STATISTICAL DATA ON STRIKES

In presenting statistical data on strikes attention must be called to the circumstance that most of the data presented below was compiled from current newspaper accounts, supplemented and corrected by such field reports of the agents of the State Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Law Enforcement, as were available. As in most instances, the newspaper estimates on the number of men involved in the individual strikes were usually guesses, often exaggerated, still more often underestimated, depending on whether the information of the reporter was obtained from the growers or the strikers; no amount of corrections made could possibly yield the actual number of workers involved in all the strikes, or even in the individual strikes. Moreover, some reports on strikes failed to mention either the number of men involved in a strike or the duration of a strike or the cause of a given strike or the settlement made, while a number of smaller strikes were not reported at all.

Furthermore, in following the day-to-day development of a strike in a given locality, or in several localities, but involving the same crop, the number of strikers reported was constantly changing, sometimes more were reported as being on strike and sometimes less, depending on the progress of the strike in question and on the estimating moods of the reporter.

Due to the circumstances mentioned, the strike data computed by this office is at best a rough approximation of the actual, and under no circumstances can be viewed in any other light.

The following tabulation summarizes the estimated number of strikes, the estimated number of workers directly involved, and the estimated work days lost, together with the kind of crop involved and the locality of strikes:

As is shown in the tabulation, close to 50,000 agricultural wage earners were involved during the 1933 strikes, with a loss of approximately 700,000 working days. It should be mentioned that the total of 37 strikes appearing in the tabulation does not necessarily represent the number of strikes which actually took place, for, as in the case of the cotton strike, although it is recorded in the tabulation as one strike, represented actually several strikes, if judged by the number of localities involved.

The strikes affected, as is seen in the tabulation, 14 crops. Of the crops involved the cotton crop was the only one in which all the picking operations were tied up completely for a period of 27 days.

Three strikes out of the total were participated in by over 5,000 workers, viz, the peach strike, the grape strike, and the cotton strike, which accounted for 15,000 strikers.

Finally, the tabulation shows that of the 37 strikes listed 29 resulted in gains, 7 were reported as lost, with 1 unaccounted for.

The following tabulation summarizes the month-to-month movement of strikes :

As the tabulation indicates, strikes began in April and continued with different degrees of intensity until December. From the point of view of the number of strikes, the month of August, with 17 strikes recorded, witnessed the greatest number of strikes, although from the point of view of the number of workers involved in strikes the month of October shows the largest number of strikers engaged in strike struggles.

DEMANDS OF STRIKERS

Without exception, the demand for increase in wages underlied all of the reported strikes. In the majority of cases the strikers demanded 35 cents an hour, as against the prevailing average of 15 cents per hour, although in some instances, due to the pressure of strike threats, the minimum wage, in a number of places, was advanced to 172 cents and to 20 cents an hour prior to the declaration of the strike or during its progress.

Union recognition was the next demand appearing most frequently, followed by demands for improved conditions, mostly for the abolition of the contract system, and, lastly, for a decrease of hours of work. The following tabulation summarizes the causes of strikes:

According to the available information of the total number of strikes the Cannery Agricultural Industrial Workers Union, affiliated with the Trade Union Unity League, supplied leadership in 24 strikes, or 35 percent of the total strikes; the agricultural unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor led in 2 strikes, or 5 percent of the total; the independent unions (Mexican) accounted also for 2 sirikes, or 5 percent of the total. One of the interesting aspects of the agricultural strikes in 1933 was the relatively large number of spontaneous strikes which, on the basis of all available information, were in no way connected with any organizations active in the strikes. There were six spontaneous strikes, or 16 percent of the total, which apparently were not corrected either with the Cannery Agricultural Industrial Union or the unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Finally, three strikes, or 8 percent of the total, could not have been traced to having connections with any of the organizations mentioned and were either of a spontaneous character, or were connected possibly indirectly with the Cannery Agricultural Workers Industrial Union.

