SUMMARY . A survey was made concerning income oi the migratory workers located in SouthTexas during the winter oi 1956-57. The survey was made in six cities with large settlements oi migratory iarmwork- ers. These cities were San Antonio, Crystal City, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Weslaco and Robstown. South Texas migratory workers can be classi- iied into three maior groups according to their range oi movement. About a third move within the State only and engage mainly in picking cotton. Another third migrate to the sugar beet, vegetable and iruit areas around the Great Lakes. in the Rocky Moun- tain area or along the Pacific Coast. The third I group works in these same out-oi-state areas and then returns to engage in the cotton harvest in Texas. These workers showed considerable skill in tim- ing and planning their itinerary. and haphazard travel was the exception. One-third worked in only one area away irom the home base, another one- iourth worked in only two areas. Practically all were underemployed. They av- eraged only 131 days oi work during 1956. Heads oi households averaged 174 days oi work. The unemployment rate at the home base was twice as great as while they were on the road. This was despite the iact that hali oi them, mainly women and children, were out oi the labor market complete- ly at the home base. During 1956, the average earnings per worker were $781. but male heads oi households averaged "”'$1,l45. Average earnings per iamily varied closely with the size oi the iamily work iorce and averaged $2,208. Less than one-iourth oi this was earned at the home base; hence, migratory labor was a major source oi their income. In the 446 households surveyed. there was a total oi 1,334 workers. Approximately hali oi these were household heads or their wives (49 percent). Working wives were only a little more than hali as numerous as working husbands. Approximately three-iourths oi the husbands were 25 to 55 years oi age, with the largest number being in the 45 to 54 age group. Most oi the work- COVER South Texas Migrants, 195.6. (Map courtesy. Agri- cultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.) ing wives were 25 to 34 years oi age. ---.‘ the wives reduce their participation in iield i. as they grow older. Women over 55 made up; 7 percent oi the workers among wives and i1 heads, while 21 percent oi the" males were in: age group. '1: ~ '7: One-iiith oi the workers were school w‘. at the time oi the survey. Boys outnumbered by about 25 percent; apparently, some w‘ school age did not do migratory work. One oi the school youth who worked were years oi age, 52 oi the boys and 31 oi the girls. " Several major trends are working tow ‘l improved situation ior migratory workers. They (1) permanent movement oi migratory work ‘ other states and reduction oi labor surpluses at home base during the winter; (2) developmel annual workers’ plans which correlate movem the workers with local labor needs during the? son: (3) development oi better means oi s -_; attendance administration so as to reduce the in educational advantages; and (4) more =- regulation oi transportation, housing and so as to bring the living and working conditio--_ these people more in line with acceptable mi J standards. CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Purpose and Method oi Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Earnings oi Migratory Agricultural Workers. . . . . Range oi Earnings oi Migratory Agricultural Workers. . . . . . . .. Average Earnings per Household. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.- Income oi Migrant Workers Compared with National Averages. . . . . . . . . . . . IncomeattheHomeBase.................... Earnings oi Migratory Agricultural Workers in Texas. . . . . . . Earnings oi Migratory Agricultural Workers Outside oi Texas. . . . . . . . Pay Rates oi Migratory Agricultural Workers. . Role and Income oi Crew Leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in Migratory Farm Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ Future Demand ior Texas Migratory Labor. . . . . Future Supply oi Migratory Labor. . . . . . . . . . . References. . y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . INCUMES 0F MIGRATURY AGRICULTURAL WURKEHS WILLIAM H. METzLERand FREDERIC O. SARGENTA‘ ACH YEAR FARM WORKERS FROM SOUTH TEXAS p, migrate to more than 30 states in the Nation ‘ supply labor needed t0 cultivate and harvest a ide variety of crops. The position of these work- s in the labor market is highly precarious. anges in production areas and in harvesting thods and competition from other sources of A ibor, tend to shift the areas of work, to reduce e length of the work season and to curtail the lmand for their labor. The sugar beet companies and cotton produc- s’ organizations that initiated and promoted e use of migatory labor are still active but on reduced scale. These organizations are looking rward to the time when they need not be de- ndent on a large seasonal labor force. Yet ‘ere are numerous smaller operators in the work as who will still be dependent on annual sea- if al labor supplies and who do not have the or- nization or finances to conduct recruitment paigns. The role of State Employment Serv- s in facilitating the seasonal movement of rkers is certain to increase, Figure 1. p The agricultural workers who migrate are monly referred to