Newspaper Page Text
Fitzsimmons
Sherry: Why has the Teamsters Union entered into representing field
workers in the agricultural areas of California and Arizona?
Fitzsimmons: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has been
representing agricultural workers in California and Arizona for more than
a quarter of a century. Teamsters established their priority in organizing
farm field labor early in the 1950’s, when a contract was negotiated
between drivers - stitchers - loaders, employed by firms affiliated with the
Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association in California. Since 1961 the
Teamsters have represented the farm field labor employed by Bud Antle,
and the Mapes Produce Company since 1962, and before that in 1960
with Yoders Brothers Nursery. The Teamsters are presently engaged in
organizing field workers simply because the majority of these workers
have requested Teamster organizers to form collective bargaining units
for them.
Sherry: Doesn’t this conflict with the two so-called jurisdictional pacts
signed in 1970 between the Western Teamsters Conference and the
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, in which the Chavez group
was to have exclusive rights to organize the field workers?
Fitzsimmons: It is true that a jurisdictional pact was negotiated in
1970 between the Western Conference of Teamsters and the United Farm
Workers. Within two weeks Cesar Chavez committed 29 violations of this
pact, the most glaring example being a continual boycott of Bud Antle
lettuce, which was strictly forbidden by that agreement.
Sherry: Why was this pact repudiated?
Fitzsimmons: This pact was repudiated simply because Cesar Chavez
failed to live up to, and honor it.
Sherry: What has the Teamsters Union to offer the farm workers that
could not be obtained through the United Farm Workers Union?
Fitzsimmons: The Teamsters Union offers the farm workers superior
contracts obtained without strikes and boycotts, therefore, giving farm
workers steady employment with higher wages, hours, and conditions.
Also, the Teamsters Union offers farm workers the collective bargaining
strength of an organization of more than 2 million members, soundly
financed and with representative experience in the collective bargaining
process. The Teamsters are strictly a trade union organization with no
revolutionary tendency.
Sherry: Were the Teamsters invited by the growers, who formerly held
UFWU contracts, to negotiate new agreements, or did they actively seek
the contracts as policy?
Fitzsimmons: The Teamsters were never invited by the growers to
negotiate new agreements. By their own admission the growers prefer
their workers be non-union. The Teamsters sought agreement with the
growers where the United Farm Workers Union had contracts, simply
'because the field workers themselves asked the Teamster organizers to do
so.
Sherry: How do you answer the frequent charges made that there is
collusion between the growers and the Teamsters to destroy the United
Farm Workers Union?
Fitzsimmons: There is no collusion between the Teamsters and the
growers to destroy the United Farm Workers Union. The UFWU is
destroying itself through hiring hall abuses, which have turned the farm
workers themselves against Chavez and his union. The farm workers are
now turning to the Teamsters for collective bargaining, free from the
abuses which they have suffered under Cesar Chavez.
Sherry: There have been suggestions from various quarters that racial
prejudice is involved in the decision of the growers to go with the
Teamsters. It is said that the growers resent the Mexican-American
minority having a say in procedures on the farms. What would be your
answer to this as it relates to the Teamster?
Fitzsimmons: The Teamsters know nothing about the racial stance of
the growers. What we do know is that Mexican-American people hold
positions as officers and as staff members in our local unions representing
farm workers, and play an active part in policy decisions, contract
negotiations, and in enforcement of labor agreements.
Sherry: Why was it necessary to import Teamster guards from other
industries to protect the growers in Coachella? Wasn’t this an incitement
to the violence that occurred?
Fitzsimmons: It was necessary to import “guards” into the Coachella
Valley to protect field workers from intimidation and violence
prepetuated by Cesar Chavez in an attempt to force these workers to join
his strikes.
Sherry: You have criticized the clergy and the U.S. Catholic Bishops
Committee on Farm Labor for so-called “meddling” in the farm labor
dispute. Has the Church no role in such affairs?
Fitzsimmons: I have no doubt that the clergy and the U.S. Catholic
Bishops Committee on Farm Labor act in good faith. However, serious
questions arise when the clergy decries violence by the Teamsters and
remain strangely silent about violence perpetuated by Cesar Chavez and
his organization. These questions are magnified when the clergy fails to
speak out for coverage of farm workers under the National Labor
Relations Act and by giving a silent blessing to the lawlessness in
labor-management relations which now exist in agriculture. These
questions are further magnified by the fact that the clergy takes the
position that farm workers should belong only to the United Farm
Workers Union, thus denying the free choice of unions to farm workers
as expressed in federal labor legislative policy. If the Church has a role in
such affairs, that role should be one of equal justice which looks to the
welfare of the workers themselves and not to the welfare of one union or
the other, for one labor leader or another.
