. They can also act through city government and state government to preserve jobs. The argument we make is that there is no local benefit from automation. It eliminates jobs. The equipment is made in China or Germany. If there are profits, they go to Europe or Asia. Local communities pay a high cost through the impacts of all the truck and rail movements. There are lots of diesel emissions, which are a health risk, as well as noise and uncompensated road wear. Local communities simply lose through automation.

Capital & Main: Do the port commissions also have the ability to determine how much automation is going to take place?

Daniel Flaming: The terminals are publicly owned, so reconfiguring the equipment or infrastructure requires port commission approval. So the commissions do have the ability to say, "No, we don't want that done to our property."

Capital & Main: Couldn't the shippers just move cargo operations to other ports if Los Angeles tries to put the brakes on automation?

Daniel Flaming: About 35% of what comes in through the port is consumed in what they call the local region, basically the sprawling Southern California area. So this is the consumption center for cargo. The ports that are raised most often as competition are in British Columbia. It just baffles me how you could unload containers in British Columbia, get them across the Puget Sound and truck them or send them here by rail. The infrastructure doesn't exist to do that. It takes billions of dollars in infrastructure to move cargo out of the Los Angeles ports, and you just can't replicate that overnight somewhere else.

Capital & Main: At one point, there was some thought that ports in Mexico might go into competition with Southern California ports.

Daniel Flaming: That was the story before the British Columbia story. It's the same issue of infrastructure. The San Pedro Bay ports are populated with scores of huge container cranes, and rail and truck facilities. It would take many billions of dollars to replicate that. Then you would have to transport the goods across the border into this region. This is rhetorical saber rattling, and it's used to intimidate ports to make them compliant.

Capital & Main: What could the ports do to encourage more manufacturing here and more exports?

Daniel Flaming: There was a very large public investment in what's called the Alameda corridor - a subterranean freight line that moves cargo out of the ports. It runs through Los Angeles's Rust Belt, the area where we used to have tire factories, steel factories and automobile assembly plants. No one asked, "Could we connect this line to these large manufacturing sites the trains are running past?" The ports have enormous locational advantages. They can simplify inventory operations, they can reduce touch points moving cargo, they can make things move more quickly, they can give discount rates to exports. We recommend that the ports talk individually to durable manufacturing industries and listen to their needs.

Capital & Main: You also suggest that if it became more expensive to export - if there were a surcharge, for instance, placed on empty containers leaving the port - that also might encourage shippers to fill those containers up with something. Presumably that something might be products manufactured in Los Angeles.

Daniel Flaming: Or California. Right now the port of Los Angeles discounts [fees on] containers if they're empty. We're subsidizing the shippers sending empty containers. The port of Long Beach has a discount for exports, but because most outgoing containers are empty it's not doing much good.  The ports could rethink the rate structure so that it benefits the broader economic fabric of California, rather than simply meshing with the import needs of these big shippers. Ports are treated as a business extension of the shippers, but they are obligated to act on behalf of California residents.

Capital & Main: What could happen in the negotiations of the contract between the ILWU and the PMA that would have an impact on the development of more local manufacturing,? Could political action by the ILWU affect how the port commission might encourage the more local manufacturing and more exports?

Daniel Flaming: It may not happen through the contract negotiations, but it could happen through decisions by the City of Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach. People pay taxes, robots don't. There ought to be taxes on automated equipment that are like an impact fee if you destroy jobs.  It's putting a thumb on the right side of the scale. There are hundreds of thousands of manufacturing establishments in the greater LA area, and for some that will make the difference. It could begin to strengthen rather than diminish our export activity.

Capital & Main: Agricultural products are also a large percentage of exports, and the ILWU has traditionally supported agricultural workers in the United Farm Workers Union. The movement of farm products across the docks has given the union the ability to action at various times to support union strikes and boycotts. California's largest agricultural export, I believe, is almonds, and the largest exporter is The Wonderful Company, owned by Stewart Resnick, a well-known Southern California figure. Workers in the almond industry, particularly at Wonderful, have tried to organize themselves in the past. The ILWU sits in a very strategic position in relation to those efforts, because this enormous amount of product from this this one company is passing right across the LA docks.

Daniel Flaming: Agricultural exports, in fact, have been one of the few areas where we've had growth in exports.  When you export almonds, you're also exporting California water.  Water is in scarce in our state, and growing an almond takes a large amount of it. So another possible set of alliances is with environmental groups, around issues such as water consumption in the central valley, and also around cleaner trucks and fewer emissions as trucks travel 50 miles east to warehouses, and then truck the same stuff back to wealthy communities to deliver it to homes.

Capital & Main: What are the costs of running the ports that the shippers are not paying for, and that the public does?

Daniel Flaming: The picture to keep in mind is of congested freeways and big trucks. The biggest costs are from accidents, and from uncompensated road wear that the fuel taxes and the license fees don't cover. There are costs to residences from noise.  There are health costs from the emissions that in the immediate port area create a higher risk of cancer. And there are also global costs from greenhouse gases and from climate change.

Capital & Main: Is the ILWU therefore representing the interests of the broader community in the face of these costs, when it's sitting down with the Pacific Maritime Association?

Daniel Flaming: The union is saying, "We need to look at the big picture, not the little picture. We are part of a community, and we need to think about the wellbeing of that community."

Sunday, June 26, 2022

MIGRANT JUSTICE MEANS FACING ROOT CAUSES

MIGRANT JUSTICE MEANS FACING ROOT CAUSES
By David Bacon,
Truthout, 6/23/22
https://truthout.org/articles/migrant-justice-means-facing-root-causes-and-building-cross-border-solidarity/

MEXICO CITY - 10/2/14 - Students  and workers march from the Plaza of Three Cultures (Tlatelolco) to conmemorate the massacre of hundreds of students by the army in 1968.  Some marchers also were farmers who held corn and machetes to protest the impact of free trade agreements.