The following summarizes the number of strikes on the basis of leadership:

Of the 47,575 workers engaged in strikes in 1933, 37,550, or 79 percent of the total were under the leadership of the Cannery Agricultural Workers Industrial Union; 2,200, or 4.6 percent, were under the leadership of unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; 3,725, or 7.8 percent of the total, were involved in spontaneous strikes; 1,500, or 3.1 percent, were under unknown leadership; and 2,600, or 5.5 percent, were under the leadership of the independent unions. It is clear therefore that the Cannery Agricultural Workers Industrial Union played by far the more important role in the agricultural strikes in 1933 than the other labor organizations, both as to the number of strikes led and the number of men under its guidance. The data on the number of men led by each group of organizations may be summarized as follows:

Of the 37 strikes reported, 29 led to gains to the strikers; 7 strikes were reported as lost; and 1 could not be traced as to results. With the exception of only one strike, the gains reported were always below those originally demanded by the strikers, so that the gains represented only partial and not complete victory for the strikers.

Of the 24 strikes led by the C. A. W. I. U., 21 strikes, affecting 32,800 workers, resulted in partial increase of wages to the workers, the new scale averaging 25 cents an hour, while 4 strikes, affecting 4,750 workers, were lost. Of the 2 strikes led by unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 1 strike, affecting 2,000 workers, resulted in a compromised gain; the other strike, affecting 200 workers, was lost. Of the spontaneous strikes, three strikes, affecting 1,225 workers, were lost. Of the 2 strikes led by the independent unions, 1 strike, involving 600 wage earners, resulted in wage gains, while the other strike, involving 2,000 workers, was lost. For the 3 strikes classed under "unknown leadership ", 2 led to gains in wages, while the result of the third strike could not be traced.

TAKEN FROM SURVEY OF CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

There are no official data on agricultural employment and agricultural wages in California, although the role of agricultural labor in the State's agricultural economy is of the greatest importance. California leads all the States in the Union in the percentage of agricultural wage earners to the total number of gainfully employed population in agriculture. The percentage of farm wage workers to the total agricultural population, 10 years of age and over, gainfully employed, was 56.4 percent in 1930. According to the 1930 census, of the total

agricultural population in California of 334,241, classified as gainfully employed", 188,678, or 56.4 percent, represented agricultural wage earners.

The important role played by farm wage labor in California's agriculture is further attested by the large number of farms reporting the use of hired labor and by the total amount of money spent in California on farm wages, both of which are proportionately largest in the country.

Because the major California crops are of the perishable kind, the State's agriculture depends upon a large and mobile supply of casual labor, especially at the harvest peaks. Seasonal succession of crops has naturally tended to build up a large migratory labor reserve army, drifting from one crop to another, from crop peek to crop peek, every month of the year. But despite the continuous succession of crops, a large number of agricultural workers spend a considerable part of the winter season in the cities, so that their earnings from agricultural work is limited at best to only a few months of the year. The decline in the demand for agricultural labor during the depression and the fact that many of the city unemployed seek work in the agricultural fields, together with the large influx of itinerant workers into California from other States during the depression, has tended to reduce the income of agricultural labor in California very markedly. One example will suffice to indicate what happened in this connection.

According to the records of the State reemployment office at Bakersfield, cotton-picking prices for 100 pounds for first picking were $1.50 in 1929, 75 cents in 1930, 50 cents in 1931, and 40 cents in 1932. In 1933 when the strike broke out the prevailing wage for harvesting was 15 cents per hour, being in some cases as low as 10 and 12 cents per hour. At the present time the average wage for harvesting is around 20 or 25 cents per hour.

The major part of the social aspects of the agricultural problem in California is related directly to the peculiar character of California's agriculture. The small-scale subsistence farming, which is still the predominant type of farming in many sections of the United States, plays only a minor role in California's agriculture. Instead, the "factory-farm", with all that the term implies, dominates the agricultural system of the State. The "factory-farm in point of organization and management resembles more the city factory than the old-type farm. Such farms are often operated by absentee owners through a manager, with general policies decided not on the farm, but in the city. Such farms hire not one or two workers during the busy season, but hundreds and even thousands of workers. It is estimated that California has about 37 percent of all the large-scale farms in the United States-that is, farms having an anual crop value of $30,000 and over. True enough, from the point of view of numbers, the small farms overshadow the large farms. Thus, of the 135,676 farms in California (1930 census) 37.5 percent were in the up-to-20-acre class; 25.8 percent were in the 20-to-49-acre class, while the farms in the 500-999-acre class and farms in the 100 acres and over class accounted respectively for 4.3. percent and 4.2 percent of the total number of farms in the State. However, from the point of view of total acreage the picture of the relative position of farm groups is quite different. If we segregate all farms into two categories, those up to 500 acres, and those from 500 acres and up, the distribution of all land in farms in 1930 was as follows: Of the total acreage (land in farms) 72.7 percent of all farms (125,761) in the up-to-500 class accounted for 7,756,855 acres, or 25 percent of the total amount of all land in farm. On the other hand, 7.3 percent (9,911) of all farms in the class of 500 acres and over, accounted for 22,685,000 acres, or 74.5 percent of all land in farms. This grouping, although rough, indicates the preponderance of the large farms as to the amount of land controlled.