Sherry: Why don’t you sit down with Cesar Chavez and try and sort
this farm labor dispute?
Fitzsimmons: Sitting down with Cesar Chavez to work out an
agreement is like trying to pick up a handful of water. Until Cesar Chavez
gives firm evidence that he will abide by an agreement with the Teamsters
or the AFL-CIO, and until he makes an expression of good faith, which
we seriously doubt he will, we see no reason to sit down with him again.
Sherry: Why have the Teamsters not agreed to a secret ballot, thereby
giving the workers a free choice on which union they wish to represent
them?
Fitzsimmons: The Teamsters are 100 percent in favor of secret ballot
elections concerning union representation for farm workers, when such
elections are held according to established law. We are not for elections,
conducted by private organizations, which has no remedy to, correct
election abuses and have no experience in conducting such elections. We
are not for patchwork solutions, but support free elections for farrh
workers on union representation under the National Labor Relations Act
Sherry: It is known that talks between Teamsters and AFL-CIO
officials are going on with a view to solving the problem. What is the
status of these talks?
Fitzsimmons: At this point, sound communications are still established
between the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO officials. There is no progress to
report.
Sherry: What would it take to restore labor peace in agriculture?
Fitzsimmons: Labor peace in agriculture will be restored and
established permanently when the Congress of the United States passes
legislation to include farm workers under the rights and protection of the
National Labor Relations Act. Such legislation would:
(1) Insure secret and free election for union representation, according
to a tested body of law, which provides remedies when such elections are
improperly conducted or bear the taint of intrusion by unions or growers
alike.
(2) Insure the right of workers to file unfair labor practice charges with
the National Labor Relations Board, protesting violation of collective
bargaining rights. Additionally, such legislation would provide farm
workers with machinery for the proper processing of such grievances.
(3) Guarantee that collective bargaining would be conducted according
to established law, instead of the expedience of a union or an employer.
Coverage of farm workers under the National Labor Relations Act will
bring stability to collective bargaining in agriculture.
Equally important is the fact that this stability will be according to the
wishes of the farm workers themselves, not according to the wishes of
one union or another, and not according to the wishes of outside parties
which have become advocates for one side or the other. Coverage under
the National Labor Relations Act will give farm workers genuine
self-determination, and no longer will they be chattel to be deeded to one
union or another by the advocates with no primary interest
Farm Labor Dispute Interviews
Frank Fitzsimmons
PICKETS AND COUNTER PICKETS - Pentagon
papers figure Daniel Ellsberg (left in top photo) claps
his hands as he joins farm worker pickets in singing
“We Shall Overcome” in Fresno, Calif. Fresno County
farmers and their wives (bottom photo) carry an
American flag in a demonstration to counter the
picketing of United Farm Workers.
PICKET LINE STRIFE IN COACHELLA - Sheriff’s
deputies break up fights between members of the
Teamsters Union and the United Farm Workers Union
in Coachella, Calif. The farm workers have been
picketing against new contracts signed by Teamsters
with grape growers. (NC Photo)
Sherry: How do you sum up the recent strike in Coachella Valley?
How successful was it?
Chavez: Well, before an analysis can be made of the strike,
one has to consider that we were fighting against tremendous odds
against the Teamsters and the growers. I think all in all we were able to
do the one most important thing we wanted to accomplish and that was
to hurt the employer economically. We didn’t hurt him enough to sign
the contract but I think that we set him up so that he will either sign the
contract sometime this summer when the others sign, or he will have to
sign before the next crop. We estimate he had to leave about 40 percent
of the crop on the vines or direct them to other purposes which is still a
loss. When we take out the original work force-when we take out the
men who know hoW to do the work-the employer can break a strike but
they have to break it with inexperienced people, so they pay more
because work quality diminishes and so adds costs. The employers in
Coachella lost a lot of money. They’re in terrible shape.
Sherry: Why are the growers turning away from your union?