At the end of the just-concluded Summit of (some of) the Americas, President Joe Biden announced a “Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection,” claiming that participant countries are “transforming our approach to managing migration in the Americas … [recognizing] the responsibility that impacts on all of our nations.”

Recognizing that the U.S. has some responsibility for addressing the causes of migration is important. But President Biden stopped well short of acknowledging the U.S.’s two centuries of intervention in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, which lies at the root.

Biden pledged $300 million to help U.S. “partners in the region continue to welcome refugees and migrants” augmented by further World Bank loans. World Bank loans are often tied to demands for austerity and reforms to attract corporate investment, and therefore themselves are a cause of poverty and displacement. Aid and loans will not stop the flow of migrants because dealing with the root causes of migration requires fundamental, structural change in the relationship between the U.S. and Latin America.

When we go to the border and listen to people in the migrant camps, or talk with the families here who have members in immigration detention centers, we hear the living experiences of people who have had no alternative to leaving home. Escaping violence, war and poverty, they now find themselves imprisoned, and we have to ask, who is responsible? Where did the violence and poverty come from that forced people to leave home, to cross our border with Mexico, and then to be picked up and incarcerated here?

Overwhelmingly, it has come from the actions of the government of this country, and the wealthy elites it has defended.

It came from two centuries of colonialism, from the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, when this government said that it had the right to do as it wanted in all of the countries of Latin America. It came from the wars that turned Puerto Rico and the Philippines into direct colonies over a century ago.

It came from more wars and interventions fought to keep in power those who would willingly ensure the wealth and profits of U.S. corporations, and the misery and poverty of the vast majority of their own countries.

Smedley Butler, a decorated Marine Corp general, told the truth about what he did a century ago, writing, “I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism…. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.”

When people in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Haiti tried to change this injustice, the U.S. armed right-wing governments that made war on their own people. Sergio Sosa, a social activist during Guatemala’s civil war who now heads a workers’ center in Omaha, Nebraska, told me simply, “You sent the guns, and we buried the dead.”

Over 1 million people left El Salvador in the 1980s and an estimated half million crossed the border to the U.S. at that time. How many more hundreds of thousands crossed from Guatemala? How many more after the U.S. helped overthrow Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti? How many from Honduras after Manuel Zelaya was forced from office in 2009, and U.S. officials said nothing while sending arms to the army that used them against Honduran people?

Since 1994, 8 million Mexicans have come as migrants to work in the U.S. In 1990, 4.5 million Mexican migrants lived in the U.S. In 2008, the number peaked at 12.67 million. About 5.7 million were able to get some kind of visa; another 7 million couldn’t but came nevertheless. Almost 10 percent of the people of Mexico live in the U.S.

The poverty that forced 3 million corn farmers, many of them Indigenous, from Mexico to come here was a product of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), making it impossible for them to grow the maize they domesticated and gave to the world. Archer-Daniels-Midland and Continental Grain Company used NAFTA’s stolen inheritance from Indigenous Oaxacans to take over the Mexican corn market. One of the most important movements in Mexico today is for the right to stay home, the right to an alternative.

What has produced migration from rural parts of Mexico is the same thing that closed factories in the U.S: Green Giant closed its broccoli freezer in Watsonville, California, and 1,000 immigrant Mexican workers lost their jobs when it moved to Irapuato in central Mexico, where the company could pay lower wages.

In a Tijuana factory assembling flat panel televisions for export to the U.S., a woman on the line has to labor for half a day to buy a gallon of milk for her children. Maquiladora workers live in homes made from pallets and other materials cast off by the factories, in barrios with no sewers, running water or electrical lines.

Because our two economies are linked, Mexico suffers when the U.S. economy takes a dive. When recessions hit the U.S., customers stop buying the products made in the maquiladoras, and hundreds of thousands of workers lose their jobs. Where do they go?

When the U.S. sought to impose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) on El Salvador in 2004, then-U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich told Salvadorans that if they elected a government that wouldn’t go along with CAFTA, the U.S. would cut off the remittances sent by Salvadorans in the U.S. back to their families at home.

Young people, brought from El Salvador as children, joined gangs in Los Angeles so they could survive in the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods. Then they were arrested and deported back to El Salvador, and the gang culture of L.A. took root there, with the drug trade sending cocaine and heroin back to the U.S. barrios and working-class neighborhoods here.

When people arrive at the U.S. border, they are treated as criminals. John Kelly, the dishonest general who advised Donald Trump in the White House, called migration “a crime-terror convergence.”

Yet people coming to the U.S. are part of the labor force that puts vegetables and fruit on the table, cleans the office buildings, and empties the bedpans and takes care of people here when they get old and sick. Turning people into criminals and passing laws saying people can’t work legally makes people vulnerable and forces them into the lowest wages in our economy.

To employers, migration is a labor supply system, and for them it works well because they don’t have to pay for what the system really costs, either in Mexico or in the U.S. Trade policy and immigration policy are inextricably bound up with each other. They’re part of the same system.

NAFTA didn’t just displace Mexicans. It displaced people in the U.S., too. In the last few decades Detroit lost 40 percent of its population as the auto industry left. Today many Ford parts come from Mexico. But the working families who lost those outsourced jobs didn’t disappear. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people began an internal migration within the U.S. larger than the dustbowl displacement of the 1930s.

Knowing where the violence and poverty are coming from, and who is benefitting from this system, is one step toward ending it. But we also have to know what we want in its place. What is our alternative to detention centers and imprisonment? To the hundreds of people who still die at the border every year?

The migrant justice movement has had alternative proposals for many years. One was called the Dignity Campaign. The American Friends Service Committee proposed A New Path. What we want isn’t hard to imagine.

We want an end to mass detention and deportations, and the closing of the detention centers. The militarization of the border has to be reversed, so that it becomes a region of solidarity and friendship between people on both sides. Working should not be a crime for those without papers. Instead, people need real visas that allow them to travel and work, and the right to claim Social Security benefits for the contributions they’ve made over years of labor.

But we also want to deal with the root causes of migration.

