What About Texas? The Forgotten Cause of Antonio

Transcription

WHAT ABOUT TEXAS? THE FORGOTTEN CAUSE
OF ANTONIO ORENDAIN AND THE
RÍO GRANDE VALLEY FARM
WORKERS, 1966-1982
by
TIMOTHY PAUL BOWMAN
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
May 2005
CHAPTER 1
THE MAKING OF A HUELGISTA
Antonio Orendain was born on May 28, 1930, in Etzatlán, Mexico.1 He was only
educated through elementary school and often worked as an impoverished campesino (a
Mexican farm worker). In 1950 at the age of twenty, Orendain entered California illegally.
Hungry and broke, he heard that American farm owners suffered from a labor shortage
following World War II. Like many of his compatriots, Orendain thought the United States
wa
st
he“
l
a
ndofoppor
t
u
ni
t
y
.
”Hec
r
os
s
e
dt
hebor
de
ra
nde
nt
e
r
e
dS
a
nYs
i
d
r
o,Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
,
lured by rumors of farm workers making as much as $1.60 per hour –a sum which in
Mexico was unheard of. To Orendain, the decision to cross the border illegally seemed
logical:
The worst part of it in Mexico [was] to be too close to the United States
and so far away from God. If I [had] a great need in Mexico, I am pretty sure need
is the mother of all inventions. And I was hungry and needy, and since I was so
close to the United States, I [did not] have to invent some way in order to solve the
pr
obl
e
m.Idi
dn’
tha
v
et
obr
e
a
kmyhe
a
dt
os
ol
v
et
hepr
obl
e
m,be
c
a
u
s
ee
v
e
r
y
bod
y
said the United States was easy. So maybe with those ideas, like there [was] a lot of
work here, is [why] I migrated here.
This enterprising young man sought a better life and brighter future.2
The harsh realities of farm labor in the United States soon darkened his optimism.
With only seasonal work available, Orendain migrated between California, Idaho, Oregon,
1
Ant
oni
oOr
e
n
da
i
nt
oAl
l
e
nMc
Cr
e
i
gh
t
,Nov
e
mbe
r14,1978,Fol
de
r1,Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
’
sUn
i
on
Papers, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Benson Latin American Collection, University of Texas at Austin
(hereafter TFWUP-UT); Antonio Orendain, interview by Charles Carr Winn, 20 July 1971, transcript,
Oral History Project, University Library Special Collections, University of Texas at Arlington (hereafter
OHP-UTA).
2
Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA.
2
and Montana. He began noticing injustices growers on large farms committed against
workers. For example, Orendain noticed that he and other young, healthy workers were
often hired to displace older, slower workers. Since farm workers had no legal recourse,
Orendain recognized this as opportunistic cruelty by the growers. He also fell victim to
cruel growers who threatened to have him and other illegal workers deported unless they
agreed to work for free. To avoid this, Orendain adopted Americanized Hispanic last
names (such as Gómez or Hernández), claiming that people would be less likely to assume
he was an illegal than when used his real name. In this manner Orendain struggled from
1950 until 1955, migrating from place to place and making about $2.35 per day. After
seeing how bad conditions were for Mexican workers, he realized that the only medium
c
a
pa
bl
eofc
ha
ng
i
ngt
hi
su
nf
a
i
rs
y
s
t
e
m wou
l
dbeaf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’u
ni
on.Thi
se
pi
phany
would change his life.3
While working in Los Angeles in 1951, Orendain met a dynamic young man who
steered him toward labor organizing –César Estrada Chávez. Originally from Yuma,
Arizona, Chávez came to Los Angeles to work for the Community Service Organization
(CSO).4 CSO was based in East Los Angeles and its purpose was to assist Mexicans and
Mexican Americans living in barrios across California. Its activities included protesting
police brutality, helping people with immigration issues, and assisting the unemployed. The
3
Ibid.
Ibid.; Jacques E. Levy, Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa (New York: W.W. Norton &
Company Inc., 1966), 9; Juan Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor, 1790-1990 (Albuquerque:
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
yofNe
wMe
x
i
c
oPr
e
s
s
,1994)
,24
3.Le
vy
’
sbookc
on
t
a
i
nsa
u
t
obi
og
r
a
ph
i
c
a
lpa
s
s
a
g
e
sbyCh
á
v
e
z
and other UFW leaders on the first 10 years of the movement.
4
3
talented and energetic Chávez rose through the ranks of CSO, eventually becoming its
national director.5
Orendain joined CSO and became friends with Chávez. At CSO Orendain also met
his wife Raquel, a dedicated woman who provided moral and intellectual support
throughout his subsequent career as a labor organizer. They married in 1952 and both
worked in the CSO from 1953 to 1962.6
As
i
def
r
om Or
e
nda
i
n’
sne
wl
yf
or
me
dr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
hi
ps
,Chá
v
e
zwa
sa
l
s
ode
v
e
l
opi
nga
n
ideology that would l
a
t
e
rbec
r
u
c
i
a
lt
ot
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
nt
.Asade
v
ou
tCa
t
hol
i
c
,
Chá
v
e
z“
e
x
pe
c
t
e
dt
hec
hu
r
c
he
st
omi
ni
s
t
e
rt
ot
hepoora
ndt
hene
e
dy
,
”a
r
g
u
i
ngt
he
y
7
s
hou
l
dbea“
pi
l
l
a
rofs
u
ppor
t
”t
ohi
sor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ons
i
nc
ebot
hpu
r
s
u
e
ds
i
mi
l
a
robj
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
Also during these years Chávez began studying nonviolent protest as a form of civil
disobedience. Although his mother had preached nonviolence since he was young, Chávez
began studying the tactics of St. Paul and Mohandas Ghandhi.8 This would shape not only
the farm wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
ntbu
twou
l
da
l
s
obet
hr
u
s
ti
nt
ot
hedi
s
pu
t
e
sbe
t
we
e
nChá
v
e
z
and Orendain that developed later in the 1970s.
Since Orendain was a farm worker, he originally joined CSO to volunteer in the
Oxnard, California anti-bracero program. The U.S. government developed the Bracero
Pr
og
r
a
m du
r
i
ngWor
l
dWa
rI
Ia
same
a
nst
oi
mpor
tc
he
a
pl
a
bori
nt
ot
heS
ou
t
hwe
s
t
’
s
5
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 3; Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor, 243.
Raquel Orendain, interview by Martha Cortera, 23 May 1976, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Benson
Latin American Collection, University of Texas at Austin.
7
Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor, 244.
8
Cé
s
a
rCh
á
v
e
z
,“
Ce
s
a
rCh
a
ve
zSpe
a
k
sWi
t
hBobFi
t
c
hAbou
tLaCa
u
s
a
,1970,
”i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
wbyBobFi
t
c
h
in, Major Problems in Mexican-American History, ed. Zaragoza Vargas (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1999), 387-389; John C. Hammerback and Richard J. Jensen, The Rhetorical Career of Cesar
Chavez (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1998), 17-18.
6
4
agribusiness sector.9 Chávez learned that growers in the Oxnard area were employing
Mexican braceros instead of U.S. citizens, and accused them of using the program to
increase their profits while perpetuating poverty among American workers. Through the
CSO he pressured the Department of Labor to force the growers to hire local workers.10
This was the first time both Chávez and Orendain had aroused the antagonism of wealthy
growers.
Af
t
e
rt
heOx
na
r
di
nc
i
de
nt
,
CS
O be
c
a
memor
ef
oc
u
s
e
dont
hepl
i
g
htofCa
l
i
f
or
ni
a
’
s
farm workers. This comes as no surprise; like Orendain, as a farm worker Chávez had
experienced firsthand the injustices growers committed.11 In 1962 Orendain and Chávez
lobbied California lawmakers in Sacramento for a minimum wage law and various other
workplace improvements such as toilets, clean drinking water, and aid for needy children.
While in the capitol building during the 1962 legislative session, one grower informed them
that if the minimum wage passed he would simply move his farm to Central or South
America. Orendain responded dryly:
I
t
’
sa
l
r
i
g
htwi
t
hmei
fy
oug
oa
ndf
a
r
mi
nMe
x
i
c
oora
nyot
he
rS
ou
t
h
American country and develop a good industry out there; but please, when the
g
ov
e
r
nme
nt
st
he
r
et
a
k
eov
e
ry
ou
ri
nt
e
r
e
s
t
s
,
pl
e
a
s
edon’
tt
r
ya
nds
e
ndou
rpe
opl
et
o
fight for your interests out there.
Thu
sCS
O’
se
f
f
or
t
swe
r
es
t
r
ong
l
yoppos
e
d,a
ndOr
e
nda
i
n be
g
a
nl
os
i
ngf
a
i
t
hi
nt
he
democratic system. Also for the first time Orendain and Chávez understood the political
9
Craig J. Jenkins, The Politics of Insurgency: The Farmworker Movement in the 1960s (New York:
Columbia Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
yPr
e
s
s
,1985
)
,13
3;Ma
r
i
onBe
t
hMor
r
i
s
,“
Th
eHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eMe
x
i
c
a
nCon
t
r
a
c
t
Labor Program, 1942-1966”(
M.
A.t
h
e
s
i
s
,Nor
t
hTe
x
a
sSt
a
t
eUn
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,1967)
,9-10.
10
Eugene Nelson, Huelga: The First Hundred Days of the Great Delano Grape Strike (Delano: Farm
Worker Press, 1966), 50.
11
For more information see Levy, Cesar Chavez, 45-93.
5
clout of the growers, learning they had successfully lobbied the California state legislature
12
i
noppos
i
t
i
ont
oCS
O’
spr
opos
a
l
.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sf
r
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
ona
tt
heor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on’
si
na
bi
l
i
t
yt
oa
c
c
ompl
i
s
hi
t
sobj
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
g
r
e
w.Mor
e
ov
e
r
,hewa
sf
r
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
da
thi
sownl
i
mi
t
e
dr
ol
ei
nCS
O’
sa
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
;a
sa
ni
l
l
e
g
a
l
immigrant, he remained a peripheral contributor until his naturalization in 1959.13 Still,
concerning farm worker assistance the group had little to be excited about. They did
r
e
c
e
i
v
es
omehe
l
pf
r
om t
he“
pol
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
ya
c
t
i
v
eAng
l
omi
ddl
ec
l
a
s
s
,
”bu
tOr
e
nda
i
nl
i
k
e
ne
d
t
hi
st
ot
ok
e
ni
s
m,
c
l
a
i
mi
ngt
ha
tpol
i
t
i
c
i
a
nswou
l
du
s
eCS
O“
j
u
s
tt
og
e
te
l
e
c
t
e
d:
”
In the CSO we were trying to give voting power to the Mexican Americans.
We were working real (sic) well, but when the doctors, lawyers, and the middle
class got into it, they used us just for political power and to win elections.
Therefore, by 1962 we had gotten completely away fr
om t
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’
pr
obl
e
ms
,a
nds
oweg
otou
toft
heCS
Oa
ndf
or
me
dt
heNa
t
i
ona
lFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’
Association.
Chávez, realizing that CSO could not properly assist the farm workers, resigned first, and
Orendain soon followed. Personally committed to assisting the poor farm workers, Chávez
decided to form a farm labor union.14
I
nt
hes
u
mme
rof1
9
6
2
,Chá
v
e
zf
or
me
dt
heNa
t
i
ona
lFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’As
s
oc
i
a
t
i
on
(NFWA). Chávez worked feverishly to publicize the NFWA among workers, and on
September 30, they held their first meeting in Fresno with about 150 delegates. Here
leadership was solidified, and many of the important players in the subsequent farm
wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
ntwe
r
ee
l
e
c
t
e
dt
ok
e
yl
e
a
de
r
s
hi
ppos
i
t
i
ons
:Chá
v
e
zwa
se
l
e
c
t
e
dDi
r
e
c
t
or
,
Orendain Secretary-Treasurer, and Dolores Huerta and Gilberto Padilla Vice Presidents.
12
Orendain to McCreight, 14 November 1978, Folder 1, TFWUP-UT.
14
13
6
Huerta and Padilla, like Orendain, were both former CSO members and later became
involved in the Río Grande Valley movement. Dues were set at $3.50 per month. Thus the
union was born and the first effective efforts to unionize farm workers were underway.15
The significance of this first meeting cannot be overstated. Elected to positions of
leadership, both Chávez and Orendain solidified their standing among union members and
farm workers. By this poi
ntt
het
wowe
r
ef
r
i
e
nds
,bu
tChá
v
e
z
’
sr
e
s
pe
c
tf
orOr
e
nda
i
n
increased during the first year of the Delano grape strike. This later proved evident when
Chávez sent Orendain to assist Eugene Nelson in the Río Grande Valley in 1966.16 Also,
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sof
f
i
cial status in the union implies a commitment to Chávez and his nonviolent
philosophy. Chávez thought that only a nonviolent movement could win justice for the
farm workers and most union members, including Orendain, agreed.17 Despite the fact that
people not
i
c
e
d Or
e
nda
i
n’
s pe
nc
ha
ntf
orq
u
e
s
t
i
oni
ng a
u
t
hor
i
t
ya
nd hi
s“
s
k
e
pt
i
c
a
l
”
personality,18 t
he
r
ei
snoi
ndi
c
a
t
i
onOr
e
nda
i
nc
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
dChá
v
e
z
’
snon-violence at this time.
He and Chávez did have very different personalities –whi
c
hOr
e
nda
i
n’
sy
ou
ngda
u
g
ht
e
r
Melanie perceptively noticed were bound to conflict in the future –but since Orendain
joined the union and held a key position, he was clearly committed to the cause. Orendain
t
hu
sbe
c
a
meac
ommi
t
t
e
d“
huelgista”(
“
s
t
r
i
k
e
r
,
”orapa
r
t
i
c
i
pa
nti
nt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’
movement).
15
Antonio Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005; Levy, Cesar Chavez, 174; also Orendain
interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA.
16
Ibid.
17
Peter Matthiessen, Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution (New York:
Random House, 1969), 24-25, 86.
18
Ibid., 330; Stan Steiner, La Raza: The Mexican Americans (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 280.
7
Wisely, the ever-patient Chávez did not force the union to act too quickly. During
its first few years, the NFWA served mainly as a credit union for the workers,19 all the
while spreading word of their future plans to struggle for the worke
r
s
’r
i
g
ht
s
.I
nde
e
d,t
he
workers sorely needed assistance:
In California, their median annual wage was half the poverty level. Most
mi
g
r
a
ntwor
k
e
r
s
…wor
k
e
dt
e
n-hour days for ten cents an hour. Living conditions
we
r
es
u
bs
t
a
nda
r
d;mos
t
…l
i
v
e
di
nba
r
r
i
osofl
a
r
ge cities or in squalid conditions on
farms. Growers kept shabby accommodations for field hands and local citizens
wanted the migrants to work and then move on to another harvest since the
community did not want to pay taxes to support additional schools and services. In
California, the job accident rate was three times and infant mortality double the
national average; life expectancy was under fifty, and since there were few controls
then on farm pesticides and other chemicals, thousands of workers were poisoned.
Fu
r
t
he
r
mor
e
,Hi
s
pa
ni
c
sr
e
c
e
i
v
e
dpoore
du
c
a
t
i
on…t
hea
v
e
r
a
g
eHi
s
pa
ni
cf
i
ni
s
he
d
eight [years of schooling] in California. Uneducated and poor, they had little hope
for escaping poverty.20
Chávez was indeed aware of the enormity of the task before him.
For two and a half years the NFWA slowly built up support until its first official
strike in the spring of 1965. In McFarland, California, rose grafters working for a company
called Mount Arbor were promised $9 dollars per thousand roses grafted but were actually
receiving only $6-7.50. When the union set up pickets, the company called the police and
u
s
e
ds
t
r
i
k
e
br
e
a
k
e
r
sf
r
om Me
x
i
c
ot
obr
e
a
kt
hepi
c
k
e
tl
i
ne
s
.
De
s
pi
t
et
heu
ni
on’
sl
os
s
,
Chá
v
e
z
l
a
t
e
rr
e
c
a
l
l
e
dt
ha
tt
hi
se
v
e
nt“
g
a
v
eu
sag
oodi
ndi
c
a
t
i
onofwha
tto expect in other strikes,
21
howl
a
borc
ont
r
a
c
t
or
sa
ndpol
i
c
ewou
l
dbeu
s
e
da
g
a
i
ns
tu
s
.
”
19
Melanie Orendain interview by the author, 18 January 2005; Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHPUTA.
20
Terry H. Anderson, The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in America From Greensboro to Wounded
Knee (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 301.
21
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 179-180.
8
With this first experience behind them, Orendain was thrilled the union was finally
acting. They remained dormant until the fall, when on September 8 a Filipino farm
wor
k
e
r
s
’u
ni
on,t
heAg
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
lWor
k
e
r
s
’Or
g
a
ni
z
i
ngCommi
t
t
e
e(
AWOC)
,we
ntons
t
r
i
k
e
against grape growers in the Delano area where the NFWA was headquartered.22 Chávez
was again reluctant to get involved, but the head of AWOC, Larry Itliong, implored him to
do so. Some of the strikers had threatened to beat up strikebreakers, and Itliong knew that
23
Chá
v
e
z
’
spa
c
i
f
i
s
ma
ndma
g
ne
t
i
ca
ppe
a
lc
ou
l
dpr
e
v
e
ntt
hi
sv
i
ol
e
nc
e
.
Chávez was thus
finagled into participating, and thus the famous Delano grape strike began.
The strike garnered immediate reaction from local Catholic and Protestant clergy.
The California Migrant Ministry, led by the reverend Christ Hartmire, gave emphatic
support to the union. Two local Roman Catholic priests, Keith Kenney and Arnold
Meaghe
r
,e
c
hoe
dChá
v
e
z
’
sr
e
l
i
g
i
ou
si
de
ol
og
y
,j
u
s
t
i
f
y
i
ngc
hu
r
c
hs
u
ppor
tbys
a
y
i
ng
,“
whe
r
e
t
hepoora
r
e
,Chr
i
s
ts
hou
l
dbe
.
”ATime article that covered the role of the church in the
ne
ws
t
r
i
k
epr
e
s
e
nt
e
dt
hede
mons
t
r
a
t
or
sa
s
,“
t
hepoorc
a
l
l
i
ngou
tt
ohe
a
v
e
n.
”Ty
pical
s
t
r
i
k
e
r
swe
r
ec
i
t
e
d,s
u
c
ha
s“
Ma
nu
e
lRi
v
e
r
a
,5
2a
ndf
a
t
he
rofs
e
v
e
n,[
who]wor
k
st
e
nhour
s
ada
yf
or$
1
.
2
5a
nhou
rt
of
e
e
dhi
sf
a
mi
l
y
,[
a
nd]s
a
y
st
he‘
v
i
ne
y
a
r
downe
r
sma
k
ea
na
ni
ma
l
24
ou
tofme
,
t
he
ymi
g
hta
swe
l
lpu
tal
e
a
s
honme
.
’
”
Chá
v
e
z
’
sdr
e
a
m of the church assisting
his struggle to help such impoverished workers was becoming reality.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
ss
t
a
nc
e on c
hu
r
c
hi
nv
ol
v
e
me
nt wi
t
hu
ni
on a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s wa
sl
e
s
s
enthusiastic. Being non-religious, it was well known that Orendain had a very cynical
22
Ibid., 182.
Florence M. White, Cesar Chavez: Man of Courage (Champaign: Gerrard Publishing Company, 1973),
59.
24
“
Gr
a
pe
sofWr
a
t
h
,
”Time, 10 December 1965, 96.
23
9
outlookt
owa
r
dst
hec
hu
r
c
ha
ndt
ha
the“
s
t
r
ong
l
yoppos
e
da
nyu
s
eofr
e
l
i
g
i
oni
nu
ni
on
25
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
”
Chá
v
e
z
’
sde
v
ou
tbe
l
i
e
f
swou
l
dl
a
t
e
rpu
bl
i
c
l
yc
omebe
t
we
e
nhi
ma
ndOr
e
nda
i
n.
Nevertheless, at this time their relationship remained in good standing.
By the end of 1965 the strike became stronger. The union claimed over five
thousand members, and various religious, student, and civil-rights groups were supporting
their effort. Also, Walter Reuther, head of the United Auto Workers (UAW), pledged five
thousand dollars a month until the strike was won. Despite this backing, NFWA efforts did
notha
l
tDe
l
a
no’
sma
s
s
i
v
eg
r
a
peha
r
v
e
s
t
.Thu
s
,t
heu
ni
ont
u
r
ne
dt
oane
wt
a
c
t
i
c–a
nationwide boycott. Blacklisted were the largest grape growers from the Delano area:
Schenley Industries, DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation, and eighty-three smaller vineyards.26 The
boy
c
ot
tr
e
ma
i
ne
da
ni
mpor
t
a
ntt
a
c
t
i
ct
hr
ou
g
ht
he du
r
a
t
i
on oft
he f
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’
movement.
Orendain spent the latter weeks of 1965 traveling with Chávez throughout
California t
ot
heu
ni
onl
e
a
de
r
’
sv
a
r
i
ou
ss
pe
a
k
i
nge
ng
a
g
e
me
nt
s
,
e
nc
ou
r
a
g
i
ngs
u
ppor
tf
ort
he
boycott.27 The union also began sending delegates to many of the major metropolitan areas
across the country, and for that purpose in January 1966 Chávez and Orendain went to
Chicago. Tracking the effectiveness of this trip is difficult, although it is known they had at
least minimal success: in an amusing incident, a group of sympathetic Chicago housewives
stripped a local supermarket of DiGiorgio canned goods and barricaded the aisles on
25
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 277; Richard Griswold del Castillo and Richard A. García, Cesar Chavez: A
Triumph of Spirit (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 85.
26
Newsweek, 27 December 1965, 57-58, 84.
27
10
which they had been displayed. Although perhaps not the type of enthusiasm Chávez and
Orendain were hoping for, the tactic was affective –the store dropped all DiGiorgio
brands en lieu of the boycott.
Also of note, Eugene Nelson, whom Chávez sent to organize the boycott in
Houston, had previously represented the union in Chicago. Orendain could not explain
why Nelson, whom he never really liked, wanted to leave Chicago.28 Ironically, it would be
less than a year before Orendain would meet Nelson again, as the two would work together
during the coming struggle in the Río Grande Valley.
Orendain remained in Chicago from January until April 1966 while union activities
in California heated up. In late March the union organized a 300-mile march from Delano
to Sacramento to publicize the grape strike and boycott.29 Orendain remained in Chicago
during most of this pilgrimage, but flew back on April 6 to participate in the last three
days.30 The march ended on Easter Sunday with a rally at the state capitol, with a crowd of
ov
e
r8
,
0
0
0d
e
ma
ndi
nga
na
u
di
e
nc
ewi
t
h Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
’
sGov
e
r
norEdmu
nd G.Br
own.
Although Brown refused to meet with them, the spirited rally ended with a speech by
Chávez, announcing the nationwide boycott of DiGiorgio and other Delano grape growers,
despite the fact that DiGiorgio had already proposed secret-ballot elections for its workers
to determine union popularity.31 The NFWA was quickly gaining the national spotlight.
28
I
bi
d.
;“
Ch
i
c
a
g
oSu
pe
r
ma
r
k
e
tDr
opsCa
n
n
e
r
yBr
a
n
di
nWa
k
eofCa
l
i
f
or
n
i
aFa
r
m St
r
i
k
e
,
”Business
Week, 18 June 1966, 158.
29
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 206.
30
31
Lawrence E.Da
v
i
e
s
,“
Gr
a
peGr
owe
r
sSc
or
eGov
.Br
owna
sMa
r
c
hEn
ds
,
”New York Times, 11 April
1966,18;“
Gr
a
peSt
r
i
k
eCh
i
e
fAc
c
e
pt
saPr
opos
a
lf
orSe
c
r
e
tEl
e
c
t
i
on
,
”New York Times, 9 April 1966,
52.
11
Before the march ended, the NFWA scored a victory in Los Angeles. On April 6,
1966 Schenley Industries, along with various smaller vineyards, agreed to union contracts.
The union also made plans to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor –Congress
of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO), a move that would bolster its bargaining power.32
Encouraged by these events, Chávez and Orendain decided it was time to take action
33
a
g
a
i
ns
tt
heg
r
owe
r
s
’u
s
eof“
s
c
a
b”l
a
bor
.
In May, Orendain and Dolores Huerta went to
El Paso to picket the Chamizal Labor Agency, which had been sending strikebreakers to
Di
Gi
or
g
i
o.Or
e
nda
i
nr
e
ma
i
ne
dt
he
r
et
hr
ou
g
hJ
u
ne
,s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
y“
t
u
r
ni
nga
r
ou
nd”ma
nyof
the strikebreakers, some to other labor agencies and some back across the border into
Mexico. After his victory in El Paso, Chávez ordered Orendain to the Río Grande Valley to
assist Eugene Nelson in his fledgling effort to organize farm workers. Not wanting to
travel all the way to Río Grande City, Orendain correctly argued that El Paso was actually
closer to Delano than Río Grande City. He instead lingered a few more days in El Paso and
finally returned to Delano later that summer.34 Though unaware at the time, it was only a
matter of months before Orendain would return to Texas, commencing his career as a
Texas farm labor organizer.
By the end of the summer 1966, the national media recognized the NFWA as a
powerful, effective, and militant labor union.35 Despite their many successes, union officials
knew a long, protracted struggle awaited them. In late August, opposition came from
32
Pe
t
e
rBa
r
t
,“
Sc
h
e
n
l
e
yt
oBa
r
g
a
i
nWi
t
haGr
a
peUn
i
on
,
”New York Times, 7 April 1966, 1, 28; Davies,
“
G.
O.
P.Ri
v
a
l
sSpl
i
tonGr
a
peMa
r
c
h
,
”New York Times, 13 April 1966, 2.
33
“
Sc
a
b”wa
sade
r
og
a
t
or
yt
e
r
mu
s
e
dbyu
n
i
onme
mbe
r
sf
orMe
x
i
c
a
nn
a
t
i
on
a
l
swhowe
r
ebr
ou
g
h
ti
nt
o
break strikes.
34
Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA; Levy, Cesar Chavez, 224-225.
