-vv

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEXICAN AMERICAN.
MIGRANT LABOR FORCE IN THE STOCKBRIDGE AREA

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Felipe Rodriguez-Cane

19:66

 

FEBlzzom
0:3 0‘? 0 3

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEXICAN AMERICAN MIGRANT
LABOR FORCE IN THE STOCKBRIDGE AREA

BY

Felipe Rodriguez-Cano

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1966

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEXICAN AMERICAN MIGRANT
LABOR FORCE IN THE STOCKBRIDGE AREA

BY

Felipe Rodriguez—Cano

This thesis reports on a study of the Mexican—American
hired farm labor force in the area of Stockbridge, Michigan.
The purpose was to learn about the demographic and behavioral
characteristics of the Spanish speaking migrant workers.

Since this is a descriptive and exploratory study, no
general hypotheses were formulated. It describes the economic,
social and demographic characteristics such as age, educational
level, income, family size, and also analyzes the behavioral
pattern of the migrant workers such as recruitment and deci-
sion making processes, past work experience, satisfactions,
aspirations and other aspects of their style of life.

The findings show that in general this group is rela-
tively young, with a low level of education, low income, nearly
an average family size (3.6 children). The workers are of
Mexican descendant, but were born and now live in Texas.

It was also found that the Mexican-American workers have

Felipe Rodriguez-Cano
little non-farm experience and are more or less satisfied with
this type of job. At the same time, they do aspire for better
jobs, a better life and more education for their children.

A feeling of alineation was found among this group with
the social interaction, communication and social participation
between migrant workers and the rest of the American society
being rather small.

The measures of satisfaction among workers were positively
related to an older age, being married, having less educated,
getting less personal income, and having a small family size.
Those workers with high aspiration levels tended to be younger,
to have greater fluency in English, to be unmarried, to have
more education, to have more income, and to travel more widely

in their work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am happy to record my deep and extreme gratitude to
Dr. James R. Hundley, chairman of the committee for this thesis,
for the Opportunity he gave me to work under his direction on
this project, and for his counseling, supervision and friendship.

In addition, I wish to acknowledge and express my grateful-
ness to my major professor Dr. J. Allan Beegle who without his
academic guidance and patient indulgence my work would not have
been possible at all.

Also, I am grateful to Dr. Everett M. Rogers Who played
the role of personal adviser and friend during my studies.

My sincere gratefulness to The Ford Foundation for its
financial support of my studies.

And, last but far from least, I acknowledge to the Mexican-
American migrant workers for their c00peration given to this

study.

ii

Dedication
To my wife Maria del Carmen
for her lovely support and
patience during my studies
at Michigan State University

To my son Felipe

iii

TABLE CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

Background and Purpose of the Study . . .
Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Location of the Study . . . . . . . .
Order of Presentation of the Data . . . .

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION
STUDIED. O Q . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Educational Level . . . . . . . . . . . .
Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Marital Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Family Size and Age of Children

and Wives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Educational Experience of Family. . . . .
Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Religious Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Status of Origin and Residence. . . . . .
Migrancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RECRUITMENT PROCESS, PAST EXPERIENCE,
SATISFACTIONS, ASPIRATIONS AND STYLE OF
LIFE OF THE POPULATION STUDIED . . . . . . .

Recruitment Process . . . . . . . . . . .
Decision Making Process in Job Selection.
Past Work Experience. . . . . . . . . . .
Satisfactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Style of Life of the Mexican-American
Farm Migrant Workers . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
ii

vi

OCDU'II-J

ll

11
12
l3
l6

16
18
21
23
23
24
28

3O

3O
34
36
38
4O

42
46

Chapter

IV. MIGRANT LABORER SATISFACTIONS AND
ASPIRATIONS: SOME CORRELATES .

Present Job Satisfaction. .

Farm Work Occupational Satisfaction

as a Way of Life . . . . .

Job Aspiration For and By Youth

Educational Aspirations . .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . .

Demographic Characteristics .

Behavior Patterns and Attitudes

Predispositions for Change:
Aspirations. . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . .
General. . . . . . . . .
Sociological Notions . .
Practical Implications .

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES.

Characteristics
Related to High Levels of Satisfactions and

O

Page

48
49
50
51
52
54
54
56
58
59
59

6O
62

64

65

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Age of Migrant Workers Studied . . . . . . . . ll
2 Number of Years of School Attended

by Migrant Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Total Personal and Non-Farm Income
of Migrant Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . l4
4 Family Income of Migrant Workers and -
Other Members of the Family . . . . . . . . 15
5 Marital Status of Migrant Workers. . . . . . . l6
6 Ages of Children Receiving Support
from Heads of Family. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7 School Attendance by and Plans for Summer
School for Children of Migrant Workers. . . l9
8 Grade Level in School and Years Behind a
Normal Grade Based on Age for Children
of Migrant Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9 Years of School of the Migrant Workers'
Wives and Migrant Worker Himself. . . . . . 21
10 Language Abilities of the POpulation Studied . 22
11 States of Origin and Residence of
Migrant Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12 Times Having Been in Stockbridge Area. . . . . 26
13 Degree of Out of Michigan Work Done
by Migrant Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14 Sources of Information Where Migrant
Workers Heard About their Job and
Who Contracted Them . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
15 Type of Discussion Before Taking The Job . . . 35
16 Different Kinds of JObs Done in the Past
by the Migrant Workers Studied. . . . . . . 37

vi

Table

17

18

19

20

Answers to "How Do You Like This Job?"

by Migrant Workers. . . . . . .

Opinions About the Farm Work as a Good

Way of Life and as a Good Job
for Children. 0 O O O O O O O 0

Nature of Aspirations for Migrant Workers

(Single males) and Migrant Workers'

Children. . . . . . . . . . . .

Statistical Analysis of Ten Independent
Variables and Four Dependent Variables

Studied Among Migrant Workers .

vii

O

Page

38

39

41

49

CHAPTER I

AN ANALYSIS OF THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN MIGRANT
LABOR FORCE IN THE STOCKBRIDGE AREA

INTRODUCTION

Background and Purpose of the Study

Each year 146,000 peOple work for wages in Michigan's sea-
sonal agricultural activities. Local sources supply 44.5 per-
cent of this figure, intrastate sources contribute 12.3 per-
cent, and interstate sources supply the rest. According to
the best figures available, Texas supplies 54.3 percent of the
interstate labor force, Louisiana, 14.3 percent; Missouri, 7.6
percent; Florida, 6.5 percent; Ohio, 4.2 percent; Arkansas,

3.8 percent; Mississippi, 2.5 percent; Puerto Rico, 1.3 percent,
and the other states, 5.5 percent.

Clearly, the majority of interstate migrant labor force
originates from Texas and is made up of Spanish-speaking peOple
who have migrated to the United States from Mexico and are
descendants of Mexican people of two or three generations ago.

The lack of knowledge about these farm workers, their families,

 

1Data taken from Michigan Farm Labor Report 1964. Mich-
igan Employment Security Commission, Employment Service Divi-
sion, Detroit, Michigan, 1964.

and their environment, is a major problem which impedes sociol-
ogists and other professionals working with these peOple in
welfare related programs.

The migrant farm worker is a significant economic factor
in a dynamic agri—business today, and knowing the problems of
these workers should help in understanding an important aspect
of agricultural production. Rural sociologists know very little
about how the migrant workers live, how they are recruited, and
where they come from. Knowledge is needed about the socio-
demographic characteristics of the migrant workers, such as
age, sex, education, income, family size, etc. It is necessary
to know more about methods of wage payment, the families'
problems and their earnings from farm and urban work, in order
to understand their performance in their occupation.

Many reports about migrant laborers and their work as
well as some of their problems have been done“by different
governmental agencies, universities, and private foundations.
Most of these reports deal with the general situation within
which the migrant worker acts. However, few studies have
been done on the Spanish—speaking peOple in the migratory farm
labor force. In 1941, Thaden studied the migratory beet

workers in Michigan.1 In this study, he worked with Mexican

 

J. H. Thaden, Migratory Beet Workers in Michigan,
Special Bulletin #319 (Sept., 1942), Michigan State College
Agr. Exp. Station, East Lansing, Michigan.

nationals in the beet belt in Michigan and Ohio studying,
among other factors, some demographic characteristics of these
laborers.

Metzler,l in his study, "The Farm Worker in a Changing
Agriculture," describes some demographic characteristics of
the farm labor force in Kern County, California. However, his
study deals mostly with how technological change, such as mech—
anization, eliminates manual labor in Kern County.

Andrews and Nagi describe the migrant agricultural laborer
in Ohio.2 Among other aSpects, they describe the methods of
recruitment, transportation, origin of the migrant workers,
type of work they perform, wages and methods of payment,
social and economic problems of the migrants, and state labor
laws applicable to agricultural workers.

Taylor3 in a report titled "An Approach to the Migratory
Labor Problem Through Legislation" analyzed some specific
problems of the migrant workers in Wisconsin such as earnings

and working conditions, child welfare, recruitment, housing,

 

1William H. Metzler, The Farm Worker in A Changing Agri-
culture, California Agri. Exp. Station and the Giannini Founda-
tion of Agricultural Economics, Giannini Foundation Research
Report #277 (Sept., 1964).

2Wade H. Andrews and Saad Z. Nagi, Migrant Agricultural
Labor in Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Experimental Station, Wooster,
Ohio, Research Bulletin 780, Sept. 1956.

 

3Milton C. Taylor, An Approach to the Migratory Labor
Problem Through Legislation, Department of Economics, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin, Governor's Commission on Human Rights,
Madison, Wisconsin, August, 1950.

4
health and medical care, transportation, social security and
assistance, collective bargaining and civil rights. He also
submitted a proposal for legislation on both the federal and
state levels for these problems. Schmidt summarizes and dis-
cussed the findings on the problems of farm labor recruitment
in California.1 Jorgensen and others analyzed and evaluated
the education and housing problems of the Spanish speaking
migrant workers in Texas and Iowa.

In summary, most of the literature on migrant worker
characteristics and styles of life are done for the motive of
producing or facilitating social change in the areas of wages,
housing, and education. Few studies have objectively attempted
to describe Spanish speaking migrant workers.

The main purpose of the present study is to investigate
the economic, social, and demographic characteristics of the
Spanish-speaking portion of the migratory labor force in the
area of Stockbridge, Michigan. A study of the migratory
workers in that area should contribute to the understanding
of an important aspect of agricultural production in Michigan --

the migrant labor force. This study focuses on the hired

 

1Fred H. Schmidt, After the Bracero: An Inquiringginto
the Problems of Farm Labor Recruitment. Institute of Indus-
trial Relations, University of California, Los Angeles, Oct.
1964.

