1985–1987 Watsonville Cannery strike
1985–1987 Watsonville Cannery strike | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | September 9, 1985 – March 11, 1987 (1 year, 6 months and 2 days) | ||
Location | Watsonville, California, United States | ||
Caused by | Disagreements over the terms of a new labor contract | ||
Goals | Union sought to prevent cuts in wages and benefits | ||
Methods |
| ||
Resulted in | Union and companies agreed to new industry-wide labor contract that preserved employee benefits, but included wage cuts | ||
Parties | |||
|
This article is part of a series on the |
History of Chicanos and Mexican Americans |
---|
![]() |
The 1985–1987 Watsonville Cannery strike was a
The city of Watsonville has historically been a center for the
The strike received significant support from the local Latino community, with support coming from
Labor historians note the significance of the strike as one of the few successful strikes in the United States during the 1980s, compared to other strikes of the time such as the
Background
Food processing industry in Watsonville
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Watsonville_California_aerial_view.jpg/275px-Watsonville_California_aerial_view.jpg)
By the mid-1980s, the city's industry was dominated by two firms in particular: the Watsonville Canning Company and Richard A. Shaw Inc.[15][12] Together, these two companies accounted for about 80 percent of Watsonville's frozen food output.[16] These two firms were also the largest frozen food processors in the United States.[17] Watsonville Canning, the larger of the two,[7] was the largest frozen food processing company in the United States.[18] It employed about 5,000 people and processed roughly half of the United States's supply of frozen vegetables.[19] The company, which by the 1980s was owned by Watsonville native Mort Console,[3] produced frozen vegetables for Birds Eye and private supermarket brands.[16]
Latinos in the area
In 1900, Watsonville had a population of 3,528, of which only 118 were from
However, despite the change in demographics, white Americans still held most of the economic and political power in the city.[3] Discrimination against Latinos was common in Watsonville, with housing discrimination being a major issue.[23] In 1969, some Latino students at Watsonville High School held a walkout and boycott of classes, demanding that more Latino teachers and employees be hired by the school.[23] By 1985, the mayor, fire chief and police chief were all white,[3] and only one member of the city council was Latino.[23] Additionally, Watsonville Canning was white-owned.[3] Regarding the economic disparities between Latinos and white Americans, scholar Erik Davis once referred to Watsonville as "a poor town with a large, struggling migrant population".[24]
Union activity
Through the 1930s and 1940s,
Local 912
In 1952,[16] with assistance from the owners of Watsonville Canning,[26] IBT Local 912 was organized in Watsonville to represent cannery workers in the city,[26][16] and by 1986, they represented almost all of the roughly 4,000 food processing workers in Watsonville.[12] By the mid-1990s, roughly one out of every four Watsonville residents were members of Local 912.[32][9][10] This local union was closely aligned with the local business interests,[19] leading to some researchers calling it a "company union"[33] that "was controlled by a corrupt leadership".[34] According to activist Frank Bardacke, "the bosses allowed the union officials a good deal of personal power, as long as they refrained from challenging the employer's prerogatives in production or encouraging workers to organize themselves".[35] Some of the union leaders would socialize and play poker with cannery officials,[12][3] and Richard King, who served as the secretary-treasurer for several years[26] before becoming the local's president in 1967,[7] was the father-in-law of a business partner at Richard A. Shaw.[26] As the head of the local, he was generally uninvolved in union activities, rarely attending union meetings,[26] and some rank and file union members were critical of his accommodationist approach to labor-management relations.[36]
In 1985, about 70 percent of Local 912's membership was Latino,[36] and more Latinos voted in Teamsters elections than they did in municipal elections.[9][10][32] However, the local was dominated by white Americans who were largely disconnected from these members' concerns.[19][5] Union meetings were held only in English and, until the mid-1980s, only one person on the local's leadership, a business agent who had been appointed by the local in 1968, spoke Spanish.[26] Additionally, while women made up the majority of Local 912 membership, they were not represented on the local leadership,[36] and few attended union meetings due to a lack of child care coverage from the local and the bureaucratic and parliamentarian nature of the meetings.[35] Despite these issues, the local had managed to negotiate some of the highest wages for food processing workers in the country, with a base hourly pay up to $7.05 for most workers and up to $12 for machine operators, plus employee benefits.[12]
Changes in the industry in the 1980s
In 1973, Local 912 membership peaked at about 7,000 members, with peak season employment in the Watsonville canneries reaching about 10,000.