35
“
Th
eNe
wMi
l
i
t
a
n
c
yofLa
bor
,
”Newsweek, 26 September 1966, 93.
12
another, unexpected source –the Teamsters. On August 31 the Teamsters planned
elections to determine their strength with farm workers in California. Fearing the elections
would be fraudulent, Chávez knew he had to act preemptively. Therefore, on August 22
the NFWA me
r
g
e
dwi
t
ht
heAWOC t
of
or
mt
heUni
t
e
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Or
g
a
ni
z
i
ng
Committee (UFWOC), AFL-CIO, although the union was not fully AFL-CIO affiliated
until 1973.36 All of the previous leaders of the NFWA retained their old positions, and
Larry Itliong, AWOC leader, was added as a Vice President to the new union.37 With the
two unions combined, Chávez now had enough power to challenge the Teamsters for farm
worker representation.
As strong as they had been before, by the fall of 1966 the union was even more
powerful. They were the largest and most successful farm labor union in the history of the
United States. Among their ranks were students, clergymen, civil rights activists, and the
workers themselves. They enjoyed national media recognition, due in large pa
r
tt
oChá
v
e
z
’
s
charisma and his visionary leadership. Although much travail lay ahead, the members of the
UFWOC had much to be proud of.
It was at this time in late 1966 that Antonio Orendain emerged from under the
shadow of César Chávez, and from this point the personal histories of the two men began
to diverge. With all of the experience he had gained, Orendain was ready to step out on his
own, and all he needed was the impetus to do so. The Starr County strike gave him that
opportunity.
36
Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA; Tony Castro, Chicano Power: The Emergence of
Mexican America (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1974), 81.
37
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 239-242; Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA.
13
CHAPTER 2
THE CÉSAR CHÁVEZ OF TEXAS
On September 27, 1966, César Chávez sent his trusted lieutenant, Antonio
Orendain, to Río Grande City, Texas to assist a fledgling strike against melon growers in
the area.1 Or
e
nda
i
n’
se
f
f
or
t
sf
or t
he f
ol
l
owi
ng s
e
ven months demonstrated his
commitment to La Causa (
“
t
hec
a
u
s
e
,
”r
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
ot
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
nt
)
,a
ndby
the end of his involvement he was a bona fide farm labor organizer.
When he arrived in the Río Grande Valley of South Texas, what came to be known
as the Starr County strike was in dire straits, and Orendain purposefully became the local
strike administrator. The events preceding his arrival were the culmination of generations
of poverty and extreme social stratification. In many ways, the conditions of the South
Texas farm workers were much worse than the California farm workers, and thus in May
1966 the explosion of unrest in the Valley was no surprise. A brief examination of the
e
v
e
nt
spr
i
ort
oOr
e
nda
i
n’
sa
r
r
i
v
a
l
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
st
hes
i
t
u
a
t
i
onhefaced in September 1966.
Prior to the strike, the exploitation of the farm workers in South Texas was well
documented. In 1960 the population of Starr County was 17,137, and its median income
was about $1,700 per year. Seventy-one percent of the people earned less than $3,000
annually, while only two and one-half percent earned more than $10,000. Eighty-eight
1
14
percent of the county was of Mexican decent.2 One historian argued that the border
counties –Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Willacy, Kennedy, Kleberg, and Duval –were the
3
he
a
r
toft
he“
s
e
mi
-f
e
u
da
lpa
t
r
óns
y
s
t
e
mt
ha
tha
di
t
sr
oot
si
nt
heS
pa
ni
s
hc
ol
oni
a
ls
y
s
t
e
m.
”
Half of the mostly Mexican-American homes in the Valley had neither hot water nor
plumbing. The average farm worker was a Mexican American who had only 6 years of
schooling, and over ninety percent of the population had not finished high school.4
Diseases such as typhoid, typhus, dysentery, and leprosy were common and the growers
did little to assist the workers financially; by 1967, the average wage was $1.16 per hour,
which translated to about $1400 per year.5 These people were among the most
impoverished and highly ostracized in the United States.
By 1963, others began noticing their plight. Roy Evans, Secretary-Treasurer of the
Texas AFL-CIO, re
c
og
ni
z
e
dt
hepr
obl
e
m,l
a
be
l
i
ngt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
st
he“
l
a
r
g
e
s
tg
r
ou
pof
u
nor
g
a
ni
z
e
d”wor
k
e
r
si
nt
hena
t
i
on,bu
tnot
e
dt
ha
t–given a border completely open to
immigrants –it would be nearly impossible to organize them.6 Evans publicly denounced
working andl
i
v
i
ngc
ond
i
t
i
ons
,bl
a
mi
ngmu
c
hoft
hepr
obl
e
m on“
g
r
e
e
nc
a
r
de
r
s
,
”or
Mexican nationals who received work visas to daily come into the country and work on the
2
Ch
a
r
l
e
sCa
r
rWi
nn
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,1966-1967”(
M.
A.Th
e
s
i
s
,Uni
v
e
r
s
i
t
yof
Texas at Arlington, 1970), 7; Carr Winn,“
Me
xi
c
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
n
si
nt
h
eTe
x
a
sLa
borMov
e
me
n
t
”(
Ph
.
D.
Dissertation, Texas Christian University, 1972), 5.
3
Daniel D. Arreola, Tejano South Texas: A Mexican Cultural Province (Austin: University of Texas
Press, 2002), 190. Patrones were ranch owners who strictly controlled the lives of their peon workers.
4
Anderson, The Movement and the Sixties, 30.
5
Arnoldo de León, Mexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History (Wheeling: Harlan Davidson
I
n
c
or
por
a
t
e
d,
19
99)
,
138;Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
nt
,
”6.
6
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
AFL-CI
ODi
r
e
c
t
orSa
y
sSou
t
hTe
x
a
sPe
opl
eEx
pl
oi
t
e
d,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 2 July 1963,
Fol
de
r1,Box2,Me
x
i
c
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,Te
x
a
sLa
borAr
c
h
i
v
e
s
,Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
Library Special Collections, University of Texas at Arlington (hereafter MAFWM-UTA).
15
f
a
r
ms
.
Hebe
g
a
nc
oor
di
na
t
i
nge
f
f
or
t
swi
t
hFi
de
lVe
l
á
s
q
u
e
z
,aS
e
na
t
ori
nMe
x
i
c
o’
sc
ong
r
e
s
s
who agreed that commuters perpetuated poverty in the border area, to end commuter
work.7 Evans called for demonstrations in South Texas if working conditions did not
i
mpr
ov
ea
ndt
hi
sdr
e
wt
hei
r
eofGov
e
r
norJ
ohnConna
l
l
y
,whoa
c
c
u
s
e
dhi
m of“
t
r
y
i
ngt
o
8
flame rac
i
a
li
s
s
u
e
si
nTe
x
a
s
.
”
The Texas establishment did not want social unrest in the
Río Grande Valley.
Many recognized that unrest was approaching. An article in the Houston Post in 1963
predicted widespread unrest in the Valley, citing the poor wages, working conditions, and
y
e
a
r
sofoppr
e
s
s
i
ona
st
hei
mpe
t
u
sf
ort
heVa
l
l
e
y
’
sMe
x
i
c
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nst
or
e
v
ol
t
.The
wor
k
e
r
swe
r
er
e
c
og
ni
z
e
da
s“
t
hes
l
e
e
pi
ngdr
a
g
on”t
ha
twou
l
ds
oona
wa
k
e
ni
fc
ondi
t
i
ons
remained unchanged.9
I
twou
l
dt
a
k
et
hr
e
ey
e
a
r
sf
ort
he“
r
e
v
ol
t
”t
o begin. What the workers needed –
other than sealing the border from immigration –was an enterprising leader to step in and
channel their energy into an organized farm labor union. Chávez would have been ideal,
but he was tied down with UFWOC activities i
nCa
l
i
f
or
ni
a
’
sv
a
s
tf
i
e
l
ds
.I
ns
t
e
a
dt
he
yg
ot
Eugene Nelson, who succeeded not only in starting the movement but also nearly running
it into the ground.
Nelson had left Chicago in April of 1966 and arrived in Houston to help organize
the grape boycott. While in Houston, he met with NFWA lawyer Chris Dixie, who is
7
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
AFL-CI
OTh
r
e
a
t
e
n
sVa
l
l
e
y
,
”Mid-City News Texan,1
7J
u
l
y1963;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Me
x
i
c
a
nBl
a
s
t
s
Br
a
c
e
r
oPr
og
r
a
m,
”Corpus Christi Times, 12 July 1963, both in Folder 1, Box 2, MAFWM-UTA.
8
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Un
i
onSt
i
r
sUn
r
est: - Con
n
a
l
l
y
,
”El Paso Herald-Post, 18 July 1963, Folder 1, Box 2,
MAFWM-UTA.
9
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,J
a
me
sO.Ha
l
l
e
ya
n
dO.
D.Wi
l
s
on
,“
Sou
t
hTe
x
a
s
,Va
l
l
e
y
,SownWi
t
hRe
v
ol
t
,
”Houston Post,
11 August 1963, 1, 4, Folder 1, Box 2, MAFWM-UTA.
16
credited with giving him the idea to organize workers in the Río Grande Valley. Nelson
liked the idea and decided to act upon it, although he did so without the blessing of
Chávez.10 Thus the UFWOCwa
sf
a
t
e
dt
oe
mbr
a
c
et
heVa
l
l
e
yf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
nt
unwillingly.
Two local men, Margil Sánchez and Lucio Galván, had already planned a small
strike for the upcoming melon harvest, independent of Nelson and the NFWA. Nelson
incorporated these two into his own plans and organizing efforts began.11 By late May 1966
t
heg
r
ou
pf
or
me
dt
heI
nde
pe
nde
ntWor
k
e
r
s
’As
s
oc
i
a
t
i
on(
I
WA)
,wi
t
ht
he
i
rpr
i
nc
i
pa
lof
f
i
c
e
in the small town of Mission, Texas. Initially, the union campaigned for a $1.25 minimum
wage and an 8-hour workday to replace the common rate of .40 cents per hour and a 14hour workday. They immediately signed up about 200 workers for a $1 per person
membership fee. Things were going so well that Nelson was quoted in a local newspaper,
s
a
y
i
ng“
t
he
r
eha
sbe
e
nnohos
t
i
l
er
e
a
c
t
i
onwha
t
e
v
e
r
”t
ohi
sort
heu
ni
on’
spr
e
s
e
nc
ei
nt
he
Valley.12
As
i
def
r
om Ne
l
s
on’
sobv
i
ou
su
n-preparedness for the struggle ahead, his next
mistake was striking after less than two weeks of organizing. Why he was so eager to strike
is unknown –in California Chávez spent three years organizing and preparing the NFWA
for its strike, and when the time came he still felt the union was unprepared. Perhaps
Nelson thought the strike would be easy since the grape strike and boycott had been
10
Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,1966-1967,
”21-22.
Armando Navarro, Mexican American Youth Organization: Avant-Garde of the Chicano Movement in
Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), 33.
12
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Va
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Un
i
onPus
h
e
d,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 23Ma
y1966;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Mi
s
s
i
on
Based Drive Opens to Organize Farm Workers, Valley Evening Monitor, 23 May 1966; clipping, Gail
Sa
mmons
,“
AgLa
borMov
e
me
n
tHe
a
dqu
a
r
t
e
r
sHe
r
e
,
”Mission Times, 26 May 1966, all in Folder 5, Box
3, MAFWM-UTA.
11
17
relatively successful in California. Nevertheless, he clearly underestimated the backlash of
Texas conservatism and anti-unionism, particularly in the wealthy agricultural areas of
South Texas.
Nelson led the IWA, whose ranks had swelled to over 500 members, in a strike
against local melon growers on June 1, 1966. The IWA struck such agri-business giants as
La Casita, Los Puertos Plantation, and Sun-Tex Farms. Supported by the Produce Packers
Local 78b of Río Grande City, union men walked off the job and began picketing local
growers.13 However, the next day the growers struck back: a local judge issued a 10-day
restraining order on picketing in Starr County, which allowed the melon harvest to
resume.14 Thus, the union was forced to remain inactive in Starr County until June 12.
Activities continued elsewhere as the union held rallies, marches, and strikes in
other parts of the Valley. Dolores Huerta flew in and participated in a five-mile march
from Río Grande City to Garciasville on June 7. A Teamsters’of
f
i
c
i
a
lf
r
om S
a
nAnt
oni
o
also participated in the march, and rumors circulated that the union would affiliate with the
Teamsters, not the NFWA. To avoid this, Nelson called for an election the following day.
On June 8 the IWA voted overwhelmingly to affi
l
i
a
t
ewi
t
hChá
v
e
z
’
su
ni
ona
ndt
hu
s
officially became Local 2 of the NFWA.15 This was important, because without this
affiliation Orendain would not likely have been sent to the Río Grande Valley in September
1966.
13
Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,1966-19
67,
”24;c
l
i
p
pi
n
g
,“
Pa
c
k
e
r
sPi
c
k
e
t
i
n
g
Va
l
l
e
yMe
l
onMe
n
,
”San Angelo Morning Standard Times, 2 June 1966, Folder 5, Box 3, MAFWMUTA.
14
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Me
l
onPi
c
k
e
r
sBa
c
ki
nt
h
eFi
e
l
ds
,
”Dallas Times-Herald, 3 June 1966, Folder 5, Box 3,
MAFWM-UTA.
15
Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,1966-1967,
”29-30.
18
Spirits must have been high, especially for Nelson, whose fledgling union now had
the backing of a much stronger organization. However, local opposition continued. On
June 10, a county official gave orders to local law enforcement to use county equipment
16
“
t
os
pr
a
yi
ns
e
c
t
i
c
i
deonag
r
ou
pofwor
k
e
r
si
na
na
t
t
e
mptt
obr
e
a
ku
pame
e
t
i
ng
.
”
This
sordid opposition polarized the two sides even further and caused union members to
increasingly resent the conspicuous grower-bureaucratic alliance. On June 12, a prophetic
article appeared in the Houston Post warning that if the situation did not improve the strike
17
c
ou
l
dpos
s
i
bl
y“
de
v
e
l
opi
nt
oaf
u
l
l
-s
c
a
l
es
oc
i
a
l
r
e
v
ol
u
t
i
on.
”
The situation looked bleak for Nelson. He had organized a union, signed up
hundreds of workers, but was strongly opposed by the growers. Justice for the workers was
becoming a fleeting hope. To publicize the plight of the Valley farm workers, the union
planned a 380-mile march from Río Grande City to Austin, hoping to garner attention
from Governor Connally. Similar to the NFWA march in California earlier that spring, this
march, which began on July 11, brought national attention to the Starr County strike,
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
nga
l
loft
hema
i
ni
s
s
u
e
si
nc
l
u
di
ngt
heu
ni
on’
si
nv
ol
v
e
me
ntwi
t
hCa
t
hol
i
cl
e
a
d
e
r
si
n
Texas. Although Connally and other high state officials met the marchers on a highway
outside of New Braunfels and scorned them, the marchers continued and arrived in Austin
on September 7, holding a rally on the steps of the state capitol. They did not achieve
concrete objectives, but noting the unity of the Mexican-American farm workers and the
16
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Na
z
i
-Li
k
eDe
e
di
nVa
l
l
e
yCh
a
r
g
e
d,
”San Antonio Express-News, 11 June 1966, Folder 5,
Box 3, MAFWM-UTA.
17
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Bi
l
lDu
r
h
a
m,“
Fa
r
mh
a
n
dsonBr
i
nkofRe
v
ol
t
,
”Houston Post, 12 June 1966, Folder 5, Box 3,
MAFWM-UTA.
19
support of some of the Texas clergy, many considered the march a success.18 Hopes were
hi
g
h,
a
ndt
he“
s
l
e
e
pi
ngdr
a
g
on”ha
da
wa
k
e
ne
d.
It was into this optimism that Antonio Orendain was sent. Chávez –who had been
in Austin on September 7 and thought Local 2 was poorly organized –knew he had to do
something to salvage the movement in Texas, and thus sent his trusted lieutenant to
administer the strike. Despite the successes of the march to Austin, Chávez did not think
Nelson was capable of the Herculean goals of Local 2 –a minimum wage law and better
working conditions, in a state where the odds were completely against them. Also, Nelson
was an Anglo in a situation where someone of Mexican ethnicity would be a better fit. A
new organizer with new tactics was necessary.
Orendain arrived on September 27 and soon took over all union activities,19
i
mme
d
i
a
t
e
l
yma
k
i
ngadi
s
t
i
nc
ti
mpr
e
s
s
i
on.Onea
u
t
hornot
e
dOr
e
nda
i
nwa
s“
aha
nds
ome
Mexican with luminous brown eyes and a bold mustachio; he dresses with flair and speaks
20
l
a
c
oni
c
a
l
l
y
.
”
Aside from dressing with flair, this description contrasts sharply with
Chávez, whose Mexican heritage and reticent nature were part of his allure to the workers.
Not everyone was happy to see Orendain. When he arrived in Río Grande City
(headquarters had earlier been relocated there from Mission), there was immediate tension
between him and Nelson. Nelson disliked the idea of Orendain taking over, claiming he
wanted assistance but not to lose his position as chief organizer. However, Orendain later
recalled giving both Nelson and Bill Chandler, another UFWOC representative, the
18
Ca
r
rWi
nn
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,1966-1967,
”4
3,47;Newsweek, 12 September
1966, 83.
19
Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA; De León, Mexican Americans in Texas, 138.
20
Matthiessen, Sal Si Puedes, 119-120.
20
oppor
t
u
ni
t
yt
os
e
r
v
ea
s“
t
heCé
s
a
rChá
v
e
zofTe
x
a
s
,
”a
ndbot
hf
l
a
t
l
yr
e
f
u
s
e
d.Thu
s
,
Orendain claimed he reluctantly became union leader in Texas in early October (his
tentativeness was due to his poor English-speaking skills). Nevertheless, friction between
Orendain and Nelson was immediately evident and remained through the duration of the
movement. Both kne
wt
ha
tbe
c
a
u
s
eoft
hes
t
a
t
e
’
sa
nt
i
-labor laws and open border the
strike would probably fail, but from the start Orendain thought Nelson had a poor
attitude.21 Hi
sr
e
l
e
g
a
t
i
ont
oas
e
c
onda
r
ys
t
a
t
usmu
s
tha
v
ebr
u
i
s
e
dNe
l
s
on’
se
g
o,bu
tt
o
Chávez the demotion probably made sense: Nelson had little experience organizing farm
workers,22 had acted hastily and without his supervision, and was losing the battle against
t
heg
r
owe
r
s
.TheUFWOCc
ou
l
dnota
f
f
or
dag
r
owe
r
’
sv
i
c
t
or
ya
ny
whe
r
e
,a
ndt
hu
si
twa
s
drawn, however reluctantly, into the bleak struggle in South Texas.23
Since the strike had become highly publicized after the march to Austin, Orendain
claimed the middle-class tokenism of the California movement was recreating itself in
Texas. During the protest in Austin, many labor leaders had championed the $1.25
mi
ni
mu
m wa
g
e
,
bu
tOr
e
nda
i
ndi
s
c
ov
e
r
e
dt
ha
t“
a
f
t
e
rt
hel
i
g
ht
sa
ndt
heTVwe
r
eof
f
,
a
l
lt
he
24
g
oodl
a
borl
e
a
de
r
sa
ndpe
opl
edi
s
a
ppe
a
r
e
d.
”
What he perceived to be tokenism –most
labor leaders had little reason to be enthusiastic when a large pool of strikebreakers was
21
Nelson had served as a picket captain for Chávez during the early part of the Delano strike. For more
i
nf
or
ma
t
i
ons
e
e
,Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
’Movement, 1966-1967,
”20.
23
Many sources indicate Chávez had no designs on organizing in South Texas. For example, see,
Navarro, Mexican American Youth Organization,3
3;a
l
s
o
,Cé
s
a
rCh
á
v
e
z
,“
Th
eOr
g
a
ni
z
e
r
sTa
l
e
,
”i
n
Mexican Workers in the United States: Historical and Political Perspectives, eds. George C. Kiser and
Martha Woody Kiser (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Pres, 1979), 57-62.
24
22
21
available across the border –was an issue Orendain would continuously confront during
his subsequent career in Texas.
Orendain also disliked the issue of a farm worker minimum wage. In his mind, a
$
1
.
2
5a
nhou
rmi
ni
mu
m wa
g
ewa
snots
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
ntt
oa
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
et
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’pl
i
g
ht
.To
i
mpr
ov
et
he
i
rs
i
t
u
a
t
i
onOr
e
nda
i
nt
hou
g
htt
hee
nt
i
r
e“
s
y
s
t
e
m”ha
dt
oc
ha
ng
e
,a
ndt
hu
s
argued the movement should instead focus on collective bargaining recognition, as this was
a more plausible tool to improve working and living conditions generally. Thus, from this
point forward Texas farm workers championed collective bargaining as their main cause,
not a minimum wage.25
Another thing Orendain considered problematic was the behavior of union
members. Upon arrival he noticed a general lack of enthusiasm by most members.
Fundraisers behaved lackadaisically, and strikers seemed apathetic. After arriving in Río
Grande City Orendain personally witnessed some union members chatting and laughing
wi
t
hs
t
r
i
k
e
br
e
a
k
e
r
swhi
l
epi
c
k
e
t
i
ng
.Thi
swa
saf
a
rc
r
yf
r
om De
l
a
no,whe
r
e“
s
c
a
bs
”we
r
e
considered of low moral character. To combat this apathy Orendain organized a
demonstration in Río Grande City on October 8, 1966 to show the public the seriousness
of the union. His impact on the area was thus felt immediately.26
After the October 8 rally, Orendain planned another rally for October 14 outside
of the Starr County courthouse, where he was to give a speech to introduce himself and
explain what the union was now fighting for. However, to the chagrin of union members
25
26
Ibid.
Ibid.
22
Orendain was forced to cancel the event. The cancellation made the front page of a local
newspaper, indicating an innate local hostility toward the cause.27
A few days later, Bill Chandler was arrested on trumped-up charges, the first of
ma
nya
r
r
e
s
t
sdu
r
i
ngOr
e
nda
i
n’
st
e
nu
r
ei
nt
heVa
l
l
e
y
.
Du
r
i
ngade
mons
t
r
a
t
i
ononahi
g
hwa
y
outside of Río Grande City on October 12, a group of policemen began shouting in
Spanish at some of the strikers. Chandler, who had not been picketing, stepped in to
defend them, and the officers subsequently accused him of using foul language in Spanish
(ironically, Chandler spoke no Spanish). As Orendain witnessed the event, the police
arrested Chandler and took him to the jail at the county courthouse. Orendain followed to
inquire of the charges and whether he could post bond. An officer at the courthouse told
Or
e
nda
i
nt
hec
ha
r
g
e
swe
r
e“
di
s
t
u
r
bi
ngt
hepe
a
c
e
,
”a
ndpr
oc
e
e
d
e
dt
ot
hr
e
a
t
e
nhi
m wi
t
h
arrest if he did not vacate the premises. Chandler spent the night in jail and was released
the next day on $500 bond.28
This was the first of many frustrating encounters Orendain had with local law
enforcement. Arrests would prove a big problem for Local 2, not only because the charges
were usually exaggerated but also because bonds were excessively high. As SecretaryTreasurer of the UFWOC, Orendain was aware of the impact excessive bond payments
ha
dont
heu
ni
on’
sbu
dg
e
t
.
Pe
r
ha
psl
oc
a
lof
f
i
c
i
a
l
swe
r
ealso aware of this, and pursued it as
a tactic to vanquish the troublesome union.
27
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
St
a
r
rFa
r
m Me
e
tCa
n
c
e
l
l
e
d,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 14 October 1966, front page, Book 3,
Part 1, Box 10a, MAFWM-UTA.
28
“
St
a
t
e
me
n
tofAr
r
e
s
t
,a
n
dHa
n
dl
i
ngTh
e
r
e
of
,ofWi
l
l
i
a
m L.Ch
a
n
dl
e
r
,J
r
.a
tU.
S.Hi
g
hwa
y83We
s
tof
‘
Ri
oGr
a
n
deCi
t
y
,
’St
a
r
rCount
y
,Te
x
a
s
,Oc
t
.12196
6,
”Fol
d
e
r3,Box8,MAFWM-UTA;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fa
r
m
Un
i
onOf
f
i
c
i
a
lAr
r
e
s
t
e
dbyDe
pu
t
i
e
s
,
”Rio Grande Herald, 20 October 1966, Book 3, Part 1, Box 10a,
MAFWM-UTA.
23
On October 21, 1966 a manager at La Casita, one of the largest farms in the area
and the focal point of union activity, publicly stated that he had over 450 Mexican workers
that were completely satisfied with their jobs. If they were commuters this might have been
true –the meager wages paid on Texas farms were much better than wages in Mexico –
but the statement was likely false. Assuming the manager was speaking of commuters,
Or
e
nda
i
nc
a
l
l
e
dt
hel
oc
a
lpr
e
s
s
,s
a
y
i
ng“
I
’
mg
oi
ngt
opr
ov
et
oy
ouwhe
r
eheg
ota
l
lhi
s
g
ood,ha
ppywor
k
e
r
s
.
”Or
e
nda
i
ns
u
bs
e
q
u
e
nt
l
yl
e
dag
r
ou
pofhuelgistas to the international
bridge at Roma on October 24 to forcibly prevent the importation of Mexican nationals.29
It was here that Orendain received his first chance to publicly demonstrate himself as a
huelgista.
At five a.m. Orendain, Nelson, Chandler, and fourteen others paid the ten-cent
crossing fee and entered the bridge at Roma. Orendain originally thought the group would
j
u
s
t“
pl
a
yi
tbye
a
r
”a
ndt
ha
tAme
r
i
c
a
na
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
swou
l
d“
a
r
r
e
s
tu
sr
i
g
hta
wa
y
.
”Whe
nno
arrests were made, he decided to block all of the traffic crossing from the Mexican side.