as Mexicans or Latin- A .1 ericans (1).1 Actually, almost three-fourths them are native-born U. S. citizens. These workers formerly traveled from South as with a crew leader who made their job ’ tacts; now 60 percent of them travel in fam- groups in their own cars and make their own Ark arrangements. p The families of these workers are large, 6.5 mbers. More than half of the migrants are ldren below legal working age. It has been l custom among these people that all children uld help in the tasks that the family are do- A The work season in the northern states be- s a month or more before the school term i»: in the spring and it ends several months l, er school has opened in the fall. As a result "their work patterns and the irregular school- ‘which it necessitates, practically all the chil- tn were educationally retarded. lf The size of the family is associated with the q to migrate. When the family becomes too i; for the earnings" of one worker to support pectively, agricultural economist, Farm Economics search Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. ‘artment of Agriculture; and formerly assistant pro- isor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Soci- Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. l] bers in parentheses refer to references. them all, he looks for work in which other mem- bers can contribute to the family income. Con- versely, families quit migrating when enough members obtain local employment and it no longer pays them to migrate. The steady em- ployment they obtain is as likely to be found in one of the work areas as at the home base. PURPOSE AND METHOD OF STUDY The economic status of migratory workers has been a problem for several decades. Although they havebecome an essential part of the Amer- ican agricultural economy, they have had a very small share in the national prosperity, the high levels of living and other advantages associated with American life. They are leaving seasonal farmwork as fast as other opportunities become available, yet this type of work must be done. These people are unable to indicate their eco- nomic situation except by leaving it. Analyses of their situation need to be made so that pro- grams can be developed to meet their particular problems and give them rewards sufficient to holdt them in this line of work or to attract others to i . The survey upon which this report is based endeavored to find answers to questions concern- ing incomes of those migratory workers located in South Texas during the winter of 1956-57. The survey was made in six cities in South Texas with large settlements of migratory farm- workers. These were selected so as to provide a rough cross-section of the South Texas home base area. The cities were San Antonio, Crystal City, Figure 1. The Texas Employment Commission provides an information service for migratory workers. Figure 2. Migratory cotton harvest workers at Recep- tion Center, Lubbock, Texas. Eagle Pass, Laredo, Weslaco and Robstown. The field work was done during January and the early part 0f February 1957, a time when the number of migrants in the area is close t0 the maximum. The number of migrants in the sam- ple cities was affected by the fact that drouth conditions had existed in parts of South Texas since 1951. Consequently, migratory families who needed regular employment during the winter of- ten had to go elsewhere to find it, Figure 2. The interviewers for the survey were Span- ish-speaking Texas youth, many of whom were students or graduates of St. Mary’s University at San Antonio. They did not come from the fam- ilies of migratory farmworkers but had an in- terest in them because of a common cultural background. This interest was regarded as not being strong enough to bias the results of the survey. TABLE 1. AVERAGE EARNINGS OF SOUTH TEXAS MI- GRATORY FARMWORKERS FOR 1956 AND PER DAY WORKED, BY FAMILY STATUS AND RANGE OF MOVEMENT Family status Average earnings and For Per day range of movement year worked — — — Dollars — — — All workers 781 5.96 Family status Heads , Male 1,145 6.58 Female 640 4.81 Wives 528 * 5.93 School youth Male 421 5.20 Female 387 4.61 Nonschool youth Male 887 5.73 Female 703 5.05 Other persons ale 872 5.85 Female 750 5.60 Range of Movement Texas only 573 5.16 Outside Texas 907 6.57 Both in and out of Texas 821 5.90 EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY AGRICULT WORKERS The earnings of the workers’ in the =14 group for the 1956 season averaged $78 worker (Table 1). The average earnings p worked amounted to $5.96. Male family g averaged $1,145 during the year, or $6.5 day worked. School youth-sand wives tend, bring down the average earniings. The yout . ed around $400 to the earnings of the hous while wives added somewhat more than For purposes of comparison, the medi come of all workers in the United States in? was $2,432; of residents in urban areas, $6 and of people living on farms, $1,029 (2). jg heads of all households had a median inco i $3,608; those living on farms, $1,340. '9; earned a median income of $1,117. Incom other workers in the household were corres: ingly higher than those of members of mi. families. a A classification of workers according to range of movement showed that interstate f ers averaged $907, the highest earnings for, year. Intrastate workers averaged $573, those who moved both in and out of the ‘,6 averaged $821. The relative