 

2Janet M. Jorgensen, David E. Williams and John H. Burma.
Migratory Agricultural Workers in the United States. Mimeo
Report. Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa. No date given.
(Probably after 1960.)

workers who do unskilled farm work. It covers the work ex—
perience of these laborers such as existing skills and past
training as well as the satisfactions these laborers gain from
their farm work, what they perceive their needs to be, and
what their aspirations are. In addition, this study deals
with the life style of the migrant worker and his family, the
community's attitude toward the migrants and their families,
the social participation of migrant workers in a community
different from their own, and the relationship between worker
and farmer, worker and other workers, the worker's family with

other families, and the worker with the society in general.

Procedures

 

Sample and Methods of Collecting Data. For the purpose

 

of this survey a sample of 45 Spanish-speaking migrant workers
from the total migrant pOpulation in the area of Stockbridge,
Michigan, was studied. A non-probability but purposive
sample was used for this research because (a) it was difficult
to obtain the total number of workers in the area of the study
due to the fact that all the workers did not arrive in Stock-
bridge at the same time and (b) the research interest was in
the migrant worker of Spanish descent.

The method of collecting data used in this study was the
personal interview method. Formal interviews (with the use

of questionnaires) were held with migrants and informal interviews

6
were held with the farmers who employ these workers.

The interviews were taken from May 30 to June 20, during
spring planting of onions and lettuce and cutting of sod. The
interviews were conducted in Spanish; in this manner the in-
terviewers obtained confidence of the workers and established
rapport with them. Additional information was gathered from
key persons in the community of Stockbridge and from observa-
tions made by the two interviewers while gathering data in
the area.

In the personal interviews with the migrants the formal
data were gathered from two sources: heads of family and
single males, 16 years or older. Of the total sample of 45
workers, 33 were heads of families (73 percent) and 12 were
single males (27 percent).

In choosing the farms from which the sample of workers
was to be taken, farmers regularly employing Spanish speaking
laborers for seasonal work were identified. Several Spanish
speaking peOple who live regularly on the farms were not in-
cluded. Of ten large farms which had employed migrant workers
with Spanish Speaking background, only four of them were em-
ploying these people at the time of the survey. These four
farms were not bordering or adjacent to one another. One
farm was located near Munith, in Jackson County; another was

located near Gregory, in Livingston County and the other two

7

farms were located in Ingham County, but in different town-
ships. All the farms were within 10-15 miles of Stockbridge.

The distribution of the sample taken was of sufficient
heterOgeneity so as to be generally representative of the
total pOpulation of Mexican-American laborers working in the
area at the time of the study. The formal (from migrants)
and informal (from farmers, key persons, and observation)
data gathered in the survey give a general picture of the
migrant force in the area of Stockbridge adequate for the pur-
poses of this study.

The Schedule. A schedule of 100 questions was developed

 

which was concerned with: (l) demographic characteristics,
(2) jobs held by the individuals in the past, including farm
and urban jobs, experiences in both kinds of jobs, duration
of past jobs, etc., (3) the migratory history of the workers,
i.e., places of origin and residence before coming to the
area of the study, (4) recruitment and decision making pro—
cesses, satisfaction with the farm work, aspirations for
themselves and their children, and styles of life, including
social relations, recreation. means of transportation, etc.1

The field work was done on the four farms previously

indicated. It was carried on in the evenings after 6 p.m.

 

For a statement of the interview schedule in both
Spanish and English, see Appendix A.

8
and on Sundays. Before the interviews were held with the
laborers, informal conversations and interviews were held
with the farmers. For the farmer interviews, a special
schedule of 12 questions was used.1 The information obtained
from this source contributed to the total data for the study.
The information gathered from farmers was concerned with their
satisfaction with the work of the migrants on their farms,
housing for the workers and their families, their problems
in getting hired workers, and other factors related to the

migratory laborers and their families.

The Location of the Study

The area where this study was done is located in the
southeast central part of the state of Michigan. The com-
munity of Stockbridge is the seat of the Township of Stock—
bridge. It is located in the southeastern part of Ingham
County, 40 miles from Lansing. The area where the study was
carried out also includes some communities in other counties
such as Jackson and Livingston Counties. In these latter
counties are located Munith, and Gregory, respectively.
However, Stockbridge is the trade center for the whole area.

The economy of the area is based on agriculture and

livestock. Thus, the life of these communities centers

 

1See Appendix A.

9
around these activities. The main crOps in the area are corn,
truck crOps, wheat and hay. Also, in some parts of the area
soybeans and dry beans are grown.

Dairy and beef cattle are raised in the area. There are
several dairy farms with an average of 80 milk cows per farm.
The raising of beef cattle is rapidly increasing in the area
and most of the corn produced is used to feed these cattle.

Among the truck crOps, the main vegetables are onions
and lettuce. In addition asparagus, peppermint, and cucumbers
are found in the area in small acreage. Also, there is a
rapid increase in the number of acres used for the production
of blue grass sod.

The size of the farms in this general area is increasing,
while the number of farms is decreasing. Thus, around ten
farmers control the whole truck crOp area. The value of the
agricultural and livestock activities of the area is in-
creasing. Several farmer organizations Operate in the area
which was studied. The most important ones are Farm Bureau,
The National Farmers Organization and the Michigan Milk Pro-
ducers Association. Also, other social organizations related
to agriculture are found in the Stockbridge area. Of these
organizations, the main ones are: the Vocational Agricultural
High School, located in Stockbridge; several 4-H Clubs in

Munith, Gregory, Leslie, Stockbridge, etc. and the COOperative

10
Extension Service of the three counties in which the area under

study is located.

Order of Presentation of the Data

Chapter II describes the socio—economic characteristics
of the migrant labor force in the area of Stockbridge. Know-
ledge of these characteristics is essential in order to have
a greater understanding of the migrant labor force. Chapter
III describes other factors of the migrant labor force in this
area, such as recruitment and decision making processes, satis-
faction and aspirations of the laborers and the life style of
the migrant workers. Chapter IV analyzes statistically some
of the demographic characteristics and relates these charac-
teristics with satisfactions and aspirations. These statistical
associations are made in order to discover the differences be-
tween the work satisfactions and aSpirations of migrant workers
with different characteristics. Chapter V concludes and sum-
marizes the study and presents some suggestions for future

research.

CHAPTER II

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION STUDIED

The 45 Spanish speaking migrant workers in the area of
Stockbridge who were included in this study were relatively
young. More than half of the total sample were under 30 years
of age (Table l). Twenty—two percent (10 workers) were under
19 years of age and 33 percent (15 individuals) were in the
20 to 29 year age bracket. Of the total sample, 24 percent
(11 workers) were from 30 to 49 years of age and 20 percent
were over 50 years old. Only 7 percent (3 workers) of the

total pOpulation studied were over 60 years old.

TABLE 1

AGE OF MIGRANT WORKERS STUDIED IN
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

—.-

W

 

Age Number Percent
Under 19 10 22.2
20 - 29 15 33.3
30 - 39 6 13.3
40 - 49 5 11.1
50 - 59 6 13.3
60 and over 3 6.7

 

11

12
Educational Level

Prominent among migrant workers is a lack of education.
comparable to the rest of American society. The average edu-
cational level of the total group of the migrant workers
studied is 3.7 years. One reason for this average is the
educational differences between some old and young persons.
Of this total sample, it was found that seven workers (16 per—
cent of the total group) are illiterate, While only one worker
(2 percent) has more than a high school education. This man
attended college for two years in Mexico and from the time
he finished his studies until this year his jobs were in an
office. However, family reasons obligated him to leave the
city and work at a farm job. He married the daughter of a
migrant worker:

Of the total sample studied, 18 workers (40 percent)
attended less than 6 years of school and 19 workers (42 per-
cent) have 7 or more years of education, but none of these
19 finished high school (Table 2).

Some of the workers in the sample attended school in
Mexico, and some of them continued their education in the
United States. Educational Opportunity for the young peOple
has increased greatly during recent years, and most of them
are taking advantage of it. Half of the sample of single

males 16 years of age and over are enrolled in school and

13
TABLE 2

NUMBER OF YEARS OF SCHOOL ATTENDED BY MIGRANT
WORKERS IN STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

Years of Number of Percent
School Workers

None 7 15.5
2 2 4.4
3 4 8.8
4 2 4.4
5 6 13.3
6 5 11.1
7 9 20.0
8 4 8.8
9 2 4.4
10 2 4.4
11 l 2.2
More than 12 l 2.2

 

they plan to continue their studies when the school year resumes

next fall.

Income

Migrant workers were questioned about their earnings in
each job held during the past year. For the purposes of this
study, the income reported by the workers interviewed was
divided into two categories: personal and family income.

Of the 45 farm laborers interviewed, 5 of them (11 per-
cent) could not state what their personal income was last year.
Some of these workers were single males whose salaries or wages
were included in the checks paid to the family as a Whole.

Almost one third of the total sample studied (31 percent) had

14
a personal income of $1500-2500 last year. Seven workers (16
percent) earned under $1000 during the same period of time and
only two persons earned $4000 or more last year. The average
personal income for the migrant workers within the sample was
$1890 last year.

In studying the personal income of the workers in the
sample, the author found that 19 workers (42 percent) earned
money from sources other than farm work last year. Of these
19 laborers, the average earned was $486, varying from one
worker who earned $150 to another who earned $2200 from non—

farm work. (Table 3).

TABLE 3

TOTAL PERSONAL AND NON-FARM INCOME OF MIGRANT
WORKERS, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Personal
Categgries Personal Income Non—Farm Income
Dollars Number Percent Number Percent

N=45 N=19

0 - 999 7 15.6 11 57.8
1000 - 1499 9 20.0 2 10.5
1500 — 2499 14 31.1 6 31.5
2500 — 3999 8 17.8 —— --
4000 and over 2 4.4 —- --
No answer 5 11.1 -- —-

 

The average family income was $2635 last year. Of the
total number of laborers interviewed, one-third could not

answer the question concerning the total family income. Most

15
of these workers were single males who did not know about the
earnings of other members of the family.

One—third of the group studied (15 families) had a total
family income of $2000-4000 last year. One family had an in-
come under $1000, nine families (20 percent) had an income of
$1000-2000 last year, and five families (11 percent) had an
income of $4000 or over.

Earnings by wives and children contributed to the income
of the migrant families last year. Fifteen of the 33 heads of
families interviewed stated that their wives were working last
year. The average wives' income last year was $573.

One—third of the heads of family (11 workers) said that
some of their children worked last year. The average child's

earnings last year was $663 (Table 4).

TABLE 4

FAMILY INCOME OF MIGRANT WORKERS AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Total Family Wives Children

Dollars Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
N=45 N=33 N=33

0 — 999 l 2.2 14 42.2 10 30.3

1000 - 1999 9 20.0 1 3.3 -- -—

2000 - 3999 15 33.3 -- -- l 3.3

4000 and over 5 11.1 -- -- —- --

NO answer 15 33.3 18 54.4 22 66.6

 

16
Marital Status

With regard to this demographic characteristic, 31 of the
33 heads of family answered that they are married. One said
that he is a widower and one reported that he is separated.
However, each of these latter workers has a family to support.
For that reason, they were included within the "heads Of family"
group.

