OCR Text |
Show Page 2 UTAH FARM BUREAU Kill It In April 1969 NEWS California Sometimes it seems as though we simply have one crisis pile on top of another. Last year we were faced with all of the normal problems that come this time of year, worrying about planting weather, water runoff, labor prices and the big Greenbelt push was just getting warmed up. Now we have the Green-be- lt situation behind us, but all of the other problems are with us plus a menacing situation with respect to withdrawal of public lands from grazing use and a fee increase for grazing. And if that isnt enough, along comes Dick Owens who tells us that the boycott on grapes in California is something that concerns us in Utah. And in the background theres mumbling about loading us up too heavily with issues to worry about and thats one we can leave alone. Well have to disagree. In our view the boycott on grapes and what it is one of the biggest challenges to agriculture in this century. The only thing that promises to be worse is the water crisis that is expected to roll into view some ten years hence. Looking at the situation logically, few Utah farmers could come up with the That boycott business could cost me my farm. Few could say conclusion, that and yet, this thing defies logic. With the backing of organized labor, these people may be able to effectively deny you your market, whether it be milk, meat or produce. That is, if they win in California. If they succeed in Delano, they wont stop until they have contracts with every farmer who employs labor. In the meantime, they keep your product off the market whether you employ laborers or not, simply because its the product that is being boycotted. At the present time the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee is boycotting California table grapes, regardless of where or by whom they are grown, or by whom they are picked. Conceivably, all of the grape workers in a vineyard could belong to their union and the grapes still be under the boycott. The goal of the U.F.W.O.C. is to bring the growers to their knees. Unable to find an effective means of bringing the workers into the union in substantial numbers, the union changed tactics. If the boycott succeeds in depriving the growers of their market, the growers will have to sign union contracts and the grape workers are then forced to belong to the union. If there are any doubts about the goal of Cezar Chavez, consider this. The Minister of the Methodist Church of Palm Srings, California, Lloyd Sachen, On Monday, February 3rd, 1968, Bishop James Armstrong of the writes, United Methodist Church, and I, flew to Bakersfield and then on to Delano to speak with Cezar Chavez about the grape boycott. He told Mr. Chavez that the growers in California and throughout the nation have expressed support of legislation to aid the migrant workers. Mr. Chavez said, We dont need the legislation any more. . . .What must we do then to end the boycott? Mr. Chavez said, The growers need to walk through that door and sign this rep-rese- nts contract.. . IF WE CAN KILL THE GRAPE BOYCOTT IN CALIFORNIA, WE CAN PROBABLY BURY IT THERE AND NOT CONCERN OURSELVES WITH OTHER BOYCOTTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY! How do we do it? Mr. Owens, Secretary of the California Farm Bureau, says we can do three things: 1. BUY GRAPES. Insist that your grocer carry grapes and then buy them and have your friends buy them. Eat grapes until youre sick of them, if need be. 2. TELL YOUR FRIENDS. Inform boycott and what it means. as many people as you can about the grape all you can to help get equitable legislation passed in Washington and in our state to prevent these people from having this kind of a stranglehold on agriculture. LETS DO IT. 3. WORK FOR LEGISLATION. Do Food for thought Nuns Nonsense About Farmers Organizations suppose that a real test of one's ability to stay calm and composed is to read the address of Sister M. Thomas More, OSF, the nun who is campaigning for unification of farm organizations, without blowing six gaskets in your visceral area. My first Impulse on reading this nonsence (yes, NONSENSE) was to go through it point by point and refute the whole thing in print. But, what's the use? I can't help but marvel that this woman was awarded a degree as a result of the research on farm organizations she did in 1962. It's probable that the committee reviewing her research didnt know anything about farm organizations, either. And, always welcoming social criticism, they bought this line of drivel, which reeks of shalI low scholarship. She doesnt know any more about farm organizations that a pig knows about church. And while we're on the subject, why isnt she following her vocation? Agriculture in general would be a lot better off if the would go back to migrant ministers and the intinerant the pulpits and parochial schools, where the faithful intended their money to be used. But, to the point of all this. Sister More says that if we can just all get together the future will assume a rosy glow. Why should it? She seems to be saying that if farmers dictate their own policy in agriculture, everything would Improve. At the same time, she dismisses the idea that eliminating price support and subsidy programs is even possible, let alone desirable. What then? Magic? Massive bargaining power? With what? Can you bargain for higher prices do-good- ers while your crops rot? It is possible that we will reach the point where most of Americas food and fiber will be produced according to contract. But this is hardly the prerogative of a federal agricultural program. Sister More misses the point. The farmers don't all belong to the same farm organization because they don't see things the same way in fact, theyre not the same kind of farmers. And, the day may be approaching when Congress will no longer pay any attention to farm groups anyway. Farmers will belong to farm organizations, not because of the intention of dictating farm policy, but for the cooperative services that are provided by the organization. It's a bit hard to admit, but most farmers pay more attention to the price of a bale of twine than to the organizations position on an upcoming bill in Washington. I feel that effective farm organizations will always have an Influence on a state level and be listened to with respect at hearings in Washington. But we will not ever again achieve the position of the legendary "farm bloc or "farm sector that was so often discussed, no matter how many kindred spirits Sister More Inspires. As a matter of fact, the future in farming is rosy. It's rosy for the man who coldy examines the situation and discovers how he may earn a profit 'at low prices prices that are lower than we now see them: That's the direction of the future adapting to the situation as we find it. That's the direction well probably take while studying the situation and attempting to correct mistaken policies of the government such as the General Agreement on Tarrlfs and Trade (which is causing the sort of problems for wheat producers that Farm Bureau predicted it would before it was signed). I say that we'll probably take that direction the direction that the successful farmers are taking, because, despite all of Sister Mores charges, the Farm Bureau is directed by its members. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. A matter of sour grapes Many publications and TV newscasts may have given the impression that the grape strike-boyco- tt has won widespread support throughout the United States. A sampling of newspaper editorial comment shows it ain't necessarily so. Even in areas where unions are strong and remember, the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee is part of the AFL-CI- O and has been given both moral and financial support by the parent union there are expressions of doubt. The Detroit Free Press, for instance, commented: "The boycott is not a campaign to raise wages, show concern for migrant workers, or get more protection legislation for farm workers. What it is solely is a drive to force grape pickers to join a union to which they dont want to belong. Or consider the question raised by the Rochester (N.Y.) Times Union: If so many grape pickers do not want a union, why should housewives boycott grapes and thus deny the pickers their livelihood simply to support a drive for union power and union dues by a union they have rejected." UTAH FARM BUREAU (HiNEWS Published each month by the Utah Farm Bureau Federation at Salt Lake City, Utah. Editorial and Business Office, 629 East Fourth South, Salt Lake cents per year to memCity, Utah, 84102. Subscription price of twenty-fiv- e bers is included in membership fee. Entered as second class matter March 24, 1948 at the Post Office at salt Lake City, Utah under die act of March 3, 1879. UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION OFFICIALS Elmo W. Hamilton, Riverton President S. Jay Child, Cleafleld Vice President Mrs. Willis Whitbeck, Bennion Chairman, Farm Bureau Women V. Allen Olsen Executive Secretary Editor Kenneth J. Rice DIRECTORS District One, A. Alton Hoffman; District Two, William Holmes; District Three, Jack Brown; District Four, Don Allen; District Five, Ken Brasher, District Six, Lee Barton; District Seven, Richard Nelson. |