North for the Harvest: Mexican Workers, Growers, and the Sugar Beet Industry

4 Growers, Mexicans, and Patronismo

C H A P T E R 4 Growers, Mexicans, and Patronismo the year 1950 proved to be a pivotal one for American Crystal, migrant workers, and valley growers as the federal government launched an in-depth investigation into migrant labor working and living conditions , the Korean War broke out, and the sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley su≠ered an acute labor shortage. The onset of the conflict in Korea helped drive sugar production demands higher amid nationwide worries over severe agricultural labor shortages. For American Crystal and the growers, profits increased but so did oversight from the federal government. At the same time, the valley’s growers tried to increase their sugar beet acreage allotments, by pressuring American Crystal to build more processing facilities and by encouraging other sugar beet companies to establish operations in the region. More sugar beet cultivation meant that even more betabeleros were needed, which forced American Crystal to o≠er additional benefits to its labor force. Despite increasing Mexican migrants’ wages and improving their working conditions, the company and its growers continued to be plagued with harvest labor shortages. Ultimately, by necessity, the growers mechanized. Machines could not completely eliminate, however, the need for field workers. Hence, American Crystal and its growers fostered a more paternalistic relationship with the betabeleros, similar to the Hispanic traditional patronismo, in order to forge a loyal workforce. This northern version of patronismo brought some betterment in the working and living conditions of the Mexican migrant community, as did the rising scrutiny by federal and state governments and by social agencies into the nature of the migrants’ lives. In fact, by the mid-1950s government’s influence on the matrix of sugar beet production in the valley made it a more four-sided arrangement , rather than the previous triangle. Consequently, as the 1950s unfolded, the dynamics among American Crystal, its growers in the 87 Red River Valley, and the Mexican migrant workers they depended upon continued to evolve as advantage and necessity shaped their interactions. several factors induced president harry truman in 1950 to create the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor. Truman had already established a pattern of promoting equal rights and better treatment for minority groups through his desegregation of the armed forces and federal facilities. Of course, these steps had been aimed primarily at African Americans and motivated by political concerns. Political considerations did provide some impetus to the 1950 migratory worker investigation in that organized labor, an important component of the Democratic Party, vociferously protested the continued importation of braceros to the United States, arguing that in some instances these Mexican workers had been used as strikebreakers and that their availability drove wages downward. In addition, the on-again, o≠-again bracero agreement with Mexico had generated considerable friction among various federal agencies, especially the INS and the USDA, because of their di≠erent missions. The ongoing flood of illegal immigrants had also stirred serious debate in the regions along the border. Growers wanted unlimited access to these workers while social service organizations and Mexican American groups, such as LULAC, demanded that these immigrants be turned back because they eroded wages, especially in places like the Nueces Strip. And finally, civil rights advocates, such as Roy Wilkins of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, linked migrant workers’ living and working conditions with the emerging African American movement, which further influenced Truman’s decision to launch a federal inquiry.1 On June 3, 1950, through Executive Order 10129, President Truman created a five-member Commission on Migratory Labor “to make a broad study of conditions among migratory workers in the United States and of problems created by the migration of workers into this country.” While Truman received criticism from labor and civil rights groups for not appointing any Mexican Americans, African Americans, or union activists to the commission, the individuals he did choose were certainly not friends of agribusiness in America. Maurice T. Van 88 / north for the harvest Hecke, selected to head the panel, was a labor law professor at the University of North Carolina and had served as labor mediator with the National War Labor Board during World War II. The other members were Noble Clark, who had experience with the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization; Peter Odegard, a political scientist from the University California at Berkeley; Archbishop Robert E...