Of the total sample studied 12 are single (Table 5). The
author included within this group a man Who is divorced and
without children or any ties with his former wife. He was
married when he was 16 years old and at the time of the survey,
he was 18. Since this man does not have a family to support,

he was included in the group of single males.

TABLE 5

MARITAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

Categories Number Percent
Married 31 68.8
Single 12 26.6
Widower l 2.2
Separated l 2.2

 

Family Size and Age of Children and Wives
Family size is another socio-demographic characteristic

studied. Twelve percent of the heads of families said that

17
they did not have children at the time of the study. Twenty-
one percent (7 workenfl said that they each had one child.

Three workers (9 percent) said they had 8 children, this
being the largest number of children in any migrant family.
The breakdown for size of families between the two extremes of
one child and 8 children is given in Table 6. The average
family size of the migrant workers in the area of Stockbridge
was 3.6 persons. This average includes only the children of
the heads of families and their wives and excludes some other
persons supported by the heads of families. The total number
of children of the heads of families interviewed was 97. The
children's ages were from under one year old to 25 years of
age and over. The age brackets of the offspring receiving
support from heads of families are given in Table 6. The data
show that 68 percent of the children are between the ages of
l-l4 years. This means the average family has at least two
children of non—working age to support.

Sixty percent of the workers' wives were under 40 years
of age. The average age of all wives was 34. Although the
wives ages ranged considerably, they were generally rather
young.

The workers were asked whether or not their families
were with them and if all their single children were with

them. Ninety—one percent of the workers interviewed said all

18
TABLE 6

AGES OF CHILDREN RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM HEADS
OF FAMILY, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

Number of

 

Categories Children Percent
Under 1 year 2 2.0
l - 4 years old 20 20.6
5 - 9 " " 23 23.7
10 - 14 " ” 21 21.8
15 - 19 " " 18 18.5
20 - 24 " " 8 8.2
25 - 29 " " l 1.0
No answer 4 4.1

 

family members were together on the job while 73 percent of
the families had all single children at the farm work location.
These findings indicate that most migrant workers move from
their place of residence to the area of work with their
families. These families sometimes include grandparents, in-

laws, and others.

Educational Experience of Family

 

Several questions dealing with the education of the
children were included in the schedule. Twenty workers (61
percent) said they had children attending school; the rest
gave no answer (Table 7). Those who gave no answer include
individuals whose children are too young to attend school or

who do not have children. Only seven heads of families

19
TABLE 7
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BY AND PLANS FOR SUMMER

SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN OF MIGRANT WORKERS,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

Plans for

 

 

 

Responses School Attendance Summer School
Number Percent Number Percent
Yes 20 60.6 7 21.2
No —- -- 17 51.5
No answer 13 39.3 9 27.2

 

(21 percent) had plans to send their children to the Special
summer school for children. Most respondents knew nothing of
this special school.

An important factor regarding the children of migrant
workers is the level of education reached. The average years
of school completed for the total pOpulation of children at
school age (from 5 to 18 years old) was 5.1 grades.

Concerning the level of education completed at the time
of the survey, it was found that of ten children at kinder—
garten age (5-6 years of age) only one was or had been in
kindergarten. Thirty-four children were in the 1-6 grades
group. Ten children were in the 7-12 grades bracket, and
seventeen children were school drOp-outs at different grades
ranging from 1 to 10 grades. The average educational level

for those youths who had drOpped out of school was 5.4 years.

20

How far behind in school are Mexican—American migrant
children when compared to their age? It was found that of
those in grades 1-6, ten children were not behind in school
for their age, seven children were one year behind in school,
seven other children were two years behind, and ten children
were three or more years behind. On the average, migrant
children in grades 1—6 were 1.5 grades behind.

In the 7—12 grades group, the findings show that two
children were at the normal grade level for their age, six
children were one year behind, one child was two years behind,
and another child was three years behind. The average years
behind for children in school for grades 7-12 was 1.1 grades

(Table 8) .

TABLE 8

GRADE LEVEL IN SCHOOL AND YEARS BEHIND A NORMAL
GRADE LEVEL BASED ON AGE FOR CHILDREN OF MIGRANT
WORKERS, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

Years Behind 1 ’ 6 Grades 7 - 12 Grades

 

 

Average Child Number Percent Number Percent

 

0 10 29.4 2 20.0
1 7 20.6 6 60.0
2 7 20.6 1 10.0
3 or more 10 29.4 1 10.0

 

It was found that the wives' level of education is lower

than the migrant workers' level of education. The average

21
years of school completed by the migrant workers' wives is
3.0 grades, while the migrant workers' average is 3.7 years
of school completed (Table 9). The responses show that five
wives (15 percent) are illiterate; 13 respondents' wives (41
percent) have completed less than 6 years of education; 8
wives (25 percent) have completed more than 6 years of school,
but less than junior high school; 3 wives (10 percent) have
completed more than junior high school, but less than senior

high school, and only 2 wives (7 percent) have a high school

 

 

 

 

 

education.
TABLE 9
YEARS OF SCHOOL OF THE MIGRANT WORKERS'
WIVES AND THE MIGRANT WORKER HIMSELF,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966
Years of Wife N=33 Migrant N=45
Schooling Number Percent Number Percent
None 5 15.1 7 15.6
Less than 6 years 13 41.0 18 40.0
More than 6 but less than
junior high school 8 24.7 13 28.9
More than junior, but less
than senior high school 3 9.9 6 13.3
More than high school '2 6.6 l 2.2
Language

 

All the workers in the sample studied in the Stockbridge

area were Spanish speaking peOple since their native or mother

22
language is Spanish. However, more than half of the sample
(60 percent) speak English; the rest (40 percent) speak only
Spanish but some of them understand English.

Of the 27 migrant workers who also speak English, 11 of
them (41 percent) said that they have some problems with English.
The rest, 16 respondents (59 percent), answered that they do
not have any problems of this kind. Almost the entire English
speaking group is formed of young peOple who attended or now
attend school; it is the older peOple (over 40 years of age)

Who do not speak English (Table 10).

TABLE 10

LANGUAGE ABILITIES OF THE POPULATION STUDIED
IN STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

Categories Number Percent
Speak only Spanish 18 40.0
Have trouble with English 11 24.4
NO trouble with English 16 35.6

 

A general feeling of the workers studied is that for some
of them the language is the main barrier for getting a job
other than farm work. Some of them have enough experience on
other types of jobs, but they have the problem of language

keeping them from developing their abilities.

23
Religious Faith

The whole pOpulation of the sample, 45 workers and their
families, are Roman Catholic. When asked whether or not they
felt it was important to attend church, only 2 persons (4 per-
cent) answered no.

The degree of church attendance for the group of migrant
laborers and their families during the work season is very low.
The main reason is the lack of Roman Catholic churches in the
area of Stockbridge. However, some religious groups from
Lansing or Jackson go to the camps Where the migrant workers
and their families are living in order to perform religious
ceremonies such as saying mass, performing weddings and bap-

tisms, and hearing confessions.

States of Origin and Residence

In order to know Where the migrant workers come from
and how they move from one place to another, they were ques-
tioned about their state of origin and the state of residence
before coming to the Stockbridge area. Of the 45 laborers
interviewed, more than half of them, 28 (62 percent) were
born in Texas and 3 workers (7 percent) were born in Michigan.
The rest of the migrant workers (31 percent) are of Mexican
origin. All the workers who were born in the United States

are of Mexican descent in the first or second generation.

24

The majority of the workers originally come from a city.
Twenty-eight workers (62 percent) are from the city, While 13
respondents (29 percent) are from farm communities. The re-
maining 4 laborers (9 percent) are from non—farm communities
of less than 2500 inhabitants. Now, almost 90 percent of the
total sample live in cities sometime during the year. This
means that these peOple go from the city where they live
normally to the country for work.

With regard to the state of residence before coming to
the area of Stockbridge, the findings show that 40 workers
(89 percent) are now residents of Texas. Of the rest, 4
workers (9 percent of the total) are residents of Mexico.

One worker was living in Wisconsin before he came to the area
studied. The two Mexican states where 4 workers were living
before coming to the Stockbridge area are located on the

border of the United States (Table 11).

Migrancy

Much of the farm work in the area of Stockbridge is done
by migrant workers. For this work, farmers in the area em-
ploy workers with an American background, especially from
Kentucky, and also people with a Spanish or Mexican back-
ground. Both ethnic groups are primarily engaged in onion,

lettuce and sod Operations in the area of study.

25
TABLE 11

STATES OF ORIGIN AND RESIDENCE OF MIGRANT
WORKERS IN STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

 

 

Origin Residence

States
Number Percent Number Percent

Texas 28 62.2 40 88.9
Tamaulipas 5 11.1 3 6.6
Nuevo Leon 4 8.9 -- --
Coahuila 2 4.4 l 2.2
San Luis Potosi l 2.2 -- ——
Zacatecas l 2.2 —— —-
Michoacan 1 2.2 -- --
Michigan 3 6.6 —— —-
Wisconsin -- -- l 2.2

 

Muellerl defines the migrant farm laborer as a worker
whose income is derived from temporary farm employment and who
moves one or two times a year, frequently through several
states. They are also employed by processing plants which
Operate for short periods of time.

All of the 45 workers studied belong to the migrant labor
force. This means that they come from their place of residence
to this area for work during a particular season of the year.
In order to measure the degree of migrancy (mobility) of the

group working in the Stockbridge area, they were classified

 

1 . . .
Louis E. Mueller, M. D. "Migrant Labor in Ohio." Ohio's
Health, Vol. VI, No. 10, October, 1954.

26
into three categories: (1) local, (2) state, and (3) national
migrancy.

Local migrancy refers to the worker who was new or old in
the area of study. The author found that 29 workers (64 per-
cent) had worked in the area before, while only 16 respondents
(36 percent) were new to the Stockbridge area.

The next indication of the degree of local migrancy was
to find out from the peOple who have worked in the area before
how many times they have worked there. From the 29 individuals
who said they were old in the area, 8 (28 percent) have worked
there twice before; 6 workers (21 percent) have worked three
times before; 8 respondents (28 percent) have worked there
four times before, and 7 laborers (24 percent) have worked

there five or more times before (Table 12).

TABLE 12

TIMES HAVING BEEN IN STOCKBRIDGE AREA, MIGRANT
WORKERS, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

Times Number Percent
New 16 35.6
Two—Three 14 31.1
Four or more 15 33.3

 

The degree of intrastate migrancy was measured by ques-

tioning the farm workers about other places in Michigan where

27

they have worked. The findings show that 23 workers (51 per-
cent) said they have worked only in the area of Stockbridge;

the remaining 22 respondents (49 percent) answered that they

have worked in other places in Michigan before.