costs of inter) and instate movement were not calculated, it appears that out-of-state movement pays e migratory worker. Average earnings per; for those working in the State only was while it was $6.57 per day for those working: side the State. s s‘ Workers received the highest pay in Ari) i California and Washington the lowest in T’ and Colorado (Table 2). More than half of I earnings during 1956 were made outside despite the fact that more than half the sf, worked were within the State. i‘ RANGE OF EARNINGS 0F MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS a Earnings ranged widely from worker; worker in the migrant group. Among male h) of households, 1 in 12 earned more than $2, during the year, 1 in 10 earned less than it and almost one-half earned less than $1,. (Table 3). A few wives earned as much as $2,. but most of them had earnings of less than A- few school youth earned $1,000 or more most of them earned less than $500. v . More than half of the intrastate migr earned less than $500 as compared with a. _ one-fourth of those who worked outside the S Six persons who worked only within the ‘- made as high as $2,000. Of those working side the State, 33 exceeded the $2,000 mark. ; AVERAGE EARNINGS PER HOUSEHOLD Since these workers were employed in ily groups, data on household earnings are m, , 2. AVERAGE DAILY EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY RKERS FROM SOUTH TEXAS BY LOCATION OF WORK, 1956 Average earnings State per day , Dollars '1 states 5.93 exas 5.14 'chigan 6.64 rlorado 5.35 'nnesota 7.34 ' isconsin 7.16 ' ashington 8.39 hio 6.84 A alitornia 8.84 "zona 10.70 aho 6.20 i inois 7.94 orth Dakota 7.75 ther states‘ 5.76 , ludes some work in Mexico. icative of family income than are data on in- idual workers. Average earnings of the fam- s for 1956 were $2,208 (Table 4). Intrastate ilies, however, averaged about $1,000 less in those who worked outside the State; $1,496, ‘ compared with $2,465 for interstate families d $2,583 for those who migrated both in and t 0f the State. Crew membership is declining. One reason r this may be that families who were members crews earned $2,026 per year, while families 0 were not members earned $2,507. Part of 's difference is explained by the fact that crews re more common in intrastate migration, where rnings are generally greater. The advantage of large families is indicated - the data on earnings per household according , number of workers. One-worker families had total earnings of only $1,218, a second worker added $514 to the family total, while a third boosted the family income to $2,537. Families with six, seven, or eight workers averaged total earnings of around $4,000 or more. Data on the cost of maintenance of these children are not available, but a large number of workers in a family results in a real addition to total family purchasing power. INCOME OF MIGRANT WORKERS COMPARED WITH NATIONAL AVERAGES A comparison was made between the incomes of these households and those of all households in the United States. The median‘ income of all households in the United States was well over twice that of the South Texas migrant house- holds, $4,783 as compared with $2,256 (2). Rural farm households in the United States, however, had median incomes in 1956 of only $2,371. So there are many low-income families in the Nation in the same income bracket as the migrant work- ers; in fact, many of the cropper families aver- age a good deal less but do not have the expense of migrating. Nonwhite farm families averaged $1,104 in that year. They also had no migrating if expenses. The average size of the Latin-American households was 6.5 persons as compared with an average of 3.3 persons for the Nation as a whole. Families in the United States with two workers had a median income of $5,576 in 1956, and those with three or more had $6,946. INCOME AT THE HOME BASE A major reason for low earnings in their home city was that more than half of the work- ers were out of the labor force when they were BLE 3. EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS BY FAMILY STATUS AND RANGE OF MOVEMENT, SOUTH TEXAS. 1956 I amily status Number and percentage of workers in each income group offioiggijlt woflilers Under $500 $500900 $1000-19s9 $2000 and over Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent workers 1.334 474 36 483 36 338 25 39 3 - - ily status Heads Male 410 44 11 152 37 182 44 32 8 female 38 18 47 11 29 9 24 .Wives 205 113 55 68 33 22 11 2 1 School youth Male 157 99 63 52 33 6 4 Female 124 91 74 29 23 4 3 I Nonschool youth Male m _ 107 21 19 49 46 35 33 2 2 Female " 81 27 33 36 44 16 20 2 2 Other persons " I Male 126 30 24 52 41 43 34 I 1 Female 86 31 36 34 40 21 24 ange of movement _ Texas only 376 214 57 93 25 63 17 6 1 ' Outside Texas 464 123 27 169 36 154 33 18 4 Both in and out of Texas 494 137 28 221 45 121 24 15 3 TABLE 4. AVERAGE EARNINGS PER HOUSEHOLD BY RANGE OF MOVEMENT AND NUMBER OF WORKERS, MI- GRATORY WORKERS, SOUTH TEXAS. 