U.S. auto companies employ more workers in Mexico now than in the U.S. Every flat-panel TV sold here is made in Mexico or another country. While the workers at General Motors’ Silao factory in Guanajuato, Mexico, recently voted courageously for an independent union and negotiated a new contract with important wage gains, a worker in that factory still earns less in a whole day than a U.S. autoworker earns in an hour.

Decades of trade agreements and economic reforms have created that difference and forced people into poverty. For many, that makes migration involuntary, the only means to survive. We need hearings in Congress that face that history squarely — its impact on both sides of the border.

We have a long history of solidarity with progressive Mexican unions in our own labor movement. That’s a big part of the answer to the problems of NAFTA and free trade that we’ve always advocated. Our unions on each side need to support each other, so that we can lift up workers regardless of the location of their factories.

We also want an end to military intervention, to military aid to right-wing governments, and to U.S. support for the repression of the movements fighting for change.

U.S. companies have been investing in Mexico since the late 1800s. They are not simply going to abandon their investment in Mexico, and the U.S. government is not going to abandon its effort to control the Mexican economy because wages rise. The key elements in how we fight against what this means for workers on both sides of the border is unity and coordinated action.

In both countries copper miners have been on strike against the Mexican conglomerate Grupo Mexico in the last decade. Their unions see solidarity as the answer. So do the United Electrical Workers and the Frente Auténtico del Trabajo, and my union, Communications Workers of America, with the Sindicato de Telefonistas de la República Mexicana, and others.

If you think this isn’t possible or just a dream, remember that a decade after Emmett Till was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, the U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. (That same year, Congress put the family preference immigration system into law — the only pro-immigrant legislation we’ve had for 100 years.)

That was no gift. A civil rights movement made Congress pass that law. When that law was passed we had no detention centers like the ones that imprison migrants today. There were no walls on our border with Mexico, and no one died crossing it. There is nothing permanent or unchangeable about these institutions of oppression. We have changed our world before, and a people’s movement can do it again.

Thursday, June 23, 2022

REVIVING THE BRACERO PROGRAM IS THE WRONG ANSWER FOR WORKERS

REVIVING THE BRACERO PROGRAM IS THE WRONG ANSWER FOR WORKERS
By David Bacon
The Nation, 6/23/22
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bracero-h-2a-farmworkers-immigration/

Farm workers and their supporters march in August 2019 to protest the H2-A guestworker program and the death of Honesto Silva, on the anniversary of his death two years earlier. (photo: David Bacon)


Ninety-six years ago, J.W. Guiberson, a San Joaquin Valley cotton grower, explained a primary goal of the country's biggest agricultural interests. "The class of labor we want," he said, "is the kind we can send home when we get through with them."

For 22 years, during the era of the bracero program (1942-64), growers had exactly what Guiberson wanted. According to immigrant rights pioneer Bert Corona, braceros were brought from Mexico "to serve as cheap labor and to be used against the organized labor movement in the fields and the cities." Growers brought hundreds of thousands of contract laborers from Mexico every year-until Cesar Chavez, Ernesto Galarza, Larry Itliong, Dolores Huerta, and others activists organized to halt the program at the height of the civil rights movement.

More than half a century later, however, little has changed. Not only is the bracero program not dead; President Biden wants to use its modern iteration to channel migration from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. At the Summit of [some of] the Americas in Los Angeles earlier this month, Biden warned the hundreds of thousands who cross the border with Mexico every year: "We need to halt the dangerous and unlawful ways people are migrating.... Unlawful migration is not acceptable."

Biden's plan: "to help American farmers bring in seasonal agricultural workers from northern Central America[n] countries under the H-2A visa program to improve conditions for all workers."

The idea, however, that this modern-day bracero program will improve conditions for workers was contradicted by Biden's own Labor Department. In November 2021 the US Attorney in Georgia filed a case against 24 growers and labor contractors for abusing H-2A workers. The complaint included two deaths, rape, kidnapping, threatening workers with guns, and growers selling workers to each other as though they were property.

For decades the H-2A program has abused migrants, pitting them against workers in the United States in a vicious system to keep wages low and grower profits high. Its record includes several deaths. In 2007, when Santiago Rafael Cruz was sent by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee to fight corruption in H-2A recruitment in Mexico, he was tortured and murdered in his office, undoubtedly by recruiters. His murderers were never caught. In 2018 Honesto Silva, an H-2A worker, died in a Washington State field as he labored in extreme temperatures, unable to refuse a foreman's demand that he continue working. When his coworkers protested, they were deported-the fate that hangs over all H-2A workers who assert their rights.

In a nationwide rash of Covid deaths among these euphemistically called "guest" workers, two died at the Gebbers Farm in eastern Washington last year-Juan Carlos Santiago Rincon from Mexico and Earl Edwards from Jamaica. They were victims of crowded barracks that spread the virus. Growers, however, successfully lobbied the state to continue housing workers in rooms with bunkbeds, where they were unable to socially distance.

To fend off challenges that the administration is pumping new workers into a program with a record of abuse, the administration promises "guidelines on recruitment." These will be drafted in cooperation with Walmart, "which notes the importance of H-2A migrant workers to US agriculture and that the fair recruitment guidance aligns with the company's own expectations around responsible recruitment. [from a White House Fact Sheet]."

In reality, enforcement of criminally weak protections for H-2A workers is virtually nonexistent. In 2019 the Department of Labor punished only 25 of the 11,000 growers and labor contractors using the program. Last year, growers were certified to bring in 317,619 H-2A workers. That is over 13 percent of the farm workforce in the United States-and a number that has doubled in just five years, and tripled in eight. In states like Georgia and Washington, this program will fill the majority of farm labor jobs in the next year or two. There is no way this program can grow at this rate without forcing from their jobs the farmworkers who already live in the US, over 90 percent of whom are immigrants themselves. In fact, a long string of legal cases documents the supposedly illegal displacement.