Wage decreases at Watsonville Canning
Food processing companies in Watsonville responded to these changing market trends by renegotiating labor contracts with Local 912. In 1982, Watsonville Canning negotiated an agreement with Local 912 wherein they would reduce their hourly wages from the industry standard of $7.06 to $6.66.[note 3] The company argued that the pay cut was necessary due to a decline in business,[3] claiming that the company was near bankruptcy[37] and the cuts would allow the company to remain profitable.[7] Additionally, the company agreed to restore the wages if business improved.[37] The cuts gave Watsonville Canning a competitive edge over the other food processing plants in Watsonville,[40] with the company seeing a five percent increase in business during 1985.[3] Soon after these changes were implemented at Watsonville Canning, other food processors began requesting similar wage decreases from the union.[37][3][7]
Contract negotiations
In early 1985, the union and Watsonville Canning entered into negotiations for a new labor contract,
Around the same time, Shaw also left the industry-wide agreement and began pushing for terms similar to what Watsonville Canning had.[7] Shaw proposed a base hourly pay reduction from $7.06 to $6.66,[1][39] with new hires earning $4.43 per hour.[1] Additionally, the company was pushing for 25 takeaways in employee benefits.[39] As it became apparent that an agreement between Local 912 and both Watsonville Canning and Shaw was unlikely to be reached, the companies began preparing for possible strike action.[48] Watsonville Canning began to stockpile its product during mid-1985,[41] and additionally secured $18 million in credit from Wells Fargo.[7] In an article for the Los Angeles Times, union officials stated that the speedups and policy changes made during mid-1985 were intended to force a strike in sentiments that were echoed by Charles Craypo, head of the economics department at the University of Notre Dame, who said, "Companies today are taking the offensive, doing things to weaken unions and sometimes forcing them into strikes that they can’t win".[3] Don McIntosh, editor of the Northwest Labor Press, stated that the company had recently hired an anti-union law firm and, on their advice, were attempting to provoke a strike, hire permanent replacements, and decertify the union in a government-administered decertification election that would involve voting from those permanent replacements.[7] Speaking about the policy changes and wage reductions, King said, "The companies are trying to break the union here and send us back into the 1950's".[1]
In comparison to Watsonville Canning, Local 912 was unprepared for a strike.
