The Fight for Unionization
Mexican Labor's Battle for Union Representation, Fight Against Exploitation, and In-fighting
The citrus strikes of the 1930s represent the opposing interests of the growers and Mexican laborers coming to a clash. These two groups were not the only interest groups to make an impact on the strikes. Institutions like the Mexican consulate, newspaper presses, unions, law enforcement, and other notable figures in the community all fought on conflicting sides, and others tried to take a middle ground. There was also not a monolith. Many Anglo-Americans fought on the side of the citrus union organizers while many Mexican laborers continued to work, never leaving to strike.
​
Since Mexican labor was the principal workforce in the citrus belt and vital to the profits of the growers, the growers went to great lengths to stamp out resistance and irregularity that could result in oranges spoiling, thus a loss of profit. To maintain a stable workforce, growers hired multigenerational families in an attempt to strengthen "worker loyalty"(McBane, 216). Schools in the grower's communities propagated an ideology of obedience and strong work ethics to ensure that children would grow up to become loyal workers. Growers also built housing for their workers as a "way to prevent, or at least, slow, organizing efforts among workers"(McBane, 216). A workforce that depended on their boss for basic amenities such as housing was less willing to strike or resist when their family was put at risk. This was one reason that growers favored Mexican labor. Mexican labor brought their family and could be controlled by using the family as collateral.
​
Even with strong disincentives and barriers placed by the citrus growers, Mexican laborers still found ways to organize, unionize, and resist. By working with national unions, left-wing activists, and the Mexican consulate, Mexican citrus labor strengthened and legitimized their fight, creating unions like the moderate Confederación de Uniones Oberas Mexicanas, who worked closely with the Mexican consulate, and the more radical, Confderacion de Uniones y Obreros del Estado de California, who promoted and worked alongside left-wing activists. These unions "emerged largely as a response to the differential nature of radicalization and race management in California fields" and were largely multiracial and grassroots efforts that "threatened regional hierarchies"(Sine, 251-252). Although Mexican unions were strengthened by national movements like the National Front, Mexican immigrants of the 1920s were well aware and even participated in the Mexican labor movements that "emerged from the revolution" and had received experience developing labor organizations in Mexico after "the guarantees of labor rights in Article 123 of the new constitution"(Lear, 237). The labor movements in Mexico of the 1920s are important to the California Citrus Belt because it demonstrates that the Mexican labor movement emerged from Mexican roots and cannot be completely attributed to American leftist movements. Since the Mexican government effectively controlled Mexican unions, the Mexican consulate in Southern California felt an obligation to intervene to contain any radicalized Mexican-American union ideologies from spilling back into Mexico as there was a clear dialogue between Mexicans in the United States and Mexico.
The 1930s witnessed "waves of strikes that swept California agriculture" in a diverse array of industries. (Sine, 229) Both unions drew thousands of workers to their cause; however, their political opposition and differences to one another would cause a rift in the movement that would weaken major strikes like that of 1936 in Orange County. The Mexican government is largely responsible for the divide. Having regained stability after the tumultuous years of the Mexican Revolution, the government, through its consulate, made sure to "steer the unions clear of the same radicalism feared within Mexico"(Gonzalez, 49). The Mexican government also feared that if Mexican laborers repatriated back to Mexico, they would bring back notions of "class conscious, organized, and independent labor movement"(Gonzalez, 50). Mexico feared radicals coming back to their country and wanting to institute major left-wing change changing the makeup of the country along with them. The consulate went about neutralizing Mexican labor by highjacking the Confederacion de Uniones Obreras Mexicanas, separating the union from leftists and "radical 'agitators'" by working within the US legal system. (Gonzalez, 52) The consulate went so far as to condemn efforts by other unions to strike, such as when Lucas Lucio, Orange County's consular representative, "determined that militancy among the workers needed to be checked" and urged them not to strike. (Gonzalez, 57)
Mexican unions were further weakened by a war waged by the growers. Growers waged a war of propaganda utilizing "red scare tactics" and by acquiring the aid of the sheriff, police departments, and newspapers who "depicted the union as radical-infested and teeming with outside agitators"(Gonzalez, 60). These efforts helped bust demonstrations, turn public opinion away from the strikers, and maintain a sizable portion of the Mexican workforce to continue operating despite the strikes.
​
Mexican efforts to unionize and strike are best illustrated by the 1936 Orange County citrus strike, which was the largest citrus strike of the entire era.
​
Origins
Unionization in the 1920s
The 1920s were a decade where Mexican labor began organizing and forming unions with the assistance of national Anglo-American unions interested in aiding the formation of these new unions.
In the Heraldo de Mexico, a Mexican newspaper press who published in Los Angeles, reports on January 26, 1928, in the article titled "Es un Hecho que la American Federation of Labor Reconocerá a la Unión de Obreros Mexicanos" that there were ongoing lines of communication between the Mexican led La Unión Obreros Mexicanos alongside the American Federation of Labor. The two unions agreed to create a pact of solidarity and open communication between the two organizations. The article also mentions how the notable labor leader, J.B. Dale, will assist Mexican leadership in the hope of obtaining success.