During the summit debates, another caravan of migrants from Central America moved through Mexico, dramatically underscoring the reality that migration is a fact of economic life, and will not soon stop. It is a legacy of colonialism, and now empire.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, for instance, allowed Archer Daniels Midland and Walmart to profit by taking over Mexico's market in corn and other goods. Three million corn farmers in southern Mexico became displaced migrants as a result.

Political intervention reinforces this inequality. Honduran President Miguel Zelaya was ousted and flown out of the country after he proposed mild reforms, like raising the minimum wage. The United States was involved, Hondurans charged. It's no wonder that Xiomara Castro, newly elected Honduran president and Zelaya's wife, declined to come to Los Angeles to talk about the waves of migrants that left her country in the coup's aftermath. Haiti's former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, twice elected and twice deposed (once flown out of the country in a US plane) was not in Los Angeles either. Meanwhile, this administration has put over 20,000 desperate Haitians on planes back to Haiti in forced "repatriations." Now US economic warfare will produce even more migration from the countries excluded from the summit.

Yet thousands of immigrants, settled into communities across the United States, have become active partisans of social and economic change. We celebrate May Day now because huge immigrant marches in 2006 rescued the holiday from its Cold War deep freeze. Many unions are growing after making alliances with this immigrant worker upsurge. And when the pandemic made labor dangerous in lettuce fields and meatpacking plants, Mexican immigrants went to work despite their fears.

Displacing them now is bitter thanks. Growers argue they need H-2A recruitment because they face a shortage of farmworkers, yet resist desperately the obvious step of raising wages for families whose income currently averages less than $25,000 per year. The H-2A program's supposed wage floor, the "Adverse Effect Wage Rate," actually functions as a ceiling on farmworker wages. If local workers demand more, they risk replacement.

Ramon Torres, president of Washington State's new union for farmworkers, Familias Unidas por la Justicia, asks, "Who do growers think was harvesting their fruit all those years before H2-A? They've displaced many local people in Yakima who used to work in the apple harvest. But their longtime workers are still here, and would come back, especially if the wages are good and there's a union."

The UFW said it was proud to be included in the administration plan "to improve H-2A worker protections in response to vigorous advocacy by the UFW and others," according to president Teresa Romero. "The UFW fights for every worker, union or non-union, regardless of immigration status-including the H-2A workers currently protected by UFW contracts.... The best way to improve conditions is by covering farm workers under union contracts through bona fide unions such as the UFW, FLOC, and Familias Unidas."

Some farmworker unions, like Familias Unidas, call for ending the H-2A program entirely, while at the same time helping workers currently on H-2A visas when they go on strike or protest bad conditions. The union won its first contract at Sakuma Farms, in part, by defeating the company's effort to replace striking members with H-2A workers. To the UFW's Romero, however, "there is no realistic expectation Congress will end the H-2A program. But reducing H-2A worker abuses through efforts like this pilot program will also raise standards for domestic workers."

All farmworker unions agree that US farmworkers need higher wages and organizing rights. Today migrant pickers still sleep in cars during the grape harvest, just as they did when Depression-era photographers took pictures of migrant camps. The 1965 Delano grape strike and the organizing drives of the '60s and '70s started to attack that poverty. Ending the bracero program was as necessary to winning that fight as ending the H-2A program is to ending farmworker poverty today.

Mexico's President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador campaigned for office by promising Mexicans he'd defend their right to stay home, to not migrate. In his inaugural speech he praised the 24 million Mexicans living in the United States for sending $30 billion a year home to their families, calling them victims of failed neoliberal economic policies. "We will put aside the neoliberal hypocrisy," he promised. "Those born poor will not be condemned to die poor.... We want migration to be optional, not mandatory, [to make Mexicans] happy where they were born, where their family members, their customs and their cultures are."

Yet recently the Mexican government also seems to be buying the labor scarcity story. In February of 2021 President Lopez Obrador announced that he would propose a work visa program to recruit 600,000-800,000 migrants annually from Mexico and Central America to work in the US. "We can regulate and order the flow of migration, because the workforce is needed," he said in September. While he refused to attend the summit, he will meet Biden in July, bringing with him proposals for restructuring migration from Mexico.

Evy Peña, communications director for the Centro de los Derechos de Migrantes, pointed out that AMLO's position is contradictory. "One the one hand, he said he would push for a model based on human rights. On the other, he mentioned the bracero program," she wrote in an editorial for Mexico's Reforma.

If the Mexican government wants to protect the human rights of migrants, the H-2A visa program is not the solution. An H-2A visa ties migrants to their employers and employment status. Growers recruit them and send them home when the harvest is done-or if they go on strike or protest against mistreatment. Instead, migrants need visas that give them the ability to bring families and belong to the communities around them, that recognize their labor rights, and that provide the benefits their wage deductions pay for, especially Social Security. Visas with rights are much more like the normal residence visa.

Biden and Lopez Obrador both claim concern for the Mexicans already living in the United States, especially the 2 million workers whose labor makes US agriculture possible. Over half, according to the Department of Agriculture, lack legal immigration status. While comprehensive immigration reform bills, with their tortuous paths to legal status and heavy enforcement provisions, have failed repeatedly, many immigrant rights campaigners propose a simpler solution. They advocate changing the so-called "registry date," which refers to the date of arrival in the US. Undocumented people who have arrived before this date can apply for legal status. If the current date of January 1, 1972, were advanced to the present date, all people without papers would be able to apply.

A bill to abolish the H-2A program and put in place a system providing residence visas to work-seekers, combined with changing the registry date, would need congressional action to modify the 1929 Registry Act. But Democrats still control Congress, and the proposal's simplicity makes it a better vehicle for campaigning than an expanded bracero program.

Those who doubt its political viability might recall that the civil rights movement didn't just end the bracero program. It won a better immigration system that didn't funnel cheap labor to growers but instead gave immigrants residence visas, encouraged family reunification, and ended racial preferences that discriminated against immigrants of color. Ending the bracero program set the stage for the great grape strike and the creation of modern unions for farmworkers.

That solution is as valid today as it was 60 years ago.

