Showing posts sorted by date for query UFW. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query UFW. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, May 13, 2026

PHOTO ESSAY

Source: Barn Raiser

SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA—Juana’s words echo in my mind as I pull off Highway 101 into downtown Santa Maria. Juana is a strawberry picker in a strawberry town. Santa Maria, along with Oxnard to the south and Salinas to the north, is one of three towns on California’s central coast, all in valleys, that produce 80% of all the berries picked and sold in the United States.

I wondered if I would see her at this year’s May Day march, but I doubted I would. May Day comes at the beginning of the picking season, when families feel their poverty the sharpest, after winter months when they’ve had no work.

“We have to save to pay the rent during the winter. If we don’t, we don’t have a place to live,” she told me two years ago. “During those five months there are always bills we can’t pay, like water. By March there’s no money at all, and we have to get loans to survive.” Loans come from “friends” who charge 10% interest. “Plus, I have to send money to my mama and papa in Mexico. There are many people depending on me.”

A banner says, “Without the Workers There is no Santa Maria.”

I drive down Broadway, the street that bisects Santa Maria, to its intersection at Main St. in downtown. These street names seem like quintessential small town America, but today they’ve lost some of that white bread feel. Taquerias line the streets, serving mole, tlayudas and other food from southern Mexico. Botanicas half-hidden in the back of strip malls do a good business with Mixtec and Triqui indigenous farmworkers. These little shops sell herbs and traditional remedies that many depend on when they get sick. They’re recommended by the curanderas and practitioners who’ve brought the ancient culture of indigenous medicine from Oaxaca to California’s central coast.

But many families also like them because they’re cheaper than drugstore medicine. They don’t require going to a hospital or clinic for a prescription. That means people don’t have to put their names into a computer system that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) might be able to access while looking for targets for deportation.

A different take on MAGA: “Mexicans Ain’t Going Anywhere.”

The state has pioneered Covered California, which provides medical insurance to undocumented people and those who can’t pay. But the regulations that go with federal funding mandate that information collected from patients be provided to the federal government. No one knows who can access what in the days of DOGE, and ICE has been very active in Santa Maria.

Poverty creates a need to work, and fear of ICE makes workers want to keep their heads down. Their kids, too, feel the economic pressure and the fear. But this year, like last year, it is the younger generations who show up to march, defend their parents and lift the spirits of their friends. They don’t lose money by taking time from work. Many who were born here should have not fear of ICE, although in these days of racial profiling that’s no guarantee.

Young people hold up their banners.

Wearing her No ICE button and carrying a gigante on a pole. Gigantes are big globes or puppets carried in dance festivals in Oaxaca, now endowed with a political message.

“What About Us?”

Lorena on the bullhorn.

“ICE Out of 805.” 805 is the area code for Santa Maria and the central coast.

Masks like this have become a custom in popular culture after they were first adopted by wrestlers in

The coastal fog of the early morning has burned off, but the wind makes it hard to carry the gigantes and globos—paper mache figures on poles that are a hallmark of Oaxacan dance festivals. The march kicks off in a huge parking lot in front of J.C. Penney’s. Lorena, a local student, is on a bullhorn, leading chants that defy ICE. First, she sets up the crowd with “Say it once, say it twice/We will not put up with ICE!” And then asks, “What do we want?” “Justice!” the crowd answers. “When do we want it?” “NOW!”

Lorena had walked out of Pioneer Valley High at lunchtime. When I ask if she is worried about retaliation, she gives me a puzzled look. “I mean, what is there to be worried about?” she says. “It’s something that everyone should be proud of, and it’s nothing you should be ashamed about, and we should do it without fear.”

Lorena speaks to the crowd on May Day.