After stopping a few large trucks, Orendain succeeded in creating a traffic jam. With the
bridge full of heavy trucks –some pulling flatbeds loaded with bricks –an employee from
the American side warned him that the bridge resisted only so much weight and could
possibly collapse if some of the trucks were not allowed through. The employee threatened
Or
e
nda
i
n,s
a
y
i
ngi
ft
hi
sha
ppe
ne
d“
y
ouwi
l
lha
v
et
opa
y
.
”Or
e
nda
i
ns
a
r
c
a
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
yr
e
pl
i
e
dhe
would pay the entire cost of the bridge if it collapsed.30
29
30
Ibid.
24
However, after considering the consequences and negative press if such a
catastrophe occurred, Orendain decided to let the trucks go, and only stop strikebreakers
trying to cross into Texas. Local law enforcement from the Texas side soon arrived, so
Orendain and the rest of the huelgistas moved immediately to the international line and
stood on it, confounding the officers. Not knowing what to do, the officers left the group
alone, and for the next several hours they succeeded in turning back many strikebreakers
trying to cross.
Later in the morning the officers began arresting the demonstrators, so Orendain,
Chandler, and Nelson immediately ran to the Mexican side of the bridge. After the
American authorities told them they had called the Mexican police who were en route,
Orendain advised the group to go back to the American side, arguing they would have no
civil rights in a Mexican prison. Returning to the international line, he, Nelson and
Chandler put one foot on the American side and the other on the Mexican side.31
At this point the authorities had enough. According to Orendain, a few of them
k
noc
k
e
dNe
l
s
ondown,“
a
ndt
he
yg
othi
m byt
heha
nda
ndwe
r
ej
u
s
tdr
a
g
g
i
nghi
ma
l
ong
l
i
k
ear
a
g
”a
bou
tf
i
f
t
yf
e
e
tt
owhe
r
et
hes
q
u
a
dc
a
r
swe
r
epa
r
k
e
d.Cou
nt
ya
t
t
or
ne
yRa
nd
a
l
l
Nye was present, and after telling Orendain that Nelson was guilty of resisting arrest,
Or
e
nda
i
nr
e
pl
i
e
d,“
Idon’
ts
e
e[
hi
m]r
e
s
i
s
t
i
nga
r
r
e
s
t
,a
ndIdon’
ta
ppr
ov
eofy
oua
r
r
e
s
t
i
ng
hi
mi
nt
ha
tma
nne
ru
s
i
ngt
oomu
c
hf
or
c
e
.
”
In protest, Orendain lay down in the middle of the bridge and continued blocking
traffic. Soon the rest of the strikers, about 16 persons in all, joined him, and Orendain told
31
Ibid.
25
t
heg
r
ou
pt
ol
oc
ka
r
ms“
s
oi
twi
l
lbeha
r
de
rt
oa
r
r
e
s
tu
s
.
”Ny
et
he
nc
a
meov
e
ra
ndt
r
i
e
dt
o
talk some of the protestors away from the bridge, saying that these“
ou
t
s
i
dea
g
i
t
a
t
or
s
(
Or
e
nd
a
i
n,Ne
l
s
on,a
ndCha
ndl
e
r
)we
r
ec
a
u
s
i
ngt
ooma
nypr
obl
e
ms
.
”Nonewe
r
el
u
r
e
d
away, and to frustrate Nye, Orendain instructed the group to begin singing loudly, leading
t
he
mi
nMe
x
i
c
a
ns
ong
ss
u
c
ha
s“
Solidaridad”(
S
ol
i
da
r
i
t
y
)a
nd“
Nosotros Venceremos”(
We
Shall Overcome), so no one would be able to hear him.32
After tolerating this for a short while, authorities finally decided to take the
“
ou
t
s
i
d
ea
g
i
t
a
t
or
s
”a
wa
y
.Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oOr
e
nda
i
n,“
t
wopol
i
c
epu
tmei
na
na
r
ml
oc
k
”a
nd
started pulling him, while his wrists bled as handcuffs dug into his skin. Fearing his arm
would break, he told the officers to let go, which they did. As they dragged him to the
pol
i
c
ec
a
r
st
ha
twe
r
ea
bou
tt
we
nt
yy
a
r
dsa
wa
y
,Or
e
nda
i
ns
t
a
r
t
e
ds
hou
t
i
ng
,“
viva la huelga!”
(
Longl
i
v
et
hes
t
r
i
k
e
)
,a
ndt
heg
r
ou
pr
e
s
ponde
da
ndbe
g
a
ns
i
ng
i
nga
g
a
i
n.“
Il
e
f
tt
hos
eg
u
y
s
wi
t
har
e
a
l
g
oods
pi
r
i
t
,
”Or
e
nda
i
nl
a
t
e
rr
e
c
a
l
l
e
d.
Cha
ndl
e
rwou
l
dbedr
a
g
g
e
dof
fi
nt
hes
a
me
manner, and a few hours later the crowd was dispersed.33
They spent the next few hours in jail, eventually joined by the rest of the huelgistas,
except for two women who remained at the bridge. Orendain demanded the group be
provided a lawyer but county officials refused. They were eventually released, with no
charges being filed.34 The men had no lawyers and no money with which to pay their bail,
so county officials realized they were wasting their time.
32
Ibid.
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
33
26
The incident at the Roma Bridge was big news in the Valley and in Río Grande
City, where it made the front page of the local newspaper.35 The ensuing brouhaha was
important because local residents and growers knew the strike had become more serious;
aside from the march to Austin, the union had never so forcefully resisted the will of the
growers or the authorities. More importantly than the show of solidarity, because of the
impact of the incident Orendain was permanently recognized as a major player in the local
mov
e
me
nt
.Theda
ya
f
t
e
rt
he“
l
a
y
-i
n,
”Or
e
nda
i
nc
ompl
a
i
ne
dt
ot
hel
oc
a
lpr
e
s
sa
bou
tt
he
rough treatment he and the other union members received from the authorities, and
announced that for a short time the union would maintain minimal picketing along the
highways and would not return to the bridge. However, he vowed there would be more
demonstrations, such as a Halloween gathering at the Roma courthouse where union
36
me
mbe
r
swou
l
ddr
e
s
su
pa
s“
r
e
be
l
sorI
ndi
a
ns
.
”
Fort
hene
x
tf
e
wda
y
sOr
e
nda
i
nt
ooka
dv
a
nt
a
g
eoft
heme
di
a
’
si
nc
r
e
a
s
e
di
nt
e
r
e
s
ti
n
the strike. A reporter for the Houston Post interviewed him concerning the bridge incident,
during which Orendain reiterated that the motivation for the incident was to counteract the
g
r
owe
r
s
’u
s
eof“
c
ommu
t
e
r
s
.
”Hec
l
a
i
me
d1
0
0t
o1
5
0c
ommu
t
e
r
sc
r
os
s
e
dt
hebr
i
dg
ea
t
Roma every day, and the union was simply trying to deter this practice, which was unfair to
local workers and drove wages down. Vowing to continue their focus on protesting
c
ommu
t
e
rl
a
bor
e
r
s
,Or
e
nda
i
na
l
s
os
a
i
dt
heu
ni
onwa
sg
oi
ngt
o“
i
nt
e
ns
i
f
yi
t
se
f
f
or
t
s
”i
n
35
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fa
r
m Un
i
onPi
c
k
e
t
sa
r
eAr
r
e
s
t
e
da
tRomaf
orHa
l
t
i
ngBr
i
dg
eTr
a
f
f
i
c
,
”Valley Morning Star,
25 October 1966, 1, 3, Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
36
“
St
a
r
rQui
e
ta
f
t
e
r‘
La
y
-I
n
,
’
”Valley Evening Monitor, 25 October 1966, 1, 3, Book 3, Part 1, Box 10a,
MAFWM-UTA.
27
December with the intention of stopping the upcoming melon harvest.37 Starr County was
i
nf
ormor
et
r
ou
bl
ef
r
omt
he“
ou
t
s
i
dea
g
i
t
a
t
or
s
.
”
At 5 a.m. on Halloween day 1966 Orendain drove across the bridge into Mexico to
“
me
e
twi
t
hMe
x
i
c
a
nna
t
i
ona
l
sont
he
i
rownt
u
r
fa
ndt
a
l
kt
ot
he
ma
bou
tt
hemov
e
me
nt
.
”
He drove to nearby Ciudad Miguel Alemán and met two Mexican workers, Gilbert Campos
and Marshall Méndez, who claimed to have witnessed the strike firsthand and sympathized
with the movement.38 The three then returned to the bridge at 6 a.m. and were confronted
by Mexican police. The police claimed Orendain was the last person to cross and accused
him of breaking the locks and shutting the international gates behind him. Orendain of
course denied this and a heated exchange followed. The Mexican police admitted that
Texas Rangers had instructed them to arrest Orendain and accuse him of trying to tamper
with U.S.-Me
x
i
c
a
nr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
.Uponhe
a
r
i
ngt
hi
sOr
e
nda
i
ns
a
r
c
a
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
yj
i
be
d,“
Ihe
a
r
d
Me
x
i
c
oi
si
nde
pe
nde
nt
,
”i
mpl
y
i
ng t
he pol
i
c
e we
r
e pa
wnsofAme
r
i
c
a
na
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
s
.
Recognizing his stubbornness the police arrested Orendain and his two companions. The
three were held in a Ciudad Miguel Alemán prison until they were finally released around 4
p.m. Mexican authorities warned them that the American police were waiting on the other
side to take them into custody. Not wanting to go from one prison to another, Orendain
traveled fifteen miles northeast to Guerrero, a small Mexican town, and crossed the border
there.39
37
Clipping, Cle
v
e
l
a
n
dGr
a
mme
r
,“
Un
i
onPr
ot
e
s
t
sGr
e
e
nCa
r
ds
,
”Houston Post, 30 October 1966, 10,
section 2, Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
38
“
Fa
r
mUn
i
onSympa
t
h
i
z
e
r
sJ
a
i
l
e
dbyMe
x
i
c
a
nPol
i
c
e
,
”Fol
de
r7,
Box6a
,MAFWM-UTA.
39
28
After returning to union headquarters in Río Grande City, the union denied
Orendain had any involvement in the bridge-closing incident. Instead, they pinned the guilt
onCa
mposa
ndMé
nde
z
,
s
a
y
i
ngt
he
yha
dpe
r
pe
t
r
a
t
e
dt
hec
r
i
mea
sa“
Ha
l
l
owe
e
npr
a
nka
nd
40
pr
ot
e
s
t
,
”a
nd onl
you
tofs
u
ppor
tf
ort
hes
t
r
i
k
e
.
Orendain was innocent of any
wrongdoing, but the event provides several insights into what the union was up against.
Af
t
e
rt
he“
l
a
y
-i
n”a
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
swe
r
ewa
t
c
hi
ngOr
e
nda
i
na
nda
nye
v
e
ntpe
r
pe
t
r
a
t
e
dont
he
u
ni
on’
sbe
ha
l
fwa
sl
i
k
e
l
yt
o be bl
a
me
d on hi
m,Ne
l
s
on,orCha
ndl
er, who were
c
ont
i
nu
ou
s
l
yl
a
be
l
e
dt
he“
t
hr
e
eou
t
s
i
dea
g
i
t
a
t
or
s
.
”Al
s
o,t
ha
tt
heTe
x
a
sRa
ng
e
r
sf
i
na
g
l
e
d
Me
x
i
c
a
na
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
si
nt
odoi
ngt
he
i
rwi
l
li
ndi
c
a
t
e
st
he“
l
e
g
a
lr
e
a
c
h”ofVa
l
l
e
ya
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
s
.
They had only speculative reason to believe Orendain had closed the bridge, as he had
been arrested with no evidence of his guilt. False accusations such as these were becoming
common as the strike wore on.
An event occurred on the night of November 3 that successfully made Local 2
infamous. At about 5 p.m. in Río Gr
a
ndeCi
t
y
,
Or
e
nda
i
npl
a
c
e
df
ou
rpi
c
k
e
t
e
r
si
nt
he“
r
i
g
ht
ofwa
y
”ofat
r
a
i
n,du
et
oc
a
r
r
yf
i
v
ec
a
r
l
oa
dsofpe
ppe
r
st
ha
twe
r
epi
c
k
e
da
ndpa
c
k
e
di
na
shed by strikebreakers. When the train was ready to leave, he and Chandler approached the
engineer and asked if he would respect their picket line. At first reluctant, the engineer
eventually consented after hearing the workers were fellow AFL-CIO unionists, and the
train was halted.41
40
Cli
ppi
n
g
,“
Fa
r
m Un
i
onSy
mpa
t
h
i
z
e
r
sJ
a
i
l
e
dbyMe
x
i
c
a
nPol
i
c
e
;
”c
l
i
p
pi
n
g
,“
Un
i
onBl
a
me
s‘
Ha
l
l
owe
e
n
Pr
a
n
k
’f
orJ
a
i
l
i
n
gofTr
i
oi
nMe
x
i
c
o,
”bot
hi
nValley Evening Monitor, 1 November 1966, Book 3, Part 1,
Box 10a, MAFWM-UTA.
41
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ga
r
yGa
r
r
i
s
on
,“
Va
l
l
e
yRa
i
lTr
e
s
t
l
eDe
s
t
r
oy
e
dbyFi
r
e
,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 11 November
1966, 1, 14, Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
29
Local authorities arrived, and upon inspection surmised that the picket lines were in
accordance with Texas law and nothing could be done. A few hours later, a contingent of
Texas Rangers arrived from Corpus Christi (this was the first of many encounters for
Orendain with the Rangers). Orendain later recalled there were about two wagonloads of
Rangers, who were brandishing machine guns and semiautomatic weapons. The Rangers
successfully got the train moving, but it did not get far because a rail trestle near the
picketers suddenly went up in flames, hemming the train in. The union denied starting the
blaze, but blame was pinned on them immediately. A reporter who was on the scene
a
ppr
oa
c
he
dOr
e
nda
i
n,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
Ra
nd
a
l
lNy
ek
nowswhobu
r
ne
dt
hebr
i
dg
e
.Hek
nows
every one of you guys burned the bridge, and after the election (for district attorney in early
Nov
e
mbe
r
)
,hei
sg
oi
ngt
opu
ti
nj
a
i
le
v
e
r
yoneofy
oug
u
y
swhobu
r
ne
dt
hebr
i
dg
e
.
”
Or
e
nda
i
ns
i
mpl
yr
e
pl
i
e
d“
f
i
ne
,
”bu
tl
a
t
e
rr
u
mi
na
t
e
d,“
Idon’
ts
e
ewhyheha
dt
owa
i
tu
nt
i
l
a
f
t
e
rt
hee
l
e
c
t
i
on.Whydi
dn’
thedoi
tr
i
g
hta
wa
y
,s
i
nc
ee
v
e
r
y
body
’
sbl
a
mi
ngi
tonu
s
?We
42
c
a
ns
e
ee
x
a
c
t
l
ywhobu
r
ne
di
t
.
”
He was clearly implying that the union had been framed.
Or
e
nda
i
npu
bl
i
c
l
ye
x
one
r
a
t
e
dt
heu
ni
on,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
wedon’
tha
v
et
odot
hi
ng
sl
i
k
e
that [burn rail trestles] because the railroads respe
c
tou
rpi
c
k
e
t
s
.
”Cl
e
a
r
l
yt
hi
swa
sa
n
inopportune time for the union to receive bad publicity, but unfortunately this was not the
only issue they were facing –union funds had become dangerously low. To alleviate this,
Nelson had gone to Houston on a fund-raising trip. The union had daily been feeding
a
ny
whe
r
ef
r
om6
0t
o1
0
0pi
c
k
e
t
e
r
s
,
a
ndOr
e
nda
i
nc
l
a
i
me
dt
he
yc
ou
l
dnol
ong
e
rdos
o.
“
We
42
30
are advising our workers not to break the strike and work here but to move out, and work
43
s
ome
whe
r
ee
l
s
e
,
”
which would hopefully address the issue of diminishing funds.
Aside from financial difficulties, the union faced a public backlash concerning the
fire. Local citizens harassed them, cutting the telephone lines and scratching obscenities on
the door of union headquarters.44 The trestle was part of the only railway leading out of Río
Grande City, so all rail service was delayed until a new one could be built. Orendain had
become infamous, and growers warned their workers to avoid him at all costs. On
November 7, Ray Rochester, Vice President of La Casita, fired two workers simply because
he saw them talking to Orendain during a picket. Things were spiraling out of control for
t
heu
ni
on,
whi
c
hs
t
i
l
l
pr
oc
l
a
i
me
di
t
si
nnoc
e
nc
er
e
g
a
r
di
ngt
hebr
i
dg
ef
i
r
e
.
“
S
ome
onedi
dt
hi
s
45
to ma
k
eu
sl
ookba
da
ndt
u
r
nt
hepu
bl
i
ca
g
a
i
ns
tu
s
,
”Bi
l
lCha
ndl
e
rs
a
i
d.
If so, the tactic
seemed to be working.
Nye made good on his earlier promise and on November 7 began arresting union
members for burning the bridge. While driving in Río Grande City, Orendain was pulled
over by Ranger captain A.Y. Allee and a few others. When they told him he was under
arrest, Orendain demanded to see a warrant, whereupon Allee told him one was not
needed. Before placing handcuffs on him, one of the Rangers asked if he had any weapons,
and Orendain replied that he did have a small knife. Upon hearing this news the startled
43
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Sa
mGe
r
a
l
d,“
Wa
v
eofVi
ol
e
n
c
e
,Fe
a
r
,Spa
r
k
e
dbySt
a
r
rBr
i
dg
eFi
r
e
,
”Valley Morning Star, 5
November 1966, 1-2, Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
44
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ra
i
lSe
r
v
i
c
eSt
i
l
lHa
l
t
e
d,
”6Nov
e
mbe
r1966,Fol
de
r4,
Box4,MAFWM-UTA.
45
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ri
oGr
a
n
deCi
t
yTe
r
r
or
i
s
m Ch
a
r
g
e
d,
”San Antonio Express, 8 November 1966, 1-C, Folder
4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
31
Rangers jumped back, while a laughing Orendain handed over his one-inch pocketknife.
Thei
nt
e
nt
i
onsoft
hi
sda
ng
e
r
ou
s“
ou
t
s
i
dea
g
i
t
a
t
or
”we
r
es
or
e
l
yoverestimated.
After arriving at the courthouse in downtown Río Grande City, Orendain was
amazed when the judge and Rangers typed his arrest warrant right in front of him. The
judge next asked Orendain if he was guilty of the charges, but Orendain refused to answer,
saying he wanted to see a lawyer. When the judge refused him access to an attorney, the
uncooperative Orendain was taken to a jail cell on the third floor.
Eventually other union members began pouring in, including Bill Chandler, until
about 15 strikers filled the same cramped cell. All were held on charges of secondary
picketing and suspicion of burning the rail trestle. Orendain was furious and asked one of
t
heof
f
i
c
e
r
swhyt
he
ywe
r
ebe
i
nghe
l
d.Theof
f
i
c
e
ra
dmi
t
t
e
d,“
t
heTe
x
a
sRa
ng
e
r
st
ol
du
st
o
pu
ty
oui
nj
a
i
l
,
a
ndIdon’
tk
nowa
ny
t
hi
ng
.
”Whe
nOr
e
nda
i
nc
ont
i
nu
e
dt
oa
r
g
u
e
,
t
heof
f
i
c
e
r
r
e
pl
i
e
d,“
y
ous
on-of-a-bi
t
c
h,y
ou
’
r
ea
c
t
i
ngr
e
a
l[
s
i
c
]s
ma
r
t
,
”a
ndt
hr
e
a
t
e
ne
dt
oe
nt
e
rt
hec
e
l
l
and kick him. Orendain continued to bait the officer, who had to be restrained from
without.
Threatened beatings were not the only corrupt activities at the jailhouse. One
officer tried to bribe a fifteen year old, Guillermo de la Cruz, who was jailed with the men,
saying they would release him and give him $1500 if he would say he saw the man with the
black hat and black mustache (Orendain) near the bridge just before it burned. The boy
steadfastly refused, even mocking the officers and blaming them for the fire.46
Witnessing such blatant corruption, Orendain and the others knew the law was
against them. To protest their treatment, Orendain led the men in a six-d
a
y“
huelga de
46
32
hambre”(
hu
ng
e
rs
t
r
i
k
e
)
,whi
c
hs
omenon-jailed union members also joined. Making a
de
c
i
s
i
ont
ha
te
x
e
mpl
i
f
i
e
dOr
e
nda
i
n’
sc
ommi
t
me
ntt
oChá
v
e
z
’
snon-violent philosophy,
Orendain and a few others refused food while union members held a vigil outside of the
courthouse. After hearing about the hunger strike, a Dallas attorney represented the men
pro-bono to ensure no civil liberties were violated. All were released on bond after ten
days, as county officials realized they had no evidence against the men. Orendain, referring
t
ot
hei
nc
i
de
ntl
a
t
e
r
,
s
t
a
t
e
d,
“
t
he
yd
i
dn’
tt
r
e
a
tu
sba
d”–clearly trying to establish the moral
high ground for him and the other jailed men.47
It is striking how Orendain was emulating César Chávez. He passively submitted to
arrest and faced down corruption and violence by leading his men in a nonviolent hunger
s
t
r
i
k
e
,s
hor
t
e
ri
nl
e
ng
t
hbu
ts
i
mi
l
a
rt
oChá
v
e
z
’
sl
a
t
e
rf
a
s
t
s
.Hea
l
s
oha
dthe complete
support of the huelgistas, and like Chávez had a charisma that appealed to farm workers.
However, the most important issue was whether the union actually burned the bridge. No
one would ever be formally charged in the incident and a lawsuit brought by the MissouriPacific railroad against the union in 196748 would also prove unsuccessful. Therefore, one
can only speculate. The union certainly had more to gain when the trestle burned, as this
ha
l
t
e
dt
hef
l
owof“
s
c
a
b”g
oodsou
tofRí
oGr
a
ndeCi
t
y for several days. Presumably, had
he known it was going to happen Orendain would have tried to stop it, considering his
commitment to nonviolence and his denials of any wrongdoing since the fire. Perhaps the
47
I
bi
d;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
J
a
i
l
e
dUn
i
onMe
nUr
g
i
ngHung
e
rSt
r
i
k
e
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 18 November 1966;
c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
10Va
l
l
e
yOr
g
a
n
i
z
e
r
sRe
l
e
a
s
e
donBon
d,
”Houston Chronicle, 16 November 1966; clipping,
“
Hun
g
e
rSt
r
i
k
eEn
dsAf
t
e
rBon
dPos
t
e
df
or10J
a
i
l
e
dUn
i
onMe
n
,
”Nov
e
mbe
r1966,a
l
li
nFol
de
r4,Box
4, MAFWM-UTA.
48
“
Summonsf
orFr
a
n
c
i
s
c
oMe
dr
a
n
ot
oAppe
a
ri
nt
h
eMi
s
s
ou
r
iPa
c
i
f
i
cRa
i
l
r
oa
dCompa
nyvs
.UFWOC
onJ
u
n
e8,1967a
tt
h
eCou
r
t
hou
s
ei
nRi
oGr
a
n
deCi
t
y
,
”Folder 15, Box 8, MAFWM-UTA.
33
arsonist was a misguided unionist who acted on his or her own accord. It seems unlikely
that someone with grower sympathies was the perpetrator. Since the trestle was the only
way to transport goods by rail out of the city, growers stood to lose money. However,
based on the activities of local law enforcement during the 10-day jailing, corrupt county
officials may have perpetrated the crime, solely to blame it on the hated Orendain and his
union. The answer may never be known and, and because the case was never solved, a
remonstrance of Orendain as some
t
hi
ngot
he
rt
ha
n“
t
heCé
s
a
rChá
v
e
zofTe
x
a
s
”i
snot
called for.
A few days after the bridge-burning arrests were made, Chávez made his first
public statement concerning the strike. He sounded much more optimistic than his
lieutenant, who from the beginning knew there was little hope for success:
I would call the strike in the Rio Grande Valley a success. [However,] a lot
depends on what you mean by success. For instance, the fact that the farm workers
a
r
eons
t
r
i
k
e
,bu
tha
v
e
n’
tbe
e
na
bl
et
opu
ta
nou
nc
eofeconomic stress on the
growers, I consider this success –success in the terms that the people are
determined in their fight. I think they will find a way to win.49
As shown by his later tentativeness regarding UFWOC activities in the Valley, Chávez
knew the difficulties the union would have organizing workers. Thus, this statement was a
pu
bl
i
cs
howofopt
i
mi
s
m,not
hi
ngmor
e
.Al
s
onot
a
bl
ei
shi
su
s
eoft
hewor
ds“
t
he
i
r
”a
nd
“
t
he
y
,
”i
ns
t
e
a
dof“
ou
r
”a
nd“
u
s
.
”Chá
v
e
zc
l
e
a
r
l
yf
e
l
theha
dnope
r
s
ona
ls
t
a
k
ei
n the
Valley –an issue that would eventually come between him and Orendain.
Immediately following his release Orendain was picked up again and questioned
a
bou
tt
hebr
i
dg
ebu
r
ni
ng
,bu
tc
l
a
i
me
dt
hea
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
swe
r
e“
v
e
r
ypol
i
t
ea
bou
ti
t
.
”Hea
l
s
o
49
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,E.
B.Du
a
r
t
e
,“
Va
l
l
e
ySt
r
i
k
eSu
c
c
e
s
s
,
”Alamo Messenger, 10 November 1966, 2, Folder 4,
Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
34
recognized that public opinion had grown steadily anti-union since the incident, and it was
r
u
mor
e
dt
ha
tas
he
r
i
f
f
’
sde
pu
t
yof
f
e
r
e
dr
e
s
i
de
nt
sne
a
rwhe
r
et
hef
i
r
eoc
c
u
r
r
e
d$
1
0
0i
ft
he
y
would blame it on the union.50 Picketing was also sparse for the next few days: two picket
lines, one at a parking lot near the Roma Bridge and another at Starr Produce, were both
stopped by the Texas Rangers. Orendain canceled all picketing until the union could
consult with a lawyer to establish the legality of future picketing and protest tactics.51
After the fire, the role of Rangers became more prominent. Orendain said that the
Ra
ng
e
r
sa
tt
heRomaBr
i
dg
epa
r
k
i
ngl
otor
de
r
e
dpi
c
k
e
t
e
r
sa
wa
y“
ont
heg
r
ou
ndst
he
ywe
r
e
violating a court imposed injunction against obstructing bridge tra
f
f
i
c
,
”ac
ha
r
g
et
ha
t
Or
e
nda
i
nc
l
a
i
me
da
bs
u
r
d,
c
ons
i
de
r
i
ngt
hepa
r
k
i
ngl
otwa
sou
toft
hebr
i
dg
e
’
sr
i
g
ht
- of-way.
