Spring 1994 (v6n2)
	Two new California farm labor studies. Mixtec migrants in California: A new cycle of poverty by Carol Zabin, Michael Kearney, Anna Garcia, David Runsten, and Carole Nagengast. 1993. California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, CA. 183 pages. California's agricultural dilemma: Higher production and lower wages by Don Villarejo and Dave Runsten 1993. California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, CA. 48 pages. Just and humane treatment of farmworkers is an important component of sustainable agriculture. Despite encouraging advances toward more sustainable food and agricultural systems over the past decade, conditions for farm laborers have declined. Two recent reports by the California Institute for Rural Studies document and explain this trend. The first report, Mixtec Migrants in California Agriculture: A New Cycle of Poverty, examines the living and working conditions experienced by indigenous migrants from the Mexican state of Oaxaca. The report is derived from a detailed interview-based survey of 131 Mixtec farmworkers, as well as ethnographic field work in both Mexico and the U.S. The authors estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 Mixtecs now reside in California, representing between five and ten percent of the agricultural labor force. Having fled their homeland due to the economic crisis in Mexico during the early 1980s, the Mixtecs are among the most impoverished workers in the U.S. today. The cultural heritage of the Mixtecs poses special barriers to integration into American society. Most Mixtecs speak neither English nor Spanish, and are subject to racism even from other Mexican workers due to their distinctive appearance and language. Because of the difficulty in defining the exact parameters of the Mixtec farmworker community, a random sample was not employed in this study. Instead, a "snowball" sample was derived by building on initial local contacts. Since this type of sampling is typically biased toward emphasizing specific social networks, the authors were careful to select representatives of 41 different Oaxaca towns. If anything, the sample is probably biased toward better-than-average employment situations. The authors spoke only with those Mixtecs who had some Spanish or English language capability, thus missing those made particularly vulnerable to exploitation due to a language barrier. Also, workers experiencing the worst conditions were most likely to be inaccessible to the interviewers. Among the key statistical findings of the study are the following: Mixtec farmworkers earned less than the minimum wage in one-quarter of the jobs in which they were employed during 1989-90, and almost one-half had worked in at least one job paying less than minimum wage. Mixtecs are subject to high labor standards violations, with over one-quarter of those interviewed reporting nonpayment of wages on at least one occasion. Mixtecs are concentrated in jobs in which payments for obligatory services such as rides to work are a condition of employment. Mixtecs are concentrated in jobs with short duration, and are more migratory compared to other Mexican farmworkers. The authors argue that Mixtecs are the latest in a historic cycle of ethnic replacement in California farm labor Farm employers have turned to successive groups-Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, "Okie," and mestizo Mexican workers-to maintain the cheap labor supply on which California's agricultural economy depends. Mixtec migrants constitute a large pool of new labor which can be hired for lower wages. The hiring of these laborers has the effect of undercutting gains in wages and working conditions made possible for mestizo Mexican farmworkers during the 1970s. As evidence, the authors cite the ten percent decline in real wages for California farmworkers over the past decade. The authors also provide a detailed case study of how ethnic replacement has impacted the farm labor market for the raisin grape harvest in the San Joaquin Valley. The second report, California's Agricultural Dilemma: Higher Production and Lower Wages, is a statistical profile of how recent changes in agricultural production have combined with immigration policies and other forces to lower farm wages. Significant acreage increases in fruit, vegetable and horticultural crops have increased labor demand by some 20 percent over the past 15 years. At the same time, economic crisis in Mexico and the 1986 immigration reform law have dramatically increased the supply of labor Rather than a labor shortage once feared by growers, a tremendous oversupply of farm labor exists. This oversupply is correlated with a large decline in real wages during the 1980s. Among the key findings of the report are the following: Hired labor accounts for at least 80% of all the work performed on California farms. Just one-half of the farms in California are owned and operated by farmers. The other half are owned by individuals whose principal occupation is something other than farming. Wage reports submitted by employers identify about 881,000 different farmworkers in California. However, annual average employment is much lower, since most farmworkers experience long periods of unemployment between jobs. At least half of all farmworker families live in poverty, as determined by their median family income and family size standards determined by the federal government. Reviewer Comments Both of these reports demonstrate the deteriorating conditions for California farmworkers. Many people hoped that successful union organizing during the 1970s would reverse the historic pattern of the treatment of farm laborers as second class citizens. However, events of the past 15 years have undercut the gains made at that time and have led to conditions that in many respects are even worse than those in the early 1970s. Future organizing efforts will be extremely difficult given the current oversupply of labor, and the likely prospect of continuing immigration. Immigration reform and more vigorous enforcement of labor regulations are clearly needed. Ultimately, however, these are only partial solutions. As the authors of the Mixtec report conclude, the long-term solution must be sustainable development in Mexico, along with sustainable rural community economic development in our own state. In the emerging global economy the structural ties linking rural Mexico and rural California are increasingly evident. Given our shared fate, it will be critical to sustain vital communities by promoting locally-controlled development projects both here and in Mexico. The work of Mixtec self-help organizations, described in the CIRS report, provides one model of how this vital work is beginning. Both reports can be ordered from the California Institute for Rural Studies, P.O. Box 2143, Davis, CA 95617, (916) 7566555. The Mixtec migrant report is $12.50, plus $4.00 for shipping and handling; the second report is $7.50, plus $1.50 for shipping and handling. (CI-SUST.099) Contributed by David Campbell [ Back | Search | Feedback ]