Course of the strike
Early activities during the strike
The food processing workers began their strike on September 9, 1985.[59] At 5 a.m. that Monday, union members met at the union hall and were given picket signs and sent to the gates of the two frozen food plants.[15] At Watsonville Canning, the strikers formed a picket line that stretched for eight city blocks, while at Shaw, the line was a third of a mile long.[15] Many of the picket signs were written in both English and Spanish, and many of the strikers brought their children with them.[60] In response to the picketing, the district attorney and Console, who stated that he "feared for [his] personal safety", requested Santa Cruz County Superior Court[3] Judge William Kelsay to issue a temporary restraining order against the strikers, which he granted at 8 p.m. that day,[15] within 15 hours of the start of the strike.[7] As part of the restraining order, there could be no more than four pickets within 20 feet (6.1 m) of each of Watsonville Canning's eight gates, pickets could not be within 10 feet (3.0 m) of each other, and only people going to work at the plant could congregate within 100 yards (91 m) of the plant.[15][7] The restraining order significantly hampered the effectiveness of the strike,[15][3] with each plant limited to only 60 pickets.[47]
Soon after the strike began, the Watsonville City Council increased funding for their
Community support for the strike
To make up for the lost wages, strikers received a weekly
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
One of the groups involved in the strike were the Detroit-based Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU),[12] a group within the IBT that had been formed in the 1970s with the intent to challenge the conservative old guard and push for more militant union with more of an emphasis on rank-and-file leadership.[28] The TDU had become involved in Local 912 activities in the early 1980s when it campaigned for union meetings to be held in both English and Spanish[66] Some TDU members in Local 912 were active in pushing for a strike in mid-1985,[67] and at the start of the strike, the TDU chapter in Watsonville attempted to fill the power vacuum in the strike leadership.[15] The TDU also pushed for weekly strike meetings and attempted to raise the weekly strike pay from $55 to $100.[16]
Strikebreakers and instances of violence
In order to continue operations during the strike, the two companies began hiring strikebreakers shortly after the strike began.[10][45] These workers were paid slightly over $5 per hour,[note 7] with no employee benefits or guaranteed job security.[6] For roughly the first two months of the strike, the plants operated with about 80 to 100 strikebreakers, whereas before the strike these plants operated with between 1,000 and 2,000 employees.[39] As a result, the plants operated at a reduced production level.[1] Through the strike, there was a high turnover rate among the replacement workers,[6][15] with many working only a few weeks before quitting.[16] However, by September 1986, Watsonville Canning had about 900 replacement workers in their employment.[30]
"Just because you’re
Catholicdoesn’t mean you can’t throw rocks at scabs".
Gloria Betancourt, a strike leader, discussing instances of violence against strikebreakers[7]
Police accompanied the strikebreakers to and from the plants,
Late 1985
On October 6, the Watsonville TDU helped to organize a "Solidarity Day" rally in Watsonville that included a march to the Watsonville Canning plant,[41] with about 3,000 supporters participating.[68][8] Several days later, on October 15, about 400 strikers met to elect their own Strike Committee that would function independently of either the IBT or the TDU.[41] Regarding the creation of this group, Gloria Betancourt, one of the rank-and-file union members who was elected to the committee, said, "We didn't trust the union officials anymore. We felt as workers we had to form our own Strike Committee".[41] This strike committee, composed of workers from both plants,[41] handled the day-to-day operations of the strike,[54] which included, among other things, 24-hour picketing and food distribution.[57] The same month that the strike committee was formed, Watsonville Canning presented their final proposal to Local 912.[3] The company offered a base hourly pay of $5.05,[39][12] as well as a preference for the replacement workers over the striking workers.[3] On October 28, 1985,[16] union members voted 800–1 to reject this offer.[39] On November 3,[50] the strike committee called for another rally, which was again attended by about 3,000 supporters.[45] The following month, Local 912 held officer elections in which the more moderate incumbent members of the union were challenged by more militant candidates, including Betancourt, who was the first Mexican women to run for president in the local's history.[36] While several members of this slate were elected, Betancourt lost her bid.[61] King, meanwhile, was not reelected as an officer of the union.[note 8] This trend of more militant union members winning Local 912 elections continued in next December's elections,[50] though again Betancourt lost her bid for president.[69]