The main places in the state of Michigan where the workers
said they have worked before were: Traverse City (17 percent
of those who have worked in other parts of the state); Lansing
(17 percent); Leslie, Grand Rapids and Jackson (10 percent each);
Saginaw and Hart (7 percent each); and Old Michigan, Capac,
Brox Side, Ithaca, Caro, and St. Johns (3 percent each).

The last factor concerning migrancy was the degree of
national migrancy or interstate mobility of the laborers
studied. In order to measure this workers were asked in which
other states in addition to Michigan and their state of resi-
dence, they have worked. Table 13 shows that 12 respondents
(27 percent) worked in Michigan only (plus state of resi—
dence), 10 respondents (22 percent) have worked in Michigan
and the Midwest, 15 persons (33 percent) have worked in Mich-
igan, Midwest, and Western states, while 8 workers (18 per-

cent) have worked only in Michigan and Western states.1

 

1Midwestern states include: Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio,
Indiana, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan. The Western
states include: Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Cali—
fornia, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming.

28

TABLE 13

DEGREE OF OUT OF MICHIGAN WORK DONE BY MIGRANT
WORKERS, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

States Number Percent

 

Michigan only (plus state

 

of residence) 12 26.7
Michigan and Midwest 10 22.2
Michigan, Midwest and

Western states 15 33.3
Michigan and Western

states 8 17.8

§EEE2£X

More than half of the pOpulation studied was under 30
years old. The level of education was very low and the average
of years completed by migrant workers was 3.7. The average
personal and family income was $1890 and $2635 respectively
last year. Thirty—one of the workers were married, twelve
were single, one widower and one separated. The average
family size was 3.6 children. The children‘s ages were from
under one year old to 25 years of age. The average age for
the wives was 34 years old. More than half of the migrants'
children attend school; the average of school completed by
the migrants' children was 5.1. The wives' average education
is 3.0 years of school.

All the workers were Spanish speaking and 60 percent of

them also speak English. The sample studied was totally

29
Roman Catholic; sixty-two percent of them were born in Texas,
seven percent in Michigan, and thirty-one percent in Mexico.
All workers were of Mexican descent in the first or second
generation; 89 percent reside in Texas and 9 percent reside
in Mexico. The sample has a high degree of mobility or migrancy
with 64 percent working before in the area, 49 percent having
worked in other places in Michigan and 73 percent having worked

in other states besides Michigan and their state of residence.

CHAPTER III

RECRUITMENT PROCESS, PAST EXPERIENCE, SATISFACTIONS,
ASPIRATIONS, AND STYLE OF LIFE
OF THE POPULATION STUDIED

Chapter II described the demographic characteristics of
the Mexican-American migrant labor force in the area of Stock-
bridge, Michigan. But more than characteristics are needed
to understand the migrant worker. This chapter will describe
some predominant behavioral patterns and attitudes of the
migrant workers related to their occupation. The recruitment
and job decision making processes, the past work experience,
satisfaction with present work, aspirations for self and
family and general style of life of these workers are de-
scribed. These analyses and descriptions are necessary to
correlate with the demographic characteristics and supplement
them. Levels of satisfaction and aspiration will be used in
Chapter IV as dependent variables which are crucial for the

understanding of the likelihood of change in the migrant

pattern of life.

Recruitment Process

 

In trying to understand the peculiar characteristics of

highly mobile "migrant" workers, we need to know how migrant

3O

31
workers are recruited. Where they hear about the farm work?
Who contracted them? What means of transportation do they use
from their places of residence to the area of work. This sec—
tion of Chapter III deals with these aspects of the migratory
labor force working in the area of Stockbridge.

First, almost half of the pOpulation studied heard about
his present job through a crew leader (Table 13). The second
most important source of information about the present job
was relatives. Other sources by which migrant workers heard
about their job include friends and the farmer employer. How-
ever, one interesting finding is that only one worker reported
that he heard about the present work through a Farm Employment
Office.

The second part of the recruitment process is to know
who contracted the migrant laborers for their present job.

The responses show that 19 persons (42 percent) said that
they were contracted through a crew leader; 16 workers (36
percent) answered that they were contracted directly by the
farmer. This latter figure includes all who applied for a
job directly to the farmer. Of the rest of the population
studied, 9 workers (20 percent) said that nobody contracted
them, and only one person said that he was contracted through
alFarm.Employment Office (Table 14). It should be clarified

tflfiit there are no crew leaders (in a supervisory sense)

32

TABLE 14

SOURCES OF INFORMATION WHERE MIGRANT WORKERS
HEARD ABOUT THEIR JOB AND WHO CONTRACTED

THEM, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

 

Sources Where Heard Contracted By
Number Percent Number Percent
Crew leader 21 46.7 19 42.2
Family 7 15.6 —- --
Direct from Farmer 4 8.9 16 35.6
Friends 5 11.1 -- --
Others 7 15.6 —— --
Nobody —- 9 20.0
Employment 1 2.2 l 2.2

 

among the group

representatives

studied, but there are some workers who are

of farmers and through whom farmers contracted

or recruited workers. It is these men that the author pre-

viously referred to as crew leaders. Usually, these men make

decisions about
responsible for

Apart from
should know the
the Stockbridge

this question.

contracting peOple and to some degree are

the peOple contracted.

the source of information and job contact, we
verbalized reasons workers give for coming to
area. Many different answers were given to

Twenty-two respondents (49 percent) said that

a ”better job” or "better pay” was the main reason for coming

to the area. This included answers such as family reasons,

invitation of a

farmer, heard from friends, invitation of

33
friends, they know the farmer, they come here every year, etc.
The other 8 persons interviewed (18 percent) answered that their
main reason for coming here was due to the fact that no job was
available at this time in Texas or their state of residence.

In general, it can be said that the recruitment process
takes place through informal connections between farmers and
workers. The general pattern is that a worker, who may be a
crew leader or not, makes contacts for a group with 3 or more
families, very often his close relatives and friends. Thus,
it was found that in one of the farms of the sample almost 100
percent of the persons in the migrant labor force came from
or are residents of one community in Texas.

The last aspect of the recruitment process concerns how
the migrant workers and their families move from their place
of residence to the area of Stockbridge. Of the 45 workers
interviewed, 27 of them (60 percent) said that they came by
car; 17 respondents (38 percent) said they traveled by truck
and only one laborer came by bus.

Almost half of the pOpulation studied (47 percent) said
they did not pay their own travel expenses to Stockbridge.
Farmers usually paid the fare. Fourteen persons (31 percent)
said they paid some expenses or shared the total cost of the
trip with other workers and 10 workers (22 percent) said that

they paid for the trip on their own. According to some of

34

the respondents and the farmers who employ these peOple, the
farmer promises to pay the transportation for a worker pro-
vided the worker will stay at the farm during the whole work-
ing season. Past experience of farmers show that some workers
have been recruited by one farmer who pays the transportation,
and after 2 or 3 weeks of work on the farm, the worker moves
to other farms. So, if the worker stays the whole season, the
farmer gives the migrant worker money to cover the cost of his

transportation at the end of the work period or season.

Decision Making_Process in Job Selection

More than half of the total sample 26 respondents (58 per-
cent) report deciding by himself to work in Stockbridge. In
12 cases (27 percent) the family as a whole made the decision
to come. In 7 cases (16 percent) of the single males, the
decision to come was made by the father.

The heads of families were asked if they talked with their
wives, children, or other persons about the desirability of
accepting the present job before coming, in order to get their
advice. The findings show that 29 heads of families (88 per-
cent) talked with their wives and 4 of them (12 percent) said
they did not talk with their wives about taking this job.

More than half of the respondents (20) said they talked over
the job with their children, and 12 (36 percent) said they

did not. Almost two—thirds of the workers (64 percent) said

35
they did not discuss the job with people outside the family.
Seven respondents (21 percent) said they talked with some
members of the family outside of their own immediate family,
such as a brother, mother, father, etc., and 5 workers (15
percent) answered that they talked with some friends and the
crew leader before coming (Table 15). Three-fourths of the
single males answered that they talked with their parents and
25 percent said they did not. Only one single male worker
said his parents did not ask him to come work on the present

job.

TABLE 15

TYPE OF DISCUSSION BEFORE TAKING THE JOB,
MIGRANT WORKERS, STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

Types Number Percent
Talk with family only 37 82.2
Talk with family and other persons 3 6.7
Talk with other persons only 1 2.2
Talked with no other person 4 8.9

 

Influence from other persons on the decision making pro-
cess was measured by asking the pOpulation studied whether or
not somebody influenced them. Three-fourths of the respondents
answered that nobody influenced their decision to come. Six
workers (13 percent) said they were influenced by a friend and

4 percent of the group said that relatives influenced them.

36

Past Work Experience

 

The past experience of the migrant labor force in the area
of Stockbridge was categorized into those with previous farm
labor experience only and those with some previous non-farm
work experience. The second category includes all kinds of
work experiences other than agricultural or agricultural-related
work. Based on the type of job that the respondent generally
does, 82 percent of the group studied had no previous non—farm
labor experience ever. Eighteen percent had some non—farm
labor work experience.

With regard to past farm labor experience, 29 workers
(64 percent) said their farm jobs were manual labor only while
16 laborers (37 percent) said that they could operate some
machinery as well as do manual labor.

The respondents mentioned a large number of manual and
machine Operations (in several crops) in which they have had
some past experience. Among these, the most mentioned Opera-
tions were: picking, cleaning, and weeding of different crOps.
Tractor and truck driving and general field work were also
reported as common Operations done by the workers. However,
some of the Operations reported by the respondents require
some training such as, grafting‘trees, irrigating, and cutting
lettuce. The vegetable crOps in which the migrant workers

mentioned having had past experience were onions, lettuce,

37
and tomatoes. This list of fruits include cherries, apples,
peaches and melons along with other crOps such as sugar beets
and sod.

A large number of non-farm job experiences were reported
by the respondents. Although most respondents mentioned only
farm work, some also mentioned working for small businesses
including such occupations as gas station workers, shOp workers,
dishwashers, wine preparer, and clerks. A very few urban
middle class jobs such as musician, office jobs, and salesmen
were given. Some of the migrants have worked as truck drivers,
mechanics, painters and carpenters, construction workers,
washing cars, railroad and metal foundary workers, and bottling
some refreshments such as Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and others

(Table 16).