Thursday, June 2, 2022

A PHOTOJOURNALIST'S LENS ON "MORE THAN A WALL"

A PHOTOJOURNALIST'S LENS ON "MORE THAN A WALL"
By Gabriel Thompson
Capital & Main, 6/1/22
https://capitalandmain.com/a-photojournalists-lens-on-more-than-a-wall

David Bacon spent three decades capturing the experiences of laborers, their treatment and where they came from.

Photojournalist David Bacon in front of the Reclusorio Norte prison in Mexico City. Photo by a bus driver on strike.  The bus union's leaders were in the Reclusorio, and Bacon went inside to interview them.

If you have seen photography that brings to life the faces of farm laborers working the fields or on strike from Baja California to Yakima, Washington, it may well have been the work of David Bacon.

For 30 years, Bacon has documented the struggles of farmworkers and migrant communities through photographs, articles and oral histories, with a particular focus on California and the U.S.-Mexico border.

His path toward journalism passed through activism. As a young child in Oakland, he was questioned by the FBI about his blacklisted radical-leftist father. He was later drawn to Berkeley's Free Speech Movement and got arrested for the first time when he was just 16, for taking part in a sit-in at Sproul Hall, which was then the main administrative building at the University of California at Berkeley.

During the 1970s, Bacon became a United Farm Workers organizer for about five years, a decision that profoundly affected the trajectory of his life. Later, he spent 20 years organizing factory and garment workers before becoming a photojournalist and writer to cover the world that he knew best - that of working people.

Bacon is now 74, and his award-winning work has been published widely - including in Capital & Main. He is the author of six books that chronicle labor, migration and the global economy. His most recent publication, in Spanish and English by El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in Tijuana, is entitled More Than a Wall/Más que un muro, the fruit of his three decades covering communities and social movements on both sides of the border.


Over the phone from his longtime workshop in East Oakland, Bacon spoke about his journey from organizer to journalist, the common threads of those two professions and what we miss when our entire vision of the border is limited to a wall.

Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.



Capital & Main: Can you talk a bit about your background?

David Bacon: I was born in New York City. My dad was a local union president within the United Office and Professional Workers of America, which was the CIO's union for white-collar workers. During the McCarthy era [in the early 1950s], the union was accused of being red and was thrown out of the [pre-AFL-] CIO and destroyed. After my dad was blacklisted, he found a job at the printing plant at the University of California. So when I was about 5, we moved to Oakland. In California, the FBI came around and tried to get him fired from his new job. One time when I was around 8, they even followed me home from school and tried to talk to me.

So, you grew up in a world of left-wing organizing?

I certainly knew what a picket line was and what a union was. My parents were radical. It was part of our culture. But it wasn't like my mom and dad sat me down at the dinner table and told me everything that had happened. They didn't talk about it a lot because they wanted us to be able to grow up without being afraid.

 
Tijuana, Baja California, 1996. Children of factory workers play in the street in front of their homes. Photos by David Bacon.

How did you get involved in the farmworker movement?

I started with the grape boycott, picketing Safeway and liquor stores. I began to wonder: Who are these people we are picketing for? I didn't know. I was a city kid, an Oakland boy. The Black Panthers had a medical clinic a block away from my apartment, and I volunteered at the pharmacy. I was familiar with the big racial divide in Oakland, which was between Black and white. I didn't know anything about Chicanos or Mexican people or immigration.

After picketing for a while, I joined the United Farm Workers in 1974. Eventually, I learned enough Spanish to be an organizer. My big teacher was Eliseo [Medina, a young farmworker who later became a UFW leader]. I had to learn about life in the fields, about the culture, about how the work was organized. Eliseo talked about building the revolution in the crew. You have to take a lettuce crew, say, in which the foreman is a dictator and the workers do what they're told, and turn it on its head so that the workers become the ones who are powerful and the foreman is the one who has to watch himself.

What particular moments with the UFW stand out?

I remember talking to date workers, palmeros [farmworkers who harvest dates]. We had this very exciting meeting. This was the era before cherry pickers, when palmeros had to climb ladders that are nailed to trees and are rickety as hell. You fall 40 feet, and that's it. They were fearless and proud and had already organized among themselves.

 
Oasis, California,1992. Workers climb ladders to harvest dates.

They said, "We don't want anybody telling us what to do." We said, "We're not here to tell anyone what to do. You run your own ranch committee, and you enforce your own contract." The next morning, I drove over to talk to the workers on the job. When I arrived, they were being loaded into a Border Patrol van. These proud workers were handcuffed and had their heads bowed down. I followed the van all the way to the detention center, and I remember standing outside the fence, not knowing what to do.

Another time, we had an election at a mushroom shed, and the morning of the election the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] threw up a roadblock on the way into the plant. You could see so clearly who benefited from immigration enforcement and who lost. That was a big lesson I've never forgotten. I've been an immigrant activist ever since.

How did you make the transition from being an organizer to a journalist?

After the farmworkers, I spent 20 years with different unions. I was usually the strike organizer, and I began taking pictures of our strikes. It was a good morale builder. We could pass photos out on the picket line and joke around, tell workers to show the photos to their grandkids 20 years from now. And I could give pictures to union newspapers and get some support. It was utilitarian.

In one of my last organizing jobs, we ran a strike at a big sweatshop in Pomona. We had 500 people from Mexico and Central America on strike, and you could feel with this strike and others, like the Justice for Janitors strikes, that there was an upsurge. The ground was shaking under our feet. By then, I was really into photography and decided I was going to document that strike from beginning to end. I carried my camera everywhere. At first, the workers thought it was a little strange [laughs].

 
Santa María Los Pinos, Baja California, 2015. The family of María Ortíz, a farm worker at Rancho Los Pinos. The workers in Los Pinos are almost all indigenous Mixtec and Triqui migrants from Oaxaca, in southern Mexico.

What was your first journalism project?