Shaw settles with strikers
In February 1986, after several months on strike, the workers from Richard A. Shaw settled with that company,[45][15] ending their strike on February 14.[61] As part of the agreement, the workers accepted an hourly pay rate of $5.85,[45] which, while higher than the $5.05 Shaw had proposed prior to the strike, was still significantly lower than the previous industry standard.[61] The agreement affected about 900 union employees of Shaw, who ultimately took a 17 percent pay cut.[16] Additionally, the contract contained language that would allow the company and union to renegotiate wages if Watsonville Canning settled with their employees for a lower rate.[61] According to Chavelo Moreno, a member of the Strike Committee, the agreement set a wage ceiling for industry, which made it more difficult for the Watsonville Canning employees to negotiate a higher rate.[61] In July 1986, union employees at another Watsonville plant accepted a pay rate of $5.85 per hour,[16] cementing that as the new industry standard.[30] However, the language of this master agreement that the IBT had with the industry included a "me-too" clause that would not allow Watsonville Canning to undercut this rate.[7] According to Local 912 President Leon Ellis, the local had agreed to the $1.21 pay cut after Shaw disclosed their financial information to the union that proved that the company was losing money.[3] The local had also requested that Watsonville Canning disclose their private financial information as part of contract negotiations, but Verduzco stated that the company would only do so if the union paid a $500,000 fine.[3] In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, he said, "I don’t trust those hoodlums; they want to run this company out of business. We are a privately held corporation. Our financial statements are our financial statements; they don’t belong to the people".[3]
Early 1986
On
Local 912 targets Wells Fargo and company moves to decertify
Around mid-1986, Local 912 began to focus its attention on Wells Fargo for its role as a major financial backer of Watsonville Canning. This idea to put pressure on Wells Fargo had initially been proposed in November 1985 by UFW president and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez.[50] In May 1986, the IBT voted to pressure Wells Fargo, allowing Local 912 to campaign for northern California labor unions and groups to withdraw their funds from Wells Fargo if the strike did not end on terms favorable to the union.[50] Despite this vote, the international union did little in active campaigning against Wells Fargo, and that same month, the IBT voted to "undertake economic sanctions" against Watsonville Canning but stopped short of calling for a full boycott of Watsonville Canning products.[63] In July 1986, Chavez met with strikers in Watsonville and pushed for a boycott against Wells Fargo.[73] The Strike Committee's decision to meet with Chavez was against the wishes of the IBT, who were opposed to the UFW and had competed directly against that union in organizing farm workers in the 1970s.[73]
![A color photograph of the front of a building, with a sign reading "WELLS FARGO" above the entryway](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Wellsfargohq.jpg/200px-Wellsfargohq.jpg)
By this time, many of the strikers had taken on other jobs to support themselves, and some left Watsonville altogether.
Console goes into default, sells Watsonville Canning
Following the failed decertification vote, Console's financial situation deteriorated, and Watsonville Canning closed for 11 days before reopening with funding from a new $930,000 loan from Wells Fargo.
In the aftermath of this, Wells Fargo sold the company,[45] and new ownership of the plant was established in February 1987.[43][18] The owner of this new company, named Norcal Frozen Foods,[38] was a grower who was owed $5 million from Watsonville Canning,[50] and 18 other growers who were owed money from Watsonville Canning were also part of this company.[71] On February 28, 400 strikers elected a new negotiating committee to reach a deal with these new owners,[71] and on Friday, March 6, a tentative agreement had been reached that would see an end to the strike.[71] The deal would set hourly wages at $5.85, the industry standard, and was approved by both the negotiating committee and union leadership.[71] However, many union members were opposed to the agreement because it would deny many of them medical benefits that they had had before the strike.[75] Ultimately, the union members voted to wait one week before voting on whether or not to approve the contract.[71][50][75] However, with the tentative agreement, the IBT announced that the strike was over, and as a result, they ended strike benefits, locked members who continued to strike out of the union hall, and stated that the union may go into trusteeship if strike activities did not cease.[75] Without IBT approval, the members of Local 912 continued their labor dispute as a wildcat strike.[51]
Hunger strike, religious pilgrimage, and end of the strike
