In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

DAVID N. PELLOW AND GLENNA MATTHEWS 11 Immigrant Workers in Two Eras Struggles and Successes in Silicon Valley CALIFORNIA’S SANTA CLARA VALLEY, now world famous as Silicon Valley,1 was also famous during an earlier period as one of the world’s leading fruit-growing and processing centers, home to thousands of acres of orchards and several dozen canneries and dried-fruit packing plants. In this chapter, we compare and contrast the struggles to improve production workers ’ labor conditions in both the fruit and electronics industries; these workers were predominantly immigrant women. Ultimately, the cannery workers achieved considerable success in improving their situation by forming and defending a union, whereas the electronics workers have yet to unionize, though they have struggled valiantly and have won battles in other arenas, such as the fight for environmental justice. It is important to acknowledge and understand the cannery workers’ unionization victories because these successes challenge those who believe it is impossible to organize vulnerable immigrant women workers, either in labor unions or for other purposes. ONE VALLEY/TWO INDUSTRIES Business Unity/Disunity There are, of course, many dissimilarities between the agricultural and the high-tech eras. During the fruit era (early 1900s to the 1970s), two competing setsofinterestscomprisedthebusinesscommunity—growersandprocessors, both of whom were powerful and well connected. With tens of thousands of acres in such fruits as prunes, plums, apricots, and cherries, Valley growers counted on a good price for their fruit—to say nothing of its role as a cornerstone of local prosperity. However, the canneries and dried-fruit packing plants were run by men—processors—who strove to pay as little for fruit as possible. Such is the logic of capitalism, and during the Great Depression, the inherent conflict of interest between these two groups flared into open con- flict and prevented the business community from presenting a united front against workers. Now, in the electronics era (1970s–present), just the opposite is true. Though firms compete, the electronics industry is characterized by many powerful trade associations, which, above all, have united to keep out labor unions (Eisenscher 1993; Robinson and McIlwee 1989).2 Industry leaders repeatedly have gone on record declaring to the community and elected officials that the electronics sector can survive in Silicon Valley only if it remains union free (Pellow and Park 2002). Consequently, community activist organizations, such as Asian Immigrant Women’s Advocates (AIWA), the Santa Clara Center for Occupational Safety and Health 130 PELLOW AND MATTHEWS (SCCOSH), and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC), have stepped up to perform tasks normally associated with union leadership. This includes wagingprotestsandlawsuitsagainstfirmsforviolationsofwagestandards,labor laws, and occupational safety and health regulations; leading educational activities to inform workers about their rights under the law; and advocating safer and more equitable workplace conditions. Although all other unions were inactive in the electronics sector during the 1980s and 1990s, the United Electrical Workers Union (UE) made unique, continuous efforts s to organize Valley electronics workers. In 1993, the UE successfully organized the first electronics-based union in several decades in the Valley at Versatronix. The foundation for this victory was laid years before by Michael Eisenscher, a longtime UE activist who arrived in the Valley in 1980. Through his union drive at National Semiconductor, Eisenscher put the question of collective bargaining rights on the agenda in the Valley’s electronics sector for the first time. The State’s Role In the 1930s, the cannery workers’ successful struggle for a union came at a time when the power of the American state was harnessed on behalf of the dispossessed as never before or since. The economic collapse that began with the stock market crash of 1929 generated the political will and President FranklinDelanoRoosevelt’sleadershipprovidedthecatalystfortheNewDeal programs, including path-breaking labor legislation that guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining. In the decades since, the idea that government can and should be a major source of help to its citizens has eroded precipitously. Republican Party politicians now routinely run for office on a platform of “social conservatism” (dismantle social welfare programs), “small government” (roll back the New Deal legacy), and “free trade” (anti-union)—and Democratic Party politicians run scared. Through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and such related organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the state has willingly abdicated much of its regulatory power in favor of protections for investors and corporations, both here and abroad. In short, the...

Share