“
TheRa
ng
e
r
sa
r
et
r
y
i
ngt
oe
nf
or
c
et
hel
a
wt
hewa
yt
he
ywa
nt
,
”hes
a
i
d;“
e
a
c
hone
52
i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
st
hel
a
w hi
sownwa
y
.
”
The law would later vindicate the union against the
Rangers, but at the time, the antipathy of the Rangers was frustrating for Orendain.
Orendain decided to pursue other activities in late November 1966 to bolster the
union. On November 27 a rally with about 200 participants was held in front of the Río
Grande City courthouse. Orendain gave a speech at the event, but more importantly, ten
t
onsoff
ooddona
t
i
onswe
r
eg
a
t
he
r
e
da
nda
bou
t$
1
2
0
0dol
l
a
r
swa
sa
dde
dt
ot
heu
ni
on’
s
t
r
e
a
s
u
r
y
.A“
f
oodc
a
r
a
v
a
n”or
g
a
ni
z
e
dbys
t
r
i
k
es
y
mpa
t
hi
z
e
r
s that left Austin on November
24 made all of this charity possible. After Nelson gave a speech in the state capital, the
50
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
St
a
r
rCoun
t
yAs
k
sRa
ng
e
r
st
oSt
a
yOn
,
”Valley Morning Star, 18 November 1966, Folder 4,
Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
51
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Th
r
e
eSe
a
l
e
dI
n
di
c
t
me
n
t
sPos
eMy
s
t
e
r
y
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 18 November 1966,
Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
52
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Be
h
i
n
dSc
e
n
e
sMa
n
e
uv
e
r
i
n
gon3St
a
r
rI
n
di
c
t
me
nt
sCon
t
i
n
u
e
s
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 20
November 1966, Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
35
Va
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’As
s
i
s
t
a
nc
eCommi
t
t
e
epu
tt
hec
a
r
a
v
a
nt
og
e
t
he
r
.Abou
ts
i
x
t
y
-five
cars and four trucks made the 400-mile trip from Austin to Río Grande City, gathering
donations along the way.53 S
i
nc
eLoc
a
l2
’
spu
r
s
eha
dbe
e
ns
or
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
da
ndOr
e
nda
i
n
admitted they were having trouble feeding workers, this assistance could not have come at
a better time.
Orendain realized the assistance of people outside the Valley could prove
invaluable, so on the last Sunday in November he and Bill Chandler held a workshop for
s
omeoft
hec
a
r
a
v
a
nme
mbe
r
se
nt
i
t
l
e
d,“
How t
oPi
c
k
e
taTr
a
i
n.
”Cont
e
ndi
ngt
ha
tt
he
i
r
activities on November 3 had been legal, Orendain spoke at the event, explaining what the
picketers did and how the activities were in accordance with state law.54 His ingenuity in
hosting the event speaks for a personal creativity he possessed during difficult times. With
picketing activities r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
dbyt
heRa
ng
e
r
’
sna
r
r
ow i
nt
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onoft
hel
a
w,Or
e
nda
i
n
f
ou
ndot
he
rwa
y
sf
ort
heu
ni
ont
oc
ont
i
nu
ef
u
nc
t
i
oni
ng
.
Thi
sa
s
pe
c
tofOr
e
nda
i
n’
st
a
l
e
nta
s
a labor leader would prove specifically important after the Starr County strike, during the
longpe
r
i
odbe
t
we
e
ni
t
se
nda
ndt
hef
or
ma
t
i
onoft
heTe
x
a
sFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
’
u
ni
oni
n1
9
7
5
.
On December 3 a group of about fifty led by Orendain and Chandler left for Del
Río, hoping to gain an audience with President Johnson. They wanted Johnson, who was in
DelRí
ot
ome
e
twi
t
hMe
x
i
c
a
nPr
e
s
i
de
ntGu
s
t
a
v
oDí
a
zOr
da
z
,t
owi
t
ne
s
sa“
pe
a
c
e
f
u
l
appeal and demonstration so that he may become familiar with the plight of the farm
53
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Nol
e
n
eHodg
e
s
,“
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
eonLe
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
ePr
omi
s
e
d,
”Harlingen Valley Star, 28 November
1966, 1-2;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Food,Cl
ot
h
e
s
,Got
oVa
l
l
e
yWor
k
e
r
s
,
”Corpus Christi Times, 28 November 1966,
both in Folder 4, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA;c
l
i
ppi
ng
,“
Th
a
n
ks
g
i
v
i
n
gCa
r
a
v
a
nf
or‘
La Huelga,
’
”Fol
de
r4,
Box 8, MAFWM-UTA.
54
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
St
a
r
rFa
r
m Un
i
onPl
a
nsSun
da
yWor
k
s
h
opon‘
How t
oPi
c
k
e
taTr
a
i
n
,
’
”Fol
de
r4,Box4,
MAFWM-UTA.
36
55
l
a
bor
e
rhe
r
ea
nde
l
s
e
whe
r
e
.
”
Unable to gain an audience with Johnson, they returned to
Río Grande City where on December 6, Orendain, Marshall Méndez, and Gilbert Campos
were arrested for the Halloween incident on the Roma Bridge. Orendain surrendered
voluntarily at union headquarters, as he was arrested per an indictment returned on
November 16 by the 79th District Court grand jury that had been investigating this and
ot
he
r“
u
ni
oni
nc
i
de
nt
s
.
”Or
e
nda
i
nc
ont
i
nu
e
dpr
oc
l
a
i
mi
nghi
si
nnoc
e
nc
e
,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
Iha
d
not
hi
ngt
odowi
t
ht
hec
l
os
i
ngoft
hebr
i
dg
e
.
”Bondha
dor
i
g
i
na
l
l
ybe
e
ns
e
ta
t$
1
,
0
0
0bu
t
was lowered to $200. A local man, Nasario Treviño, paid it and Orendain was released.56
After the arrest the feuding between the union and law enforcement worsened.
Ra
nda
l
lNy
e
,whot
heu
ni
onnow r
e
c
og
ni
z
e
da
sa“
g
r
owe
ra
t
t
or
ne
y
,
”be
g
a
ns
l
a
nde
r
i
ng
them, sayingt
he
ys
t
a
r
t
e
dt
hebr
i
dg
ef
i
r
e“
a
ndwe
r
eabu
nc
hofou
t
s
i
de
r
s
,l
i
a
r
s
,a
nde
x
c
r
i
mi
na
l
s
.
”As
pok
e
s
pe
r
s
onf
r
om t
heUFWOC’
sne
ws
pa
pe
rEl Malcriado defended Local 2,
s
a
y
i
ngt
he“
s
t
r
i
k
e
r
si
nTe
x
a
sha
v
ef
a
c
e
dpol
i
c
e
-s
t
a
t
et
a
c
t
i
c
sbyt
heTe
x
a
sRa
ng
e
r
s
”a
ndt
ha
t
“
oppos
i
t
i
ont
ot
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
si
nTe
x
a
si
se
v
e
nmor
ei
g
nor
a
nta
ndbr
u
t
a
lt
ha
ni
nCa
l
i
f
or
ni
a
.
”
Ny
ec
l
a
i
me
dt
hebr
i
dg
ef
i
r
ewa
s“
v
e
r
yoppor
t
u
nef
ort
heu
ni
on,
”whi
l
eOr
e
nda
i
nr
e
t
or
t
e
d
57
t
ha
tt
heu
ni
on“
mu
s
tber
e
a
dyt
os
u
f
f
e
ri
nor
de
rt
obr
i
ngj
u
s
t
i
c
et
ot
hi
sv
a
l
l
e
y
.
”
Again
taking the moral high ground, Orendain was invoking the peaceful philosophy of Chávez,
wi
l
l
i
ngt
os
u
f
f
e
ra
ndwa
i
tf
orj
u
s
t
i
c
ef
ort
heVa
l
l
e
y
’
sf
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
.
55
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
onHe
a
dqu
a
r
t
e
r
sDe
s
e
r
t
e
dSa
t
u
r
da
y
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 4 December 1966, Folder
56
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
rUn
i
onOf
f
i
c
e
ri
sAr
r
e
s
t
e
d,
”Houston Chronicle, 7 December 1966; clipping,
“
On
eDown,Twot
oGoonSt
a
r
rI
n
di
c
t
me
n
t
s
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 7 December 1966, 1,3, both in
Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fa
r
m Un
i
onOf
f
i
c
e
ri
sAr
r
e
s
t
e
d,Ma
k
e
sBon
d,
”San Antonio
Express, 7 December 1966, 8-F, Book 3, Part 1, Box 10a, MAFWM-UTA.
57
“
Or
e
n
da
i
nJ
a
i
l
e
df
or‘
Loc
ki
n
gaGa
t
e
,
’
”El Malcriado, Number 51, Newspaper Collection, University
Library Special Collections, University of Texas at Arlington (hereafter NC-UTA).
37
The day after his release, Orendain wanted to do something to publicize the
movement and counteract negative press coverage. He alerted the local media that the
58
u
ni
onwa
s“
pl
a
nni
ngt
od
os
ome
t
hi
ngt
omor
r
owbu
twec
a
n’
ty
e
ts
a
ywha
ti
twi
l
l
be
.
”
The
next day, he and a few others went to the Roma Bridge to speak to Mexican commuters
who work
e
dda
i
l
ya
tLaCa
s
i
t
a
.Hi
spl
a
nwa
st
oboa
r
dt
hewor
k
e
r
s
’busa
ndc
onv
i
nc
et
he
m
to stay and not break a picket line the union had planned for that day outside of the farm.
Howe
v
e
r
,t
hebu
sne
v
e
rs
howe
du
p.“
I
’
m pr
e
t
t
ys
u
r
eLaCa
s
i
t
ahe
a
r
dofwha
twewe
r
e
doi
nga
ndd
i
dn’
ts
e
ndt
hebu
s
,
”Or
e
nda
i
nr
u
mi
na
t
e
d
.
LaCa
s
i
t
aof
f
i
c
i
a
l
sr
e
pl
i
e
dt
ha
tt
hebu
s
did not come because they simply did not have any work to be done that day.59
With his plan thwarted, Orendain was frustrated, as with the continuing arrests and
negative press the union simply was not making any progress. However, the situation was
indicative of the larger problem of commuter labor. Orendain knew that to defeat the
growers they had to curtail the importation of commuter workers. A study by the
Department of Labor reveals why the growers were so eager for commuters. In November
1966, the average farm worker in the Río Grande Valley made about .75 cents per hour,
but the average farm worker in all of Texas made about .97 cents per hour. Clearly, the
“
g
r
e
e
nc
a
r
de
r
s
” we
r
ewor
k
i
ngf
orl
e
s
s
,i
ndi
c
a
t
i
ng t
ha
t“
awa
g
et
ha
ti
nt
heU.
S
.i
s
s
u
bs
t
a
nda
r
di
smu
c
hmor
ea
de
q
u
a
t
et
ha
nwha
tt
hewor
k
e
rwou
l
dg
e
ti
nMe
x
i
c
o.
”Thu
s
,
f
or
t
heg
r
owe
r
st
he
r
ewa
sl
i
t
t
l
ene
e
dt
or
a
i
s
ewa
g
e
sbe
c
a
u
s
et
he
r
ewa
s“
s
u
c
hahoa
r
dofworkers
wi
l
l
i
ngt
owor
ka
tas
u
bs
t
a
nda
r
dl
e
v
e
l
.
”I
npl
a
c
e
ss
u
c
ha
st
heBr
owns
v
i
l
l
e
-Harlingen-San
58
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
onPl
a
nsNe
w Bi
df
orAt
t
e
n
t
i
on
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 8 December 1966, Book 3,
Part 1, Box 10a, MAFWM-UTA.
59
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
onWa
l
k
of
fPl
a
nFi
z
z
l
e
s
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 9 December 1966, Book 3, Part 1,
Box 10a, MAFWM-UTA.
38
Benito area of Texas, there were 3,020 unemployed U.S. residents, while there were 2,032
alien commuters. Thus it is clear why Orendain was so preoccupied with commuters, as
preventing their use not only would increase wages for Texas workers but it would also
dr
a
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
yr
e
du
c
eu
ne
mpl
oy
me
nt
.S
t
oppi
nge
v
e
nas
ma
l
lpor
t
i
onoft
he“
4
0
-50,000 alien
c
ommu
t
e
r
s[
who]c
ommu
t
eda
i
l
y
”wou
l
di
nde
e
dha
v
eha
dadr
a
ma
t
i
ce
f
f
e
c
t on the working
and living conditions of Texas farm workers.60
Fa
c
e
dbyt
heg
r
owe
r
s
’l
e
g
a
lpowe
r
,t
hec
ol
l
u
s
i
onofl
a
we
nf
or
c
e
me
nt
,a
ndt
he
i
r
army of commuter workers, the situation going into December 1966 looked increasingly
bleak. On December 13, Orendain decided to try a new approach –a simple plea to the
management of La Casita –to allow its workers to vote on whether they wanted
unionization. Orendain wrote a letter to La Casita management wishing them a merry
Christmas and requesting elections for their field workers. He claimed that a foreman for
the farm welcomed the election requests, although management later argued this was a lie.
The farm ignored the request, saying it was merely another propaganda ploy on the part of
Orendain, to which the u
ni
onl
e
a
de
rr
e
pl
i
e
dt
ha
tt
hewor
k
e
r
sha
dar
i
g
htt
o“
ha
v
eav
ot
ei
n
61
t
he
i
rde
s
t
i
ny
.
”
With momentum in their favor, the growers had no reason to give in.
Moreover, most people thought the union leadership was about to be in serious legal
trouble. Orendain, Nelson, and Chandler were scheduled to appear at an upcoming Justice
of the Peace hearing in Roma on December 19 about the Halloween incident and charges
60
“
Th
eI
mpa
c
tofAl
i
e
nCommut
e
r
sUpont
h
eEc
on
omyofU.
S.Town
sont
h
eMe
x
i
c
a
nBor
de
r
,
”U.
S.
Department of Labor, October 1967, Series 11, Folder 4, Box 1, Texas AFL-CIO Mexican-American
Affairs Committee, Texas Labor Archives, University Library Special Collections, University of Texas at
Arlington (hereafter MAAC-UTA).
61
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Me
r
r
yCh
r
i
s
t
ma
sWi
s
h
,Un
i
onVot
eRe
qu
e
s
tSe
n
tt
oLaCa
s
i
t
aFa
r
ms
,
”Valley Evening
Monitor, 12De
c
e
mbe
r1966,
1,
3;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fa
r
msWi
l
lI
gnor
eEl
e
c
t
i
onRe
qu
e
s
t
,
”Houston Chronicle, 14
December 1966, both in Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
39
62
of“
s
e
c
onda
r
ypi
c
k
e
t
i
ng
”c
onc
e
r
ni
ngt
hes
t
oppa
g
eoft
het
r
a
i
nonNov
e
mbe
r3
.
Many
thought this would be the end of the union in the Río Grande Valley, perhaps even
Orendain, who could only anticipate the outcome of the hearing. To the chagrin of the
growers, the ruling was surprisingly light. At the hearing, the most serious charge –
obstruction –was dropped. The Justice instead fined each of the three men $25 for their
pa
r
t
i
c
i
pa
t
i
oni
nt
he“
l
a
y
-i
n.
”Thou
g
hha
ppywi
t
ht
heou
t
c
ome
,
Or
e
nda
i
npu
bl
i
c
l
ys
t
a
t
e
dt
he
union would discuss with its lawyer the possibility of false-arrest charges against the county
stemming from this and other incidents.63
Me
a
nwhi
l
e
,
a
not
he
rc
a
r
a
v
a
nwa
spl
a
nne
d,
t
hi
st
i
mea“
Chr
i
s
t
ma
sCa
r
a
v
a
n”t
ha
twa
s
scheduled to leave Austin and Houston on December 17 and arrive in Río Grande City the
following day.64 Although the success of this drive is not documented, it is noteworthy that
people in other cities were charitably supporting the union. Picketing activities, however,
still remained sparse, because Orendain and other union members were still having various
legal problems.
By late De
c
e
mbe
r
,Or
e
nda
i
nde
s
pe
r
a
t
e
l
ywa
nt
e
dt
ot
u
r
nmome
nt
u
mi
nt
heuni
on’
s
favor. Thus, the union planned a march from Mexico City to Río Grande City with a
Me
x
i
c
a
nf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’u
ni
onbe
g
i
nni
ngDe
c
e
mbe
r3
0
.Thema
r
c
hne
v
e
rt
ookpl
a
c
e
,bu
ti
n
preparation Orendai
nc
omme
nt
e
dt
ha
t“
t
hi
swou
l
dbei
nt
e
r
na
t
i
ona
lpu
bl
i
c
i
t
yt
ha
twou
l
dbe
bad for this country, and we do not want that unless [the growers] force us to act. We
wou
l
ds
t
opde
mons
t
r
a
t
i
onsi
n3
0da
y
si
fLaCa
s
i
t
awou
l
dg
r
a
nta
ne
l
e
c
t
i
on,
”i
mpl
y
i
ngt
he
y
62
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
onPl
a
n
ni
ng‘
La
wa
n
dOr
de
r
’a
tHe
a
r
i
n
g
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 15 December 1966,
63
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
St
a
r
rUn
i
onSt
udi
e
sSui
tf
orFa
l
s
eAr
r
e
s
t
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 20 December 1966, 1,
3, Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
64
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ch
r
i
s
t
ma
sCa
r
a
va
nf
or‘
La Huelga,
’
”Fol
de
r4,
Box8,MAFWM-UTA.
40
would move on to picket other farms.65 As pressure was still light on La Casita, they had
little reason to fear an international march. Orendain was trying to give the movement new
life, realizing that 1966 was ending on a sour note for Local 2.
Although it was clear to him that the struggle to win collective bargaining for the
wor
k
e
r
si
nTe
x
a
swou
l
dbemu
c
hmor
edi
f
f
i
c
u
l
tt
ha
ni
nCa
l
i
f
or
ni
a
,Or
e
nda
i
n’
se
f
f
or
t
st
o
this point must be applauded. He had proven himself a leader in the mold of Chávez,
showing dedication and a willingness to suffer for the cause. Only time would tell if 1967
wou
l
dbemor
es
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
lf
orhi
m.ByNe
wYe
a
r
’
sEv
et
hes
t
r
i
k
ewa
ss
i
xmont
hsol
d,a
nd
t
hou
g
ht
he
yha
dnoti
mpr
ov
e
df
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’c
ondi
t
i
onst
he
ywe
r
ea
tl
e
a
s
ta
t
t
e
mpt
i
ngt
o
make progress –notably, without much outside assistance, including help from Chávez.
Why had Chávez sent Orendain and Chandler in September and done little else to assist
the strike? Indeed, aside from his November statement, Chávez had been completely
taciturn. His distance, and subsequently that of the UFWOC, from the movement in Texas
would eventually drive him and Orendain apart. However, by the end of 1966 his
unspoken lack of enthusiasm for the Starr County strike was not a major issue, as Texas
had its own ve
r
s
i
on,
a
l
be
i
tas
ma
l
l
e
rone
,
oft
heUFWOC’
sl
e
a
d
e
r
.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sc
r
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
ywa
sa
g
a
i
na
twor
ki
ne
a
r
l
yJ
a
nu
a
r
y1
9
6
7
.Hea
ndot
he
ru
ni
on
l
e
a
de
r
spl
a
nne
da“
1
,
0
0
0mi
l
eboa
tr
a
f
tt
r
i
pdownt
heRí
oGr
a
ndef
r
om El
Pa
s
ot
ot
heGu
l
f
ofMe
x
i
c
o,
”wi
t
ha
nEng
l
i
s
h-Spani
s
hs
i
g
nf
ore
a
c
hs
i
depr
ot
e
s
t
i
ngt
heu
s
eof“
g
r
e
e
n
c
a
r
de
r
s
.
”Thet
r
i
pwa
st
obe
g
i
ni
ne
a
r
l
yFe
br
u
a
r
y
,a
nda
bou
tf
ou
rpe
opl
ewou
l
doc
c
u
pyt
he
65
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Sa
m Ge
r
a
l
d,“
Bi
gFa
r
m Pr
obl
e
msDe
t
a
i
l
e
d,
”Va
l
l
e
yMor
n
i
ngSt
a
r
,31De
c
e
mbe
r1966,1-2,
Book 3, Part 1, Box 10a, MAFWM-UTA.
41
raft, which would beach each night on the U.S. side.66 Before this event could happen,
there were other positive developments for the union. In December 1966 the strike gained
the attention of some AFL-CIO officials who sent Pancho Medrano, roving troubles
hoot
e
r
,t
obol
s
t
e
ror
g
a
ni
z
e
dl
a
bor
’
spr
e
s
e
nc
e
.Hewa
sonl
yi
nt
heVa
l
l
e
yf
oroneda
y
,bu
t
the AFL-CIO promised his return and that the organization would assist Local 2.67
S
i
nc
eLaCa
s
i
t
ar
e
f
u
s
e
dOr
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
q
u
e
s
tf
ore
l
e
c
t
i
ons
,t
heu
ni
onhe
l
dal
a
r
g
e
demonstration in front of the farm on January 4, 1967. Results were typical; Orendain and
four others were arrested, held for a few hours, and released.68 More importantly, the
Equal Opportunity Committee of the AFL-CIO decided to hold a meeting in the Valley to
discuss the activities of the union and local reaction towards them. The meeting, chaired by
Henry Muñoz and Roy Evans, took place at the Fairway Motel in McAllen on January 8-9.
Pancho Medrano also attended. All the leaders of Local 2 attended and, aside from
discussing the minimum wage and collective bargaining, Orendain gave a heartfelt speech
on working and living conditions in the Valley. After hearing about the poor conditions,
one AFL-CI
Or
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
e
,Fr
a
nk
l
i
nGa
r
c
í
a
,“
u
r
g
e
dmor
ec
i
v
i
ldi
s
obe
di
e
nc
et
og
a
i
n
69
be
t
t
e
rpa
y
.
”
The AFL-CIO was clearly interested in assisting the workers with their
struggle.
66
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
m Uni
onPl
a
n
sPr
ot
e
s
tVoy
a
g
eDownRi
oGr
a
n
det
oGu
l
fi
naMon
t
h
,
”Valley Evening
Monitor, 4 January 1967, 1, 3, Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
67
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
He
a
r
i
ngPos
t
pone
donFa
r
mUn
i
onCh
a
r
g
e
s
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 5 January 1967, 1, 3,
68
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Se
v
e
r
a
lFa
r
m Un
i
onMe
mbe
r
sAr
r
e
s
t
e
dAf
t
e
rDe
mon
s
t
r
a
t
i
on
,
”Rio Grande Herald, 5
January 1967, Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
69
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
La
borGr
ou
pSl
a
t
e
sMc
Al
l
e
nMe
e
t
,
”San Antonio Light,8J
a
n
u
a
r
y1967;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fa
r
m
Union Leaders Expected to be Present in State AFL-CI
O Me
e
t
i
ng
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 8 January
1967,1,
3;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
‘
Ca
c
t
usCu
r
t
a
i
n’Down For Farm Workers, AFL-CI
O Me
e
tTol
dHe
r
e
,
”Valley
Evening Monitor, 8 January 1967, 1,3, all in Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
42
Local reaction to the meeting was typical. Instead of concern for farm labor
pr
obl
e
msa
ndt
heu
ni
on’
si
s
s
u
e
s
,l
oc
a
lme
di
aa
ndg
r
owe
r
sf
oc
u
s
e
dont
hec
omme
nt
sma
d
e
byGa
r
c
í
a
.
I
nde
e
d,
onea
r
t
i
c
l
ei
nal
oc
a
l
pa
pe
rs
t
a
t
e
dt
ha
tGa
r
c
í
aa
ndMu
ñoz“
i
nc
u
r
r
e
dg
r
e
a
t
70
wr
a
t
hf
r
omS
t
a
r
rCou
nt
yof
f
i
c
i
a
l
sa
nds
omeoft
heme
di
a
.
”
Muñoz was extremely sympathetic to the cause. He continually criticized the
growers and the Department of Labor for the use of green carders and even lamented the
c
ommu
t
e
r
s
’s
i
t
u
a
t
i
on,s
a
y
i
ngt
hegrowers treated them just as badly as they did Texas
workers. For instance, Muñoz claimed growers forced the commuters to work day and
night and if the workers complained would simply call immigration and have them
deported. He also claimed that growers sometimes drove wages down so low (.10 cents per
hour), that all the Texas workers would migrate to other areas, thus inflating the need for
commuters on their farms. Muñoz also criticized his own organization, saying the AFLCIO could easily give Chávez millions from their treasury to organize in South Texas, but
71
f
ors
omer
e
a
s
ont
he
yj
us
t“
won’
tdoi
t
.
”
This was unfortunate for Orendain and Local 2,
because financial backing would have made a huge difference. However, given the
availability of countless strikebreakers right across the border, the AFL-CI
O’
sr
e
l
u
c
t
a
nc
et
o
get involved is understandable.
Needing a new tactic to force La Casita to negotiate, at the end of the month the
union announced a national boycott of all La Casita products. Orendain said pickets would
be placed in front of any store selling La Casita lettuce or celery. He also said the boycott
would move into other states with the help of AFL-CI
Oa
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
e
du
ni
ons
.
“
Wedi
dn’
tr
e
a
l
l
y
70
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Uni
onSt
a
t
e
me
n
t
sDr
a
wRe
pl
y
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 10 January 1967, Folder 5, Box 4,
MAFWM-UTA.
71
Henry Muñoz Jr., interview by Charles Carr Winn, 12 August 1971, OHP-UTA.