![A color photograph of a brick building, a church](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/USA-Watsonville-Saint_Patrick_Catholic_Church-9.jpg/275px-USA-Watsonville-Saint_Patrick_Catholic_Church-9.jpg)
In defiance of the IBT, six women,
On March 11, a new contract that preserved the workers' medical benefits was ratified,[45] passing in a vote of 543–21.[18] In addition to the medical benefits, the three-year contract[38] workers maintained their seniority rights and received strike amnesty.[10] With regards to pay, the workers accepted the new industry standard of $5.85,[38][53][43][18] although an incentive pay plan could raise their hourly wages up to $6.61.[38] Additionally, the contract allowed for negotiations on economic terms to start again in February 1988 and 1989.[38] In celebration of the end of the strike, union members held a parade down Watsonville's Main Street.[50] However, due to the wage reduction, many of the strikers viewed the outcome less as an outright victory and more as a compromise.[77] According to Betancourt, "It was not what we wanted, but it was still a victory".[76]
Aftermath and legacy
Impact in Watsonville
In total, the IBT spent roughly $5 million in strike benefits over the course of the strike.[38][13][16] According to municipal officials, the strike cost the city government about $1 million in police overtime and lost sales.[3] A 1986 article from the Los Angeles Times stated that the strike had "devastated" Watsonville, highlighting the increased rates of violence and the impact on the local economy.[3] That same article states that Watsonville had seen an uptick in domestic violence cases and rates of alcoholism, as well as an increase in prostitution.[3] With a reduced income, many of the strikers saw their savings decline significantly,[16] and some permanently relocated from Watsonville.[45][7]
After the strike, the plant reopened with a
Political developments in Watsonville
The strike coincided with a federal court case, Gomez v. City of Watsonville, that dealt with the lack of Latino representation in Watsonville city politics.[82] The court's decision led to an electoral district system that could better represent the ethnic demographics of the city, and in the following years, several Latinos were elected to city council and other government positions.[79][6][57] In 1991, three Latinos were elected to the city council, and Oscar Rios, a union organizer from San Francisco who had moved to Watsonville during the strike, was later elected the city's first Latino mayor.[46] Discussing the link between the strike and the shifting politics, Rios stated, "The strikers helped change the politics in our city and county".[43] In 2017, some of the individuals who had been involved in the strike gathered at the Watsonville Public Library to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the strike.[53]
Later analysis and legacy
The strike is noted for being one of the largest and most important in the United States during the 1980s.
Notes
- ^ Multiple sources state that there were eight frozen food plants in Watsonville at the time.[5][6][7][8][4] However, academic Patricia Zavella stated that there were eleven plants in Watsonville.[9][10]
- ^ Sources vary slightly on the population, with sources differing between 25,000,[12] 27,000,[13] and 28,000.[14]
- ^ These figures are given in several sources.[7][39] Additionally, several sources state an hourly wage decrease of 40 cents.[40][3][16] However, one source states that the wage decrease was from $7.75 to $6.66.[37]
- ^ Sources vary considerably on the proposed wage reductions made by Watsonville Canning, with sources giving proposed hourly wages of $5.05,[37] $4.75,[42][3] $4.65,[7][41] $4.45,[43] and $4.25.[44][8][45][12][1] Some sources expressed the wage decreases as a percentage of the workers' initial pay, with values of "almost 30 percent",[13] "40 percent",[19] and "cut almost in half".[30] The Christian Science Monitor reported that the pay decreases were approximately equal to a 30 perecent decrease for production workers and a 60 percent decrease for skilled workers.[36]
- ^ According to Linda Dailey Paulson of the St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide, "the reported number of striking workers varied widely".[16] Several sources state that the strike affected about 1,000 workers.[49][44][11][6][13][3][50][30][25][51] However, this figure may only apply to workers from Watsonville Canning, as several sources report that that company employed about 1,000 people,[7][8] while one source states that about 900 employees from Shaw went on strike.[16] Other figures for the number of strikers involved include 1,100;[52] 1,500;[53][40] 1,600;[19][54] 1,700;[55][12][1][15] and 2,000.[43][36] According to one source, the strike "at its height" involved about 1,700 workers.[56]
- ^ Most sources state the value was $55,[10][38][11][6][13][3][16] though one source gives the value as $50.[53]
- ^ Sources vary on the exact hourly pay rate, with different values of $5.05[6] and $5.16.[30][16]
- ^ Sources differ slightly, with one source stating he declined to run for reelection,[61] one stating that he retired,[18] and another stating he resigned.[7]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n The New York Times 1985, p. 28.