I did a photo project in Coachella in the early 1990s about the palmeros. When I started taking pictures and writing, what was I going to take pictures and write about? The stuff I already knew. I had spent a lot of time working at the border - Calexico, Tijuana, San Luis Río Colorado - so I got to know border communities enough to be really interested in them. What does the border mean to people who have to cross it every day? To people deported and shoved back through the fence? To people organizing in the maquiladoras [foreign-owned factories usually located along the border]?

How is your job as a journalist different from your previous one as an organizer?

It's a change in the way of going about things but not a change in the purpose or direction. The reason for doing this work is to help move the world forward. I write and take pictures of working people. That's a conscious decision, a political decision. It's a participatory kind of work - I'm a participant in what I'm documenting and not just parachuting in from outside.

When I started journalism, part of the reason was out of frustration. Although union organizing is very intense, you're only reaching the people who are right there with you. We live in an enormous country in which 80 or 90 percent of people have no experience with unions, and I felt that we weren't reaching enough people. Taking pictures and writing seemed to be a way of reaching larger numbers of people, with the idea being to change the way they think. Whether you're doing it in a house meeting or doing it through photographs, the end purpose is the same.

 
Tijuana, Baja California, 1998. Silvestre Rodríguez is a member of the executive committee of the independent union at the Korean-owned Han Young factory in Tijuana. Workers fought to organize an independent union at the plant.

One consistency in your journalism, dating back to the earliest days, is your exploration of the personal histories of workers to show how their previous experiences shaped where they are today.

One time, I met this older man who was part of an organizing drive of tangerine pickers. He had been involved in the land-reform fights in Baja California. They demanded the land of the hacienda [estate or plantation], and the hacendado [owner] had refused. So, they burned down the hacienda. Then the hacendado got his thugs to go after them, and this worker had to flee to the U.S. There he was, years later, working as a tangerine picker.

It made a big impression on me. I realized that people come to the U.S. with all of their political and social histories. When I record oral histories, I find out what happened to them in the places they are coming from, how they organized, their politics. I almost always end up asking: What is your idea of justice? What is a just world to you? Because it's not just the concrete experiences they've had; it's also the ideas that they bring with them. I have no patience for the kind of mainstream journalism in which [a reporter writes] about the concrete experiences of immigrants, and then they go off to some academic at a university and have it all interpreted. They ask the academic: "Tell us what it means." I think that's very demeaning to people. I'm interested in how people think, and what their ideas are and where their ideas come from.

Your new book is More Than a Wall. Why'd you choose that title?

The media is obsessed with the wall, which goes back to before Trump. This idea that all there is at the border is a wall, and all that happens is people try and cross it, with maybe some coverage of people dying in the desert. That's certainly part of the reality. But I know, based on having been involved in different social movements for a long time, especially on the other side of the border, that the border is a region with a very long and rich history of communities. It includes people fighting for social justice, people just trying to survive.

So, I'm trying to get people to see that the border region is more than a wall. What counts is not so much the separation - although we have to deal with that and the consequences of it - but that we share a common history. We have to look beyond the wall to see the people, their communities and their history.

 
Tijuana, Baja California, 1998. Members of Tijuana's special forces march beside the Han Young factory, as they prepare to illegally reopen the plant and bring in strikebreakers.

And yet the wall is also part of the border, and the first section of the book does focus on the wall.

It's ironic because of course on the cover of the book is a photograph of the wall. There's a man who has climbed up and is looking across to see where the Border Patrol is. Down below are his dog and a hole that has been dug. If nobody is around, he and his dog are going to crawl through the hole and make a run for it.

There's a Nahuatl legend that says that if you die, you go into the underworld and are guided by a dog. So, here we have this man who is going to be accompanied by his dog as he crawls under the wall into this new world. And what is he looking at? Is he looking at a paradise where the streets are paved with gold? Is he looking at the place where immigrants are exploited and treated like shit?

One thing about the wall is that it can serve as an evocative backdrop for an artsy photo shoot, but then the symbolism tends to blot out the people living on both sides. And to understand the stories of the people takes an investment of time and resources. There's no investment needed in just shooting a wall.

There's this project that the artist J.R. made so people on the U.S. side would see the image of a baby leaning over the wall. Here the border is being used as a prop for this art piece that J.R. is doing because ... well, I don't know; maybe he had some good motivations about trying to encourage friendship. But what he did is he produced artwork that can only be appreciated from the U.S. side of the wall.

The U.S. media and U.S. cultural establishment is fascinated by the wall. I'm trying to say, "Fine, you find that the wall is interesting. That's good because we need to recognize that it's there, because it shouldn't be there." In the end, we should get rid of it. It's offensive. But let's not just look at the wall. What about the people there?

Friday, May 13, 2022

MORE THAN A WALL/Mas que un muro - COLEF 2022


 

More Than a Wall / Mas que un muro

30 years of photographs and oral histories

By David Bacon

El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Baja California

May 2022

 

440 pp
357 duotone black-and-white photographs
12 oral histories with incisive journalism and analysis by David Bacon, Don Bartletti, Luis Escala, Guillermo Alonso and Alberto del Castillo.

Completely bilingual in English and Spanish

$35, soft cover

 

More Than a Wall / Mas que un muro is a book of photographs by David Bacon and oral histories created during 30 years of covering the people and social movements of the Mexico/U.S. border.  It presents a complex, richly textured documentation of a world in newspaper headlines daily, but whose reality, as it's lived by border residents, is virtually invisible.

Published by with support from the UCLA Institute for Labor Research and Education and the Center for Mexican Studies, the Werner Kohlstamm Family Fund, and the Green Library at Stanford University

To order in the U.S., click here:  
https://david-bacon-photography.square.site/product/more-than-a-wall-mas-que-un-muro/1?cp=true&sa=true&sbp=false&q=false

To order in Mexico, click here:

https://libreria.colef.mx/detalle.aspx?id=7864

 

Often we only see  the border from the U.S. side, despite the fact that many more people live in the border region south of the wall than north of it.  Despite the media fascination with the wall, people their lives and organize vibrant social movements that are virtually invisible in the U.S. Yet they have a direct impact. From winter strawberries to flat panel televisions, people north of the border consume what’s produced just a few miles south of it.

