Landowners discriminated against the Mexican laborers, and the landowners usually showed discrimination by cutting Mexican laborers pay. Normally, if there was a labor shortage, wages would begin to rise, but the landowners knew the large amount of Mexican laborers there were to work the cotton fields. Dawson discusses, “the Growers’ Association announcing to cut pay to the pickers (Dawson 132). Here it shows a specific example how the Mexican laborers were treated during the 1930s. The landowners were aware of the Mexican laborers that they were going to do nothing against them, for the reason many of the laborers were illegal. In the San Joaquin Valley, Mexicans wages did not meet the United States minimum wage, for the reason the laborers
…show more content…
In the result of this action from the landowners, “A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle informed the Mexican community was starting to begin to lacking its cleanliness and strikers were soon to be ‘starved out’ (Dawson 135). It clearly shows the landowner's intentions were to let the strikers starve a great deal, and the strikers would give up and return back to work with no raise. As the matter of fact the landowners were not just trying to starve the strikers, but with the water supply on a shortage. The strikers would soon begin to develop some sickness and unsanitary diseases, which would lead the strikers to their deaths. The landowners were absolutely considered for their …show more content…
As the article, “California Farmworkers’ Strikes of 1933” reports, the Cannery Agricultural Workers Industrial Union Central Strike Committee managed to get the strikers to go back to work with only less than half of their demands met. Bronfenbrenner states, “In the end, there was no clear answer on who won but with all the sides--the growers, the union, and the federal government--claiming victory” (Bronfenbrenner 5). Here it shows, the landowners received people to work in the fields once again, but were not able to keep the income they desired. The Mexicans on strike earned a small raise, but without any union recognition. The federal government managed to get the strikers to return to picking cotton, and controlled the violence between the landowners and the
In the result of this action from the landowners, “A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle informed the Mexican community was starting to begin to lacking its cleanliness and strikers were soon to be ‘starved out’ (Dawson 135). It clearly shows the landowner's intentions were to let the strikers starve a great deal, and the strikers would give up and return back to work with no raise. As the matter of fact the landowners were not just trying to starve the strikers, but with the water supply on a shortage. The strikers would soon begin to develop some sickness and unsanitary diseases, which would lead the strikers to their deaths. The landowners were absolutely considered for their …show more content…
As the article, “California Farmworkers’ Strikes of 1933” reports, the Cannery Agricultural Workers Industrial Union Central Strike Committee managed to get the strikers to go back to work with only less than half of their demands met. Bronfenbrenner states, “In the end, there was no clear answer on who won but with all the sides--the growers, the union, and the federal government--claiming victory” (Bronfenbrenner 5). Here it shows, the landowners received people to work in the fields once again, but were not able to keep the income they desired. The Mexicans on strike earned a small raise, but without any union recognition. The federal government managed to get the strikers to return to picking cotton, and controlled the violence between the landowners and the