- ^ a b Takash 1997, p. 417.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an Corwin 1986.
- ^ a b Flores 1997, p. 215.
- ^ a b c Trumpbour & Bernard 2009, p. 133.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Bardacke 1995.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa McIntosh 2017.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Donahoe 2009, p. 446.
- ^ a b c Zavella 2011, p. 101.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Zavella 2020, p. 110.
- ^ a b c d e f Amott & Matthaei 1996, p. 90.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Lindsey 1986, p. 6.
- ^ a b c d e f g Lindsey 1987, p. 14.
- ^ a b c Castillo 2014, p. 41.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Shapiro 2016a.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Paulson 2004, p. 411.
- ^ Zavella 2020, p. 109, "the two largest frozen food companies in the United States"; Erlich 1985, "two of the largest packers of frozen vegetables in the United States"; Tisbe 2017, "two of the largest frozen food companies at the time"; The New York Times 1985, p. 28, "two of the country's largest frozen-food plants"; Todd 2018, "the two largest frozen food companies in the United States".
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Paulson 2004, p. 412.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Brown-Coronel 2006, p. 805.
- ^ a b Flores 1997, p. 214.
- ^ Flores 1997, pp. 214–215.
- ^ Zavella 2002, pp. 227–228.
- ^ a b c Flores 1997, p. 217.
- ^ a b Davis 2006, p. 218.
- ^ a b Donahoe 2009, p. 444.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Flores 1997, p. 220.
- ^ a b c Donahoe 2009, pp. 444–445.
- ^ a b c d Donahoe 2009, p. 445.
- ^ Romney 2016, p. 109.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Bernstein 1986.
- ^ a b Paulson 2004, p. 410.
- ^ a b Zavella 2002, p. 228.
- ^ Flores 1997, p. 220, "Watsonville's IBT Local 912 was formed in 1952 with the assistance of Watsonville Canning's owners, the Console family, and operated for all intents and purposes as a company union".
- ^ Donahoe 2009, p. 446, "Similar to many Teamster locals, Local 912 was controlled by a corrupt leadership and not responsive to the needs of the workforce, especially immigrants and women".
- ^ a b Flores 1997, p. 221.
- ^ a b c d e f g Erlich 1985.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Flores 1997, p. 224.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Monthly Labor Review 1987, p. 58.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Manning & Michaelson 1985–1986, p. 24.
- ^ a b c d Zavella 2020, p. 109.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Flores 1997, p. 225.
- ^ a b Phillips 2016, p. 164.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Tisbe 2017.
- ^ a b c Brecher 1997, p. 330.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Murolo & Chitty 2001, p. 294.
- ^ a b c d Adams 2000.
- ^ a b c Manning & Michaelson 1985–1986, p. 25.
- ^ Flores 1997, pp. 224–225.
- ^ Smith 2006, p. 249.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Moody 1988.
- ^ a b c d Weber 2018.
- ^ a b Takash 1997, p. 418.
- ^ a b c d e Todd 2018.
- ^ a b Castillo 2014, p. 53.
- ^ a b Zinn 2003, p. 453.
- ^ Flores 1997, p. 213.
- ^ a b c Donahoe 2009, p. 447.
- ^ a b c d Zavella 2011, p. 102.
- ^ Murolo & Chitty 2001, p. 294; Zavella 2020, p. 109; Lindsey 1986, p. 6; The New York Times 1985, p. 28; Corwin 1986; Moody 1988; Paulson 2004, p. 410.
- ^ Zavella 2020, pp. 109–110.