 

The intention of these photographs, taken over three decades, is to probe more deeply into the lives of the people of the border itself, rather than simply see it as a wall, or a place people try to cross to enter the United States.

 

The images show children working in fields and hard scrabble miners trying to survive in the desert. They depict strikes and land occupations virtually unknown to U.S. audiences, and often even to Mexican ones outside of the border region itself. These struggles have been going on for over a century, but have never been the subject of the kind of visual and narrative documentation presented here.

 

These photographs and the accompanying narratives provide a broad historical view, spanning the period from late 1980s to the present.  They provide a human face and story for those who seek to come to terms with the sources of migration, and to protect the human rights of migrants and working people generally.

 

Taking these photographs and conducting these interviews has been a cooperative project, built on relationships over three decades with the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations, the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras and California Rural Legal Assistance.  The result is an intensive look at border communities - a unique view documenting border work life, living conditions, culture and migration through photographs and narratives of the people who live there.

 

 

"The "border" is just a line. It's the people who matter their relationships with or without or across that line. The book helps us feel the impact of the border on people living there, and helps us figure out how we talk to each other about it. The germ of the discussion are these wonderful and eye-opening pictures, and the voices that help us understand what these pictures mean." JoAnn Intili, director, The Werner-Kohnstamm Family Fund

 

“David Bacon is the conscience of American journalism and an extraordinary social documentarist.” 

Mike Davis, sociologist, professor at UC Irvine, author of “City of Quartz” and other works.

 

“Bacon is a consummate professional. His work makes an outstanding case for engaged documentary, a proud tradition reaching to the beginning of photography. It offers a contrast to much modern documentary that has become self-absorbed and abstract. There is no book that has the scope, depth, and artistry of Bacon’s project.”

Douglas Harper, Professor, Department of Sociology, Duquesne University, President, International Visual Sociological Association

 

“A basic preoccupation in David’s work is to honestly portray the lives and livelihoods of excluded communities - individuals and groups rarely noted as significant actors in contemporary society. These evocative documentary photographs and forceful oral histories raised conscience and consciousness about globalizing processes affecting American urban life throughout the country.”

Tomás Ybarra-Frausto, Associate Director, Creativity & Culture, The Rockefeller Foundation

 

 

More Than a Wall/Mas que un muro

Table of Contents

 

More Than a Wall - David Bacon on the history of this work

Preface
 - Don Bartletti, 
Pulitzer-prize photographer for the Los Angeles Times

Introduction
 - Luis Escala Rabadán and Guillermo Alonso

 

Part One: The Wall


Bars, crosses and graves

They called us “Baja Pollos”

41 Photographs

Deportados and their families


Sanctuary in front of the detention center

37 Photographs

 

Part Two: Border Rebellions


Up against the border bosses

The life of a maquiladora worker

My youth has passed me by

People are tired of the wages


39 Photographs

 

Communities of Resistance

We were going to have real change

39 Photographs

Indigenous migrants rise up

We paid a price to confront racism

40 Photographs


Kids in the fields, parents on strike

Why kids don’t come to school

What kind of society is this? We produce all of society

51 Photographs

 

Part Three: In the Desierto del Diablo

Neoliberalism’s cost - the mine and the river

Becoming a luchadora social


It was the union that demanded protections

We had to go to work on the other side

38 Photographs

Communities in the desert


The legacy of Joaquin Murrieta

23 Photographs

 

Part Four: North of the Wall


Living poor, working and breathing the dust

I never imagined we would suffer this way


We are just looking to make a living


53 Photographs

 

Afterword: A journey through images - Alberto del Castillo Troncoso

 

 

David Bacon is a California-based writer and photographer. He is the author of several books about migration: The Children of NAFTA, Communities Without Borders, Illegal People – How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants, and The Right to Stay Home, and In the Fields of the North / En los Campos del Norte. His latest book is More Than a Wall/Mas que un muro, Colegio de la Frontera Norte (Tijuana).

 

Bacon was a factory worker and union organizer for two decades with the United Farm Workers, the International Ladies Garment Workers and other unions. Today he documents the changing conditions in the workforce, the impact of the global economy, war and migration, and the struggle for human rights. His photography has been exhibited in the U.S. Mexico and Europe, and his articles and photoessays have been published widely.

 

The photography archive of David Bacon was acquired by the Special Collections of the Green Library at Stanford University in 2019.

Sunday, April 3, 2022

HONORING DOLORES HUERTA'S LEGACY

HONORING DOLORES HUERTA'S LEGACY
Photoessay by David Bacon
The Nation, April 2, 2022
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/dolores-huertas-legacy/

At 92, the iconic labor activist continues to fight for workers' rights.

Dolores Huerta marched with family members of Larry Itliong, revered Filipino labor organizer and UFW co-founder, and Mari Perez, co-director of the Larry Itliong Resource Center, in celebration of the declaration of Larry Itliong Day by the State of California.

(All photos © by David Bacon.  These photographs are taken from a larger body of images in the David Bacon Archive in the Special Collections of the Green Library at Stanford University.  For a full selection of photos click here.)

Maria Elena Durazo, California State senator:

When I became the first woman of color to lead the Hotel Workers Local 11 of Los Angeles, Dolores Huerta was there to support me. When I became the first woman of color to lead the 800,000 workers of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Dolores was there to encourage me. And when I became a California State senator, Dolores was there to inspire me.

Dolores knew who I was because she knew the world I come from. I grew up in a family of farmworkers. All of us worked in the fields, picking peaches and grapes and cotton, from the time I could walk. I never understood how it could be that our family all worked so hard, and yet never emerged from poverty. In that world of rural California, it was the grape strike and the boycotts that taught us that the only way to end that poverty and stop injustice was to organize together to change it. It was the United Farm Workers who taught us that. For me, Dolores was the best teacher among many good ones, teaching me the power of the union and nonviolent action.