​
It is well documented that Anglo-American activists also aid the Mexican labor movement; however, this article illustrates how the connection between these two groups was in the making far before the strike from the 1930s.
The article coming from the Mexican perspective also illustrates that Mexicans gladly accepted Anglo-American help, especially in regard to strategic assistance and beginning the initial formation of these first Mexican unions.
​
The alliance between Anglo-American unions as well as activists and Mexican labor will only strengthen with the beginning of major riots in the 1930s.
1936 Citrus Strike in Orange County
The early 1930s saw an upward trend in the number of strikes due to external pressures from the Great Depression and consisted of small strikes that usually ended in individual negotiations on the individual or crew level, having little to no impact on the region.
​
1935 marked a year of substantial change that culminated in the massive strikes of 1936. In 1935, concerted efforts of Mexican unions were put into action. Mexican pickers complained about "low wages, the bonus system, charges for transportation, and equipment, and abusive foreman"(Gonzalez, 55). The biggest grievance was the added charges placed on workers for transportation. Transportation costs were obligatory and charged 15-20 cents a day, even if the worker refused to use the transportation. (Gonzalez, 55) The prices were so high that workers could occasionally end up owing the company money after a day of work.
​
The union Confederacion de Uniones y Obreros Mexicanos del Estado de California or CUCOM under the militant leadership of Guillermo Velarde took on the grievances of the Mexican pickers. Velarde and the CUCOM had been successful in other strikes against the management of celery, squash, peas, and lettuce industries by striking for a month and raising their pay. (Gonzalez, 54) The strike Orange County strike first began with a minor eruption in Villa Park in 1935 and quickly spread among other workers in neighboring communities.(Gonzalez, 58) The strikes later grew to larger proportions, with thousands of Mexican citrus laborers going on strike. The details of this strike is further elaborated on in the primary sources.
​
While attracting thousands of Mexican laborers to go on strike, the CUCOM failed because of several reasons. Petitions to the growers failed to manifest tangible results because of a successful smear campaign and holding control over law enforcement who put down many strikes and foiled attempts to scare the Mexican laborers who continued working. The largest undercut came from the divide amongst unions with the Confederacion de Uniones Obreras Mexicanas, a union-sponsored by the Mexican consulate, cut out CUCOM from the negotiation table for being too radical and making a deal with the growers. Although CUCOM ultimately failed to gain their objectives, they were able to take the fight to the growers by cutting a major portion of their profits and cutting production from 7000 to 3300. (Gonzalez, 59) This shows that Mexican workers had agency and were not submissive like many of the growers stereotyped. CUCOM would have been successful if they had gained more support from more Mexican workers, but the massive divides stumped these efforts. This shows that the Mexican labor was not a monolith but a diverse group with many political divides.
Rising Violence
LA Times
The reporter opens up the article by saying, "old vigilante days were revived." This condescending tone sets the tone for the rest of the story. The skirmish that took place between the "rioters," workers, and guards resulted in one man nearing death and others requiring nursing.
​
The growers overcame the strike by using the county sheriff. This article supports the narrative that the strikers were radical communists. Sheriff Jackson says, 'This is no fight between orchardists and pickers' rather 'it is a fight between the entire population of Orange County and a bunch of communists.' Growers also stated that the strikes were a 'communist agitated strike.' Growers and their associates, including the newspaper press and local sheriff, straw-man the strikers by calling them communists. At the time, there was anti-communist sentiment amongst the elite class in America. By labeling them communists, the growers would not be entitled to fulfill their demands because the laborers were radicals, thus must not be reasoned with. This also takes the attention away from citrus and onto communism, maintaining a good marketing image for the citrus industry. It is important to remember that marketing likened citrus in California to a paradise. Violence coupled with strikers would have tarnished this image.
​
The growers and their associates also blamed the "riot" on outside agitators like Lillian Monroe of the Federation of Agricultural Workers Union of America. The Article claims that she once had a communist past and also claims that she orchestrated the strike. By blaming outside agitators, the growers could claim that the average worker is passive and content, but its outside influencers were the ones provoking strikes. Claims of white leftest agitators intervening on behalf of the citrus laborers suggest that some Anglo-Americans were sympathetic to their labor struggle. This reinforces the idea that there were no monoliths in the citrus strikes. A notable amount of Anglo-Americans aided Mexican laborers.
​
Retaliation
LA Times
The article describes how "strikers stoned and burned two automobiles belonging to Atwood citrus workers and assaulted another worker in Fullerton." The reporter explains that one of the attackers said, 'You had it coming to you... others will get it later.' The victim admits that he did not join the strike. While the press might have exaggerated their claims, this still shows violence amongst Mexican strikers and a sense of comradery that could be broken by not following the rest of the group, resulting in inward violence. This reinforces the idea that Mexican labor was not a monolith, with many Mexican laborers continuing to work alongside the growers.
​
By making claims of violence, the growers and their associates justified the use of firearms and other weapons. As a result of the violence on non-complying workers, growers began equipping their transport drivers to carry weapons. This would ensure that the Mexican labor that remained loyal was protected, showing signs of paternalism, and stabilized the workforce to maintain picking, avoiding the spoilage of their citrus products.