1956 Average earnings Type of household per household Dollars All households 2.208 Range of movement Texas only 1,496 Outside Texas 2,465 In and out of Texas I 2,583 Workers per household 1 1,218 2 1.732 3 2.537 4 2,929 5 3,073 6 3,954 7 4,287 8 4,184 at home. This included practically all the house- wives and school children and a high percentage of the other persons in the households? Average home base earnings of those who did work were $470. In the home-base cities, earnings varied to a large extent with distance from the Mexican border (Table 5). This was especially true for nonfarm jobs. Nonfarm Workers in Crystal City and Robstown earned about $7 a day, while those in Eagle Pass averaged $3.20 and those in Laredo $2.73. Workers come from both sides of the in- ternational boundary, and this results in a wage scale that is partially adjusted to living costs in Mexico. EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN TEXAS Earnings per day in Texas varied consider- ably. Those who worked in carrots and other vegetables earned around $3.50 to $4 per day (Table 6). Work in cotton is a step above “stoop” labor; it paid much better, around $5.50 per day. Those who were able to drive a truck or tractor received an average of $6.71 per day. A pronounced shift toward nonfarm employ- ment is explained by the fact that nonfarm jobs provided twice as much employment at a 50 per- cent higher wage. Unskilled jobs in restaurants, hotels and such paid low Wages but Were accept- able when a person was unable to do better. These paid around $4 per day. The lifting and loading jobs at storage plants and sawmills paid a little better, but most factory work and construction work paid more than $8. QSome bias may have occurred in the results of this sur- vey because families that had no financial reserves had either gone to a work area such as the Lower Rio Grande Valley or Florida or had gone to Mexico, where expenses were less. 6 EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY AGRICULT ll I WORKERS OUTSIDE OF TEXAS » A job outside of Texas was regarded- economic advancement. A few jobs, such ton chopping in Missouri and potato picki Alabama, paid no better than the “stoop”; jobs in Texas (Table 7). But most earni. farmwork averaged about $6, $7 or $8 pe In nonfarm work, the samé. job gradatio curred as in Texas, but the rates of pay wl to 5O percent higher (Table 8). Migratory workers tend to seek the, i‘ with the higher wage levels. Wages were; paratively low in the southeastern states a atively few South Texas migrants Went th compete with the Negroes for employment. "e were higher in the North and particularly so Northwest, and these are the directions in the Latin-Americans are moving. Length of employment and earnings in f of the areas and crops were so small as n justify a trip there; Alabama potatoes and»: souri and Mississippi cotton provided onlyI 20 days of work. Some workers, however, = ed $600 to $800 in a few months, particular . the northwestern states. PAY RATES OF MIGRATORY AGRICULT p WORKERS < The most complicated type of job was “thinning” of sugar beets. Some workers; ported $10, $12 and $14 an acre for thin, sugar beets. From these amounts, the rate. acre ranged up to $22 and $23. The rate va with the number and type of thinning and h operations performed. Some workers fin thinned the beets after crossblocking had done by machine. Other Workers did both f_ blocking and thinning. Other Workers did ‘v handthinning plus one, two or more handhoei all of which were a part of the “thinning” a ment. Hence the wide variation in rates. g might appear as a difference in rates from- sugar beet area to another was actually a di ence in the type of operation performed. Co" quently, variations in earnings per day as forth in the preceding section are the best 1 =1 TABLE 5. EARNINGS OF MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS THE HOME BASE, SOUTH TEXAS, 1956 . Average earnings at home -~ Home-base WESLZIIS Per worker Per clay worlre/ dtY reporting Who worked At nonfarm At -_ at home base iobs jo_ ' — — — — Dollars —- — All cities 594 470 5.21 San Antonio 114 664 6.07 Crystal City 124 521 6.99 res *2: s: are o . Weslaco 118 460 4.33 Robstown 89 436 6.84 ferences in rates of pay. Wage rates are _'bed in general terms rather than in detail. tions are rates for chopping, pulling and _. g cotton. These operations are pretty well ‘ rdized, yet local rates for picking are great- . ected by yield per acre, so even here it is dous to make a comparison from area to vwithout knowing all the factors involved. general, the jobs performed by the mi- , Workers were paid for on a piece-rate The workers reported a total of 5,989 jobs I at during the year, and 4 out of 5 of these paid for on a piece-rate basis. The major tions Were nonfarm jobs at the home base j. on the road, cotton chopping and general work, including loading and hauling har- y» crops. Most of the jobs paid for on an hourly or p basis were located at the home base. Rates ay for these jobs varied widely. The rate of Lfor many service-type jobs was as 10W as $2 iy, while general farmwork paid $4, $5 or $6 1: y, and construction work yielded from $0.75 _2 an hour. The most frequent rate for chop- :1 cotton was $0.50 or $0.60 an hour (Table The wide range in time rates indicates the ‘e range in abilities of the workers. A mi- ‘t who had recently come from Mexico might ;~= rd $0.40 an hour or $1.50 a day as adequate es. But in order to receive $2 an hour on a truction job, workers would need to have at- ed some special skill and some knowledge of lish. Omitting sugar-beet and cotton operations, I rates most commonly reported are listed as oWs: Potatoes A olorado 6 cents per half sack; 12-14 cents I per full sack, 12-15 cents per hun- dredweight. ' Idaho 