TABLE 16

DIFFERENT KINDS OF WORK DONE IN THE PAST
BY THE MIGRANT WORKERS STUDIED
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

 

 

. First Job Given Second Job Given
Categories Number Percent Number Percent
Farm 10 22.7 6 13.3
Driver 3 6.8 - --
Small business employee 9 20.5 6 13.3
Construction 3 6.8 2 4.4
Mechanic 2 4.4 2 4.4
Painter or carpenter 3 6.8 2 4.4
Tractor driver 3 6.8 4 8.9
Urban middle class job 6 13.6 2 4.4
No answer 6 13.6 21 46.7

 

38

Satisfaction

 

One might eXpect that peOple doing "hard labor" jobs like
migrant farm laborers must be unhappy with their work. However,
the answers to the questions indicating job satisfaction of
the migrant workers with their present job indicated that the
workers were generally satisfied with their job. Of the pOpula-
tion studied, 18 percent said that they liked their present
farm work "quite a lot.” More than one-third, (38 percent)
said that they like their job ”some what" and the other one-
third reported that they like it only ”a little." Only 3
workers (7 percent) answered that they "do not like this work

at all" (Table 17).

TABLE 17

ANSWERS TO "HOW DO YOU LIKE THIS JOB?"
BY MIGRANT WORKERS,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

Categories Number Percent
Much 8 17.8
Some 17 37.8
A little 17 37.8
Not at all 3 6.7

 

The following findings support the assumption that workers
in the area studied are generally satisfied with their job.

The answers to a question which asked, "Are you satisfied or

39
happy with this job?" show that 93 percent of the total sample
said that they are satisfied; only one worker (2 percent)
answered no to this question and 2 respondents (4 percent)
said they like the work ”a little."

When the author asked the workers if they think that the
present job is a good way of living for themselves and their
families, more than half of the group (58 percent) said "yes"
while 40 percent answered no. Here we find more dissatisfac-
tion with migrant labor life in general than with specific
jobs in Stockbridge. When 12 single males were asked "Do
you think that this job is a good one for you?" 5 (42 percent)
answered no and 7 (58 percent) answered yes. More dissatis-
faction was indicated when 33 heads of families were asked,
"Do you think that this job is a good one for your children?"
13 (20 percent) answered yes and 30 (67 percent) answered no

(Table 18).

TABLE 18

OPINIONS ABOUT THE FARM WORK AS A GOOD WAY
OF LIVING AND AS A GOOD JOB FOR CHILDREN,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

 

 

Way of Living Good for Children
Answers

Number Percent Number Percent
Yes 26 57.8 13 28.9
No 18 40.0 30 66.7

No answer 1 2.2 2 4.4

 

40
This shows that most migrant workers were satisfied with
their present job while nearly half think that it is not a
good way of living. Furthermore, they think that farm work like

theirs is not a good life for their children.

Agpirations

 

The workers in the farm labor force in the area of Stock-
bridge were asked about their aspirations for themselves
(single males) and for their families, eSpecially their chil-
dren. Fifty—three percent of the sample wants a "better life,"
and 24 percent of the total group studied said they desire a
"good” or ”better job" for their children and for themselves
(if single males). As far as educational aspirations, only
16 percent answered that they hOpe their children get more
education than they have themselves (Table 19).

The general feeling of the workers (heads of family) is
that their children get a better job than their own. The
single males in the sample want a better job than their
parents. The findings show that only one worker wants his
children to have the same kind of job as he (farm work).
Twenty-six migrant laborers (58 percent) wish a job for their
children and for themselves (single males) in a city, varying
from a construction worker, to some urban middle class job

such as teacher, typist, salesman, and so forth.

41
TABLE 19
NATURE OF ASPIRATIONS FOR MIGRANT WORKERS (SINGLES)

AND MIGRANT WORKERS' CHILDREN,
STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966

 

 

 

Categories Number Percent
Better life 24 53.3
Good or better job 11 24.4
To study and get more education 7 15.6
No answer 3 6.7

 

Concerning the specific future plans for the workers' chil-
dren and the single males of the sample, the information given
by the respondents was divided into two categories: plans which
improve the person, and plans which do not improve the person.
Two—thirds of the informants have future plans for their chil-
dren and for themselves (single males) which will improve the
person, like studying, getting a better job, or having a better
life, etc. The other one—third of the population studied, have
future plans which do not improve the self per se, such as same
job (farm work), any plans to marry (for single males), etc.

The migrant workers in the sample were asked about the
level of education that they (single males) and their children
must have. The general aspiration level given by informants
Studied is that children and single males should finish a

Irhgh school education. The findings show that 23 workers

42
(52 percent) said a high school education is necessary, while
11 respondents (24 percent) answered less than a high school
education while only 7 persons (16 percent) said more than
high school education. These seven workers saw a need for
only a year of college at most.

The author states that in general the heads of families
and single males have the idea that the children and themselves
(single males) must have a better way of life, better job and
more education. Most of the workers and some single males
think that the highest degree of education is high school. For
that reason, they have the aspiration that their children must
reach this level of education; few migrant workers know about
college and post—graduate education.

Style of Life in the Mexican—
American Migrant Farm Worker

In this section of the description of the migrant labor
force in the area studied, we will focus on how these peOple
live, what their recreational activities are, the social par-
ticipation of these workers in the community, and other common
life patterns.

These workers work long hours in the field. Almost all
of the workers spend 10 hours or more per day working on the
field. Some women and children work the same number of hours

that men work; but generally women and chilren* spend 7 or 8

 

*There children are less than 16 years old.

43
hours working in the field.

What about recreation during the work season? This aspect
of the life of the migrant workers was almost totally lacking.
The absence of recreation activities among these people is
general. The only recreation activities that they have during
the work season in the area of Stockbridge is to go to town
for shOpping and sometimes for a walk around town. The main
recreation activities for the old people is to visit friends
or relatives and talk with them. For the young people recrea-
tion includes some activities such as listening to the radio
and record player, going to town and playing pool, and some
dancing. However, most of them mentioned movie—going as one
of the most common recreation activities in their home town.

The only free day that the migrant workers have during
the week is Sunday and some Saturday afternoons which they
spend for grocery shOpping. On Sundays, most of the migrant
workers stay at home for resting and talking with neighbors.

When asked, "How often do you go to town?" 35 workers
(78 percent) said they go once a week, 3 reSpondents (7 per-
cent) said they go twice a week, and 3 workers (7 percent)
said they do not travel. Of the rest, one person said some-
times and the other answered daily. In general, the "recrea-
tion” activities in town done by the pOpulation studied in—

clude shopping, movies, play pool, visit relatives or friends.

44

The mode of travel around the area used by the respondents
is by car or truck. Thirty-two workers (71 percent) answered
that they travel by car and the remaining 13 respondents (39
percent) said they travel by truck. Of the 32 workers who
travel by car, 24 own a car, and of the 13 persons Who travel
by truck, only 8 own the truck. The rest of the total popula-
tion ride with someone else.

Two questions were included in the schedule in order to
discover if the migrant workers were well acquainted with local
residents and if non-Spanish speaking peOple are friendly with
them. Twenty—two workers (44 percent) said they are well
acquainted and 25 (56 percent) said they are not. Thirty—
eight (85 percent) said the peOple in the area are friendly
with them while 7 workers (16 percent) said non-Spanish speak-
ing peOple are not friendly. However, the relationships that
these local peOple have with the migrants is only at the work;
there are no relationships between families, only between
workers and local residents.

Migrant workers have a low degree of printed matter
readership. Twenty of the respondents (42 percent) said they
read newspapers, 10 (21 percent) said they read magazines,
and 17 persons (35 percent), said they do not read anything.
Even among those who read, readership is very low. Only 6

persons (24 percent) read daily, 8 (32 percent) read once a

45
week, 5 (20 percent) read ”sometimes" and 2 (8 percent) read
three times a week.

With regard to radio listening, 41 workers (91 percent)
answered that they listen to the radio. Frequency of listening
was measured by asking the workers how many hours per day they
listen to the radio. Fifteen respondents (33 percent) said one
hour, 14 persons (30 percent) answered two hours, 6 workers (13
percent) said three hours, 5 others (11 percent) responded
four hours, 3 (7 percent) said 30 minutes per day and another
3 persons (7 percent) did not answer the question. However,
most of the migrant workers and their families watch television
from 2 to 5 hours per day. Their favorite programs were in

Western setting, such as Laredo, Daniel Boone, Wild Wild West,

 

and Bonanza.

The social participation of the migrant workers in the
communities where they are working is very low. The only real
contact involves being customers at the grocery and clothing
stores. However, the peOple of Stockbridge say they accept
these people as a part of the town.

The knowledge of the migrant workers about civic, religious
and governmental agencies working in the area with migrant
workers and their families is very low. The workers were
asked about what groups were working with migrants and their

families. Two-thirds of the sample said they did not know

46
any group working with or helping migrant workers, 8 (18 per-
cent) said they knew of some religious group, 4 workers (9 per-
cent) said some employees from school, and only one respondent
said a governmental group.

In general, then, the migrants acknowledged that the
Catholic church and some schools were working with migrant
workers. Practically no workers had any Opinions about how
well these groups were performing.

Summa y. The migrant workers studied heard about their
present jobs generally from crew leaders, but also from family,
friends and direct from farmers. They were formally contacted
about equally by crew leaders and farmers. The main reasons
for coming to Stockbridge were for a "better job" of "better
pay." Personal contacts were also important as well as having
no job in Texas.

Fifty—eight percent of the workers said they made the
decision by themselves, while only 12 percent said the family
as a unit was involved in the decision to move to Stockbridge.
One-fourth reported they had been influenced by other persons
and 75 percent said nobody had influenced them. Eighty-two
percent of the workers reported past farm experience while
only 18 percent had some non—farm experience. With regard to
farm experience, 64 percent said they have had only manual

farm labor experience, and 37 percent have some experience

47
in Operating farm machinery.

The heads of families were mostly satisfied with their
present job. The single male workers were not satisfied. How-
ever, the heads of families did not think that their occupation
is a good one for their children. In general, the migrant
workers hold aspirations that their children must have a better
way of life, a better job and more education. But the educa-
tional aspiration for their children is only a high school
level of education.

The migrant workers work long hours each day; they lack
a variety of recreation activities during the work season;
they travel very little during the work season, less than half
of them are well acquainted with other persons living regu-
larly in the area. Their participation in the community is
very low; they read "a little" but listen to radio and watch

television quite regularly.

CHAPTER IV

MIGRANT LABORER SATISFACTIONS AND
ASPIRATIONS: SOME CORRELATES

Two factors can motivate peOple toward changing their way
of life: a dissatisfaction with their present situation and
aspirations for a life they perceive to be better. Four de-
pendent variables dealing with satisfactions and aspirations
of the peOple studied were chosen to correlate with the demo-
graphic independent variables.

Since this is a descriptive and exploratory study, no
general hypotheses were formulated. Due to the small sample
size and the lack of SOphisticated measures of variables,
these findings are presented as tentative and for the purpose
of generating hypotheses and future research directions.