- ^ a b c d e f g Flores 1997, p. 226.
- ^ Murolo & Chitty 2001, p. 294; Trumpbour & Bernard 2009, p. 133; Zavella 2011, p. 102; Brown-Coronel 2006, p. 805; Amott & Matthaei 1996, p. 90; Bardacke 1995.
- ^ a b c d e Flores 1997, p. 227.
- ^ Muñoz Jr. 2007, p. 218.
- ^ a b Gutiérrez y Muhs & Eldredge 2019, p. 209.
- ^ Mize & Swords 2011, p. 70.
- ^ Manning & Michaelson 1985–1986, p. 27.
- ^ Moody 1988, pp. 518–519, 622–628, 712–716.
- ^ a b Takash 1997, pp. 418–419.
- ^ Kwik 1986.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Flores 1997, p. 229.
- ^ Phillips 2016, p. xiii.
- ^ a b c d e f g Flores 1997, p. 228.
- ^ Flores 1997, pp. 228–229.
- ^ a b c d e f Brecher 1997, p. 331.
- ^ a b c d e Flores 1997, p. 230.
- ^ a b c Brown-Coronel 2006, p. 806.
- ^ a b Flores 1997, p. 216.
- ^ a b Trumpbour & Bernard 2009, p. 134.
- ^ Zavella 1997, p. 145.
- ^ Zavella 2002, p. 229.
- ^ Takash 1997, pp. 417–419.
- ^ Tisbe 2017, "the longest national strike of its time".
- ^ Moody 2014.
- ^ a b c Smith 2006, pp. 249–250.
- ^ Brecher 1997, p. 326.
- ^ Brecher 1997, p. 330; Smith 2006, p. 249; Murolo & Chitty 2001, p. 294; Trumpbour & Bernard 2009, p. 133; Zavella 2011, p. 102; Zavella 2020, p. 110; Amott & Matthaei 1996, p. 90; Bardacke 1995; Lindsey 1987, p. 14; Corwin 1986; Moody 1988; Shapiro 2016a.
- ^ Alaniz & Cornish 2008, p. 248.
Sources
- Adams, Florence (2000). "The Beginning of the Push from At-Large to Single-Member Districts: Watsonville and Pomona". Latinos and Local Representation: Changing Realities, Emerging Theories. New York City: ISBN 978-1-317-77629-1.
- Alaniz, Yolanda; Cornish, Megan (2008). Viva la Raza: A History of Chicano Identity and Resistance (First ed.). Seattle: Red Letter Press. ISBN 978-0-932323-28-6.
- ISBN 978-0-89608-537-4.
- Bardacke, Frank (October 1995). "The Workers, United". El Andar. Introduction by John Speyer. Archived from the original on August 18, 2021.
- Bernstein, Harry (September 10, 1986). "Ex-Teamster Leader Bolsters Union's Foes". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 22, 2022. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- ISBN 978-1-62963-808-9.
- Brown-Coronel, Margie (2006). "Watsonville Strike". In ISBN 978-0-253-11169-2.
- ISBN 978-0-8263-5359-7.
- Corwin, Miles (September 14, 1986). "Canning Workers' Bitter Strike Devastates Lives, Economy of Watsonville". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-8118-4835-0.
- Donahoe, Myrna Cherkoss (2009). "The Watsonville Cannery Strike, 1985–1987". In Brenner, Aaron; Day, Benjamin; ISBN 978-1-317-45707-7.
- ISSN 0882-7729. Archived from the originalon September 15, 2015. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- Flores, William V. (1997). "Mujeres en Huelga: Cultural Citizenship and Gender Empowerment in a Cannery Strike". In Flores, William V.; Benmayor, Rina (eds.). Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Rights. Boston: ISBN 978-0-8070-4635-7.
- ISBN 978-1-4408-5347-0.