43
wa
ntt
odot
hi
s
,
”Or
e
nda
i
na
r
g
u
e
d,“
bu
tt
he
ywou
l
dn’
tg
i
v
e us a chance for elections or
72
r
e
c
og
ni
z
eu
sa
sac
ol
l
e
c
t
i
v
eba
r
g
a
i
ni
nga
g
e
nt
.Thi
si
sou
ronl
ywe
a
ponnow.
”
The boycott
gained the endorsement of both the AFL-CIO and the UFWOC.73
Some media outlets covered the boycott, noting that the union accused La Casita
74
of“
onl
y pa
y
i
ng wor
k
e
r
s.
3
0
-.
7
0c
e
nt
spe
rhou
r
.
”
Farm management immediately
countered the boycott announcement, saying they would push for an injunction if the
union picketed stores. A spokesman for the farm claimed the only legal picketing the union
75
c
ou
l
ddowa
s“
wha
ti
tha
dbe
e
ndoi
ngont
hepr
e
mi
s
e
s
”oft
hef
a
r
m.
Wi
t
ht
hef
a
r
m’
s
success in squelching union activities in the months prior to the boycott, it was only natural
to threaten further legal action, as the union could likely be defeated in court. Orendain
was immensely frustrated, and the union had previously tried everything short of a boycott,
and thus far nothing had been effective. The specter of further legal activity and possibility
of more arrests were a headache for him.
However, t
oOr
e
nda
i
n’
sc
r
e
di
t
,
f
a
c
i
ngl
e
g
a
l
oppos
i
t
i
onhepr
e
s
s
e
donwi
t
ht
hes
t
r
i
k
e
and boycott. By calling for a boycott, it is again striking how Orendain emulated Chávez.
Like Orendain, Chávez had called a boycott of the large grape growers in California only
when they remained obstinate and refused to negotiate with him; Orendain did the same
thing and even appeared regretful in doing so. Also, throughout this time Orendain never
72
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Uni
onBoy
c
ot
t
i
ngPr
odu
c
t
sofFa
r
m,
”Austin-American Statesman, 31 January 1967, Folder
73
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Na
t
i
on
a
lFi
g
htVowe
dbyUn
i
on
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 31 January 1967, Folder 5, Box
4, MAFWM-UTA.
74
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
m Un
i
onPl
a
n
sBoy
c
ot
t
,
”San Antonio Express, 1 February 1967, 1-C, Folder 5, Box 4,
MAFWM-UTA.
75
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Sa
m Ge
r
a
l
d,“
I
nj
u
n
c
t
i
onAc
t
i
oni
sCon
t
e
mpl
a
t
e
dbyLaCa
s
i
t
aFa
r
ms
,
”Harlingen Valley
Star, 2 February 1967, Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
44
complained that things were moving too slowly. Instead, he was patient, hard working, and
when tactics proved unsuccessful he thought of new, creative ways to demonstrate against
the growers. There is no indication that Chávez was unhappy with Orendain or his actions
i
nt
heVa
l
l
e
y
.Or
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
onofnonv
i
ol
e
nc
ea
ndt
heu
ni
on’
s mission must have
been satisfactory for Chávez.
Chávez also would have been happy with the support five Roman Catholic priests
from the San Antonio Archdiocese displayed for the union on February 1, 1967. On that
day, Orendain and the five priests –who a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oOr
e
nda
i
nwe
r
e“
he
r
ea
sne
u
t
r
a
l
observers, to see that we were conducting the demonstrations without violence –”a
l
ong
with a group of huelgistas used a road on La Casita property to get to the property of
Thoma
sBa
z
á
n,a“
u
ni
ons
y
mpa
t
hi
z
e
rwhoOrendain said gave them permission to use his
l
a
nd.
”Thede
mons
t
r
a
t
or
su
s
e
dBa
z
á
n’
spr
ope
r
t
yt
oy
e
l
l
i
nv
e
c
t
i
v
e
sa
g
a
i
ns
tt
hewor
k
e
r
sa
tLa
Ca
s
i
t
aa
ndc
onv
i
nc
et
he
mt
owa
l
kof
ft
hej
ob.
Howe
v
e
r
,
f
a
r
m of
f
i
c
i
a
l
sc
l
a
i
me
d,
“
t
he
yc
a
me
into the middle of the farm a
ndwe
r
ey
e
l
l
i
nga
nds
hou
t
i
ng
,
”whe
r
e
a
s“
be
f
or
et
he
yha
d
s
t
a
y
e
dont
her
oa
ds
i
de
sa
ndof
fLaCa
s
i
t
apr
ope
r
t
y
.
”Thepol
i
c
ewe
r
ec
a
l
l
e
di
n,a
nd
Orendain, the priests, and other demonstrators were arrested. According to Orendain, the
g
r
ou
pwa
snot“
c
ha
r
g
e
dwi
th trespassing but with disturbing the peace, [although] we only
76
ha
dar
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
onnu
mbe
rofpi
c
k
e
t
st
he
r
e
.
”
Orendain, the huelgistas,a
ndt
hef
i
v
epr
i
e
s
t
swe
r
ee
v
e
nt
u
a
l
l
yr
e
l
e
a
s
e
d“
ont
he
i
rown
r
e
c
og
ni
z
a
nc
e
,
”bu
tS
a
nAnt
oni
oAr
c
hbi
s
hopRobe
r
tE.Lu
c
e
ys
ent two of the priests, who
“
f
a
i
l
e
dt
oobt
a
i
ne
c
c
l
e
s
i
a
s
t
i
c
a
lpe
r
mi
s
s
i
ont
og
ot
oRi
oGr
a
ndeCi
t
y
,
”t
ome
di
t
a
t
ei
naNe
w
76
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fi
v
ePr
i
e
s
t
sRe
t
u
r
nHome
,
”Valley Evening Monitor,2Fe
br
u
a
r
y1967,1,
3;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fi
v
e
Ot
h
e
r
sPi
c
k
e
dUpByLa
wme
n
,
”Valley Morning Star, 2 February 1967, both in Folder 5, Box 4,
MAFWM-UTA.
45
Mexico monastery. Many mistakenly thought this indicated a strained relationship between
the union and the church, not realizing that Lucey himself fully supported the strike.77
After meeting with Lucey and re-solidifying the church-union relationship, Orendain again
felt the need to publicly defend union actions through the media, hoping to counteract
what he saw as increasingly negative c
ov
e
r
a
g
eoft
heu
ni
on’
sa
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
:
Our purpose is to organize the migrant workers of all farm labor to protect
t
hei
ndi
v
i
du
a
lr
i
g
ht
sofe
mpl
oy
e
e
s
…Wea
r
enotou
tt
obl
a
c
k
ma
i
lg
r
owe
r
s
,a
st
he
y
claim. Growers themselves would have the protection of knowing that when
workers are needed, they would be available if a contract was signed ahead of time.
Orendain continued, reiterating that collective bargaining, instead of a minimum wage, was
needed to ensure fair treatment of the workers.78
Though again publicly thrown on the defensive, Local 2 pushed on with the
boy
c
ot
t
.Gi
l
be
r
tPa
di
l
l
a
,Or
e
nda
i
n’
se
v
e
nt
u
a
lr
e
pl
a
c
e
me
nta
sl
e
a
de
roft
hes
t
r
i
k
e
,a
ndJ
i
m
Dr
a
k
ewe
r
es
e
nti
nf
r
om Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
at
ohe
l
pf
u
r
t
he
ror
g
a
ni
z
et
heboy
c
ot
t
.Pa
di
l
l
a
’
sj
obwa
s
to contact supermarkets and coordinate the efforts of boycott committees in Corpus
Christi, San Antonio, and Austin. Orendain hoped to pattern the boycott after the
NFWA’
sboy
c
ot
ta
g
a
i
ns
tS
c
he
nl
e
ya
ndDi
Gi
or
g
i
o,
whi
c
hs
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
ybr
ou
g
ht“
S
c
he
nl
e
yt
o
79
t
heba
r
g
a
i
ni
ngt
a
bl
e
.
”
However, the growers would not remain idle. Several Valley
77
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Boy
c
ot
tMoun
t
sa
sFBIPr
obe
sVa
l
l
e
yAr
r
e
s
t
s
;
”c
l
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
onSe
e
ksMe
e
tWi
t
hLu
c
e
y
OnOr
de
rt
oPr
i
e
s
t
s
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 5 February 1967, 1,3, both in Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWMUTA.
78
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Ar
t
h
u
rMoc
z
y
g
e
mba
,“
Va
l
l
e
yMa
nCl
a
i
msWa
g
e
sNota
nI
s
s
u
e
,
”San Antonio Express-News,
4 February 1967, 12-A, Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
79
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
St
r
i
k
e
r
sPus
hBoy
c
ot
t
,
”Alamo Messenger, 2 February 1967, Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWMUTA.
46
growers banded together in support of La Casita, promising to back the farm and fight the
boycott in all ways possible.80 A long, protracted struggle lay in the months ahead.
The union did however make some immediate gains. Safeway, and another large
supermarket chain whose name was undisclosed, agreed to honor the boycott until a
settlement was reached. By mid-February 1967, the total number of boycotted stores
reached 250 and Padilla and the various committees continued pressuring others.
Meanwhile, the FBI investigated the February 1 arrests, as the union officially complained
the arrests were unfair and in violation of their civil rights.81 Orendain was thrilled that
events seemed to be turning in his favor and, and as the boycott continued through March,
media coverage of the union became more positive. The Dallas Morning News ran an
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
ntbi
og
r
a
phi
c
a
la
r
t
i
c
l
eonOr
e
nda
i
n,whowa
sr
e
c
og
ni
z
e
da
s“
s
e
c
ondi
nv
oi
c
ei
nt
he
union only to Cesar Cha
v
e
z
.
”Thea
r
t
i
c
l
ewe
ntont
ode
s
c
r
i
beOr
e
nda
i
n’
sa
ppe
a
la
sv
e
r
y
Chávez-like:
Orendain usually dresses like a field worker in dirty black boots, blue denim
j
e
a
nsa
ndbr
i
g
hts
por
ts
hi
r
t
s
.Whe
nhet
a
l
k
sof“
v
i
c
t
or
yf
ormype
opl
e
”hi
st
e
e
t
h
glisten under a curling black mustache. He has the deliberate gait and slight stoop
of those who have spent much of their youth on bent knees working in the lettuce
and cabbage fields.
With such a favorable impression of Orendain, the union could no longer claim a negative
media bias. The article continued, quoting Orendain:
For months I worked for $2.50 a day in the fields of California and I swore
someday I would help myself and my people get a better life and the respect of our
80
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ri
oGr
a
n
deVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
me
r
sJ
oi
nt
oBe
a
tBoy
c
ot
t
,
”Jacksonville Progress, 14 February
1967;c
l
i
p
pi
n
g
,“
Va
l
l
e
yFa
r
me
r
sRe
s
i
s
tBoy
c
ot
t
,
”Gonzales Inquirer,1
4Fe
br
u
a
r
y1967;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Fi
gh
t
Se
tForUn
i
onBoy
c
ot
t
,
”Henderson News,14Fe
br
u
a
r
y1967;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Va
l
l
e
yFa
r
me
r
sJ
oi
nHa
n
dst
o
Fi
gh
tBoy
c
ot
t
,
”Bonham Favorite, 14 February 1967, all in Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
81
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Boy
c
ot
tMou
n
t
sa
sFBIPr
obe
sVa
l
l
e
yAr
r
e
s
t
s
;
”c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
FBII
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
sTe
nRGC
Ar
r
e
s
t
s
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 8 February 1967, both in Folder 5, Box 4, MAFWM-UTA.
47
e
mpl
oy
e
r
s
…Idon’
tmi
ndg
oi
ngt
oj
a
i
l
.
I
’
dspend five years in jail to get a victory for
82
my people.
Or
e
nda
i
nwa
sr
e
c
og
ni
z
e
da
st
hemov
e
me
nt
’
sl
e
a
de
ri
nTe
x
a
s
,
r
e
i
t
e
r
a
t
i
nghi
ss
t
a
ndi
nga
st
he
“
Cé
s
a
rChá
v
e
zofTe
x
a
s
.
”I
ta
ppe
a
r
e
da
st
hou
g
hmome
nt
u
m wa
sont
hec
u
s
pofc
ha
ng
i
ng
in favor of Orendain and Local 2.
That hope soon receded. Events wore on through March and April and progress
a
g
a
i
ns
t
a
l
l
e
df
ort
heu
ni
on.Byt
hee
ndofMa
r
c
h,
Or
e
nda
i
ns
a
i
d“
t
hepe
opl
ehe
r
ea
r
emu
c
h
wor
s
eof
ft
ha
ni
nDe
l
a
no,
”a
nddona
t
i
onst
ohe
l
pf
e
e
dt
hepoorwor
k
e
r
swe
re necessary.83
Orendain also recognized that halting shipments from the upcoming cantaloupe harvest in
late May and early June could determine whether the strikers won or lost, as cantaloupes
were highly perishable and if lost could be financially disastrous for the growers.84
Chá
v
e
z
’
sc
ont
i
nu
e
dr
e
t
i
c
e
nc
eont
heS
t
a
r
rCou
nt
ys
t
r
i
k
ei
sba
f
f
l
i
ng
.Or
e
nda
i
n’
s
s
t
a
t
e
me
ntt
ha
tt
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
si
nTe
x
a
swe
r
e“
wor
s
eof
ft
ha
ni
nDe
l
a
no”i
sa
c
c
u
r
a
t
ei
ns
e
v
e
r
a
l
ways. Not only were wages, living and working conditions worse, but also grower
opposition in Texas was much stronger. After almost nine months of striking, the union
had accomplished little. This was not the fault of Orendain; the Secretary-Treasurer did his
best with the resources he had, and with little visible or vocal support from his boss.
Although Chávez joined Orendain in applauding a statement in late April by the Catholic
82
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Ga
r
yGa
r
r
i
s
on
,“
Sh
outof‘
Hu
e
l
g
a
!
’Sh
a
t
t
e
r
sVi
l
l
a
g
e
’
sTr
a
n
qu
i
l
i
t
y
,
”Dallas Morning News,
26 March 1967, 3D, Folder 1, Box 5, MAFWM-UTA.
83
Ra
yMa
r
t
i
n
,“
LaHu
e
l
g
a
:Th
eDe
s
pe
r
a
t
eCr
yAl
ongt
h
eRi
oGr
a
n
de
,
”UAW Solidarity, March 1967, 3,
11, Folder 1, Box 5, MAFWM-UTA.
84
“
Na
t
i
on
a
lCa
mpa
i
g
nf
orAgr
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
lDe
moc
r
a
c
y
,
”10Apr
i
l1967,
Fol
de
r1
,Box5,
MAFWM-UTA.
48
85
Bi
s
hopsofTe
x
a
s“
s
u
ppor
t
i
ngt
her
i
g
htoff
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
st
of
or
mu
ni
ons
,
”
perhaps his
nominal support was due to his preoccupation with union activity in California.
Because Local 2 was not strongly supported by its two parent organizations, the
UFWOC and the AFL-CIO, the movement was deteriorating. During the strike Chávez
realized that organizing in Texas was more difficult than in California. He was quoted later
i
nt
he1
9
7
0
ss
a
y
i
ng
,“
s
pr
e
a
di
ngt
hemov
e
me
ntt
opl
a
c
e
sl
i
k
eTe
x
a
swa
sf
ort
hef
u
t
ur
e
.
86
Be
f
or
ey
ouc
a
nr
u
n,
y
ouha
v
et
ol
e
a
r
nt
owa
l
k
.
”
Having lost heart, Chávez only wanted to
focus on California, which explains his following actions.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sl
a
s
ta
c
ta
sa
dmi
ni
s
t
r
a
t
oroft
heS
t
a
r
rCou
nt
ys
t
r
i
k
ewa
sat
r
i
pt
oaS
a
n
J
a
c
i
nt
oDa
yc
e
l
e
br
a
t
i
oni
nDa
l
l
a
sonApr
i
l2
3
,1
9
6
7
.Thet
r
i
p’
spur
pos
ewa
st
opl
e
a
dwi
t
h
local Democrats to salvage the movement.87 He returned to the Valley, but in early May
was ordered by Chávez to return to Delano, and Gilbert Padilla became leader of the Starr
County strike. According to Orendain, Chávez wanted him to return to Delano to work in
88
t
heu
ni
on’
sa
c
c
ou
nt
i
ngde
pa
r
t
me
nt“
pu
s
hi
ngpe
nc
i
l
s
.
”
His tenure as the leader of the Starr
County strike was officially over.
Ac
c
or
di
ngt
oonehi
s
t
or
i
a
n,“
Cha
v
e
zr
e
a
l
i
z
e
dt
ha
tor
g
a
ni
z
i
nge
f
f
or
t
si
nTe
x
a
swe
r
e
89
pr
e
ma
t
u
r
ea
ndi
n1
9
6
7de
c
i
de
dt
opu
l
lba
c
k
.
”
This statement puts into perspective
Chá
v
e
z
’
sde
c
i
s
i
ont
or
e
place Orendain with Padilla. The decision was not made because
Chávez thought the union had a better chance of winning under Padilla, rather, the
85
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Te
x
a
sBi
s
h
ops
’St
a
t
e
me
n
tHa
i
l
e
dbyFa
r
m La
borLe
a
de
r
s
,
”Texas Catholic, 22 April 1967,
86
César Cháv
e
z
,“
Th
eOr
g
a
n
i
z
e
r
’
sTa
l
e
,
”i
nMexican Workers in the United States, 62.
87
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sAs
kDe
moc
r
a
t
st
oRe
s
c
u
eTh
e
m,
”Jacksonville Progress, 24 April 1967,
88
89
Navarro, Mexican American Youth Organization, 33.
49
decision was made because Chávez valued Orendain and wanted him to work in the area
he considered most important – Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
.The
r
e
f
or
e
,i
n Chá
v
e
z
’
smi
nd Or
e
nda
i
n’
s
replacement was a promotion, not a demotion. Clearly, Chávez must have considered
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
si
nTe
x
a
saj
obwe
l
ldone–Orendain had acted faithfully as his
representative in Texas and upheld the integrity of the union and its cause. He had
struggled for social justice for the farm workers and, although no concessions were won,
he prosecuted the movement as Chávez would have in his place.
And what of the Starr County strike? Inevitably, the movement declined and in the
summer of 1967 the strike and boycott were defeated. Several reasons can be cited for the
u
ni
on’
sde
f
e
a
t
:t
heu
ni
onf
a
i
l
e
dt
os
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
l
yc
omba
tt
hea
nt
i
-democratic power structure
of Starr County, and the growers and local power structure were in cahoots, making a
victory by the poorly-funded and supported Local 2 nearly impossible. By starting the
movement with no outside support, Eugene Nelson failed to consider such problems as
the importation of Mexican workers, a strike f
u
nd,
oral
oc
a
l
powe
rma
c
hi
ne“
wi
l
l
i
ngt
ou
s
e
a
ny
t
hi
nga
ti
t
sdi
s
pos
a
l
”t
ode
f
e
a
tau
ni
oni
z
a
t
i
onmov
e
me
nt
.
Tha
t“
Ne
l
s
onha
ppe
ne
dt
og
e
t
i
nv
ol
v
e
di
nt
hewor
s
tc
ou
nt
yi
nt
hewor
s
ts
t
a
t
ei
nwhi
c
ht
owi
nas
t
r
i
k
e
”a
ndt
ha
t“
t
he
strike began with a wave of enthusiasm, with no conception at all of the difficulties facing
90
t
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
s
,
”i
si
nde
e
da
na
c
c
u
r
a
t
es
t
a
t
e
me
nt
.
As an inexperienced labor organizer who
had served only as picket captain in the Delano strike, Nelson should not have started the
movement without Chávez. By rushing the union into the strike and not addressing these
various issues, the strike was practically doomed from the start. The union simply could
not fight growers, law enforcement, and green-carders all at the same time.
90
Dou
gAda
i
r
,“
Te
x
a
sSt
r
i
k
e
,
”Liberation, August 1967, 6-9.
50
The“
Cé
s
a
rChá
v
e
zofTe
x
a
s
”we
ntba
c
kt
owor
ki
nCa
l
i
f
or
ni
aha
v
i
ngpr
ov
e
n
hi
ms
e
l
fa
sde
di
c
a
t
e
dt
ot
hef
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’
mov
e
me
nt
.
Hi
sr
e
pl
a
c
e
me
nt
,
Pa
di
l
l
a
,
wou
l
dwor
k
for the next two years in the Valley, but the effort proved so difficult that by 1969 Padilla
succumbed to depression and alcoholism, necessitating his hospitalization and also
91
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
t
u
r
ni
nt
hes
pr
i
ngof1
9
6
9
.
Thus, it would not be long before Orendain
returned to fight on behalf of the Río Grande Valley farm workers. It would be sooner that
his relationship with Chávez began falling apart.
91
Orendain interview by Carr Winn, OHP-UTA; Steiner, La Raza, 375.
51
CHAPTER 3
THINGS FALL APART
Antonio Orendain remained in Delano, California from May 1967 until March
1969, when César Chávez allowed him to return to the Río Grande Valley. During this
sojourn his creativity again became evident. On his own initiative, the Secretary-Treasurer
began a Spanish-language radio program, an idea he had since the inception of the NFWA.
Ent
i
t
l
e
d“
La Voz del Campesino”(
“
TheVoi
c
eoft
heFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
”
)Or
e
nd
a
i
n claimed the
show reached many workers and also drew many complaints from local growers. He
continued the program later when he returned to South Texas. He also ran a pro-farm
worker television program out of Hanford, California, which informed workers of federal
wage and labor laws and which growers not to work for. When he was not running these
two programs or attending to union business, Orendain, who had a wife and five children
to support, earned additional income by picking cotton.1
Aside from these activities, the summer and winter of 1967 were relatively quiet for
Orendain, considering what he had left behind and what lay ahead. The Starr County strike
e
nde
donJ
u
ne1
6
,whe
nadi
s
t
r
i
c
tj
u
dg
eg
r
a
nt
e
da“
t
e
mpor
a
r
yi
nj
u
nc
t
i
on”–which was to
last about six years –at the request of La Casita to curtail picketing during the harvest.2 The
movement in South Texas was effectively quashed, although Padilla remained in the Valley.
Padilla testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor in Río Grande City
1
2
Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
sMov
e
ment, 1966-1967,
”79-80.
52
on June 29, 1967,3 but his efforts at organizing workers in the wake of the Starr County
strike were unfruitful. Also in June, President Johnson established the Inter Agency
4
Commi
t
t
e
eonMe
x
i
c
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
na
f
f
a
i
r
st
oa
ddr
e
s
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’pr
obl
e
ms
.
This was
important because the UFWOC now had an official agency within the government to send
their complaints.
The rest of 1967 passed uneventfully for the UFWOC, but in February and March
of 1968, the first public sign of tension between Orendain and Chávez appeared. In a
speech on February 19, Chávez announced he would begin a 25-day fast for peace and
non-v
i
ol
e
nc
e
,s
e
e
k
i
ngt
o“
i
ns
pi
r
et
hewor
k
e
r
sbu
ta
l
s
ot
os
t
r
e
ng
t
he
npu
bl
i
copi
ni
onont
he
5
u
ni
on’
sbe
ha
l
f
.
”
In some regards, the tactic proved successful. The national media took a
great interest in the fast and the New York Times published two articles sympathetic to
Chávez when it ended.6 Though Chávez successfully garnered public sympathy, the fast
proved controversial within the ranks of the union, especially with Orendain.
Orendain vehemently opposed the use of religion or religious imagery in the
movement and thought a highly publicized, pious image of Chávez would be detrimental to
the union. Thus, Orendain led other union members in a boycott of the fast and a refusal
to attend the subsequent mass at union headquarters when it ended. This was a bold move,
considering that the fast gained so much attention that Robert Kennedy attended the mass
to take communion with Chávez. Nevertheless, Orendain was highly displeased with
3
I
bi
d.
,82;Gi
l
be
r
tPa
di
l
l
a
,“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sNe
e
dBa
r
g
a
i
n
i
n
gRi
gh
t
s
,
”Labor Today, August-September
1967, 2-5, Folder 13, Box 8, MAFWM-UTA.
4
Vincente T. Ximenes to Henry Muñoz Jr., 13 September 1967, Series 11, Folder 1, Box 1, MAACUTA.
5
Matthiessen, Sal Si Puedes, 179-180; Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor, 247.
6
Wa
l
l
a
c
eTu
r
n
e
r
,“
He
a
dofFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sUn
i
onEn
ds25-Da
yFa
s
ti
nCa
l
i
f
or
n
i
a
;
”a
l
s
o,“
A Fa
r
m Br
e
d
Un
i
oni
s
t
:Ce
s
a
rEs
t
r
a
daCh
a
ve
z
,
”bot
hi
nNew York Times, 11 March 1968, 22.
53
Chá
v
e
za
ndt
opr
ot
e
s
tt
hi
s“
r
e
l
i
g
i
ou
sf
ol
l
y
”he“
s
a
twi
t
hhi
sba
c
kt
owa
r
dChá
v
e
zwhe
nt
he
y
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
du
ni
onbu
s
i
ne
s
s
”du
r
i
ngt
hef
a
s
t
.
S
omeu
ni
onl
e
a
de
r
sa
ndv
ol
u
nt
e
e
r
se
v
e
nq
u
i
tt
he
movement because they thought Chávez was developi
nga“
me
s
s
i
a
hc
ompl
e
x
.