Ten independent and four dependent variables were chosen.
The independent variables analyzed were age, language, marital
status, education, personal income, family size, farm experi-
ence, migrancy or work mobility, and reasons for not working
at another type of job. The four dependent variables were
present job satisfaction, farm work occupational satisfaction,
job aspirations for and by youth, and educational aspiration.

.2 . .
Table 20 summarizes the results of the Chi relationships.

48

49
TABLE 20
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND

FOUR DEPENDENT VARIABLES STUDIED AMONG MIGRANT
WORKERS IN STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN, 1966l

 

 

Dependent Variables

 

 

Independent , _ , ,
Variables Satis- Satis- ASpira- Aspira-
faction l faction 2 tion 1 tion 2
x2 x2 x2 x2
Age .29 2.20 4.50* .02
Language 0 .97 3.02 2.05
Marital status 2.0737 .0033 1.2960 4.4089*
Education .00045 2.41 8.82* .02
Personal income .22 3.94* .044 9.34*
Family size 5.11* .86 .73 .97
Farm experience 1.40 .23 .048 .18
Migrancy .018 1.07 .04 .05
Work out of Mich. .55 .03 .71 2.40
Reasons 3.70 .16 .42 .20

 

lSatisfaction 1 refers to the degree of satisfaction
workers have with their present job in Stockbridge. Satis-
faction 2 deals with how satisfied workers are with farm work
as a way of life. ASpiration 1 refers to the migrants' job
aspirations for children and youths. Aspiration 2 involves
the degree of educational aspirations.

*Significant at the .05 level of probability

Present Job Satisfaction

 

Three independent variables had a substantial relation-
ship with this dependent variable (Satisfaction 1): marital
status, family size and reasons for not working at another
type of job. However, only family size was significant at
the .05 level of probability. This finding means that while

the married peOple within the pOpulation interviewed were

50
satisfied with their farm work, the single males were more
unsatisfied with the same kind of job. These young people
want to have a type of work other than farm work. Workers
with a small family size were satisfied with the present farm
job possibly because their earnings from this source are enough
for the family support, but workers with a large family size
were more unsatisfied. The logical reason for this dissatis-
faction is that their earnings from farm work are not suf-
ficient for the support and improvement of the family; the
earnings are only enough for a subsistence style of life.

The last independent variable related to satisfaction
with present job was verbalized reasons for not working at
another type of job. Although not significant statistically,
the relationship does tend to show that when peOple are
satisfied with just any kind of job, it is difficult for
these peOple to want to move from farm work to another new
job, especially if this is radically different from their own.
Many factors influence migrants to not accept jobs different
from farm work such as lack of eXperience, personal relations,
and family influence.

Farm Work Occupational
Satisfaction as a Way of Life
From the findings and the results of the analysis, we can

say that the old peOple within the pOpulation studied were

51
satisfied with farm work as a way of living. For them, this
type of job supplies the means for living in poor conditions.
However, for the young peOple the farm work is not a good way
of life. They were unsatisfied with this type of work.

Migrants with a "high" degree of education were more un-
satisfied with farm work as a way of life, but those workers
whose level of education is low were docile and satisfied with
this type of job as a way of life. The most educated peOple
in the sample studied desired to have other kind of occupation
different from farm work.

Other results of the statistical analysis show that per-
sonal income was related to farm work occupational satisfaction
as a way of life. The value of X2 for both variables was 3.94
which was significant at the .05 level of probability. The
direction of the findings show that those migrant workers with
"high" personal income were satisfied with the farm work as a
way of living; however, the migrants reporting low personal
income were not satisfied with farm work. The findings suggest
that migrants with low personal income have a minimum sub-
sistence life style, especially when they have a large family

size to support.

Job Aspirations For and By Youth
The results show that the younger heads of families and

single male teenagers had higher aspirations for a better job

52
for their children and for themselves (single males). Migrant
parents seem to want the best for their children while the
young workers want to have jobs better than their fathers.
The types of desirable jobs mentioned by the migrant workers
involved non—farm work.

Language was an independent variable related to job aspira-
tion for and by youth. The findings show a tendency for people
who speak English fluently to have more aspiration for a better
job for their children than peOple who do not Speak English.

The peOple studied know that their inability to Speak English
is a main barrier to getting a better job.

The more educated peOple among the migrant pOpulation
studied have a higher degree of aspiration for a better job
other than farm work for their children or themselves. Migrants

with less education only aspire to do farm work.

Educational Aspiration
The migrant workers who speak English well have more
educational aspiration for themselves and for their families.
In general, the educational aSpiration level for almost the
whole sample is that the children attain a high school degree.
The findings also Show that unmarried male migrant
workers have aspirations for more education than married peOple.
In addition, the migrants have aspirations for more education

for their children rather than for themselves.

53

Personal income was strongly related to educational
aspirations. The relationship showed that people with a high
personal income have higher aspiration for more education than
people who have low personal income. It is possible that peo-
ple with low personal income need their children's work to
increase family income and for that reason do not want their
children to have more education. However, this finding suggests
that those migrants who need education and training the most
desire it least.

Those workers who travel widely have higher educational
aspirations for themselves and for their children than those
who do not travel. Perhaps the highly mobile worker communi-
cates more widely and knows more about American Society and
this develOps a higher educational aspiration from his more

diverse experiences.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Little is known about the Mexican-American migrant labor
force which constitutes 53 percent of the hired farm labor in
Michigan today. This pilot study is an attempt to learn about
the demographic and behavioral characteristics of Spanish
Speaking migrant workers on four farms in the area of Stock-
bridge, Michigan, located in the Southeast part of Ingham
County, 40 miles from Lansing.

An non—experimental and cross sectional design was used.
The number of workers in the purposive sample studied was 45.
The data from the migrant workers were gathered from two
sources: 33 heads of family and 12 Single males 16 years of
age and older. The method of collecting data was personal
interviews with the migrant workers. Additional information
from farmers who employ Spanish Speaking laborers, key persons
in the community of Stockbridge, and observations made by
the interviewers contributed to the total information.

Demographic characteristics. The migrant workers studied

 

were relatively young. 55 percent of the total group was under

30 years of age. The level of education of the sample studied

54

55
was very low. The average years of school completed by workers
was 3.7. However, educational Opportunities for young people
seem to have increased during recent years and migrant worker
youths are taking advantage of it. The average of personal
income was $1890 last year and 42 percent of the workers had
some income from non-farm work - the average income from this
work was $486. The average family income was $2600 last year.
Of this income the migrant workers' wives and children's aver-
age contribution was $573 and $663 respectively.

The average family of migrant workers studied had 3.6
children. Ninety-one percent of the migrant workers had their
family with them on the job which means that they move from
their place of residence generally in Texas, to the place of
work with their family. Sixty-one percent of the laborers
said they have children attending school. The average of
years of schooling completed by the workers' children was
5.1, however, more than half of the children will continue
their education in the next school year. The average years
of school of the migrants' wives is 3.0 grades completed;
the wives' ages ranged from 17 years of age to 60 years with
an average of 34 years.

The whole pOpulation studied was Spanish Speaking people,
'however 60 percent of them speak English and 40 percent of

those who Speak English have problems with this language. The

56
whole labor force studied was Roman Catholic; the church at-
tendance by workers during the work season is low because of
the lack of Roman Catholic churches in the area of Stockbridge.

Of the workers interviewed, 62 percent were born in Texas,
7 percent in Michigan and 31 percent were of Mexican origin.
Now 89 percent of the whole group are residents in Texas, 7 per-
cent are residents of Mexico and 2 percent live in Wisconsin.
According to the place of origin, 62 percent of the workers
are from a city, 29 percent are from farm communities and 9
percent are from non-farm communities of less than 2500 in-
habitants.

Two-thirds of the sample have worked previously in the
Stockbridge area. Half of the migrants have worked other
places in Michigan. About one-fourth of the sample have not
worked outside of Michigan, one—fourth have worked both in
Michigan and the Midwest, and half the sample have worked in
at least one Western state.

Behavior Patterns and Attitudes. Half the workers heard
about their job through a crew leader While the rest generally
heard from a family member or friend. Nine percent heard of
their job directly from the farmer and only one worker heard
from an employment agency. Nearly half the workers were
formally contracted by a crew leader While a third were con-

tracted directly by the farmer. Half the workers said they

57

came to Stockbridge because of a better job or better pay and
two—fifths came because of no job available in Texas. The
decision to come to Stockbridge was usually made by the male
worker himself but one-fourth of the workers discussed the job
with their family. Only two—fifths of the workers had any
previous non—farm work eXperience. A little over one-third of
the workers have had some eXperience Operating farm machines.

In general, the migrant workers were satisfied with their
present farm work. For the family head, farm work is a good
way of living; however, they think that the same work is not
good for their children. Half the sample want a better life,
while one—fourth want a good or better job for their children.
Two-thirds of the informants studied have future plans for
their children which will improve their ability to get better
jobs.

Generally speaking, the migrant workers Spend a average
of 10 hours per day working in the field. They do not have
recreation activities for themselves and their families
during the work season; the activity mentioned most was
shOpping in town. They usually travel in and around the area
once a week. The workers and residents report a good rela-
tionship between them and other persons living regularly in
the area, especially with other field workers.

Migrant workers have a low degree of readership. However,

58
nearly all of them listen to the radio regularly and most of
the migrant laborers and their families watch television several
hours per day. The social participation of these poeple in
the community of Stockbridge is very low. The people of this
community say they accept Mexican—American migrant workers as
a part of the town. But few of the workers know about the
civic, religious and governmental groups working with the mi-
grant workers and their families in the area.

Predispositions for Change: Characteristics Related
to High Levels of Satisfaction and Aspiration

2 tables, it was found that

By the use of four—fold chi
those migrants least satisfied with their present job in Stock—
bridge were those unmarried, those who had large families, and
those who gave reasons for not working at a non—farm job.

Those workers most dissatisfied with migrant labor as a way
of life for them and their children tended to be younger, to
have more education, and to have a lower personal income.

Those workers who aspired to a better job tended to be
younger, to have greater competency in English, and to have
more education. Those workers exhibiting high educational
aspirations for themselves or their children tended to have
greater competency in English, to be unmarried, to have more

personal income, and to have more farm work experience outside

of Michigan.

59

CONCLUSIONS

General. The Mexican—American migrant worker occupies a
lonely, almost isolated place in the American social system.
For several decades the migrant has been kept in almost com-
plete functional isolation from Anglo-Saxon people, who have
done little to incorporate this ethnic group into the social
system. However, an integration and amalgamation is beginning
at the present time and the impetus for this integration is
growing among Americans as it becomes apparent that mechan—
ization will eventually eliminate much manual labor. Several
different kinds of problems, however, impede this integration.

The migrant worker has a specific role to perform in the
rural system. The unskilled agricultural Operations, manual
labor and some machinery Operations, are the kind of work that
these peOple do on the field. The time demands made and low
wages paid results in no effective communicative relationship
between the migrant worker and American society. As most
members of American society better their position, the Mexican-
American migrant worker enjoys a relatively lower social
status.