- Kwik, Phil (May 1, 1986). "Leaders of Hormel Strike Arrested; International Holds Trusteeship Hearing". Labor Notes. Archivedfrom the original on November 25, 2021. Retrieved January 21, 2022.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the originalon May 24, 2015. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the originalon November 2, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- Manning, Caitlin; Michaelson, Louis (Winter 1985–1986). "Fire Against Ice: California Frozen Food Workers on Strike". ISSN 0735-9381.
- McIntosh, Don (January 3, 2017). "Song of the Stubborn One Thousand". Northwest Labor Press. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved January 21, 2022.
- Mize, Ronald L.; Swords, Alicia C. S. (2011). Consuming Mexican Labor: From the Bracero Program to NAFTA. Toronto: ISBN 978-1-4426-0157-4.
- "Strike ends at canning and frozen food company". Monthly Labor Review. 110 (6). Bureau of Labor Statistics: 58. June 1987.
- ISBN 978-1-78478-783-7.
- ISBN 978-1-60846-458-6.
- Muñoz Jr., Carlos (2007). Youth, Identity, Power: The Chicano Movement (Revised and Expanded ed.). New York City: ISBN 978-1-84467-142-7.
- Murolo, Priscilla; Chitty, A. B. (2001). From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend: An Illustrated History of Labor in the United States. Illustrations by ISBN 978-1-62097-449-0.
- "Concessions at Issue in Strike of Food Plants". ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the originalon November 21, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- Paulson, Linda Dailey (2004). "Watsonville Canning Strike". In Schlager, Neil (ed.). St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide: Major Events in Labor History and Their Impact. Vol. 2: N–Z. With introductions by Willie Thompson and Daniel Nelson. Detroit: ISBN 978-1-55862-561-7.
- ISBN 978-1-62097-325-7.
- Romney, Charles W. (2016). Rights Delayed: The American State and the Defeat of Progressive Unions, 1935–1950. Oxford: ISBN 978-0-19-025029-4.
- Shapiro, Peter (November 2, 2016a). "Nothing to Lose". Jacobin. Archived from the original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- ISBN 978-1-60846-918-5.
- Takash, Paule Cruz (1997). "Breaking Barriers to Representation: Chicana/Latina Elected Officials in California". In ISBN 978-0-8147-1558-1.
- Tisbe, Allison (October 20, 2017). "Leaving a Legacy". City on a Hill Press. Additional reporting by Alonso Hernandez. Archived from the original on November 24, 2020. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- Todd, Michael (September 11, 2018) [March 11, 2017]. "Watsonville canning strikers gather for 30th anniversary meeting". Santa Cruz Sentinel. Digital First Media. Archived from the original on January 22, 2022. Retrieved January 20, 2022.
- Trumpbour, John; ISBN 978-0-520-25827-3.
- Weber, Brandon (2018). "The Watsonville, California, Cannery Strike". Class War, USA: Dispatches from Workers' Struggles in American History. Chicago: ISBN 978-1-60846-871-3.
- ISBN 978-0-8147-6642-2.
- ISBN 978-0-7425-1702-8.
- ISBN 978-0-8223-5035-4.
- ISBN 978-0-8203-5727-0.
- ISBN 978-1-56584-826-9.
Further reading
- ISBN 978-0-8263-2469-6.
- Shapiro, Peter (2016b). Song of the Stubborn One Thousand: The Watsonville Canning Strike, 1985-87. Chicago: ISBN 978-1-60846-749-5.
- ISBN 978-0-8191-9775-7.
- "Changing Structure of the U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Industry". Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing, Consumer Relations, and Nutrition of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. U.S. Government Printing Office. May 10, 1988.
- Ybarrolaza, Alex (October 1987). "Letter from Teamsters Local 70 on Advantages of a Cooperative Relationship". U.S. Labor Law and the Future of Labor-Management Cooperation. Vol. Second Interim Report. United States Department of Labor. pp. 104–105.
- ISBN 978-1-5017-2005-5.