9 cents per sack; 15 cents per hun- dredweight; 20-25 cents per hun- dredweight pick, load and haul. 65-75 cents per hour; 5-8 cents per bushel. hDakota 8-10 cents per bushel; 10 cents - per sack. 7-9 cents per bushel; 12-16 cents per bushel pick, load and haul. A innesota I ebraska Onions 14 ‘cents per full sack. 10 cents per bushel; 70-75 cents per hour. .' isconsin 75 cents per hour. Michigan 75 cents per hour. Colorado .1 innesota Tomatoes Colorado 12 cents per box. Indiana 10 cents per basket. Ohio 11 cents per hamper. Beans Colorado $2 per hundredweight. Idaho 2-1/4 cents per pound. Minnesota 3 cents per pound; 60 cents per bushel. Cherries Michigan 50-60 cents per box; 2 cents per pound. Wisconsin 20 cents per basket. In contrast to these rates, nonfarm employ- ment rates were more uniform. The most com- mon rate for work in canneries and packing houses in all areas was $1 per hour, and nearly all construction Work was $0.75 or $1 an hour. Rates‘ of pay on service jobs were more variable. They ranged from $10 to $40 a Week and from» $0.45 to $1 per hour. Jobs in restaurants, hotels, laundries and other service establishments at- tract many new entrants from Mexico. ~ They serve as a method of getting acquainted here and as a. steppingstone toward higher paid employ- ment in other fields. Wage rates for pulling and picking cotton are shown in Table 10. Pulling rates started at $1 per 100 pounds of seed cotton and went as TABLE 6. TYPES OF WORK DONE IN TEXAS. DAYS OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS, MIGRATORY FARMWORK- ERS. SOUTH TEXAS. 1956 Average Average Type of work Azfigge earnings earnings worked per per worker worker per day — — Dollars — - Farmwork Cotton Chopping 44 243 5.52 Picking 46 247 5.37 Onions 58 a 222 3.83 Spinach 58 260 4.48 Carrots 78 259 3.32 Other vegetables 57 199 3.49 Other crops 65 282 4.34 Truck or tractor driver 84 564 6.71 Other farmwork 73 311 4.26 Nontarmwork Construction work 84 682 8.12 Service work 79 ' 319 4.04 Cannery 7U 488 6.97 Packinghouse 83 490 5.90 Ice or storage plant 84 376 4.48 Sawmill 29 135 4.66 Other tactory work 71 633 8.92 Professional services 62 336 5.42 Transportation _ 85 452 5.32 Other noniarmwork 9U 564 6.27 TABLE 7. TYPES OF FARMWORK DONE. DAYS OF EM- PLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OUTSIDE TEXAS. BY STATES. MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS. SOUTH TEXAS, 1956 Average State and A313; 8g e SL122: earnings type o‘ work worked per worker pggrwgélger — — — Dollars — — — Alabama Potatoes 20 71 3.55 Arizona Cotton—chopping 73 . 666 9.12 —picking 34 366 10.76 Arkansas Cotton—picking 35 235 6.71 Truck driver—farm 13 100 7.69 California Sugar beets 69 600 8.70 Vegetable crops 60 522 8.70 Fruit crops 88 623 7.08 General iarmwork 136 1.700 12.50 Colorado Sugar beets 74 375 5.07 Potatoes 72 519 7.21 Beans 28 131 4.68 Other vegetables 30 167 5.57 Delaware Vegetables 47 340 7.23 Florida Tomatoes 63 392 6.22 Other vegetables 167 752 4.50 Idaho Sugar beets 49 299 6.10 Potatoes 34 248 7.29 Onions 68 276 4.06 Other crops 10 80 8.00 Illinois Tomatoes 39 319 8.18 Onions 84 473 5.63 Other vegetables ‘ 58 433 7.47 Other iarmwork 103 1.013 9.83 Indiana Tomatoes 38 232 6.11 Other crops 35 231 6.60 General iarmwork 16 100 6.25 Iowa Potatoes 28 164 5.86 Other iarmwork 78 305 3.91 ~~Kansas All crops 35 352 10.06 Michigan Sugar beets 53 342 6.45 Tomatoes 43 342 7.95 Onions 82 478 5.83 Strawberries 24 194 8.08 Cucumbers 37 178 4.81 Asparagus 30 150 5.00 Other vegetables 64 449 7.02 Cherries 29 210 7.24 Other iruit 15 115 7.67 Minnesota Sugar beets 55 424 7.71 Potatoes - 49 235 4.80 Beans 74 502 6.78 Onions 86 588 6.84 Other vegetables 33 259 57.85 Corn 22 148 6.73 General farmwork 70 522 7.46 Mississippi Cotton—picking 10 50 5.00 Missouri Cotton-chopping 11 36 3.27 —picking 21 130 6.19 Montana Sugar beets 54 299 5.54 Nebraska Sugar beets. et al 43 275 6.40 New Mexico Cotton—picking 23 178 7.74 Other iarmwork 39 161 4.13 8 high as $2. Three-fourths of the reports, I ever, were for $1.50. Picking rates started :_ but some workers received $4. The most co ‘ rate was $2. The rate varied considerably I one cotton area to another. Rates in Texas, l’ homa and New Mexico were on the some ge level, while those in Arizona, Arkansas and souri were considerably higher. - .1 ROLE AND INCOME OF CREW LEADERS‘... In most areas and jobs in which crew l ers were involved, the workers were employ a piece-rate basis negotiated between the fa ' and the crew leader, Figure 3. The major-e ception was that of employees of canning x panies who were paid the legal minimum scale for cannery employees, $1 per hour. W ers in sugar beets also were paid according s government scale, but this permitted some , gaining, because of differences in field c0 tions. Payment was on a per acre basis acc ing to established standards, varying from =1 TABLE 7. TYPES OF FARMWORK DONE, DAYS OF I PLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OUTSIDE TEXAS. BY STA, MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS, SOUTH TEXAS. 