Over the years, Dolores became my friend and mentor. In her I could see a woman of color who became a union leader-a leader of our movement for social justice. She never backed down or wavered. If she could do it, so could I.

Dolores Huerta turns 92 on April 10. Amazingly (or maybe not), she is still organizing, still fighting, still challenging us all to stand up, organize and make this world a better place. The best way we can celebrate this extraordinary woman is to join her. Every speech I've ever heard her give ends with her getting us all to shout out, "Si, se puede!" So let's shout it out with her now-Si, se puede! 

 


Dolores Huerta and other farmworkers who marched for 20 days to Sacramento wore wooden crosses to show their status as peregrinos.


Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, Chicano & labor studies professor, UCLA:

Long before the Delano Grape Strike began in 1965, Dolores Huerta earned her stripes as an organizer working with the radical Filipinos of the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee in her native Stockton, even recruiting Larry Itliong, the veteran Filipino organizer of the canneries and fields of the Pacific Northwest. The migration of the indigenous people of Oaxaca, which brought myself, Rufino Dominguez, and other radicals into the California fields, came in the 1980s. By then Dolores was a legend, but to us someone who shared our ideas about organizing and radical social change.

Dolores Huerta's life is part of our collective history of resistance. She is a living link between radical ideas for social change that have defined today's movements for racial justice, worker rights and feminist thought.

We even owe her the chant that all of us know and use almost daily, regardless of what part of the movement we come from. In May 1972, the Arizona legislature passed a growers' bill denying farm workers the right to strike and boycott. When Cesar Chavez started a fast to protest, it fell to Dolores to build people's resistance in the streets. Everyone told her resistance was futile. In a moment of inspiration Dolores responded, ¡Si, se puede! (Yes, it's possible!). Ever since, when we need to show our strength and knowledge that we'll eventually win, we all shout out, ¡Si, se puede!

¡Que viva Dolores Huerta! 

 


A march and rally to organize strawberry workers in Watsonville begins with Huerta denouncing company terror tactics to the media.  


David Bacon, writer and photographer:

Last fall I walked from Poplar to Delano, Calif., in honor of Larry Itliong, who started the 1965 grape strike and boycott there, with Dolores Huerta, cofounder of the United Farm Workers (UFW). She was 91 then, and I had a hard time keeping up. She sent me a note afterward that ended, "Sí Se Puede con El Rojo Tocino." It was a beautiful joke.

"Sí Se Puede" are three words we all use now, but she invented this confident way of saying "Yes We Can!" "Tocino" was the nickname the union gave me in the years I worked as an organizer-it means "bacon," my last name. And calling me "El Rojo," or "The Red," in this way honored my politics.

When I came back from a solidarity work brigade in Cuba in the 1970s, I landed in New York City with no place to sleep. I called Dolores's daughter, Lori, a friend from California. Not only did I get space on the floor of the NYC boycott's headquarters, but Dolores and her partner, Richard, César Chávez's brother, took us out to eat. Over pizza I enthused about the island. I had stars in my eyes, for both Cuba and Dolores, and still do. I went to work for the UFW as an organizer a few months later.

There was often tension in the union about radical politics, and being called a red was sometimes the route out the door. But for Dolores and Eliseo Medina, being a good organizer was the bottom line-doing what the workers needed.

Over the years, long after I had left the UFW and worked for other unions and then as a photojournalist, I would see Dolores again and again. Going to Watsonville to cover the organizing drives of strawberry workers or to Salinas for the strikes in the vegetable fields, I knew she'd be there. It was a profound experience to watch her in union contract negotiations-this diminutive woman facing off against the beefy growers across the table-and see the sense of power it gave workers.

Returning from Iraq, where I photographed workers after the 2003 US invasion, I took her picture in the front line of marchers against the war. When we were in Sacramento trying to stop the anti-immigrant, anti-affirmative-action, anti-bilingual initiatives, she was the first to speak out.

So when she called me El Rojo Tocino, I thought, "What a compliment!" I hope I live up to it. 

 


At the beginning of the Iraq War, Huerta marches with actor Danny Glover and an enormous crowd demanding that the troops be brought home. 

 


Dolores Huerta at a march calling for making Cesar Chavez' birthday a holiday in California.  

 


Huerta explains to a meeting of rose workers the progress of negotiations of their union contract, at the UFW's historic Forty Acres headquarters.  

 


Huerta and rose workers talk about the harassment of workers and women in the fields.  

 


Huerta presents the union's proposals for a fair contract to the managers of the Bear Mountain Rose Nursery in the San Joaquin Valley.  

 


At a Watsonville rally UFW president-emeritus Arturo Rodriguez, Huerta and former organizing director Efren Barajas sing with the daughter of strawberry workers. 

 


The year after the death of Cesar Chavez Huerta and UFW leaders begin a march to Sacramento by ritually washing the feet of the workers who founded the union in the 1965 grape strike.  

 


At the Sacramento rally on the state capitol steps at the end of the march.  

 


Huerta marches with farmworkers in Salinas who've gone on strike against D'Arrigo Brothers Produce. 

 


Huerta and Rodriguez organized a march and rally in Salinas to support the campaign by John Sweeney to become president of the AFL-CIO.  

 


At the start of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride in San Francisco, Huerta and hotel workers marched to demand immigrant reform. 

 


Huerta, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the head of the National Organization of Women lead the March Against the Right in San Francisco.

 


Huerta, a former school teacher, talks with children at Jefferson Elementary School in Oakland.

 


Huerta speaks at a rally of longshoremen in San Francisco who have refused to unload coffee from El Salvador during the Central American civil wars.


Huerta speaks at a Sacramento rally supporting affirmative action, and opposing what would eventually become Proposition 209.


David Bacon is author of Illegal People-How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (2008), and The Right to Stay Home (2013), both from Beacon Press. His latest book, More Than a Wall/Mas que un muro, will be published next month by the Colegio de la Frontera Norte.  For more information about it, write to dbacon@igc.org