”Thu
s
,
although this pious display may have worked for those outside the movement, clearly a
schism could be seen developing within the UFWOC.7
Making this schism worse was the fact that some began denouncing Orendain for
not suppor
t
i
ngChá
v
e
z
’
sf
a
s
t
.Unf
or
t
u
na
t
e
l
yt
he
r
ei
snor
e
c
or
dofwha
tChá
v
e
zt
hou
g
htof
Or
e
nda
i
n’
soppos
i
t
i
on.Howe
v
e
r
,Dol
or
e
sHu
e
r
t
a
,Vi
c
ePr
e
s
i
de
ntoft
heu
ni
on,wa
sc
l
e
a
r
l
y
incensed with the Secretary-Treasurer:
Iwa
s
n’
ti
nDe
l
a
noa
ta
l
ldu
r
i
ngt
hef
a
s
t
,bu
ta lot of unpleasant things
happened there at that time in terms of the organization. Tony Orendain, who was
secretary-treasurer of the Union, was very cynical against the church. He was one
of the guys that was a leader in all of the conflicts that took place when Cesar went
ont
hef
a
s
t
.The
r
e
’
sa
na
wf
u
ll
otofbi
g
ot
r
ye
v
e
na
mongMe
x
i
c
a
ns
,e
s
pe
c
i
a
l
l
yt
he
ones from Mexico.8
Hu
e
r
t
a
’
sde
nu
nc
i
a
t
i
onofOr
e
nda
i
nf
orboy
c
ot
t
i
ngt
hef
a
s
ts
e
e
msha
r
s
h,a
s“
bi
g
ot
r
y
”wa
sa
strong accusation against someone taking a moralistic stand. The real problem was
Or
e
nda
i
n’
she
a
ds
t
r
ongpe
r
s
ona
l
i
t
y
,hi
shos
t
i
l
i
t
yt
owa
r
dt
heChu
r
c
h,a
ndhi
su
nwi
l
l
i
ng
ne
s
s
t
oc
ompl
e
t
e
l
ys
u
bmi
tt
oChá
v
e
z
.S
i
mpl
ybe
c
a
u
s
ehedi
dnota
g
r
e
ewi
t
hChá
v
e
z
’
spi
ou
s
ne
s
s
Orendain was highly resented by Huerta and others. This is not, however, evidence of any
disloyalty to the movement –Orendain always remained committed to the cause. However,
the controversy surrounding the fast revealed that tension between Orendain, Chávez, and
other union leaders was starting to boil over. With time, this tension would become worse.
7
8
Matthiessen, Sal Si Puedes, 181; Ferris, The Fight in the Fields, 143.
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 277.
54
Du
r
i
ngt
hef
a
s
t
,Pa
di
l
l
aa
nnou
nc
e
dt
heu
ni
oni
nTe
x
a
swa
s“
br
i
ng
i
ngs
u
i
ta
g
a
i
ns
t
9
t
heRa
ng
e
r
sf
orc
i
v
i
lr
i
g
ht
sv
i
ol
a
t
i
onsa
ndt
oc
ha
l
l
e
ng
eba
s
i
cTe
x
a
sl
a
borl
a
ws
.
”
Though at
the time uneventful, t
hi
sl
a
ws
u
i
tpr
ov
e
di
mpor
t
a
nta
f
t
e
rOr
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
t
u
r
nt
oTe
x
a
si
n
1969. Meanwhile, in California, Orendain began writing articles and editorials for the
u
ni
on’
sne
ws
pa
pe
r
,El Malcriado.10 He took up the work with his usual gusto and in June
1968 his first two articles appeared, one lamenting the death of Robert Kennedy and one
11
de
s
c
r
i
bi
nga“
g
oodwi
l
l
t
ou
r
”hea
ndLa
r
r
yI
t
l
i
ongha
dt
a
k
e
nt
oBr
a
z
i
l
.
His experience with
El Malcriado proved valuable when Orendain started his own newspaper, El Cuhamil, after
returning to the Río Grande Valley.
Much like the previous year, the rest of 1968 was largely uneventful for the
movement. In July, Chávez displayed his dedication to nonviolence by canceling a strike in
Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
’
sCoa
c
he
l
l
aVa
l
l
e
ybe
c
a
u
s
eg
r
owe
r
st
he
r
ehad used violence against several
strikers.12 Texas was even quieter. Local 2 accomplished little and South Texas growers
continued harvesting their crops. The Starr County political machine was so disinterested
in the movement that none of the more than 100 arrests pertaining to the strike was
scheduled for trial.13 TheVa
l
l
e
yg
r
owe
r
sc
l
e
a
r
l
yt
hou
g
htt
ha
tt
heu
ni
ona
ndi
t
s“
ou
t
s
i
d
e
a
g
i
t
a
t
or
s
”we
r
ede
f
e
a
t
e
da
ndne
v
e
rt
obehe
a
r
df
r
oma
g
a
i
n.
9
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Chu
c
kSc
hwa
nt
z
,“
Ra
ng
e
rTr
i
a
li
sOpe
n
e
dWi
t
hUn
i
on’
sTe
s
t
i
mony
,
”Brownsville Herald, 11
June 1968, 1, Folder 1, Box 2, Pancho Medrano Papers, Texas Labor Archives, University Library
Special Collections, University of Texas at Arlington (hereafter PMP-UTA).
10
Th
e“
i
l
l
-be
g
ot
t
e
n
,
”ar
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
ot
h
eh
a
r
dl
i
f
eoft
h
ea
v
e
r
a
g
ewor
k
e
r
.
11
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Ou
rFr
i
e
n
d,Ma
yHeRe
s
ti
nPe
a
c
e
;
”a
n
d,“
Ope
nLe
t
t
e
rt
oBr
a
z
i
l
,
”b
ot
hi
nEl Malcriado, 15
June 1968, 3-4, 6, Folder 2, Box 2, PMP-UTA.
12
“
Fa
r
mUn
i
onLe
a
de
rUr
g
e
sEn
dt
oCa
l
i
f
or
ni
aSt
r
i
k
e
,
”New York Times, 3 July 1968, 24.
13
UFWOC Newsletter, 1968, Folder 8, Box 8, MAFWM-UTA.
55
The stubborn Orendain had other plans. During his sojourn in Delano Orendain
reminisced about the Starr County Strike and thought he pinpointed where the union went
wrong: namely, by striking too quickly under Nelson and by focusing efforts on only one
grower, La Casita. He also realized that if the UFWOC was to succeed it needed Texas
because Texas produced 60-7
9pe
r
c
e
ntoft
hena
t
i
on’
smi
g
r
a
ntwor
k
e
r
s
.Hek
ne
wt
ha
tt
he
Va
l
l
e
ywa
s“
t
hebot
t
om oft
hes
oc
i
a
lba
r
r
e
l
”a
ndt
ha
tac
ol
l
e
c
t
i
v
eba
r
g
a
i
ni
ngc
ont
r
a
c
tc
ou
l
d
take years, but nevertheless he lobbied Chávez to be sent bac
ks
ohec
ou
l
d“
t
r
ya
g
a
i
n.
”By
now it was well known that Padilla was depressed and having trouble with alcoholism, so
who better to take his place as Texas director than the man who held the position
previously? Perhaps Orendain also wanted to distance himself from Chávez and the other
union leaders, and have more autonomous control over his own activities. Chávez relented,
and in March 1969 Orendain, with his wife Raquel, their five children and $350 from
Chávez, left Delano for the Río Grande Valley.14
Arriving on March 17, Orendain was determined to avoid the critical mistakes of
the Starr County strike. He wanted to avoid relying on the AFL-CIO or the churches for
outside help. This however proved unrealistic. Immediately, the AFL-CIO donated money
to k
e
e
pOr
e
nda
i
n’
sr
a
di
os
how g
oi
ngi
nt
heVa
l
l
e
y
,t
heAl
l
i
a
nc
ef
orLa
borAc
t
i
on(
t
he
Teamsters and the United Auto Workers) in Washington, D.C. donated land and an office
to the union, and the Kennedy Memorial Foundation provided three lawyers specifically
for the Texas movement. It appeared that Orendain was armed and ready once again.15
14
15
Ibid.
56
The radio program, La Voz del Campesino,
r
e
ma
i
ne
das
t
a
pl
eofOr
e
nda
i
n’
spr
e
s
e
nc
e
in the Valley for years. Broadcasting six days a week at 6 a.m. on KGBT 1530 in Harlingen,
Orendain used the fifteen-mi
nu
t
eS
pa
ni
s
hl
a
ng
u
a
g
epr
og
r
a
mt
o“
e
du
c
a
t
epe
opl
e
”a
nd
“
ma
k
epe
opl
et
hi
nk
”a
bou
tt
her
i
g
ht
soft
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
.Hea
l
s
ou
s
e
dt
hepr
og
r
a
mt
o
c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
ef
r
e
ee
nt
e
r
pr
i
s
e
,s
a
y
i
ngi
twor
k
e
d“
we
l
lf
ort
her
i
c
ha
nd e
du
c
a
t
e
d bu
tt
a
k
e
s
16
adv
a
nt
a
g
eoft
hepoora
ndu
ne
du
c
a
t
e
d.
”
Through the show he also promoted collective
bargaining and spent a large amount of time answering letters from listeners concerning
various issues. Orendain claimed his radio show was the most effective means of reaching
people in South Texas and North Mexico. Notably, the show received the continued
support and praise of Chávez, who thought it a good way to connect with the people.17 In
1969, Chávez had not yet lost faith in his Secretary-Treasurer.
Aside from rejuvenating the radio program, upon arrival Orendain made other
mov
e
s
.Fi
ndi
nga
n“
ope
nl
e
g
a
c
yofbi
t
t
e
r
ne
s
s
”t
ot
heu
ni
oni
nRí
oGr
a
ndeCi
t
y
,h
e
relocated union headquarters temporarily to McAllen, eventually moving again to San Juan
in Hidalgo County. Also, in response to complaints of poor funding for the previous
efforts, Orendain announced that there would be no striking until the union was
“
f
i
na
nc
i
a
l
l
ya
ndor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
ona
l
l
ya
bl
et
odos
o.
”Du
r
i
nghi
spe
r
i
oda
wa
yf
r
om t
heVa
l
l
e
y
,a
militant Chicano youth mov
e
me
ntde
v
e
l
ope
di
nS
ou
t
hTe
x
a
sa
nd,
i
nor
de
rt
oa
v
oi
d“
g
r
i
ng
o
ha
t
r
e
d
,
”Or
e
nda
i
na
nnou
nc
e
dapol
i
c
yoft
heu
ni
on“
a
v
oi
di
ngc
l
os
ec
ont
a
c
twi
t
hmi
l
i
t
a
ntor
16
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
rNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”Fol
de
r4,Box1
,For
tWor
t
hBoy
c
ot
tCoun
c
i
l
,Te
x
a
sLa
bor
Archives, University Library Special Collections, University of Texas at Arlington (hereafter FWBCUTA)
;Ca
r
rWi
n
n
,“
Th
eVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
n
t
,196
6-1967,
”98-99; Orendain interview by
Carr Winn, OHP-UTA.
17
I
bi
d.
;“
KGBTPr
og
r
a
m Summa
r
i
e
sUni
t
e
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sOr
g
a
n
i
z
i
ngCommi
t
t
e
e
,
”Fol
de
r1
4A,Box8,
MAFWM-UTA.
57
18
racist Mexican-Ame
r
i
c
a
ng
r
ou
ps
.
”
Though this would eventually change, Orendain hoped
to avoid a backlash from the politically powerful Anglo establishment.
Thus Orendain began his work, purposefully but quietly. One issue he did not
address was the Texas Rangers, but he did not have to –the lawsuit the union had brought
against them under Padilla was still pending and Walter Mondale, chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, toured the Valley in late March to learn of the
injustices Rangers committed against the workers in the spring of 1967.19 Or
e
nda
i
n’
sot
he
r
work was organizational in nature, tenaciously building support for the union.
Nevertheless, in one incident he did complain to the local press that labor contractors in
Hidalgo County were siphoning money from the pay of citrus pickers. However, the
newspaper article also criticized Orendain, saying he could not prove the charges. When
asked why he was not doing anything to rectify the situation, Orendain claimed that the
wor
k
e
r
swe
r
ea
pa
t
he
t
i
ca
nddi
dnotk
nowhowt
opr
ope
r
l
yc
ompl
a
i
n,bu
tt
ha
t“
t
heu
ni
on
20
was trying to change that
.
”
He was noticeably quiet in the press for the rest of the
summer, perhaps realizing that any local media attention given to the union would be
increasingly negative.
Orendain worked quietly for the rest of the summer. He claimed the union was
working “
u
nde
rt
heg
r
ou
nd”be
c
a
u
s
eba
s
e
dont
he
i
re
x
pe
r
i
e
nc
e
swi
t
hl
oc
a
la
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
st
he
y
could not work in the open. The media claimed that his activities were not stirring as much
18
Ri
c
h
a
r
d Ra
yBa
i
l
e
y
,“
Fa
r
m La
bora
n
dt
h
eSt
a
r
rCoun
t
y St
r
i
k
e
”(
M.
A.Th
e
s
i
s
,Te
x
a
sCh
r
i
s
t
i
a
n
University, 1973), 75-76.
19
Walter Mondale to Pancho Medrano, 3 April 1969, Folder 2, Box 1, PMP-UTA. Aside from the rough
h
a
n
dl
i
ngl
oos
ei
n
t
e
r
pr
e
t
a
t
i
onofTe
x
a
spi
c
k
e
t
i
ngl
a
wsdu
r
i
n
gOr
e
n
da
i
n’
sl
e
a
de
r
s
h
i
poft
h
eSt
a
r
rCou
nty
strike, the Rangers were accused of excessive violence and beating several union members during
Pa
di
l
l
a
’
st
e
nu
r
e
.
20
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ke
nn
e
t
hCl
a
r
k
,“
Un
i
onMa
nFa
i
l
st
oPr
ov
eupCh
a
r
g
e
sofUnf
a
i
rWa
g
e
,
”Valley Evening
Monitor, 7 July 1969, 1, 3A, Folder 5, Box 6a, MAFWM-UTA.
58
interest as they had in 1966, and that Orendain was hard to locate and reticent when found.
Hedi
d
,howe
v
e
r
,di
s
pu
t
eLaCa
s
i
t
a
’
sc
l
a
i
mt
ha
tt
heu
ni
ondi
dnotr
e
pr
e
s
e
nta
nyofi
t
s
wor
k
e
r
s
:“
Weha
v
eme
mbe
r
s
hi
pnow a
mongt
hewor
k
e
r
s
,
”het
ol
dal
oc
a
lr
e
por
t
e
ri
n
Au
g
u
s
t1
9
6
9
.
“
Ia
m notg
oi
ngt
os
a
yhowma
nybe
c
a
u
s
enoma
t
t
e
rwha
tnu
mbe
rIgive, the
l
oc
a
lpr
e
s
swou
l
dma
k
eami
nor
i
t
yofi
t
.
”Hea
l
s
os
c
of
f
e
da
tt
het
e
mpor
a
r
yi
nj
u
nc
t
i
on
a
g
a
i
ns
tpi
c
k
e
t
i
ng
,s
a
y
i
ng hedi
d notr
e
a
l
i
z
e9
0
0 da
y
swa
s“
t
e
mpor
a
r
y
.
” Hef
u
r
t
he
r
ruminated:
They say justice is blind. Justice is not blind at all –i
t
’
sj
u
s
tlooking at us
through the eyes of the power structure. When I first came to this country I was
c
ont
e
ntt
obr
e
a
kmyba
c
kf
or.
8
0c
e
nt
sa
nhou
r
.Iwa
s
n’
ta
n“
ou
t
s
i
de
r
”t
he
n.Iwa
s
just a good, hard-working Mexican. When I started trying to organize workers to
insist on a decent wage –t
ha
t
’
swhe
nIbe
c
a
mea
nou
t
s
i
de
r
.We
’
r
eg
oi
ngt
obehe
r
e
21
f
r
omnowon.
We
’
l
l
g
ou
nde
r
g
r
ou
nda
ndk
e
e
pr
i
g
htonwor
k
i
ng
.
Orendain was clearly much more jaded than when he arrived in the Valley in 1966.
Rhetorically he was angry and militant, a quality that does not appear in his public
statements during the Starr County strike. His growing alienation within the union may
have contributed to this, along with a realization that his current efforts might take years to
achieve fruition. However, for the time being he had to be patient, which he knew but did
not like.
The UFWOC was not concerned with Orendain and his activities, and for the time
remained focused on California. A group in Fort Worth sympathetic to the grape boycott
held a fundraiser to contribute to the Texas UFWOC, but their contribution was minimal.22
21
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Ga
r
yGa
r
r
i
s
on
,“
Un
i
onOr
g
a
n
i
z
e
r
sSt
i
l
lWor
k–Quietly –I
nt
h
eVa
l
l
e
y,
”San Angelo
Morning Standard Times, 10 August 1969, Folder 5, Box 6a, MAFWM-UTA.
22
Shirley Swallow to Boycotters, 22 July 1969, Folder 4, Box 1, FWBC-UTA; “
I
nv
i
t
a
t
i
ont
oBe
n
e
f
i
t
Coc
k
t
a
i
lPa
r
t
yFr
omShi
r
l
e
ySwa
l
l
ow,
”Fol
de
r3,Box1,FWBC-UTA.
59
23
Also in August Chávez went on another 25-da
yf
a
s
tf
or“
nonv
i
ol
e
nc
e
,
”
an event that was
applauded nationally by the union and its supporters but undoubtedly scoffed at by
Orendain.
As the summer of 1969 ended Orendain announced a major organizing drive to
commence the coming winter. The union planned to purchase an 8-acre plot of land for a
“
f
a
r
m wor
k
e
rs
e
r
v
i
c
ec
e
nt
e
r
,
”whi
c
hwou
l
di
nc
l
u
dehe
a
l
t
hs
e
r
v
i
c
e
sa
nda
ni
ns
u
r
ance plan.
The union was also working with Colonias del Valle,“
ac
ommu
ni
t
ys
e
l
f
-he
l
pg
r
ou
p”i
nt
he
Valley led by a union member. The groups encouraged voter registration and political
action as an important part of upcoming activities, and hoped to strengthen their numbers
through grass roots organizing. In reference to voter registration, Orendain remarked that
“
e
v
e
ni
ft
hewor
k
e
r
sa
r
ewi
t
hy
ou1
0
0
%,
y
ouc
a
n’
twi
nas
t
r
i
k
ehe
r
eu
nt
i
l
y
ouha
v
ec
ha
ng
e
d
s
omeoft
heba
s
i
cs
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
eoft
hee
s
t
a
bl
i
s
hme
nt
.
”Hea
lso again complained about the
injunction against picketing La Casita and about the fact that over 100 union members had
been arrested during the strike and not brought to trial, causing the union to have to pay
over $20,000 in bail to the local political establishment. He boldly proclaimed this was
going to stop:
We
’
r
eg
oi
ngt
oc
r
e
a
t
eane
ws
oc
i
a
la
ndpol
i
t
i
c
a
lor
de
rhe
r
ei
nTe
x
a
s
,whe
r
e
men are truly equal before the law; where the laws provide justice, not injustice;
where the police and judges seek to protect the innocent, not terrorize them. We
24
ha
v
eal
ongwa
yt
og
o.
Bu
twe
’
r
enotg
oi
ngt
ot
u
r
nba
c
k
,
ne
v
e
ra
g
a
i
n.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
nnou
nc
e
me
nts
i
g
na
l
e
dt
hee
ndofhi
s“
q
u
i
e
t
”wor
kdu
r
i
ngt
hes
u
mme
rof
1969. Although he was clearly much more cynical and jaded than before, Orendain's
23
“
Ch
a
v
e
zI
mpr
ov
e
s
!
”The Boycott Voice, 20 August 1969, 3, Folder 6, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
“
Or
e
n
da
i
nSpa
r
k
sUFWOCDr
i
v
ei
nTe
x
a
s
,
”El Malcriado, 15 August –15 September 1969, 13, Folder
4, Box 2, PMP-UTA.
24
60
statement raises the question of over-zealousness. Did he really believe the union could
change the social and political order of South Texas? It appears so, and it also appears he
was determined to not let anything stop him –not growers, authorities, or even his own
u
ni
on’
shi
e
r
a
r
c
hy
.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
mbi
t
i
ou
s
,t
hr
e
a
t
e
ni
ngs
t
a
t
e
me
ntmu
s
tha
v
et
a
k
e
nt
heg
r
owe
r
sa
nd
authorities aback. A few weeks before the organizing drive began, Orendain was espousing
25
non-violent social change as the u
ni
on’
sma
i
ng
oa
l
,
hoping to counteract the overzealous
i
ma
g
eofhi
ma
ndt
heu
ni
oni
nt
hel
oc
a
lme
d
i
a
.Anot
he
re
v
e
ntt
ha
tbe
ne
f
i
t
e
dt
heu
ni
on’
s
image was an appearance by Chávez in Fort Worth on November 26. The purpose of the
appearance –which included a press conference and Thanksgiving celebration –was to
26
pu
bl
i
c
i
z
et
heUFWOC’
sg
r
a
peboy
c
ot
ta
ndde
t
e
rr
i
s
i
ngg
r
a
pes
a
l
e
si
nNor
t
hTe
x
a
s
.
At the
press conference Chávez reiterated his nonviolent philosophy, saying under no
circumstance would the union turn to violence because non-violence was a much more
powerful weapon. He also made another interesting statement that went largely unnoticed.
Chá
v
e
zs
t
a
t
e
dhewa
nt
e
dt
or
e
ne
wt
he“
c
a
mpa
i
g
noft
heTe
x
a
sRi
oGr
a
ndeVa
l
l
e
ywhi
c
h
27
ha
df
a
i
l
e
di
n1
9
6
7
.
”
This is important because it lent credibility to what Orendain was
currently doing in the Valley, but Chávez would contradict himself over the next few years,
25
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Fa
r
mWor
k
e
rNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”7Nov
e
mbe
r1969,
Fol
de
r8,
Box8,MAFWM-UTA.
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ma
be
lGou
l
dy
,“
Ch
a
v
e
zt
oAppe
a
rHe
r
e
,
”Fort Worth Star Telegram, Evening Edition, 13
November 1969, 4-A, Folder 2, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
27
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Boy
c
ot
tLe
a
de
rAs
s
a
i
l
sGr
a
peAi
d,
”Fort Worth Star Telegram, 26 November 1969, Folder
2, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
26
61
repeatedly claiming the union was not ready to organize in Texas.28 Thus Orendain
erroneously believed Chávez would soon be ready to support activity in the Valley.
After his appearance in Fort Worth, Chávez went to McAllen on November 30.
There he reiterated his pledge to an audience of more than 1200 farm workers in the
McAllen Civic Auditorium, saying t
ha
ta
f
t
e
rt
heg
r
a
pes
t
r
i
k
ewa
sf
i
ni
s
he
d“
Te
x
a
swou
l
dbe
one of the top priority areas for organizing farm workers and building a truly national farm
wor
k
e
r
s
’u
ni
on.
”Hea
l
s
oc
l
a
i
me
dt
heUFWOCwa
s“
f
e
e
l
i
ngne
ws
t
r
e
ng
t
ha
ndv
i
t
a
l
i
t
yi
n
S
ou
t
hTe
x
a
s
,
”u
nde
rthe leadership of Orendain and his wife Raquel. Orendain, who also
spoke at the event, was highly enthused:
We want to stress that this union is for all workers, regardless of
citizenship. We are trying to help all farm workers, whether they are from Texas,
Mexico, or any other state. We have learned a lot from our past mistakes trying to
organize here in Texas. Now we are building the union from the ground up. No
flashy publicity, no dramatic but hopeless strikes. Just the hard work of organizing
a union and building it up until it is strong enough to win for the farm workers
those rights and benefits which other American workers enjoy.29
Several important conclusions can be drawn from the McAllen Convention. First, Chávez
truly meant what he said and at the time anticipated a full-fledged campaign in the Valley
when the grape strike ended. Second, Orendain had reason to trust Chávez –the union
leader publicly promised not just him but the workers themselves that a campaign was
nearing. Clearly Orendain did not see his coming alienation from Chávez. Finally, Orendain
publicly reiterated his commitment to the workers of South Texas, and demonstrated that
he planned on staying until victory was achieved.
28
Citing various concerns, Chávez repeatedly claimed the union was not ready to support strikes in South
Texas. For exampl
e
,s
e
e
,Ch
á
v
e
z
,“
Th
eOr
g
a
n
i
z
e
r
sTa
l
e
,
”i
nMexican Workers in the United States, 5762; De León, Mexican Americans in Texas, 138; Navarro, Mexican American Youth Organization, 33.
29
“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sont
h
eMa
r
c
h
:Ne
w Dr
i
v
ei
nRi
oGr
a
ndeVa
l
l
e
y
,
”El Malcriado, 15-30 November
1969, 7, NC-UTA.
62
The local press reacted with characteristic repugnancet
oChá
v
e
z
’
spr
e
s
e
nc
ei
nt
he
Valley, with one article in the Valley Morning Star s
a
y
i
ngt
ha
tChá
v
e
z
,“
af
r
i
e
ndoft
he
Ke
nne
d
y
’
sa
ndot
he
rbl
e
e
di
ng
-he
a
r
tl
i
be
r
a
l
s
…i
sdoi
ngs
pa
dewor
kf
oras
e
c
ondc
a
mpa
i
g
n”
t
ou
ni
oni
z
et
hea
r
e
a
’
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
.Chá
v
e
zwa
sa
l
so accused of favoring high taxes and
s
oc
i
a
l
i
s
ma
ndt
heS
t
a
r
rCou
nt
ys
t
r
i
k
ewa
sde
r
i
de
da
sa“
howl
i
ngf
l
op.
”Thes
t
r
i
k
ewa
sa
l
s
o
presented as too small and the union as falsely accusing the Texas Rangers of violence and
abuse.30 This negative press was prompted by a fear of the powerful Chávez making good
on his promise to bring the full power of the UFWOC into the Valley. Orendain issued a
r
e
s
pons
e
,c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
i
ngt
hel
oc
a
lpa
pe
r
sa
ndc
a
l
l
i
ngt
he
m a“
t
oolf
ort
hepowe
r
f
u
l
.
”Hea
l
s
o
accused a Valley Morning Star article of slandering the movement and telling lies. The article
had claimed the union dropped its suit against the Rangers, but Orendain argued they were
onl
ywa
i
t
i
ngf
ort
hede
c
i
s
i
onoft
hepr
e
v
i
ou
sy
e
a
r
’
st
r
i
a
lt
obema
de
.Heope
nl
yi
nv
i
t
e
d
31
debate froma
ny
onei
nt
heVa
l
l
e
ywhodi
dnot“
a
g
r
e
ewi
t
hu
s
.