The main relationship between migrant worker and the
American society is through farmers who employ these peOple.
Other relationships are through school, which is playing the

key role in the integration of the Mexican—American migrants

60
and their families, especially the children, into the American
society.

Socioloqical Notions. One of the main problems of the

 

Mexican-American migrant worker is the lack of knowledge of
the English language. This barrier limits the social inter-
action of the migrant worker with other members within the
social system, and at the same time, this problem had been

one factor which had kept the migrant worker isolated from the
general society.

The human interaction between the migrant worker and other
members of the social system has been limited to simple social-
ization into a subculture within which the migrant worker acts.

The Mexican—American migrant worker in contrast to most
laborers, most closely represents the social class which Marx
called the "Oppressed" or "proletariat." These people have
been exploited for several decades by the capitalistic farmer
entrepreneur who barely makes a profit and must sell his food
at the consumer's price. This exploitation by a nebulous
"Oppressor" involves long hours of labor which the migrant
worker does, the work of children and women under the same
conditions as men, the low wages, the poor conditions of
housing, and the lack of equal health and welfare conditions.

The notion of organized social change among the Mexican-

American migrant worker is almost unknown. This notion,

61
however, will take root in the minds of the young generation
which is more dissatisfied, aspire to a better status and feels
an urgent need for changing their way of living. The learning
of new job Skills, increasing education, and organizing are
being considered by groups of young peOple. It is Significant
that the tendency for Social change lies with the new generation
of migrant workers. Thus, we find that the number of young
males within the farm labor force is less every year.

On the other hand, the older peOple resist many cultural
innovations in their pattern of living which brings new direc-
tions to their lifes and to the structure of the social sys—
tem of work. Among these peOple the probability of individual
transformation and of participation in social change is low.

A great feeling of alienation or separateness from the
American society is found among the Mexican-American labor
force. The lack of social participation of the migrant
workers in the community and in the society in general affairs
is obvious. The economic, political and social participation
of these peOple is limited by a great number of factors. The
only real participation of the migrant worker in the life of
the society is as a field worker during a season of six or
eight months per year. The relationship between these peOple
with other non-Spanish peOple is nil. From these conclusions,

two questions are raised. Does American society not want to

62
integrate the Mexican—American migrant workers or are these
peOple so bound to their sub-culture that they do not want to
be integrated into the American society? Both questions may
be a theme for further research.

Practical Implications. The main barrier which impedes

 

the improvement of the migrant workers is their low English
fluency. It appears necessary to structure a special program
for those people who do not speak English. This is a prereq-
uisite for their developing of their abilities in agriculture
and other activities different from farm work.

The low level of education is also a limitation for the
migrant workers' improvement. A Special program of adult
education could be structured in order to improve the degree
of education of these peOple.

The migrant workers' lack of experience in activities
other than farm jobs is another barrier for their improvement.
Training in Skilled urban jobs is necessary for the workers
in the labor force, especially for those who have some past
experience in these kinds of jobs.

Changing the behavior of the migrant workers' wives is
another urgent need for these peOple. A program for wives
must include formal and informal education in home economics
and health.

It seems that the farm community could involve the migrant

63
workers in its activities more. In this manner, the feeling
of alienation of the migrants will decrease. To structure

recreation programs for the migrants and their families must

be a community affair.

Bibliography

Andrews, Wade H. and Saad Z. Nagi, Migrant Agricultural Labor
in Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Experimental Station, Wooster,
Ohio, Research Bulletin 780, Sept. 1956.

Jorgensen, Janet M., David Williams and John H. Burma.
Migratory Agricultural Workers in the United States.
Mimeo Report. Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa. No
date given (Probably after 1960).

Metzler, William H., The Farm Worker in A Changing Agriculture.
California Agricultural Experimental Station and the
Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, Giannini
Foundation Research Report #277. Sept., 1964.

Michigan Employment Security Commission, Michigan Farm Labor
Report 1964. Employment Service Division, Detroit,
Michigan, 1964.

Mueller, Louis E., M. D. "Migrant Labor in Ohio" Ohio's Health,
Vol. VI, No. 10, October, 1954.

 

Schmidt, Fred H., After the Bracero: An Inquiring into the
Problems of Farm Labor Recruitment. Institute of Indus-
trial Relations, University of California, Los Angeles,
Oct. 1964.

Taylor, Milton C., An Approach to the Migratory Labor Problems
Through Legislation, Department of Economics, University
of Wisconsin, Governor's Commission on Human Rights,
Madison, Wisconsin, August, 1950.

Thaden, J. H., Migratory Beet Workers in Michigan, Michigan

State College Agricultural Experimental Station, Special
Bulletin 319, East Lansing, Michigan, Sept. 1942.

64

APPENDIX A

65

El presenfe esfudio con les frabajadones emigranfes
de habla hispana, flene como objecfo conocer Ias caracferisflcas
sociales, economicas y demograflcas de los mlsmos, para poder
conooer y enfender major los problemas que ftenen duranfe su
frabajo en el area de Sfockbrldge, Michigan.

Todas las rSSpuesfas en el presenfe cuesflonarlo se
manfendran en las mas esfrlcfa reserve, y seran usadas unloa-
menfe para los fines que anteriormenfe se expone, Nombres y

domicl Hos de personas, seran conservadas en la misma foma.

Nombre del agriculfor

 

Luger del rancho

 

Fecha de la Enfrevisfa

 

Tlempo: Comenzo: Termino:

 

Nombre del enfrevisfador

 

l2.

I3.

I4.

'5.

l6.
i7.

l8.

. Es usfed de una comunidad agrioola? De cludad?

CUESTIONARIO PARA TRABAJADORES
EMIGRANTES EN EL AREA DE STOCKBRIDGE, MICH.

Nombre 2. Esfado de origen

 

 

De que parie del esfado es?

 

De un pueblo pequeno no agricola?

 

Donde vivia antes de venir aqui?

 

Cuando llego a esfa area?

 

Es esfa la primera vez que usfed vlene a esta area?

 

Si no, cuanfas ofras veces?

 

Oerca de que ciudades en Michigan frabajo usfed anfes?

 

En que ofros esfados de los Esfados Unldos frabajo anfes usied?

 

 

Porque vino usi'ed aqui?

 

 

Done oyo usfed acerca de su aciual irabajo?

 

Anfes de que usfed viniera aqul, fenia ofroifipo de frabajo?

 

Done? Que frabajo?

 

Cuanio Tlempo frabajo en esfe frabajo?

 

En general , su +rabajo»es de campo o urbane?

Que clase de experiencia come frabajador de campo ha Tenido?

 

 

Quien lo confrafo para su actual frabajo?
Fue usfed confratado a fraves de una oficina especial? Que oficlna?

Donde esfa esfa oficlna?

 

Fue el oonfraflsfa 0 el agriculror a su comunidad para reclufar frabajadores

de campo?

 

-2-

I9. Escrlblo us’red al confra‘risfa 0 al agricul’ror solicifando frabajo?

 

 

 

20. Pago usfed algun dinero por el confrafo? Si si, cuanfo?

2|. Cree us1'ed que es’re es un buen con’rra'l'o para usi'ed?

 

22. For cuanfo fiempo es su confrafo?

 

23. Come vino usfed aqui, en carro? en aufobus? en fren? en froca?

 

24. Pago usfed por el viaje? Si Si, cuanfo?

 

 

25. Quien hizo la decision de venir aqui?

 

 

LAS SIGUIENTES DOS PREGUNTAS SON PARA JEFES DE FAMILIA, EXCEPTO 27-A Y 27—8.

26. Consulfo con su eSposa aoerca del acfual frabajo antes de venir?

 

27. Consulfo con sus hijos? Con orras personas?

Quien?"“

 

._, _.-._ .. -_.__.__._, y. -

27~A. Anfes de venir aqui, consulfo con sus padres acerca de esfe Trabajo?

Con ofras personas? Quien?

 

27-8. Le pregunfaron sus padres si queria venir o no?

 

28. Alguna persona lo influencia para venir aqui? Quien?

 

29. Le gusfa esfe fipo de frabajo mucho? algo? poco? nada?

30. Esra saflsfecho o confenfo con su frabajo?

 

 

3|. Cree usfed que el frabajo de campo como el suyo es un buen medio de vida para

usied y su familia? Porque?

 

 

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

4|.

42.

43.

44.

-3-

En un dia promedio, cuantas horas trabaja usted?

 

Que otras clases de trabajo puede usted haeer?

 

 

Que otras ciases de trabajo ha hecho usted?

 

 

Tiene usted alguna experiencia en estos tipos de trabaje?

 

 

Si si, que clase de experiencia?

 

 

Le gustarla trabajar en alguno de estos trabaJos, mas que en el presents?

 

Dene podria usted conseguir este tipo de trabajos?

 

 

'—

Perque no esta usted trabaJando en este tipo de trabaJo actualmente?

 

 

Cree usted que es dificil conseguir trabajo de campo ahera?

 

Porque?__

Approxlmadamente, cuales fueron sus ingresos ei ane pasado?

 

Estes ingresos lncluyen lee sueldos y ganancias de otros trabajos diferentes a

su trabajo de campo? Que trabajes?

 

_ h-“ a..-

 

Cuante o que porclentoles per estes trabajes?

 

Sus actuales salaries son pagados per hora? dia? mes? pieza?

 

En total, cuales fueron los ingresos de su familla el ultimo ano?

 

45.

46.

47.

-4-

De estos ingresos, cuanto o que perciento es per trabajo de otros mlernbros de
su fami lla? De la eSpesa? de les hijos?

de padres e abuelos?

 

 

Cuantas personas estan bajo su manutencion?

 

Esta su fami lia con usted aqul?

 

DE LA PREGUNTA 40 a la 64 50V PARA JEFES DE FAMI LIA SOLAMENTE, EXCEPTO LA 64- A.

48.
49.
50.
Si.

52.

53.

54.
55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

Cual es la edad de su esposa?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

De que estado es el la?

Trabaja su esposa eon usted en trabaJo de carrpe?

En un dla promedie, aproximadamente cuanto tienpo dedica ella al trabaJo de
campo?

Queria su eSposa venir aqul? si no, porque?

Tiene ella algunos problemas aqul? Si Si, que clase de problemas?
Cuantes hijos tiene usted? Casades? Solteres?

Estan todos sus hijos solteros con usted aqul?

 

Nenbres y edades de sus hijos bale su manutencion?

 

 

 

 

Cuantas de sus hiJos solteros estan trabajande en trabaJo de came con usted
ahora?
Asistieren sus hljos a la escuela? Donde?

 

 

Van elios a la escuela ahora? en dondé?