Chavez: They have a golden opportunity, giving the Teamsters our
contracts. It is an opportunity where both the Teamsters Union and the
growers can come together and not only take the contracts, but, they
think, a very good possibility of destroying the [United] Farm Workers
Union. I think that the basic reason is that we have an irreconciliable
fight with the labor contractors, which the growers protect and need~at
least they say they need, which we detest and don’t want and don’t need,
and this is the fight that is going on today. The fight five years ago was a
fight with us and the growers. The fight today is a fight between us and
the labor contractors. We are trying to determine, to decide in this strike
what is going to happen, either the contractors stay or we stay. There is
not enough room in agriculture for labor contractors and a decent union
of farm workers.
Sherry: What is your view of the Teamsters intrusion into the
organization of field workers?
Chavez: Well, it’s deplorable. It’s very difficult to understand how a
union, a large union, an old union, a very wealthy union, could let itself
by used by employers as a gimmick, as a company union to destroy a
legitimate union of farm workers, and so I view it as a strike breaking
operation by the Teamsters.
Sherry: Whatever happened to the two jurisdictional pacts signed
between UFWU and the Western Teamsters Conference in 1970? Are
they still successful as far as you’re concerned?
Chavez: Well, no, see, we signed-the first pact was signed in 1967 after
a 10-month fight where they came into the Perelli-Minetti Winery where
we had a contract, and they did exactly what they’re doing to us now.
They came in and signed a contract behind the picket lines. We then put
the company on the boycott and for ten moths we chased their wines all
over the country. Finally, when the company had enough, they invited
the Teamsters out. We signed a jurisdictional pact with the Teamsters and
a contract with the Perelli-Minetti company. That contract was supposed
to have lasted for five years. In 1970, before the contract expired, when
we moved into Salinas to sign contracts and get recognition for the
union, the Teamsters moved in and the growers used them as a gimmick
to break--to get away from recognizing the union and so the pact was
broken again. Then a few short weeks later, after a very successful strike
and a lot of pressure through the boycott, the Teamsters signed another
jurisdictional agreement, this time pledging themselves to get out of the
lettuce fields. Two weeks later they broke it Another one was signed in
March, 1971. They pledged to get themselves out of the fields, and they
didn’t really get out; they sort of hovered around. Ten months later they
reinstituted a contract they claimed they signed with the lettuce growers.
A few months after that the state Supreme Court, you know, found that
we, the farm workers, had a right to boycott and to strike the lettuce
fields and in fact said that we represented the workers, and the Teamsters
didn’t. The Teamsters then, about a week later, renegotiated the same
contracts and the rest is where we’re at. We have our boycott against
them and are organizing among the lettuce workers, even though they’re
under Teamster contract. The workers are with us.
Sherry: Why is the hiring hall so important to you and such a nuisance
to the growers?
Chavez: It is not the grower, but his labor contractor who’s putting
severe pressure on him to give it up. They want control over the destinies
of the workers—by using the right to hire and fire as a club over the heads
of people and over the heads of unions. The Teamster Union contracts
don’t amount to anything because they have contracts with labor
contractors and let the labor contractors do all the work. The labor
contractor under the Teamster contracts have complete run of the house,
so in effect there are no contracts really. The workers can’t defend
themselves and the Teamsters no more have the sympathy or the
following of those workers, no more than the man in the moon. Our
fight, therefore, is with the labor contractor. The hiring hall effectively
strips that power away from contractors and places it in the people and
gives them the right to determine by their own democratic processes,
established rules and regulations about how they get hired and conditions
of work.
Sherry: How do you view the law enforcement procedures in relation
to strikers? (A) in the Coachella Valley. (B) in the San Joaquin Valley of
recent date.
Chavez: Very unjust! Extremely unjust! The courts handed down
injunctions that strike at the very core of our civil liberties, injunctions
that prohibit the right of the strikers to use public address systems, to
communicate with the workers inside the fields, and injunctions that all
but destroy our right to picket. It places severe limits like one striker
every 100 feet, and the only power the strikers have is the power in
numbers. We can understand injunctions when there is violence. In our
case there is no violence, and yet they are keeping those injunctions. The
county sheriff goes out there and enforces the injunctions to the teeth.
Any slight infraction of any sort, and our people get arrested. Lately, our
people had enough, and they have been breaking the injunctions, and we
have had about almost 2,000 jailed in the three counties of Kem, Tulare
and Fresno. We expect more arrests.
Sherry: Do you really believe there is a conspiracy between the
growers and the Teamsters to destroy your union? Why?