”
After the McAllen Convention, Orendain continued his work. La Voz del Campesino
was drawing a huge response from Mexico where many pledged to support a future strike
and not break picket lines. Unfortunately, in late December 1969 the eight acres of land the
u
ni
onha
dpl
a
nne
dt
obu
ywa
sde
ni
e
dt
he
m be
c
a
u
s
eof“
whowewe
r
e
”a
nd“
ou
t
s
i
d
e
32
f
or
c
e
s
”a
l
s
os
hu
tdownt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
rme
di
c
a
lc
l
i
ni
c
.
Despite these setbacks, Orendain
was encouraged by the succes
soft
heor
g
a
ni
z
i
ngdr
i
v
ea
ndChá
v
e
z
’
sv
i
s
i
t
.ByJ
a
nu
a
r
y1
9
7
0
he predicted that a confrontation between the union and growers was imminent, but did
30
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ce
s
a
rCh
a
v
e
zi
nVa
l
l
e
yf
orUn
i
onSpa
deWor
k
,
”Valley Morning Star, 2 December 1969, 4,
31
Orendain to UFWOC, Folder 3, Box 9, MAFWM-UTA.
32
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Fa
r
mWor
k
e
rNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”Folder 6, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
63
not know when or where. He was eager for it – “
s
oone
rorl
a
t
e
rwewi
l
lha
v
ea
c
onf
r
ont
a
t
i
on.Idon’
tk
nowhowl
ongwewi
l
ls
t
a
ypa
t
i
e
nt
.
”Hedi
dnots
a
yhows
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
the recent organizing drive had been, but he did claim that aside from its regular members
the union had 2,000 signed cards from people saying they were willing to join and pay dues.
Although at present they were stressing organization and avoidance of confrontation (at
the behest of Chávez),33 a confrontation occurred in February 1970, although probably not
the kind Orendain was hoping for. In West Texas, the union struck Bud Antle Products, a
grower of lettuce, celery, artichokes, cabbage, carrots, and broccoli, for using scab labor.
The move, however, was directed out of Delano and not the Valley.34
On March 3, an organization called The Field Foundation, made up of doctors and
medical students, arrived in the Valley to check on the health of farm workers. The union
expected only 12-14 families to show up, but after a doctor from the McAllen Polyclinic
offered his well-equipped facilities, over 1000 workers arrived. The response was so
overwhelming that Orendain went on the radio and announced that no more people could
come because they would not be seen. However, the doctors did service everyone who
came,35 and the incident was indicative of the dire need of a health care program such as
the uni
on’
sde
f
u
nc
tme
di
c
a
l
c
e
nt
e
r
.
By April 1970 a general strike was still not planned, although Orendain did admit
that the union had quietly negotiated contracts with three separate growers. However, in
order to maintain his policy of a partial silence in the media, the names of these growers
33
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
An
ot
h
e
rUn
i
on
,Fa
r
me
rConf
r
on
t
a
t
i
oni
sSe
e
n,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 13 January 1970,
Folder 5, Box 6a, MAFWM-UTA.
34
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
UFWOCNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”Fe
br
u
a
r
y1970,Fol
de
r8,Box8,
MAFWM-UTA.
35
Lu
i
sMe
l
e
n
dr
e
z
,“
Edi
t
or
i
a
l
,
”The Boycott Voice, April 1970, 6-7, Folder 6, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
64
were not released.36 Also, in early May U.S. Senator Ralph Yarborough, a supporter of the
union and the grape boycott was defeated in the Democratic primary.37 The defeat of the
incumbent Yarborough was also a defeat fort
heu
ni
oni
nt
hena
t
i
on’
sc
a
pi
t
ol
.
Things remained quiet into the summer. In July Orendain announced the union
would fine strikebreakers. Since the picket lines at Bud Antle and in future strikes in Texas
would be non-violent, Orendain felt strikebreakers had little reason not to break union
pickets.38 Other than this declaration, Orendain made no headway in the summer of 1970.
However, this was not true for the union in California where a historic event occurred later
in the month. At 11:10 a.m. on July 29, the grape strike officially ended as the last 26 major
grape growers in California, led by the largest, Giumarra Vineyards, signed contracts with
the UFWOC. La Causa had come to a sudden but successful end.39
This turn of events raised the question of whether Chávez would honor his
pr
omi
s
et
oOr
e
nda
i
na
ndt
hewor
k
e
r
soft
u
r
ni
ngt
heu
ni
on’
sa
t
t
e
nt
i
ont
ot
heVa
l
l
e
y
.By
Au
g
u
s
t
,Or
e
nda
i
nwa
sope
nl
ys
a
y
i
ngt
ha
tt
het
i
mef
orTe
x
a
st
of
ol
l
ow “
t
hee
x
a
mpl
eof
40
Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
…e
a
c
hd
a
yi
sc
l
os
e
r
.
”
Unfortunately, this would not be the case, as on
September 1, 1970 the UFWOC led a massive strike in the lettuce fields in Salinas,
36
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Uni
t
e
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sOr
g
a
ni
z
i
ngCommi
t
t
e
e
,
”Apr
i
l1970,Fol
de
r8,Box8,MAFWMUTA.
37
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Un
i
t
e
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sOr
g
a
n
i
z
i
ngCommi
t
t
e
e
,
”Ma
y1970,Fol
de
r8
,Box8,MAFWMUTA; Winifred Hooper to Luis Melendrez, 19 May 1970, Folder 4, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
38
Untitled Document, 13 July 1970, Folder 3, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
39
“
Hu
e
l
g
aEn
ds
!
”El Malcriado, 1 August 1970, 4-8, NC-UTA.
40
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Uni
t
e
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sOr
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
gCommi
t
t
e
e
,
”Aug
us
t1970,Fol
de
r8,Bo
x8,MAFWMUTA.
65
Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
,f
ol
l
owe
dbyChá
v
e
z
’
sd
e
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
onofag
e
ne
r
a
lboy
c
ot
tofa
l
lhe
a
dl
e
t
t
u
c
eg
r
own
in California and Arizona.41
The lettuce strike seemed a sudden move by Chávez. Why did he suddenly decide
to boycott lettuce growers, instead of turning union efforts to the Río Grande Valley as he
had promised in McAllen? Unfortunately, the Teamsters were the reason. The rival union
had signed several lettuce growers in Salinas and other parts of California to contracts, and
ha
dde
s
i
g
nsonot
he
rf
r
u
i
ta
ndv
e
g
e
t
a
bl
ei
ndu
s
t
r
i
e
s
.Thu
sChá
v
e
z
’
sq
u
i
c
ka
c
t
i
ont
opr
ot
e
c
t
42
t
heUFWOC’
ss
t
a
ndi
nga
st
hepr
e
mi
e
rf
a
r
ml
a
boror
g
a
ni
z
e
ri
su
nde
r
s
t
a
nda
bl
e
.
It was
fortunate for him that the grape strike ended when it did, because this afforded him time to
focus on the lettuce growers. It was unfortunate, however, for Orendain, who was ready
for a strike in Texas. Not only did the lettuce strike delay action in the Río Grande Valley,
but general organizing in the Valley was also canceled indefinitely. All UFWOC members
were expected to contribute to the lettuce boycott, and Orendain was the only UFWOC
organizer allowed to remain in Texas for other purposes.43 Starving for support, his efforts
remained nominal at best; although ready to strike, Orendain deferred to Chávez and
remained loyal to the cause. He had good reason to protest –Chávez had gone back on his
word by starting the lettuce strike, but what could Orendain do?Hea
c
c
e
pt
e
dt
hi
s“
s
l
i
g
ht
”
quietly, but undoubtedly it contributed to the developing rift between the two.
41
“
Te
nTh
ou
s
a
n
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sonSt
r
i
k
ei
nCa
l
i
f
or
n
i
a
,
”El Malcriado, 1 September 1970, NC-UTA;
The Boycott Voice, October 1970, Folder 4, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
42
Levy, Cesar Chavez, 421-422.
43
Luis Melendrez to Shirley Swallow, 3 October 1970, Folder 11, Box 1, Migrant Farm Workers
Collection, Texas Labor Archives, University Library Special Collections, University of Texas at
Arlington (hereafter MFWC-UTA).
66
In October Orendain received a grant for 10 acres of land to build a union building
in Alamo, Texas, but this was a somewhat phyrric victory. In newsletters he authored, he
c
ont
i
nu
ou
s
l
yr
a
i
l
e
da
g
a
i
ns
tt
he“
t
e
mpor
a
r
y
”i
nj
u
nc
t
i
ont
ha
tpr
ohi
bi
t
e
dpi
c
k
e
t
i
ngLaCa
s
i
t
a
,
while brandishing support for the lettuce strike and boycott. However, by October he
exhibited increased frustration, complaining bitterly about the treatment of Mexican
Americans in the Valley and citing specific cases of anti-Mexican racism.44 With little help
f
r
om t
heu
ni
on a
nd u
na
bl
et
o ma
k
ea
nya
dv
a
nc
e
s
,Or
e
nda
i
n’
sne
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
sg
a
v
et
he
impression that he was idle and that Local 2 was ine
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
.Bu
ti
nr
e
a
l
i
t
yOr
e
nda
i
n’
s
hands were tied, as there was simply nothing for him to do. In the November newsletter,
heboa
s
t
e
dt
ha
tov
e
r7
0
0wor
k
e
r
swe
r
epa
y
i
ngdu
e
s“
wi
t
ht
hedr
e
a
mt
he
ywou
l
dha
v
ea
u
ni
oni
nTe
x
a
s
”a
ndt
ha
tt
hou
s
a
ndsmor
eha
ds
i
g
ned authorization cards.45 Had having a
u
ni
oni
nTe
x
a
sbe
c
omeonl
ya“
dr
e
a
m”f
ort
hewor
k
e
r
s
?Or
e
nda
i
nt
hou
g
hts
o,u
nwi
t
t
i
ng
l
y
displaying increased frustration with the movement in general.
With his ability to make progress hamstrung, the rest of winter and the spring of
the coming year were deafeningly quiet for Orendain. Chávez visited the Valley on
February 8, 1971 to talk with his organizers and check on unionization progress, but his
main purpose was to visit lettuce boycott councils in Houston and Austin.46 On June 21
Chávez declared a boycott of Arizona table grapes,47 a move that would ensure further
delays to begin striking in the Valley. Orendain was forced to continue waiting and was still
making no headway in organizing the Río Grande Valley farm workers. If Chávez had no
44
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Oc
t
obe
rNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”Oc
t
obe
r1
970
,Fol
der 8, Box 8, MAFWM-UTA.
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Nov
e
mbe
rNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”Nov
e
mbe
r1970,Fol
d
e
r8,Box8,MAFWM-UTA.
46
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ch
a
v
e
zVi
s
i
tt
oVa
l
l
e
ySe
t
,
”Valley Evening Monitor, 15 January 1971, Folder 6, Box 6a,
MAFWM-UTA.
47
“
For
tWor
t
hBoy
c
ot
tNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”21J
une 1971, Folder 10, Box 2, MFWC-UTA.
45
67
designs on organizing in the Valley, as he later claimed, it seems curious that he did not pull
Or
e
nda
i
nou
t
,r
a
t
he
rt
ha
nl
e
a
v
ehi
mi
nTe
x
a
swi
t
ht
he“
dr
e
a
m”ofa
na
c
t
i
v
eu
ni
onc
omi
ng
to fruition.
Thus 1971 passed quietly and uneventfully for Orendain, who still believed that
Chávez would honor his pledge sometime in the future. Aside from the California-based
union changing its name to the United Farm Workers (UFW) in February, things remained
quiet until April of 1972. In an amusing incident, sixty picketers in Austin sympathetic to
t
heu
ni
on“
i
nv
a
de
da$
1
0
0
- [per] plate fund-raising dinner for Republican Senator John G.
Towe
r
,
”apol
i
t
i
c
i
a
nwhowa
sope
nl
yhos
t
i
l
et
ou
ni
one
f
f
or
t
sa
mongTe
x
a
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
.
Five of the picketers entered an elevator with the senator, peppering him with
48
“
e
mba
r
r
a
s
s
i
ng
”q
u
e
s
t
i
onsc
onc
e
r
ni
ngwhyhedi
dnots
u
ppor
tt
hewor
k
e
r
s
.
Though a
moral victory, the incident did little to advance the cause of the workers.
In June 1972, William Lucey, Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSME), donated $46,310 to the UFW to be
used in the Arizona grape boycott. As Secretary-Treasurer of the union, Orendain was on
hand to accept the donation at the organization’
sc
onf
e
r
e
nc
ei
nPhoe
ni
x
:
Asf
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
,wes
t
i
l
ldon’
tha
v
et
her
i
g
htt
opu
tapr
i
c
eont
hes
we
a
tof
our brow, a right which should be sacred because it is the only one God has given
u
s
.S
oa
l
lwec
a
ndot
ot
ha
nkbr
ot
he
rWi
l
l
i
a
ma
ndhi
su
ni
oni
st
os
a
y“
may God
bl
e
s
sy
ou
,
”a
ndt
opr
e
s
e
nthi
m wi
t
honeofou
rhuelga flags, which represents all that
we have struggled for during the past seven years.49
Thr
e
eda
y
sa
f
t
e
rr
e
c
e
i
v
i
ngt
heAFS
MEc
he
c
k
,t
he“
t
e
mpor
a
r
y
”i
nj
u
nc
t
i
ona
g
a
i
ns
tpi
c
k
e
t
i
ng
La Casita was finally removed, and federal judges ruled that the Texas Rangers had used
48
Levy, Cesar Chavez,453;“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
rBoy
c
ot
tofRe
pu
bl
i
c
a
nPa
r
t
ySpr
e
a
ds
,
”El Malcriado, 28
April 1972, 10, NC-UTA.
49
“
AFSMEDon
a
t
e
s$46,
310t
oLaCa
us
a
,
”El Malcriado, 23 June 1972, 7, NC-UTA.
68
“
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
ef
or
c
e
”a
g
a
i
ns
ts
t
r
i
k
e
r
si
nt
hes
u
mme
rof1
9
6
7
.Cha
r
g
e
spe
ndi
ng a
g
a
i
ns
t
Orendain and other union members were also dropped.
Mos
tr
e
v
e
a
l
i
nga
bou
tt
hec
ou
r
t
’
sde
c
i
s
i
onwa
sOr
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
a
c
t
i
ont
oi
t
.A r
u
l
i
ng
s
u
c
ha
st
hi
ss
hou
l
dha
v
ebe
e
nc
e
l
e
br
a
t
e
d,
bu
ti
ns
t
e
a
dOr
e
nda
i
ns
ou
nde
dj
a
de
d:
“
I
t
’
sk
i
ndof
as
u
r
pr
i
s
ea
f
t
e
rs
i
xy
e
a
r
s
.
Bu
tIdon’
tf
e
e
lg
ooda
bou
ti
t
.Myor
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onha
sbe
e
ns
i
xy
e
a
r
s
waiting on the results of justice. Someu
ni
onme
mbe
r
sha
v
ea
l
r
e
a
dydi
e
d.
”I
nEl Malcriado,
Or
e
nda
i
ns
a
i
d“
t
hede
c
i
s
i
oni
sq
u
i
t
eas
u
r
pr
i
s
et
ome
;i
tha
sbe
e
ns
u
c
hal
ongt
i
me
.The
de
c
i
s
i
onbr
i
ng
su
sv
e
r
yl
i
t
t
l
es
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
on.
”Hea
dd
e
dt
ha
twha
twa
si
mpor
t
a
nta
f
t
e
rs
i
xy
e
a
r
s
of struggle was tha
tt
heu
ni
onwa
s“
s
t
i
l
lpr
e
s
e
nta
ndg
r
owi
ngs
t
r
ong
e
ri
nt
heRi
oGr
a
nd
e
50
Va
l
l
e
y
.
”
These were clearly not the words of a satisfied unionist. Although he qualified
his remarks about the injunction, the recent events and being forced to wait for Chávez to
help him had clearly increased his frustration.
Onepos
i
t
i
v
ede
v
e
l
opme
nti
nS
e
pt
e
mbe
r1
9
7
2wa
st
ha
tc
ons
t
r
u
c
t
i
onoft
heu
ni
on’
s
new headquarters in San Juan, El Cuhamil, was underway. The workers were themselves
constructing the building during weekends and their spare time.51 It would be over a year
before the union would enjoy its new building, but for the time Orendain sounded hopeful.
In October he announced another major organizing drive to commence in December. A
health insurance plan, official newspaper, and the reestablishment of a farm worker service
center were also being planned.52 These were important developments, but the union still
50
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
LaCa
s
i
t
aI
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
onRe
mov
a
lSe
e
n
,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 27 June 1972, Folder 8, Box 8,
MAFWM-UTA;“
La
wa
n
dOr
de
rTu
r
n
sAg
a
i
ns
tt
h
eRi
c
h
,
”El Malcriado, 1 September 1972, 4, NCUTA.
51
“
Con
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
onofCuh
a
mi
lCon
t
i
nu
e
s
,
”El Malcriado, 1 September 1972, 4, NC-UTA. El Cuhamil was
a Mexican-Indian term that referred to land that could only be worked by hand –applicable since the
workers themselves were building the offices.
52
“
UFWOCi
nTe
x
a
s
,
”The Boycott Voice, 28 October 1972, 2, Folder 6, Box 1, FWBC-UTA.
69
ha
dma
denohe
a
dwa
yort
a
k
e
na
c
t
i
ona
g
a
i
ns
tt
heg
r
owe
r
ss
i
nc
eOr
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
t
u
r
nt
ot
he
Valley in 1969. However, in October 1972 they made their first actual push to improve
things for the workers. The U. S. Department of Agriculture had set aside 10,000 acres of
land in Texas to be developed for sugar cane and the UFW submitted a proposal for
collective bargaining andv
a
r
i
ou
swor
k
e
r
s
’r
i
g
ht
s
.Thepr
opos
a
lwa
sr
e
j
e
c
t
e
da
ndwa
g
e
s
were set at $1.85 for labor and $2.10 for tractor and truck drivers. Orendain argued that
“
t
hewa
g
eof$
1
.
8
5a
nd$
2
.
1
0
,a
l
t
hou
g
h be
t
t
e
rwa
g
e
st
ha
n be
f
or
e
,a
r
es
t
i
l
lnotj
u
s
t
considering the fact that the government guarantees the grower a set premium price for the
53
s
u
g
a
rc
a
ne
.
”
Thus Orendain and the union soldiered on but as time kept passing still no
gains were made.
By January 1973, El Cuhamil was finished and the first farm worker meeting had
been held there the previous November, with between 450 to 500 workers present.54
Cl
e
a
r
l
y
,de
s
pi
t
et
heu
ni
on’
si
na
bi
l
i
t
yt
os
t
r
i
k
e
,t
he
i
ror
g
a
ni
z
i
nge
f
f
or
t
sa
tl
e
a
s
tha
dbe
e
n
effective and the workers were still showing interest in the union itself. It is also notable
that despite union inaction in Texas the movement was still alive and well in California and
Arizona. Violence was common –several strikers had been beaten up and frustrated
g
r
owe
r
swe
r
eof
t
e
nt
ur
ni
ngt
ov
i
ol
e
nc
e
.Fore
x
a
mpl
e
,t
heUFW’
sc
o-op gas station near
Delano had been bombed on January 17, 1973.55 This again led Chávez to publicly reiterate
t
heu
ni
on’
snonv
i
ol
e
nts
t
a
nc
ei
nt
hef
a
c
eofs
u
c
hoppos
i
t
i
on.
I
nJ
u
ne1
9
7
3Bi
l
lCha
ndl
e
rr
e
t
u
r
ne
dt
oTe
x
a
s
,bu
tt
hi
st
i
met
odi
r
e
c
tt
heUFW’
s
boycott from Dallas. New boycott offices were also opened in Fort Worth, Austin, and
53
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
UFWOCOc
t
obe
rNe
ws
l
e
t
t
e
r
,
”Oc
t
obe
r19
72,
Ov
e
r
s
i
z
eBox8,MAFWM-UTA.
“
ElCuh
a
mi
l
,
”El Malcriado, 26 January 1973, 5, NC-UTA.
55
“
Gr
owe
rVi
ol
e
n
c
eCa
nn
otSt
opOu
rMov
e
me
n
t
,
”El Malcriado, 9 February 1973, 2, NC-UTA.
54
70
Houston56 but no union members were sent to assist Orendain in the Valley, indicating
Chá
v
e
zs
t
i
l
l
ha
dnoi
nt
e
nt
i
onof“
r
e
s
t
a
r
t
i
ng
”t
heS
t
a
r
rCou
nt
ys
t
r
i
k
e
.
Byt
hi
st
i
me
,
t
he Texas
UFW was simply being ignored. As another uneventful summer passed, the UFW
announced its first convention to take place on September 21 in Fresno, California, where
such things as official policy, rules, and regulations would be discussed. Elections were also
he
l
df
orne
w of
f
i
c
e
r
s
,wi
t
ht
heonl
yma
j
orc
ha
ng
ebe
i
ngGi
l
be
r
tPa
di
l
l
a
’
se
l
e
c
t
i
ona
s
Secretary-Treasurer, replacing Orendain.57
It is unclear why Orendain was voted out, but he may have been happy with the
decision. He had always agreed with people who criticized him and said he was too
uneducated for the position,58 and now he would be free to spend all of his time organizing
in the Río Grande Valley. The move succeeded in completely ostracizing Orendain from
the rest of the union leadership and was probably applauded by Dolores Huerta and
others, although it is unclear what Chávez felt. Nevertheless, the coming events that took
place in 1975 indicated that Orendain might have purposefully been left out, but it is
impossible to determine with any certainty.
In an article in El Malcriado i
nNov
e
mbe
r1
9
7
3t
ha
tg
a
v
ea“
r
u
ndown”ofUFW
activities in Texas, Orendain and the Río Grande Valley farm workers were completely
ignored, as was the question of whether their cause would be revived.59 Again, whether the
union was purposefully ignoring Orendain is difficult to determine, but it seems odd that
such an important part of the Texas branch of the union would be left out. With nothing
56
“
Ne
wTe
x
a
sBoy
c
ot
tOf
f
i
c
e
s
,
”El Malcriado, 29 June 1973, 7, NC-UTA.
“
Conv
e
n
t
i
onCa
l
l
,
”El Malcriado,21Se
pt
e
mbe
r1973,7
;“
Pr
e
s
e
nt
i
ngt
h
eNa
t
i
on
a
lExe
c
u
t
i
v
eBoa
r
d,
”
El Malcriado, 19 October 1973, 8, both in NC-UTA.
58
59
“
Te
x
a
s
?
”El Malcriado, 2 November 1973, 7, NC-UTA.
57
71
to do, in November Orendain agreed to participate in the Texas boycott of scab produce
from California. After a brief picketing campaign covering twenty stores in the Río Grande
Valley, including K-Mart, Kroger Family Center, and Globe, all agreed to not sell California
s
c
a
bpr
odu
c
e
.Or
e
nda
i
ns
t
a
t
e
d,“
v
i
c
t
or
i
e
sov
e
rt
hese by picketing gave us a strong tool in
60
ne
g
ot
i
a
t
i
ngwi
t
ht
heot
he
rs
t
or
e
s
.
”
But the victory was bittersweet, as the UFW clearly
gave the grape and lettuce boycotts precedence over organizing and striking South Texas
growers. Orendain and his cause were becoming increasingly alienated.
The boycott efforts intensified, and starting in December every weekend a group of
100-250 farm workers led by Orendain picketed 5 of the 13 area H.E.B. stores, also
targeting Safeway. Thus December came and went, and the New Year dawned as
uneventfully as ever for Orendain, followed by yet another year of inaction in the Valley.
The movement struggled in California in 1974 as the UFW lost several contracts to the
Teamsters. This caused rumors that the UFW had reached its demise, but Chávez refuted
this, publicly arguing the union was alive and well.61 The antagonism of the Teamsters
occupied the UFW leader completely in 1974, as had an increased willingness by UFW
picket captains in Arizona to use violence against strikebreakers.62 Thu
s
,Chá
v
e
z
’
si
g
nor
i
ng
of the Texas farm workers is explainable –he had to curtail violence and also win back the
lost contracts. However, as Orendain waited idly by neither he nor Chávez realized what
wa
sa
bou
tt
o ha
ppe
ni
n1
9
7
5
.Or
e
nda
i
n’
sr
elationship with the UFW was about to
completely unravel.
60
“
Ri
oGr
a
n
deVa
l
l
e
yBoy
c
ot
tAdv
a
n
c
e
s
,
”El Malcriado, 16 November 1973, 8, NC-UTA.
“
Te
x
a
sAg
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
lLa
borRe
l
a
t
i
onsPr
oj
e
c
t
,
”Fol
de
r8
,Ma
r
i
aG.Fl
or
e
sPa
pe
r
s
,Ra
r
eBook
sa
n
d
Manuscripts, Benson Latin American Collection, University of Texas at Austin (hereafter MGFP-UT);
“
Ch
a
v
e
zSpe
a
ksonUFW Fi
gh
t
,
”El Malcriado, January –February 1975, Section 1, 11, NC-UTA.
62
Del Castillo and García, Cesar Chavez, 164-166.
61
72
In November 1974, Chávez reassigned Orendain to the boycott in Chicago.
Orendain complied, reluctantly closing the office in San Juan and relocating to the Windy
City. According to Orendain, orders we
r
ef
ol
l
owe
d“
t
ot
het
e
e
,
”bu
tt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
sof
63
S
ou
t
hTe
x
a
s“
c
ont
i
nu
e
dt
ou
ni
t
e
”a
nda
s
kwhyhel
e
f
t
.
While in Chicago, Orendain
reassessed his priorities and whether his ideas fit well with UFW plans:
For three months I was evaluating myself, to see how much I wanted to
be
l
ongt
oabi
gu
ni
on,ag
r
e
a
tu
ni
on…bu
tIs
a
i
d,r
e
me
mbe
rt
hi
sg
r
e
a
tu
ni
onaf
e
w
years back was a very small union, and that was the time I joined the union. And
nowi
t
’
smu
c
hbi
g
g
e
r
.Andmys
e
r
v
i
c
e
st
ot
heu
ni
onc
omef
r
om wha
tk
nowl
edge I
ha
v
ei
nor
g
a
ni
z
i
nga
ndt
r
y
i
ngt
opu
tpe
opl
et
og
e
t
he
r
.