-5-

60. Anes de escuela de cada unes de sus hijos?

 

 

 

6|. Tiene usted planes para que sus hijos asistan a la escuela de verano?

 

62. Hay escuela de verano para hljes de trabajadores emigrantes en este area?

 

63. Que distancia hay de aqui a la escuela de verano?

 

64. Querian sus hijos venir aqul?

 

64-A. Queria usted venir aqul? Si no, perque?

 

65. Cuales son algunos de los problemas que sus hijos tienen aqul?

 

 

 

65-A. Tiene usted algunos problemas aqul? cuales?

 

 

66. Usted cree que este trabajo es buene para sus hljos?

 

 

 

66-A. Cree usted que este trabajo~es bueno para usted?

 

 

67. Queclase de vida quiere usted para sus hijos?

 

+

 

67%A. Que clase de vida Ie gustaria tener?

 

.#

 

_—__

68. Que clase de trabaje?

 

68—A. Que clase de trabajo le gustaria tener?

 

—#

-6-

69. Que planes para el future tiene para ellos?

 

 

69-A. Que planes para el future tiene para usted?

 

 

69-8. Que le gustaria ser?

 

70. Cree usted que ellos deben tener mas educacion que usted?

 

70-A. Cree usted que deberia tener mas educacion que |a que tiene?
7|. Cuanta?

llj. Cuanl‘a? __ _

 

 

 

.___r.~.... __..__._,._._,,_*4-‘__‘,___.__.___-__“_ . n-— w

LAS SIGUIENTES 4 PREGUNTAS SW PARA JEFES DE FAMILIA SOLANENTE

72. RSSpecto a sus hijas, que cree usted deben aprender?

 

73. Deben ellas estudiar?

 

74. Deben ellas estar en la casa?

 

75. Cuanta educacion cree usted deberan tener sus hijas?

 

 

 

76. Tiene otros parientes con usted aqul?

 

77. Si si, cuales parientes tiene usted?

 

78. Estan ellos trabajando con usted en trabajo de campe?

 

 

_,..._ — -r-u—h—JJ m.— .44...—

Jnformagipn adi ci onal

 

I. Edad 2. Estado civil

 

3. Asistio usted a la escuela? Donde?

 

4. Cuantos anos complete en la escuela?

 

..-... ....

 

Hi

,;.

x
1‘;

LAS

. Cuantes enes de escuela complete ella?

. Donde estam estes grupos o agencies trebaJende?

-7-

SIGUIENTES 2 PREGUNTAS SON PARA JEFES DE FAMILIA SOLAMENTE

Su eSposa asistio a la escuela? Donde?

 

 

Cual es su religion?

 

En su opinion, cree usted que es importante asistir a la lglesla?

 

Cual es su idiome meterno?

 

Habia usted otro idioma? Que idiome?

 

Tiene usted problemas con este idlema?

 

Sebe de algunos grupos e agencies religiosas, civicas e de gobierno que estan

trabejando con emigrantes y con families de emigrantes en este area?

 

 

 

. Conoce usted que clese de trebejo estes grupos o agencies estan haciendo?

 

Lee usted periodicos o revistas?

 

 

 

 

 

l6. Cuales? Cede cuando?
l7. Escucha usted radio? Cuantas horas en un die promedio?
l8. Que hece usted y su familie para divertirse cuando no estan trabaJando?

20.
2|.

22.

 

w——~_ m _..-__.-~

 

Como vieje usted aqul? en carro? en troca?

 

Tiene usted carro o troca? Pide ride a otra persona?

 

Es la gente emigable con usted aqul?

 

Esta usted blen femillerizade con alguien que viva regulermente en este area?

Si si, quien?

 

 

 

 

.- . .. .
. .p. v . , .
, u -. . .. .
..,., . ,_ . l
s _ .
. ‘ -.
-’- .
‘ ,7 _ , .
I
. . - . .. ,
‘ -
.\
. ' ‘ .
r . .

23. Come los conocio?

 

24. Cede cuando va usted e Stockbridge, Gregory, Munith u otro luger?

 

 

 

25. Que hece usted en estes pueblee?

 

 

26. Perteneoe usted a alguna erganizacion de trebajaderes emigrantes?

27. SI SI, cuales organizaoinnes?

(PQFRVACIMES:

 

   

 

APPENDIX B

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

10

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MIGRANT WORKERS IN
THE AREA OF STOCKBRIDGE, MICHIGAN

Name 2. State of origin

What part of the state?

 

Are you from a farm community? From a city?

 

From a small non-farm town?

 

Where were you living before coming here?

 

When did you come to this area?

 

Is this the first time that you come here?

 

If not, how many other times?

 

Near which cities in Michigan did you work before?

 

 

In what other states in the United States did you work

before?

 

Why did you come here?

 

 

Where did you hear about your present job?

 

Before you come here, did you have another type of job?

Donde? What job?

 

 

How much time did you work on this job?

 

In general, do you do farm or urban work?

 

What kind of experience as a farm worker have you had?

 

Who contracted you for the present job?

 

11

17. Were you contracted through a specific office?

 

What office? Where is this office?

 

 

18. Did the contractor or farmer go to your town to recruit farm

workers?

 

19. Did you write to the contractor or farmer applying for the

job?

 

20. Did you pay any money for the contract?

 

If yes, how much?

 

21. Do you think that this contract is a good one for you?

22. For how long is your contract?

 

23. How did you come by car? by bus?

 

 

 

 

by train? by truck?
24. Did you pay for the trip? If yes, how much did you
pay?

 

25. Who made the decision to come here?

 

THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS ARE FOR HEADS OF FAMILY ONLY,
EXCEPT 27-A AND 27-B

26. Did you talk with your wife about this job before coming?

 

27. Did you talk with your children? With other

persons? Who?

 

27-A. Before coming here, did you talk with your parents about

this job? With other persons?

 

 

Who?

 

27-B.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

12

Did your parents ask your preference on the job?

 

Did someone influence you to come here?

 

 

 

 

Who?
Would you like this type of job much? some?
a little? or not at all?

 

 

Are you satisfied or happy with your job?

 

 

Do you think that farm work like yours is a good way of life

for you and for your family?

 

Why?

 

In an average day, how much time do you spend working?

 

What other kind of work can you do?

 

 

What other kind of work have you done?

 

 

Do you have some experience on these types of jobs?

 

If so, what kind of experience?

 

 

Would you like to perform one of these jobs more than your

present one?

 

Where could you get this type of job?

 

Why are you not working at this type of job at present?

 

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

13
Do you believe that at the present time farm work is

difficult to get? Why?

 

 

Approximately, what was your income last year?

 

Does this income include the salaries or profits from other

sources different from your farm work?

 

What sources?

 

How much or what percent is from these jobs?

 

 

 

 

 

Are your present wages paid per hour? day?
month? piece?
In total, what was your family income last year?

 

From this income, how much or what percent is from the work

of other members of your family? Wife?

 

 

Children? Parents or grandparents?

 

 

How many persons are under your support?

 

Is your family with you here?

 

FROM QUESTION 48 TO QUESTION 64 ARE FOR HEADS OF FAMILY ONLY

What is your wife's age?

 

What state is she from?

 

Does your wife work with you at farm work?

 

In a typical day, approximately how much time does she Spend

on farm work?

 

Did your wife want to come here? If not,

 

why?

 

Does she have some problems here?

 

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

64—A.

 

65.

14

If yes, What kind of problems?

 

How many children do you have? Married?

 

 

Singles?

 

Are all of your single children with you here?

 

Children's names and ages under your support?

 

 

 

How many of your single children are working at the farm

work with you now?

 

Did your children attend school? Where?

 

Do they go to school now? Where?

 

 

Years of schooling of each one of the children

 

 

Do you have plans for your children to attend summer school?

 

Is there a summer school for migrant workers' children in

this area?

 

How far from here is the summer school?

 

Did your children want to come here?

 

Did you want to come here? If not, why?

 

What are some of your children's problems here?

 

 

 

66.

 

 

 

69.

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

Do you have some problems here? If yes, What
problems?
Do you think that this job is a good one for your children?

 

Do you think that this job is a good one for you?

 

What kind of life do you want for your children?

 

 

What kind of life would you like to have?

 

 

What kind of job?

 

What kind of job would you like to have?

 

 

What future plans do you have for your children?

 

 

What future plans do you have for you?

 

What would you like to be?

 

Do you think that they must have more education than you?

 

DO you think that you should have more education than you

have now?

 

How much?

 

How much?

 

THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS ARE FOR HEADS OF FAMILY ONLY

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In regard to your daughters, what do you think they Should
learn?

Must they study?

Must they stay at home?

How much education do you think that your daughters should
have?

Do you have other relatives with you here?

If so, what relatives do you have?

Are they working at farm work with you?

 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Age 2. Marital status

 

Did you attend school? Where?

 

 

How many years did you complete in school?

 

THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS ARE FOR HEADS OF FAMILY ONLY

Did your wife attend school? Where?

 

How many years did She complete in school?

 

What is your religious faith?

 

In your Opinion, do you think it is important to attend

church?

 

What is your mother language?

 

Do you Speak another language? What language?

 

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

17

Do you have problems with this language?

 

Do you know of any religious, civic or governmental groups
or agencies working with the migrant workers and migrant's

families?

 

Where these groups or agencies working?

 

Do you know what kind of job these agencies or groups are

doing?

 

Do you read newspaper or magazines?

 

Which ones? How often?

 

 

Do you listen to radio? How many hours in

 

the average day?

 

What do you and your family do for recreation when you are

not working?

 

 

How do you travel around by car? by truck?

 

Own a car or truck? Ride with someone else?

 

Are peOple friendly to you here?

 

Are you well acquainted with anyone living regularly in this

area? If yes, who?

 

 

How did you happen to get acquainted?

 

How often do you go to Stockbridge, Gregory, Munith or other

place?

 

What do you do in these towns?

 

 

18
26. Do you belong to any migrant workers organizations?

27. If yes, what organizations?

 

 

OBSERVATIONS :

APPENDIX C

19

20

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FARMERS WHO EMPLOY
MIGRANT WORKERS

What crOps do you grow?

 

 

How many acres of each do you have?

 

 

What kind of jobs or Operations have to be done this time of

year?

 

 

What are the various jobs, specifically, you have for hired

labor?

 

 

Is there a local association of vegetable farmers?

 

 

Do you belong to any association of vegetable farmers?

If yes, Which?

 

About how many migrant workers do you have or expect to have

this year?

 

What problems have you had with hired workers in the last

few years?

 

 

Would you say your neighbors like having the migrants in the

community?

 

 

10.

11.

12.

21
Are you satisfied with the migrant workers help in the last

few years?

 

 

How rapidly is your farm and others around here becoming

mechanized?

 

 

How do you get your hired help?

 

 

344%. v.£ GALY

"ZiiillZI/llli/illiiigili’i“