I ask how people at school feel about the threat of ICE deportations and the Trump administration’s immigration policies. “One of my closest friends told me she was really scared of everything happening,” she says. “So I helped get her resources and calm her nerves.” She continues:

But a lot of people at school are going through the same thing. They have the red cards that say their rights and everything, but they still live in that fear that they’re going to get home from school and their parents aren’t going to be able to get there. Some have siblings and they worry who’s going to take care of them, let alone how they’ll take care of themselves. And it’s a struggle because these are teens.

The boisterous May Day march snakes down Broadway, with several hundred chanting farmworkers, students and community activists. Signs defying ICE are the most common, but homemade placards, many illustrated with strawberries or workers’ families, also take aim at low wages. According to a recent report, Beyond the Cycle of Survival, issued by a coalition of farmworker advocates, California produces $60 billion of agricultural wealth every year, with the labor of 900,000 farmworkers. Nevertheless, “Farmworker wages are unlivable and inequitable,” it says. “Median crop farmworker wages are about $17 per hour in California while median annual salaries are only $15,000—far below what is necessary for the state’s high costs of living.”

Lorena calls out to friend in a lowrider to join the march.

Those wages are paid overwhelmingly by corporate farms. The report notes: “Non-family farms and large-scale family farms make up 21% of all California farms, yet they generate 92% of the state’s total agricultural production value. Meanwhile, small farms produce just 4%.”

For Jorge Ruiz, one of several workers who left jobs to march, poverty was the motivator. He and his wife pay over $2,000 a month for a small apartment shared among five people. She works in the grapes and strawberries, while he does landscaping. This year he told his boss that people across the country were not working on May Day. “And he said yes, it’s okay, just bring some papers to say what you’re going to do and all that.” Twelve of his coworkers didn’t work on May Day.

Jorge Ruiz chose not to work and went to the march instead.

While his boss sounds reasonable, Ruiz wasn’t any less angry about the money. “What they pay us is not enough,” he says. “The bosses demand the work, but they don’t want us to raise our salary.” That pressure kept most workers on the job, he says, but often with conflicting feelings. He says:

Leaving would be a considerable sacrifice. If we miss a day of work, the check goes down, and then it is difficult for us. But we also want to raise our voices so they can hear that we have the right to be paid better. Many people are afraid of being absent, but if we don’t raise our voices, it won’t change. We have to come together so that they listen to us.

Lorena’s friend Cesar Vasquez, another youth activist, helped organize school walkouts last year and wants the movement around May Day to go beyond just hating poverty and Trump. “We paint the problem as the current president, but we fail to recognize that the deportations and the violations of human rights were happening before too,” he says. “We have to understand the system is the problem, and the focus should be bringing the power back to the people.”

Cesar Vasquez speaks to the crowd.

Vasquez is more than just brave words. After May Day in 2025, he built a Rapid Response Network to defend against ICE, which grew from 50 people to 1,200 today in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Even white people, he says. “Right after the murder of Renee Good and Alex Preddy, the white man and the white woman that have historically been at the top of America’s power chain, recognize that anything can happen,” says Vasquez. “Now we are seeing people show up that look like them, because they recognize that after me and my family, they are next.”

Kids march with their parents.

Hearing this wasn’t such a surprise. The central coast of California is sometimes called Reagan Country, and its political class still leans right, compared to Los Angeles and San Francisco. I worked here in the mid-1970s as an organizer for the United Farm Workers (UFW). While growers ran the town in an above-board way, Santa Maria had a core of radical workers who would have recognized Cesar Vasquez as a brother.

I knew I was home when I first visited a family of UFW activists we called “de hueso colorado,” or “to the red marrow of their bones,” which meant they were union supporters to the core. As I walked in their door a huge portrait of Che Guevara looked down at me from the living room wall.

The valley here saw big strikes by the UFW in the early 1970s, and we organized union elections after California’s farm labor law passed later that decade. Indigenous Mixtec workers from Oaxaca organized their own union and struck the strawberries in 1998. Work stoppages were common at the start of each year’s picking season, until the current wave of immigration raids made them dangerous for workers.