1956, Aver A State and Aggage 23x22: ear’ type oi work worllcred per worker pgrerw. - — — Dollars — North Dakota r Sugar beets 48 356 7.42“ Potatoes 32 269 8.41 , Ohio Sugar beets 92 530 5.76,; Potatoes 37 301 8.14 Tomatoes 38 270 7.11 7 Other crops 32 174 5.44 Oklahoma f Cotton 33 190 5.76 e Oregon o Sugar beets 50 268 5 Onions 97 860 8. Other vegetables 57 623 l0 Hops 46 421 9 South Dakota Potatoes 30 210 7. UIGII ; Tomatoes 17 112 6.59 s. Other crops 42 305 7.26 i" Washington Sugar beets 74 692 9.35 Peas 78 658 &44 Asparagus 58 409 7.05 . Other vegetables 65 588 9.05 Apples 18 180 10.00 Hops 112 781 6.97 » General larmwork 137 1.580 11.53 _; Wisconsin T‘ Sugar beets 64 461 7.20 Potatoes 33 188 5.70 Tomatoes 107 525 4.91 _ Beans 23 123 5.35 E . Onions 73 528 7.23 Cucumbers 21 123 5.86 i Other vegetables 88 701 7.97»; Apples 25 175 7.00 Cherries 26 161 6.19 Corn 82 698 851 '5 I area and as to the exact type of operation per- rmed. Some crew leaders complained that farmers re trying to cut labor costs and that neither e Workers nor the crew leaders were making l, much money as they did several years ago. me said that imported Mexican Nationals were ing employed by farmers as a means of low- "ng wage rates and that these workers also ' making work more irregular. Furthermore, ,was stated the expense to crew leaders for ‘ch items as gasoline, tires, repairs and new uipment had doubled, while they had no way raise their rates accordingly. A study of the rates for several crops leads ‘ the conclusion that the crew leader has done ‘mewhat better for himself than he has for the orker. Taking cotton as an illustration, the ditional rate to the crew leader has been $0.25 r 100 pounds of seed cotton for hauling to the 1 . The rate to. the worker has been around $2 $2.75 per 100 for picking cotton and around .50 to $1.75 for snapping it. Recently, crew ders have protested against the $0.25 rate, and .- e have been able to obtain $0.50 for hauling. e wage rates for picking and pulling cotton ve been declining, however, ever since 1951.3 Rates to workers and crew leaders per 100 unds for picking and pulling cotton were re- rted by crew leaders as follows: Workers’ Crew leaders’ Times rates rates reported $1.25 $0.25 1 1.50 .25 3 1.50 .50 3 1.75 .25 4 1.7 5 .50 1 2.00 .25 1 2.00 .50 1 2.50 .35 (Arizona) 1 Confusion in the cotton wage-rate structure indicated by the fact that some crew leaders W get one-third of the rate paid to the work- ', while others get as little as one-eighth. While sugar beet workers are paid a rate set government officials after a public hearing, _=- rates to crew leaders are still a matter of in- fidual negotiation. Some crew leaders were id a commission of $2 per acre for all acreages ndled by members of their crew, others were id $10 per day for hauling the workers to the ld, and still others were paid $1 per acre for pervision. Many; however, simply worked in r average cotton-picking rates by states, see Farm bor, Agricultural Marketing Service, November 1957. '1 1951 rate in Texas averaged $3 per hundredweight; e 1956 rate, $2.65. Rates reported by the crew leaders ' e well below these levels, but most reported rates were _r pulling rather than picking cotton. TABLE 8. EARNINGS AND NONFARM EMPLOYMENT OF MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS. OUTSIDE TEXAS. BY STATE AND TYPE OF WORK. 1956 Location Average A Average and days vetlage earnings type of work worked earnings per day — — — Dollars — — — California Canning 105 1,348.40 12.84 Illinois Packinghouse 200 2,600.00 13.00 Other factory 82 692.00 8.44 Indiana Packinghouse 49 288.00 5.88 Michigan Packinghouse g 85 650.00 7.65 Cannery 72 500.00 . 6.94 Railroad 96 1,152.00 12.00 Minnesota Cannery 17 117.00 6.88 Other factory 12 150.00 12.50 Oregon Cannery 70 840.00 12.00 Utah Cannery 63 500.00 7.94 _ Washington Cannery 34 256.00 7.53 Housework 134 854.00 6.37 Other service 100 482.00 4.82 Wisconsin Packinghouse 124 1.356.00 10.94 Cannery 39 322.00 8.26 Other factory 80 578.00 7.22 the field as head of their family and received no extra pay. In general, crew leaders had had little ex- perience with social security up to the time of these interviews. Four were aware that they would have to do something about it in 1957 . But in 1956, none of them had made any deductions for this purpose. Eleven, however, had worked for farmers who planned to make some social security deduction. TABLE 9. WAGE RATES REPORTED FOR CHOPPING COT- TON, BY MIGRATORY FARQMBWORKERS. SOUTH TEXAS. 1 5 Workers reporting, by states Rate All states Texas Other‘ All reports 150 141 9 Per hour $0.40 5 5 — .50 40 37 3 .55 11 11 — .60 40 38 2 .65 5 5 — .75 4 4 — Per day $4.00 18 17 1 4.50 2 2 — 5.00 6 4 2 5.50 9 9 — 6.75 7 7 — 9.00 1 — 1 Per week $25.00 2 2 — ‘Arizona. Arkansas. Missouri. Figure 3. Typical crew leader with truck and crew. TRENDS IN MIGRATORY FARM LABOR The patterns for migration of farm labor in the midcontinent area are still undergoing adap- tations to changing conditions. Both mechaniza- tion and the importation of foreign labor are re- ducing the demand for domestic migrant labor. Also, the permanent settlement of former mi- grants in the work areas and the growth of the day-haul system are changing work patterns. As a result, the worker cannot always plan his work route on the basis of last year’s experience, or he may lose a large amount of time. The supply of domestic labor that is avail- able for movement to the seasonal work areas in the midcontinent area is also diminishing. As Latin-American Workers in South Texas are able to qualify for and find local permanent employ- _TABLE 10. WAGE RATES REPORTED FOR PICKING AND PULLING COTTON, BY MIGRATORY FARMWORKERS, ' TEXAS, 1956 