Even if we group all farms on the basis of crop land harvested in 1929 into the same two categories, we find that the 72.7 percent of all farms in California accounted for 57.2 percent of the total crop land harvested, while 7.3 percent of farms for the same year harvested 36 percent of all crop land harvested.

ECONOMIC POSITION OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE

The importance of agriculture in the economic life of California may be judged by the fact that in 1929 agricultural income represented 30.6 percent of the total basic income from production, which was $2,664,732,000, and which was distributed as follows:

The most recent official data relating to gross income from farm production by States, released by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1931, places California first among all the States of the Union in respect to the gross income received from the sale of crops, livestock, and livestock products. Comparing the actual farm value of each State in 1931, on the basis of 75 crops grown in the United States, California exceeded Texas by approximately 4 percent and the State of Iowa by 29 percent.

California's share in the production of field crops in the United States in terms of value is relatively small, about 2.7 percent, although the State is among the leading producers of several specific crops, such as beans, hops, rice, sugarbeets, and barley. In fruits and nuts, and in vegetable crops, California is by far the outstanding producer in the United States. Taking 1932, the percentage of California fruit and nut crop production to the United States total ranged from 44 percent for plums and prunes to 100 percent for lemons, olives, figs, almonds, and nuts. In the vegetable crops the percentage of California production to the United States total ranged from 12 percent for tomatoes to 100 percent for artichokes.

THE EFFECT OF DEPRESSION ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN CALIFORNIA

In California, as elsewhere in the United States, agricultural production did not show marked decline during the years of depression, the value of California's agricultural production, and therefore, the farmers' income, declined steadily from 1929 to 1932, a decline from $762,479,000 in 1929 to $371,965,000 in 1932. This decline was the inevitable result of the declining prices for agricultural farm products. The monthly average index of farm prices in California for all products declined from 136.5 in 1929 to 69.8 in 1932.

After a 3-year period of steady decline, the value of California farm products increased during 1933 and exceeded the 1932 total by $36,430,000 or 9.8 percent, with the largest increase taking place in the fruit crop (19.5 percent) and field crops (30 percent). The income from vegetable crops and from livestock and products, however, declined respectively by 8.2 percent and 3.3 percent.

The general improvement in agriculture in 1933 may be traced directly to Government efforts. In this connection, the introduction of a new form of production and marketing control under the Agricultural Adjustment Act has been of total significance in raising the level of agricultural prices of those commodities for which agreements were established. It was therefore not accidental that the largest gains in price registered by individual commodities which were affected directly by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration agreements, such as clingstone peaches and cotton.

But

Another contributing cause for the increased returns for California farm products in 1933 was the upward movement of wholesale commodity prices in the latter part of 1933. Wholesale commodity prices (United States as a whole) during the depression were declining until February 1933, when they reached the lowest level since the first part of the twentieth century. during the few months period ended in December 1933 the price index of 784 commodities compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics rose 18.5 percent, which was the most extensive upward movement since the World War inflation period. The class of commodities most important to California, namely, farm products, showed the largest gain, having increased 35.8 percent. Among commodities showing the largest gains were: cotton, oranges, peaches, prunes, raisins (Thompson).

AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK FOR 1934

Agricultural prospects for the year show rather mixed trends. Decreases in acreage have been reported for a number of crops, due partly to the Agricultural Adjustment Administration agreements and partly to drought conditions in the