Defying Reagan Country’s right-wing reputation, this year May Day marches expanded into two more central coast agricultural towns. North of Santa Maria is Paso Robles, home to high-end wineries and a growing population of workers. To the south, Lompoc is home to Mexican flower harvesters—one of the few places in the U.S. where flower cultivation hasn’t been relocated to South America.

Lorena.

In the 1940s Lompoc was a tiny town with card rooms patronized by single Filipino farmworker men living in labor camps. Today, flower pickers are almost entirely Mexican. But whether for Mexicans or the Filipinos who came before them, May Day is familiar from home—it is a workers’ celebration.

I don’t think people forget the May Day ideas they’ve grown up with. I didn’t see Juana this year in Santa Maria. She may have been working, or thought coming to a march might risk getting picked up by ICE. But I did see the generation that people like Juana have helped raise. These young people know the hardship of living with poverty wages and the work that exacts a terrible physical toll.

May Day is growing. The youth who’ve grown up here want it. The day offers them the chance to defy danger, to get angry and call out for a better system guaranteeing a better life.

All images copyright David Bacon

This article was originally published by Barn Raiser; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.Email
avatar

David Bacon is a photojournalist, author, political activist, and union organizer who has focused on labor issues, particularly those related to immigrant labor. He has written several books and numerous articles on the subject and has held photographic exhibitions. He became interested in labor issues from an early age and he was involved in organizing efforts for the United Farm Workers, the United Electrical Workers, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, the Molders' Union and others.

Tuesday, April 07, 2026

 

Source: Labor Notes

In 2011 Frank Bardacke published an 800-page history of the Farm Workers union: Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers. It opened many eyes to the reasons the UFW became a shadow of its former self.

Bardacke starts the book with an epigraph, a quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “O what a fall was there, my countrymen! Then I, and you, and all of us fell down…”

Bardacke was a farmworker in the fields of the Salinas Valley for six seasons in the 1970s. When he decided to write his book years later, he went back to his carpool co-workers, finding them still at work in the fields. In 1994, the union had been thoroughly defeated for nearly 10 years—but his old friends were afraid even to mention its name where the foreman might hear.

I interviewed Frank Bardacke after a New York Times investigation revealed evidence that Chavez had sexually abused young girls who were volunteering with the union, and the allegation that he had also assaulted union co-founder Dolores Huerta. –Jane Slaughter


Jane Slaughter: The revelations about Cesar Chavez as a sexual predator: many people have said they were “surprised but not shocked” or “shocked but not surprised.” How did you react?

Frank Bardacke: The abuse of Ana Murguia was rumored at the time among UFW staff, primarily at the La Paz headquarters. Many of the rumors originated with Ana’s stepmother, Kathy Murguia. But people just didn’t want to hear it. They didn’t want to look into it very deeply because Cesar was one of these powerful men who could do anything he damn well pleased; he was immune from investigation.

It puts him in the category that seems to be so prevalent these days, or at least more known about: powerful men who can do whatever they want to do, including groom children and abuse women, and they don’t have to answer for it.

Where did that power come from?

For the men we know about, it comes from money or political connections or celebrity. Where did Cesar’s power come from?

The first answer is that he had just turned a losing 1965 grape strike into the most successful boycott in American history, at the conclusion of which, in 1970, farmworkers won the most substantial contracts they’d ever had: a hiring hall, grievance procedures, seniority lists. They’d never had those before.

That’s the first reason he had power. Through that he became a celebrity. He was the organizer, the architect, and the main energy behind that boycott, a hero and a celebrity with the kind of immunity that modern celebrities have.

But the second reason was an internal reason within the UFW. Everybody within the organization owed their job to Cesar. He appointed everybody, he could discharge anybody at his will, which he often did. That wasn’t just theoretical power; periodic purges pulsed through the organization. So you didn’t disagree with Cesar except at the peril of losing your job.