ment either at the home base or in the areas, they are lost as potential migrant wo Even though both the demand for an supply of migrant labor is diminishing, We not expect that the two trends will be in bale Changes in supply and demand tend to be" in nature and to vary from place to place, crop to crop and from yearltto year. Ch may increase the demand in a local area for ample, when new lands are brought under gation or there is a shift from livestock to or vegetable production. Under these cir stances, an improved guidance program forf grant workers is necessary if they are to a involuntary unemploymen . : FUTURE DEMAND FOR TEXAS MIGBATOR LABOR Demand for migratory workers in the continent area is dropping sharply. The l_ rapid decline has been in the demand for w, ers in sugar beets. Harvest operations are most completely mechanized and recent devg ments will soon lead to the mechanization; thinning and hoeing (3). Recruitment of a l supply to meet the high labor needs of this has been basic in the movement of South To A ~ workers to other states. In earlier years, ,7 . hand, then complete their harvest with mecy A through their fields and avoid the use of was picked by hand. Now, many comme growers have their fields picked over once? ical strippers. This practice cuts the lengt the handpicking season in half and meansa‘ work stops for the migratory worker. Other erators run mechanical pickers one or more ti laborers entirely (4). The cotton producing A Workers reporting each rate by state Ra.te per All ' N “ hundredwelght states Texas Oklahoma Meifio Arizona Arkansas Missouri 0th; Pulling cotton _ All reports 1190 1090 53 20 6 21 $1.00 5 5 1.25 64 60 2 2 1.40 15 15 1.50 , a 867 792 33 15 6 21 1.55 ' 5 - 5 1.60 a ~ 15 14 1 1.65 36 36 ‘ 1.75 183 163 17 3 Picking cotton All reports 253 135 1 8 47 18 41 $2.00 112 92 1 5 6 5 2.10 " 8 8 2.25 29 21 8 2.50 19 7 3 8 1 2.75 6 5 1 3.00 60 7 17 8 28 3.20 7 7 3.50 9 3 6 4.00 3 3 10 p. he United States is shifting rapidly from the i». in which hand labor is still used t0 those t are the most highly mechanized. Mechanization also is replacing labor in po- i and snap-bean harvesting. Hand labor soon I a be used only in seasons when weather puts v hine use at a disadvantage. From two-thirds three-fourths of the work that the migrants do by hand may be done by machine within next 5 to 10 years. i The harvesting of soft, perishable fruits and fies will not be mechanized so readily, and the lduction of these crops in the midcontinent a is increasing. a Former migrants also are reducing the de- » d for transient labor by settling in the work s. They establish a supply of local labor that l make its own job contacts or operate through Lday-haul system. Substituting local for mi- "tory labor is slow, especially since many for- i migrants probably will shift into permanent I arm employment. Some ex-migrants who e had a taste of nonfarm employment lose in- in seasonal farmwork before they attain j skill along nonfarm lines. As a result, they go through a period in which their produc- "iy and hence their income are low in both ‘of work. a Demand for domestic labor in the midcontin- area is being affected by the importation of ign labor, which offers stiff competition. All able-bodied males, screened for physical fit- = and agricultural experience before they en- f Recruitment problems are at a minimum. »: Workers can be ordered and returned as F are needed and in as large numbers as are led. The problem of housing is minimal, and lems of child care, child labor and education 1 avoided completely. Under these circum- lCGS, many farm employers show such a pref- ce for imported foreign labor that it is dif- t__ for governmental agencies to reserve em- I ent opportunities for the citizen workers. The U. S. Department of Labor, however, l-n extensive program to keep importation to inimum number needed to supplement cit- i workers for seasonal farm tasks. The De- ent makes surveys in the areas reported‘ to shortages of labor to determine labor re- ents for the major seasonal operations and upply of citizen labor to meet these needs. eys also are made of wage rates, so they will ibe depressed by bringing in an oversupply of lgn Workers. The operation of this program ficult because itfdepends partly on coopera- from growers who have a significant finan- 'terest in an ample supply of labor. Grow- o not know ahead of a harvest season how i}! a crop will ripen, nor how favorable the ier will be. A regard for their own inter- therefore, calls for having more workers than are barely necessary to do the job. Hence, they make a liberal statement of their needs. FUTURE SUPPLY OF MIGRATORY LABOR The future supply of migratory labor de- pends on and is influenced by all of the major factors that influence our economy. The factors that affect the supply can be grouped under three headings: general economic conditions, technol- ogy and education. The general health of our national and State economy affects the future supply of migratory workers because it determines the variety and number of nonagricultural jobs that will be avail- able to them. It is reasonable to assume that the Nation will continue to have the same general level of employment that it has enjoyed since World War II. If this continued high level of employment is realized, the supply of migratory agricultural workers will decrease. Migratory