Chavez: There is. A lot has to do with this great fear that we’re a
movement, not a union, but really deep roots lie in the racism of both
groups. We are a non-white union-it’s leadership is almost totally
non-white. We are a new union. We represent the workers. I think that
they are both interested in the same end but for different reasons. The
employers would like to get rid of our union. They would like to have
the Teamsters where they could deal and wheel with them at the expense
of the workers. Teamsters, of course, would like to see our union
destroyed.
Sherry: There have been suggestions that racism is involved. In other
words, growers do not like the Mexican-American minority to have any
say in their operations. How do you see this?
Chavez: Oh, we are very sure. We are completely convinced of that
They have been the superior race, not only race-wise, but also
economic-wise. They have had total say over the work force. They have
directed and controlled that work force completely and totally, and so
the workers have ended up at their total mercy. Our union represents a
breaking away from that-represents sharing a power, represents
questioning, represents a new force. The growers are afraid to have a new
force come into being, are afraid of dealing honestly with the legitimate
union of workers. So what’s happening is that the workers are much
more united now than before, and this kind of attack helps organize the
people. It gives La Causa a lot more meaning, and the workers aren’t
about to be pushed around. However long it takes, we are geared for a
struggle. And the Teamsters have a lot money; we’re going to make them
spend it The growers have a lot of money. We ought to make them spend
it, too.
Sherry: How many contracts have you lost since the beginning of this
year?
Chavez: Thirty-one contracts in Coachella, about 20 contracts in
Lamont, and about 50 small contracts around the Fresno, Parlier-Dinuba
area. We have 29 left to go in Delano and they’ll be up in about a week.
It’s not that serious that they are going to destroy our union. All we have
to do is go back to the pre-contract days. I think we are well organized
together to fight. It does place some strain on the union, but that strain is
also replaced by the life that it gives it because of the tremendous
support that we get throughout the country.
Sherry: What about the Teamster guards so recently withdrawn from
the strike areas? Have they been an incitement to violence?
Chavez: Not an incitement to violence. They were violence itself. They
came in and they committed the violence. They were ordered and paid
to do it. They were vicious creatures that came in to attack our men
and women and the kids. It’s just a miracle that the total Chicano
population didn’t rise up-not only the farm workers but the people who
live in the com muni ty-against that kind of attack, and I think if it
happens again, there is going to be serious consequences in terms of not
only the farm workers but the other Chicano communities throughout
the state. I don’t expect the guards to come back, but if they do there is
going to be some very serious and far reaching consequences.
Sherry: There are still some contracts to be renewed in the San
Joaquin Valley. What is the outlook?
Chavez: The outlook is not too good. The growers want to go with thfe
Teamsters and take a shot at us and see if they can destroy the union.
Sherry: If the growers go overwhelmingly for the Teamster, what is the
outlook for your union?
Chavez: We’ll have another long struggle. We’ll have another long
struggle, but we’ll be able to do with it.
Sherry: How goes the national boycott? Will it help you? How much
support do you believe you really have?
Chavez: We have more support than we’ve had since the early days of
the strike in Delano. It’s going extremely well. The boycott is ruining the
market for the growers. With that and the combination of the strike and
other legal fights that we have against the Teamsters and the growers, and
the spirit of the people, we are going to be successful The lettuce
boycott, surprisingly enough, is better than it’s ever been. It’s coming
right along with the grape. The grape boycott serves as a shield for the
other, so the two of them are carrying on very well
Sherry: It has been suggested by some of your opponents that the
Church is “meddling” in affairs which are none of its concern. How do
you see its role? (A) The U.S. Catholic Bishops Farm Labor Committee.
(B) The Witness in support of your organization being given on the picket
line by the various religious denominations.
Chavez: We welcome it They have a vital role to play-it is a question
of social justice. The Church, you know, traditionally has supported this.
In those places where it hasn’t they have not performed the duty of being
the chief advocates of social justice being witnesses to the whole idea of
helping people in struggles, to bring about justice. In this case, much
more so, because the combination of the teamsters and the growers is so
unfair. What they’re doing is total, complete disregard for the rights of
workers, and so the Church has a role to play, especially in this instance.
PAGE 3—August 16,1S73
Chavez
(Editor's Note: Here are
exclusive NC interviews with
Frank Fitzsimmons, president of
the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, and Cesar Chavez,
head of the United Farm Workers
Union, AFL-CIO. These
interviews on the two unions'
farm labor dispute were
conducted for NC News Service
by Gerard Sherry, editor of THE
MONITOR, the San Francisco
archdiocesan newspaper.)
Cesar Chavez