Those were the two reasons that no one wanted to follow up on the rumors of abuse. He was an authentic hero who had led and directed that boycott, and everybody in his organization owed their job to him.

Tell us more about the structure of the UFW.

That’s a crucial part of this. From the beginning, say in the early 1960s, the structure was basically volunteer organizers appointed by Chavez who earned $5 a week, plus expenses if on some kind of assignment.

That structure lasted even when the UFW Organizing Committee (UFWOC) became an actual union. They continued this organizational structure of volunteers. They did not set up union locals. The union constitution did not have provision for union locals. There was no way that an ordinary farmworker could elect anybody; everybody served at Chavez’s pleasure. That included the field offices in local places where there were farmworker contracts.

Then in 1969 there was a victorious farmworker strike in the Salinas Valley. There was a provision in the agreement that allowed for farmworkers to elect their own reps, called field reps, who would help enforce the contract in the local areas.

Field reps were in place in addition to the field offices, where everyone owed their jobs to Chavez. But the paid reps owed their jobs to their crews. They got the pay equivalent to what their former crews were making. They were highly skilled, high-paid crews, earning as much as $500 a week back in the day.

This was an entirely new situation in the UFW and Chavez had tremendous trouble from the outset with the field reps—who could disagree with him. People hadn’t successfully disagreed with Chavez for nearly 15 years. There was no tradition of arguing and debating and voting as in other unions.

The paid reps became quite independent and collectively they decided that the big problem in Salinas was that they only had half of the valley organized, and for the union to survive, they had to organize the nonunion companies.

So they started organizing the nonunion companies and had some success. But Chavez was never comfortable with the Salinas contracts. There were lots of contract disputes and Chavez had never dealt with contract disputes. He was sick of the complaints, he thought contracts were a pain in the ass. He was busy with the boycott, which he thought was the most important tool the union had.

But what was the boycott for if not to win more contracts?

The reality of contracts was different from the idea of getting more contracts. Contracts brought problems, especially in 1970 in Salinas after a victorious strike. The workers were testing the extent of their victory. They were filing grievances and fighting for seniority rights.

It was the year I went into the fields and I was astounded by the militancy. I was on a crew that was told to thin the lettuce, and people wouldn’t leave the bus because they said the fields had been fumigated too recently—this was a right which was in the contract. The foreman was furious. He ordered us to go into the fields and somebody went to the union office and somebody came out and argued with the boss and we never went to work that day.

Chavez was primarily a boycott leader by this time. He was not really interested in rank-and-file problems on the ground. Moreover, he could see the reps were expanding their constituency and he thought they would become even more powerful. He ordered them to stop organizing, and when they didn’t, he fired them. Even though he didn’t have a legal right to do so.

There was a big battle and it all came out at the UFW convention—and the growers knew about it. They knew the union was divided, and in 1980 they went on the offensive and basically defeated the union. This story in all its gory details can be found in my book.

Is there a lesson here for unionists about how their unions should be run?

Yes. Democratic unionism is essential to union strength. Open discussion and debate is essential to building the kind of unity that you need. The lack of democratic organization is what caused the downfall of the UFW. The lack of democratic organization not only gave Chavez immunity in his abuse of girls and women, but is also what caused the downfall of the UFW.

Is there a lesson about making it all about one leader?

I’m not against leaders. Good leaders are essential to a movement. The main lesson I see is that the good leader has got to emerge out of a democratic tradition and democratic discussion and shouldn’t serve for life.

What about the rumors that the union was opposed to undocumented workers?

That is another long, sad story. At various periods the union was actively opposed to the undocumented. They even set up their own border patrol line in the Imperial Valley, called the “wet line.” The UFW had an anti-illegals campaign in the early ’70s in which they actually fingered undocumented people to the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] . UFW loyalists would provide a list to the local INS office of the undocumented people working in the fields.

These were their co-workers.

Yes. Close to half the workers in the fields were undocumented by this time. Why would an organization that was trying to organize field workers set one half of field workers against the other half?