agricultural work, to a large extent, is a mar- ginal type of employment that is engaged in by people who lack more desirable employment al- ternatives. Under conditions of full employment, there will be a study movement of the more com- petent, better educated, younger and more talen- ted migrants into more permanent jobs. Under these conditions, the rate of movement for mi- grants into other and more remunerative types of employment will depend primarily on two fac- tors. One is the rate of adoption of labor-saving practices by agricultural producers. The other concerns the developments in the field of edu- cation of the migrants. Mechanization of farm operations is contin- uing at an accelerated pace and will result in such irregular seasonal employment that workers will seek jobs that offer a larger measure of economic security. It is not possible to predict the exact rate of adoption of labor-saving practices and machinery, as this rate depends upon a number of factors that are not easily defined and meas- ured. There is always a considerable lag be- tween the development of a labor-saving device which is economically practical and the general adoption of that practice by most producers. The replacement of a hand-labor operation by a ma- chine for a whole industry usually takes a decade or two. The rate at which migratory agricultural workers find better and steadier employment de- pends mainly on their ability to speak English and on their educational background (5). In the past, when retardation of Spanish-speaking chil- dren was 1 to 4 years and schools were nonex- istent or segregated, the Spanish-speaking part of the population was seriously handicapped and, in general, prevented from entering employment in a variety of jobs and occupations. This situa- tion has been changing rapidly during the past 20 years. Since World War II, almost all South Texas schools have had compulsory school-attend- ll ance laws enforced to a greater extent; and tech- niques have been worked out for eliminating re- tardation caused by language difficulty. In the future, a method 0f teaching basic English t0 Spanish-speaking pre-first graders probably will be incorporated into the State school system. These three changes—enforcement of school- attendance laws, better school opportunities and facilities and improved teaching techniques— should prepare the Spanish-speaking people for jobs in all parts of the economy. This improved education should permit them to take regular full- time jobs instead of migratory work. Importation of foreign labor also affects the supply of citizen migratory workers. The citizen workers frequently are resentful when they find that the jobs in the areas in which they had for- ’ merly worked are now being handled by imported foreign labor.‘ Importation appears to be the most effective method of reducing the number of citizen migrants. Experience in other areas in- dicates that when citizen workers once give over to imported foreign workers on employment in a certain area or operation, it is almost impos- sible to get them to return? The continued movement of workers across the Mexican border also affects the labor situa- tion in this area. Many who have learned the advantages of working in the United States, pos- sibly by being imported foreign workers, wish to return. Only a limited number can come in on a contractual basis, so many others come in either as “wetbacks” or as immigrants applying for cit- izenship. One of their best employment alter- natives in this country will be as migratory farm- workers. So we can expect a replenishment of 4Complaint about imported workers taking their jobs was -~-- general among the workers interviewed. 5For experience of citrus producers in the Los Angeles area, see “Labor Practices in the Food Industry Hear- ings”, Committee on Education and Labor, H. R. 80th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 1, 1948. M 089? the migratory labor force from this sou y a number of years to come. There is al’ possibility that either the Mexican or the Government might reduce, or eliminate, movement to this country; but this is only? sibility as long as the movement is to the " advantage of both countries. The general upward rise education, _ levels and standards of living‘ that is occ= among workers in this area and in the co“ eventually will reduce and systematize the ' ments of these people. A program of movement of migratory agricultural worke 1 result in more efficient utilization of a s labor force. l REFERENCES 1. Metzler, William H. and Sargent, Fre 0., “Migratory Farm Workers in the Mi_ tinent Stream,” U. S. Department of A I ture, 1960. 2. Bureau of the Census, Current Popul Reports, Incomes of Families and Perso i‘ the United States, 1956. Series P-60 N0.- April 1958. ‘i 3. Davis, Irving W. and Metzler, William p; “Sugar Beet Labor in Northern Color _ Colorado Agricultural Experiment ‘ Technical Bulletin 63, 1958. _ ‘ 4. Williamson, M. N., Morgan, Q. M. and 1.“ Ralph H., “Economics of Mechanical Harvesting,” Texas Agricultural Experi‘ Station Bulletin 735, 1951; and Motheral,‘ R., Metzler, William H. and Ducoff, Loui “Cotton and Man Power, Texas High Plai‘ Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, g letin 762, 1953. 5. Sargent, Frederic 0., “Education of Chi y; of Migratory Workers,” Texas Agricult Progress, Vol. 4, No. 2, March-April 1958.,