Chavez’s answer was, “We have to explain to the boycotters why we are losing contracts. Illegals is the answer. The undocumented are taking the contracts away from us.” Which points to the fact that the best way to understand Chavez in the mid-1970s was as a boycott leader, not a farmworker leader. He sacrificed the organizing of farmworkers to strengthen his boycott organizing.

What now?

I’m for taking down the statues and renaming the schools and the streets. I’m not for replacing them with the name of Dolores Huerta, who was a loyal lieutenant and very often the point person in the various purges of people who had elicited Chavez’s displeasure.

If you want to give them a name of a farmworker, give them the name of one of the reps who are still known in the fields. Cleofas Guzman. Mario Bustamante.Email

Frank Bardacke was a farmworker in the fields of the Salinas Valley for six seasons in the 1970s. He published an 800-page history of the Farm Workers union: Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers.

Friday, March 27, 2026

USA

Cesar Chavez, Civil Rights and Labor icon, raped girls and women

Wednesday 25 March 2026, by Dan La Botz



Cesar Chavez, who in the 1960s led the struggles of Mexican Americans for civil rights and of farmworkers for labor unions, was accused in a carefully researched New York Times article of having raped women and sexually abused girls as young as 13. Among those women was Dolores Huerta, herself a founder and leader of the union, who confirmed that he forced himself on her and fathered two of her children, secretly raised by others. Debra Rojas reported that Chavez had had intercourse with her when she was 15, which is rape under state law because she was too young to give legal consent.

These revelations come as a shock to many. Chavez was a progressive icon. Some 86 schools in 14 states and Puerto Rico were named after him, as were dozens of streets, libraries and other public buildings. President Barack Obama proclaimed Cesar Chavez Day a national commemorative holiday. But not this year as statues to him are coming down and local governments are voting to remove his name from public places.

The revelations about Chavez come as a blow both to the Mexican American and broader Latino civil rights movement and to the labor movement that held him in high esteem. At the same time, Mexican American farmworker women have come forward to talk about the sexual abuse that is common in the agricultural fields and that they too endured. And Ana Avendaño of the Service Employees Union, points out other union officials have engaged in sexual abuse and remain in office despite evidence of their wrongdoing. And all of this at a time when President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are engaged in an attack on both Labor in general and Latinos in particular.

In California. Chavez created the first stable agricultural workers unions in American history, organized strikes and national boycotts and won labor union contracts. At the same time, he raised the profile of Mexican Americans and helped carve out a greater role for them in American society and politics. Yet we on the left were always critical of Chavez.

The United Farm Workers (UFW) that Chavez led was the result of a merger between a Filipino American and a Mexican American farmworkers union. But once Chavez became the president, Mexican American culture, the Spanish language, Mexican nationalism became dominant, overshadowing the Filipino and Arab workers traditions. The UFW also became a virtual Catholic union, marching behind the Mexican Catholic banners of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Chavez formed a personal bond with Democratic Party leader Robert Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, who visited the union leader during his hunger strikes, but that was part of a union-party partnership that made the UFW part of the Democratic political machine. Chavez praised mutualismo, that is, cooperativism, the notion that workers pooled their resources and shared, but in fact the union became dependent upon the Democrats who distributed federal funds to the union for its social welfare programs.

Chavez was from the beginning an autocrat, placing his family members and close friends in union leadership positions. Unlike other unions the UFW, though it was stretched across California’s 800 miles, never created local unions because Chavez feared they might rebel against him. He periodically purged other union leaders, staff, and rank-and-file members who were dissidents.

Dolores Huerta, now 95 years old says, “The farmworker movement has always been bigger and far more important than any one individual. Cesar’s actions do not diminish the permanent improvements achieved for farmworkers with the help of thousands of people. We must continue to engage and support our community, which needs advocacy and activism now more than ever.” True, but we also need a struggle against machismo and patriarchy in the unions.