I
t
’
sl
i
k
ei
fy
ouha
v
eat
r
e
e–or
myself, I compare myself to a cactus, a prickly pear cactus which gives a prickly
fruit every year. At one time, in the beginning, those prickly pears were good, at the
beginning of the union, that kind of fruit was good.
The
nt
heu
ni
onors
ome
onei
nt
heu
ni
ons
a
y
st
ha
tf
r
om nowont
he
ydon’
t
need prickly pears, they need apples or some other kind of fruit. But a tree never
c
ha
ng
e
s
;a
l
li
t
sl
i
f
ei
t
’
sg
oi
ngt
opr
oduce the same fruit, so I started thinking that if
wha
tIpr
odu
c
ei
s
n’
tg
ooda
nymor
eIwi
l
l
ha
v
et
os
t
a
r
tt
hi
nk
i
ngofdoi
ngs
ome
t
hi
ng
64
else, or of trying to give whatever fruit they need.
After considering the situation and the pleas of the workers, it was clear to him the workers
i
nTe
x
a
s“
wa
nt
e
da
c
t
i
on[
t
ha
t
]wa
sbe
i
ngde
ni
e
dt
he
m wi
t
hou
ta
nye
x
pl
a
na
t
i
on.
”Thu
s
,i
n
January 1975 Orendain returned to the Valley to help the workers, against the wishes of
Chávez.65
Or
e
nda
i
na
ndRa
q
u
e
lha
dwor
k
e
di
n“
s
e
l
f
-i
mpos
e
de
x
i
l
e
”f
ort
hel
a
s
te
i
g
hty
e
a
r
s
,
and had too much invested in the cause of the Valley farm workers to abandon them. They
be
l
i
e
v
e
dt
he
yha
dwa
i
t
e
dl
onge
nou
g
h;Chá
v
e
z
’
sopi
ni
onwa
st
ha
ti
twa
s“
be
t
t
e
rnott
o
tackle Texas again until the UFW had grown out of its infancy, and could concentrate its
63
Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005;Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Ope
nLe
t
t
e
rt
oWhome
v
e
rDe
s
i
r
e
s
J
u
s
t
i
c
ef
ort
h
eFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
,
”29Oc
t
obe
r19
75,Fol
de
r1
5,
MGFP-UT.
64
Untitled interview of Orendain, Folder 12, MGFP-UT.
65
Or
e
n
da
i
ni
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w byt
h
ea
u
t
h
or
,11J
a
n
u
a
r
y2005;Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Ope
nLe
t
t
e
rt
oWhome
v
e
r Desires
J
u
s
t
i
c
ef
ort
h
eFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
,
”29Oc
t
obe
r19
75,Fol
de
r1
5,
MGFP-UT.
73
66
f
u
l
la
t
t
e
nt
i
onont
hev
a
l
l
e
y
.
”
It was unclear to Orendain how a 13-year old union could
s
t
i
l
lbei
ni
t
s“
i
nf
a
nc
y
”a
ndher
e
a
l
i
z
e
di
fhec
ont
i
nu
e
df
ol
l
owi
ngChá
v
e
z
’
sdi
r
e
c
t
i
ont
he
Texas workers would have no hope for a better future. Thus he gave up on Chávez and
was tired of waiting –it was time to act alone.
However, for the time being he persisted under the auspices of the UFW. Without
the blessing of Chávez, on May 19, 1975 Orendain and a small group of wor
k
e
r
s“
be
g
a
n
or
g
a
ni
z
i
ngag
e
ne
r
a
ls
t
r
i
k
ei
nt
heme
l
onha
r
v
e
s
ti
nt
heRi
oGr
a
ndeVa
l
l
e
yofTe
x
a
s
.
”
Orendain had a well-thought plan for the upcoming strike:
Wedon’
twa
ntt
og
e
tt
i
e
ddownt
ooneg
r
owe
rl
i
k
ewedi
di
n1
9
6
7
.Ou
r
strength is that this time we have many more enemies and many more friends. I
don’
tt
hi
nkas
t
r
i
k
ei
nt
hev
a
l
l
e
yi
sg
oi
ngt
obewonwi
t
haboy
c
ot
t
.
I
tt
a
k
e
st
ool
ong
and ties down too many people.
Asoneobs
e
r
v
e
rnot
e
d,i
g
nor
i
ngaboy
c
ot
twa
s“
he
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
”t
oUFW s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
.Bydoi
ngt
his,
Orendain was showing his impatience with the union, not wanting to waste any more time
wa
i
t
i
nga
ndpl
a
nni
ng
.Af
t
e
rs
t
a
r
t
i
ngt
hes
t
r
i
k
ehewa
nt
e
dt
oc
ont
i
nu
ei
t“
onahi
ta
ndr
u
n
ba
s
i
s
,
”a
ndf
ol
l
owt
hede
l
a
y
e
dme
l
onha
r
v
e
s
tt
hr
ou
g
hWe
s
tTe
x
a
sa
ndi
nt
othe Panhandle.
Hopefully, this tactic would generate enough pressure on growers to lead to collective
bargaining legislation.
Picketing began on May 20 and focused on La Casita, although it was initially
unsuccessful in drawing workers from the fields. On May 26, most of the organizers, about
20 to 25, went to La Casita to picket. Orendain and two others went to the international
bridge between Reynosa and Hidalgo, and using a bullhorn convinced a crowd of about
3,000 commuters not to go to work. Orendain and the union members were shocked at the
66
Br
u
c
eCor
y
,“
LaHu
e
l
g
a–1975,
”r
e
pr
i
n
t
e
df
r
om Texas Observer, 20 June 1975, 1-2, in La Voz Del
Cuhamil, 30 Junio 1975, 1, Oversize Box 8, MAFWM-UTA.
74
size of the crowd, and for a while did not know what to do with the 1,500 who remained at
the bridge. Eventually, they decided to lead a march to nearby El Texano Ranch, with
designs on convincing more workers to join the strike. Unfortunately, violence erupted –
C.L. Miller, manager of El Texano, burst onto the scene and opened fire with a shotgun,
wounding eleven but thankfully killing none. Details from the incident varied depending on
who was asked: Orendain claime
d“
t
ot
hebe
s
tofmyk
nowl
e
dg
e
,t
heor
g
a
ni
z
e
r
sne
v
e
r
s
t
r
a
y
e
df
r
omac
ou
nt
yr
oa
d;
”Mi
l
l
e
ra
r
g
u
e
dt
ha
twor
k
e
r
sha
dt
hr
own“
r
oc
k
sa
ndme
l
ons
”a
t
his truck, and were trespassing on El Texano property. Either way, when the police arrived
they told Miller he had the right to do what he did, and after a night in jail he was freed on
$15,000 bond and never convicted of a crime.67
Because of the shooting, the strike quickly ballooned to about 3,000 workers.68
Area growers also united after the incident, forming a legal defense committee and
requesting the use of the Texas Rangers, which was denied. However, the growers were
de
t
e
r
mi
ne
dt
or
e
a
pt
heme
l
onc
r
op,e
v
e
ni
f
,a
sonema
na
g
e
rf
r
om ElTe
x
a
nos
a
i
d,“
t
he
r
e
wa
sal
i
t
t
l
ebl
oodont
he
m.
”I
nde
e
d,t
hev
i
ol
e
nc
ec
ont
inued. On May 29, a local rancher
named Othol Brand drove through a crowd of strikers and rammed a pickup from which a
union member was speaking through a bullhorn. The next day, unionist Armando Acosta
was shot and nearly killed while driving near union headquarters in San Juan.
The strikers also reacted violently, and Orendain recognized he had a problem with
u
nr
u
l
i
ne
s
s
:
“
S
e
v
e
nt
y
-f
i
v
epe
r
c
e
ntoft
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
sa
r
ef
r
om Re
y
nos
a
,
a
ndt
he
ydon’
twor
r
ys
o
67
I
bi
d;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
10Sh
otbyVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
me
r
;
”c
l
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
onMe
nGe
tSh
otAt
,
”Valley Morning Star,
29Ma
y1975;c
l
i
p
pi
n
g
,“
Pol
i
c
eEs
c
or
tMe
l
on
sPa
s
tPr
ot
e
s
t
e
r
s
,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 29 May 1975, all
in Folder 16, MGFP-UT.
68
Dou
g
l
a
sKe
l
l
a
r
,“
ABr
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sUn
i
on
,
”Fol
de
r8,MGFP-UT.
75
much about breaking the law over there. They give our pic
k
e
tc
a
pt
a
i
nsaha
r
dt
i
me
.
”
Reynosa was across the border and laws were much more sympathetic to workers there
than in Texas. Also, a militant Chicano group called the Brown Berets was providing
u
ns
ol
i
c
i
t
e
d“
he
l
p”t
oOr
e
nda
i
n’
se
f
f
or
t
sa
nda
c
t
e
dv
i
ol
e
nt
l
yin some circumstances.69
The Miller shooting appalled Chávez, but he was also appalled that violence was
happening in the name of the UFW. In late May 1975, Walter Cronkite delivered a story on
the evening news concerning UFW members using violence against non-union workers in
the Valley. Chávez gave Orendain a tongue-l
a
s
hi
ng
,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
i
ti
st
hemos
ts
i
c
k
e
ni
ngs
how
of farm workers carrying out violent acts against other workers we have seen in our history.
70
We cannot and will not support these kinds of actions
.
”
Cl
e
a
r
l
y
,Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
s
s
oc
i
a
t
i
on
with the union was tenuous, but this is unfortunate –never had he condoned or ordered
violence, and perhaps if Chávez became involved with the strike his influence could have
curtailed it. Nevertheless, Orendain took a bold risk in striking on his own and was willing
to pay the price.
Shortly after the shooting, 400 union members gathered on the road outside of El
Texano and blocked several trucks carrying melons for over two hours. Upon arrival
Orendain broke the demonstration up, as he had not sanctioned the event. He witnessed
strikers beat on the trucks as they passed, and hoped to curtail more violence.71 The union
leader was trying to regain control of events.
69
Br
u
c
eCor
y
,“
LaHu
e
l
g
a–1975,
”r
e
pr
i
n
t
e
df
r
om Texas Observer, 20 June 1975, 1-2, in La Voz Del
Cuhamil, 30 Junio 1975, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
70
Chávez to Orendain, 28 May 1975, Folder 9, Box 1, MFWC-UTA.
71
“
Pol
i
c
eEs
c
or
tMe
l
on
sPa
s
tPr
ot
e
s
t
or
s
,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 29 May 1975, Folder 16, MGFP-UT.
76
Events had indeed gotten out of hand, and calls for nonviolence were made from
many quarters. On June 1, a Catholic priest delivering mass in Hidalgo for 600 union
sympathizers called for nonviolence from both sides. The next day, attorneys for the union
and La Casita reached an agreement allowing for peaceful picketing on public roads near
farm property. Orendain was questioned on the legality of picketing tactics and each side
established the rules for demonstrations.72 On June 5 Orendain called for a candlelight vigil
outside of Griffin-Brand Farms in McAl
l
e
nt
odr
a
ma
t
i
z
et
heu
ni
on’
sq
u
e
s
tf
ore
l
e
c
t
i
ons
and to promote nonviolence.73
Also in June 1975, Hidalgo County judges announced they were considering
worker elections to determine the popularity of unionism in the Valley. Orendain rejected
the idea, fearing the judges were corrupt and would falsify election records.74 The judges
were not the only ones accused of corruption. In early June Orendain authored a press
r
e
l
e
a
s
ec
ha
r
g
i
ngac
ons
pi
r
a
c
ya
mong“
t
hes
he
r
i
f
f
’
sde
pa
r
t
me
nt
,j
u
s
t
i
c
e
soft
hepe
a
c
e
,a
nd
othe
rl
a
we
nf
or
c
e
me
ntpe
r
s
onne
lt
ode
pr
i
v
ef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
sofa
c
c
e
s
st
ot
hec
ou
r
t
s
.
”Hea
l
s
o
a
c
c
u
s
e
dt
hes
he
r
i
f
f
’
sde
pa
r
t
me
ntofs
t
a
k
i
ngou
tu
ni
on he
a
dq
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
,f
ol
l
owi
ngu
ni
on
members, unlawful questioning, abuse of arrested strikers, and he accused local judges of
refusing to accept written complaints of unlawful activity perpetrated against the union.75
Despite these setbacks Orendain vowed to keep the strike alive through August.
On June 12 he spoke at an Austin Friends of the Farm Workers Meeting, where he stated
72
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
UFW Ch
a
ng
e
sSt
r
a
t
e
gy i
n Di
s
pu
t
e
,
”Dallas Morning News, 2 June 1975; clipping,
“
Pe
a
c
e
f
u
lPi
c
k
e
t
i
ngOK’
df
orFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Un
i
on
,
”3J
un
e1975,both in Folder 6, Box 7, MAFWMUTA.
73
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Gr
owe
r
sOr
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
ga
sUFW Pl
a
n
sVi
g
i
l
,
”Dallas Morning News, 6 June 1975, Folder 6,
Box 7, MAFWM-UTA.
74
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Un
i
on Vot
eDe
c
i
s
i
onDu
e
s
,
”Dallas Morning News, 8 June 1975, Folder 6, Box 7,
MAFWM-UTA.
75
Press Release, 5-13 June 1975, Folder 15, MGFP-UT.
77
the union would follow the workers on the cantaloupe harvest north, hopefully building
e
nou
g
hs
u
ppor
tt
o“
pu
s
hf
orl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
on.
”Hes
t
a
t
e
dt
ha
ta
l
lu
ni
ona
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
swou
l
dbe
nonviolent and the greatest accomplishment of the union in recent weeks was that it had
become more disciplined, he said, ensuring that strikers would obey his and the other
76
pi
c
k
e
tc
a
pt
a
i
ns
’
di
r
e
c
t
i
onsa
st
he
yt
r
a
v
e
l
e
dnor
t
h.
Before leaving, Orendain crossed the Mexican border and held a successful rally in
Ojinaga, where he conv
i
nc
e
dov
e
r3
0
0wor
k
e
r
snott
oc
ommu
t
et
ot
heS
pe
nc
e
rBr
ot
he
r
s
’
Packing Shed in Presidio, Texas. The dramatic event unfolded quickly:
The one-day strike involved undocumented workers who comprise 90
percent of the labor force in the 500-acre cantaloupe county of Presidio. Because
of the large labor supply available to the growers, workers are paid as little as .60 to
.70 cents an hour, far below the federal minimum wage of $1.80. Texas migrant
workers are refused because they cannot compete with the Mexican workers for
such a low wage. In 1974, the melon harvest brought in a $622,250 profit for the
growers.
TheOj
i
na
g
awor
k
e
r
su
s
u
a
l
l
yc
r
os
s
e
d“
a
tami
dwa
ypoi
ntont
hei
nt
e
r
na
t
i
ona
lbr
i
dg
e
sora
t
three major river passages between 3 and 6 a.m. to avoid det
e
nt
i
onbyU.
S
.
a
u
t
hor
i
t
i
e
s
.
”To
c
omba
tt
hi
s
,onJ
u
l
y7a
t4a
.
m.“
Or
e
nd
a
i
na
ndhi
sor
g
a
ni
z
e
r
ss
t
a
t
i
one
dt
he
ms
e
l
v
e
sa
tone
of three river crossings on a railroad trestle and waited before a few workers joined the
s
t
r
i
k
e
.
”Af
t
e
rt
wohou
r
st
hec
r
owdba
l
l
oone
dt
o“
2
0
0
-250 workers, 20 percent of whom
we
r
ebe
t
we
e
nt
hea
g
e
s1
0a
nd1
6
.
”Or
e
nda
i
ng
a
v
eas
pe
e
c
hont
heg
e
ne
r
a
lg
oa
l
sof
bargaining and better wages before he was stopped by Mexican federal troops, escorted to
the border and told not to return.77
76
Pa
u
lBl
a
n
k
e
nme
i
s
t
e
r
,“
St
r
i
ket
oCon
t
i
n
u
e–Or
e
n
da
i
n
,
”Daily Texan, 13 June 1975, Folder 16, MGFPUT.
77
“
UFW Oj
i
n
a
g
a
,
”Fol
de
r1,
MGFP-UT.
78
This was the greatest show of solidarity by Mexican workers who supported the
s
t
r
i
k
e
.Pl
a
nsf
ort
hee
v
e
ntha
dbe
e
npu
bl
i
c
i
z
e
di
nOj
i
na
g
a
’
swe
e
k
l
y
,El Centinela, which
explained what the UFW was doing in the Valley. The week prior Orendain had met with
and received the endorsement of Ojinaga mayor Ernesto Pablano, and Ramon Ruiz, chief
of immigration, to conduct a peaceful, three-day demonstration. Thus careful planning
explains the high turnout, but also the preparedness of Mexican officials.
As Orendain was being escorted back across the border, a UFW organizer
successfully convinced 100 workers to leave the cantaloupe fields of Presidio. Workers
there had struck on July 6 for $1.00 an hour, and after being promised that wage returned
to the fields, only to find their pay raise at .70 cents an hour. Orendain arrived in Presidio
a
tnoona
ndf
ou
nd“
s
he
r
i
f
f
s
,FBI
,a
ndTe
x
a
sRa
ng
e
r
s
”ont
hes
c
e
nea
ndr
e
a
d
yf
ort
r
ou
bl
e
.
Cou
nt
ys
he
r
i
f
fBu
ddyHa
r
r
i
st
hr
e
a
t
e
ne
dhi
m,s
a
y
i
ng“
‘
t
he
r
ewa
snotonef
oot
’ofpu
bl
i
c
property in Presidio and picketers were fully liable to be shot by growers and would be
a
r
r
e
s
t
e
di
na
nye
v
e
nt
.
”Or
e
nda
i
nt
hu
spu
l
l
e
dt
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
sou
toft
hea
r
e
a
,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
we
’
r
enot
g
oi
ngt
og
i
v
et
hel
a
wt
hec
ha
nc
et
ode
s
t
r
oyu
s
.
”Tha
nk
f
u
l
l
y
,nov
i
ol
e
nc
eoc
c
u
r
r
e
d,a
nd
Orendain decided to shift the strike to Pecos and Reeves Counties.78
After leaving Presidio Orendain and the union officials arrived in Pecos that
evening, urging workers to join the movement. According to Orendain, efforts in Pecos
79
wou
l
d be“
pe
a
c
e
f
u
la
nd wi
t
hi
nt
hef
r
a
me
wor
koft
hel
a
w.
”
Work stoppages were
achieved, as well as further north in Muleshoe. During these strikes Orendain heard that
78
79
Ibid.
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
mWor
k
e
rOr
g
a
n
i
z
e
r
st
oTr
yPe
c
os
,
”El Paso Times, 9 July 1975, Folder 16, MGFP-UT.
79
growers back in Presidio began paying workers $1.25 an hour, double what they were
getting just a few days before. Thus union efforts appeared to be working.
Al
lt
hewhi
l
e
,t
heUFW l
e
a
de
r
s
hi
p’
sopi
ni
onoft
hes
t
r
i
k
ev
a
c
i
l
l
a
t
e
df
r
om a
ppr
ov
a
l
to disapproval. Chávez had been upset with Orendain for disobeying his direction, and the
chiding he gave Orendain in late May 1975 for violent activity made his opinion clear.
I
nt
e
r
e
s
t
i
ng
l
y
,de
s
pi
t
eChá
v
e
z
’
sdi
s
a
ppr
ov
a
l
,Or
e
nd
a
i
nc
l
a
i
me
d,“
a
tf
i
r
s
tt
heUFW g
a
v
ei
t
s
a
ppr
ov
a
lt
ot
heTe
x
a
sme
l
ons
t
r
i
k
ea
ndor
g
a
ni
z
i
nge
f
f
or
t
s
.
”I
ne
a
r
l
yJ
u
neGi
l
be
r
tPa
di
l
l
a
had visited the Valley and during an interview on local television voiced UFW support for
Or
e
nda
i
n’
se
f
f
or
t
s
.
Uni
onhi
e
r
a
r
c
hyc
ou
l
dnota
g
r
e
eonwhe
t
he
rt
os
u
ppor
tt
hes
t
r
i
k
e
.
Howe
v
e
r
,du
r
i
ngt
hePe
c
osc
a
mpa
i
g
nChá
v
e
z
’
sobs
t
i
na
t
es
t
a
nc
epr
e
v
a
i
l
e
d.Bi
l
l
Chandler, who was still directing the Texas boycott from Fort Worth, began circulating
“
ma
l
i
c
i
ou
sl
i
e
sa
bou
tt
heor
g
a
ni
z
i
nge
f
f
or
t
sofOr
e
nda
i
n,a
ndha
dbe
e
ndi
s
c
ou
r
a
g
i
ngl
ong
t
i
meUFW s
u
ppor
t
e
r
sf
r
om s
e
ndi
nga
nyf
or
m off
i
na
nc
i
a
la
i
d
”t
os
u
ppor
tOr
e
nda
i
n’
s
80
“
f
a
c
t
i
on.
”
In one oft
he
s
el
e
t
t
e
r
s
,Cha
ndl
e
rc
l
a
i
me
dt
ha
tOr
e
nda
i
n“
l
e
f
tt
hes
t
a
f
foft
he
UFW”i
nJ
a
nu
a
r
ya
ndwa
swor
k
i
ngonhi
sown,wi
t
hou
t“
t
hes
a
nc
t
i
onoft
heUFW l
e
dby
Ce
s
a
rCha
v
e
z
.
”Hea
l
s
oma
i
nt
a
i
ne
dt
ha
tt
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
swe
r
ei
nnowa
ya
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
ht
he
UFW and did not believe in the philosophy of nonviolence. This last comment was
unfortunately untrue. Yes, he had problems with violent strikers but Orendain condemned
their actions, similar to the way Chávez condemned violence by UFW members in Arizona
in 1974. Chandler also stated that Chávez was intensifying efforts in California and that the
UFW was not prepared to deal with Texas until lost union contracts in California were
“
wonba
c
k
.Webe
l
i
e
v
et
ha
tf
a
r
mwor
k
e
ri
nt
e
r
e
s
t
sna
t
i
onwi
dewi
l
lbebe
s
ts
e
r
v
e
di
fs
u
c
h
80
Dou
g
l
a
sKe
l
l
a
r
,“
ABr
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sUn
i
on
,
”Fol
de
r8,MGFP-UT.
80
action as Orendain has shown is kept to a minimum while the entire union works toward
81
t
hec
e
nt
r
a
l
g
oa
l
.
”
Thus the UFW condemned Orendain and the Río Grande Valley farm workers. In
August, Harry Hubbard, President of the Texas AFL-CIO, openly attacked Orendain and
82
hi
sf
ol
l
owe
r
s
.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
s
s
oc
i
a
t
i
onwi
t
ht
heUFW s
i
mpl
yc
ou
l
dnotc
ont
i
nue
.
However,
Or
e
nda
i
nr
e
l
e
a
s
e
das
t
a
t
e
me
ntc
l
a
r
i
f
y
i
nghi
sa
ndLoc
a
l2
’
sde
di
c
a
t
i
ont
ononv
i
ol
e
nc
ea
nd
the pursuit of the justice for the Río Grande Valley farm workers:
We the farm workers of Texas will continue to hold strikes,
demonstrations, marches, and non-violent protests, to in this way attract the
attention of all the citizens of the state as well as that of all the country and the
world, because if this country, the champion of democracies and example for all
free countries in the world, allows these injustices to exist within its system, it only
ma
k
e
si
tv
e
r
yobv
i
ou
st
ha
ti
tdoe
s
n’
tpr
a
c
t
i
c
ewha
ti
tpr
e
a
c
he
sa
ndt
ha
tt
he
r
ei
sa
great deal of corruption in the great s
y
s
t
e
m of“
f
r
e
ee
nt
e
r
pr
i
s
e
.
”Fort
he
s
er
e
a
s
ons
and for many more that we could go on naming forever, we the farm workers of
Texas ask every human being who is a citizen of Texas and sincerely concerned
about justice for the man or woman who has to earn his bread by the sweat of his
brow, help us obtain these goals, the first of which is that the Texas Legislature
pass [collective bargaining] laws, the same as or better than that of California, for
Texas.83
Unfortunately, his impassioned declaration did little to curb coming events. His fate was
s
e
a
l
e
dwhe
ni
ne
a
r
l
yAu
g
u
s
twhe
nCBS“
a
i
r
e
dar
e
por
ts
howi
ngs
t
r
i
k
e
r
she
a
v
i
ngme
l
ons
and rocks at non-s
t
r
i
k
i
ngf
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
s[
s
i
c
]
,
”c
ont
r
a
di
c
t
i
ngOr
e
nda
i
n’
sa
l
l
e
g
e
dde
di
c
a
t
i
ont
o
nonviolence. Chávez, who saw the r
e
por
t
,“
pl
a
c
e
da
ni
r
a
t
ec
a
l
lt
oOr
e
nda
i
n.Ar
g
u
me
nt
s
84
ov
e
rt
a
c
t
i
c
sde
ni
g
r
a
t
e
di
nt
oe
g
oc
l
a
s
he
s
,
”a
nde
a
c
hbe
c
a
mee
x
t
r
e
me
l
ya
ng
r
y
.
When the
telephone yelling match ended, each man hung up, not realizing they would never speak
81
Chandler to UFW Supporters, Folder 10, MGFP-UT.
Dou
g
l
a
sKe
l
l
a
r
,“
ABr
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sUn
i
on
,
”Folder 8, MGFP-UT.
83
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Un
i
ondeCa
mpe
s
i
n
osGe
n
e
r
a
lOf
f
i
c
e
s
,
”16J
u
l
y1975,Fol
de
r11,
MGFP-UT.
84
St
e
v
eRus
s
e
l
l
,“
Ge
t
t
i
n
gOr
g
a
n
i
z
e
di
nt
h
eVa
l
l
e
y
,
”Texas Observer, 3 February 1978, 18-19, Folder 5,
MGFP-UT.
82
81
a
g
a
i
n.
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
s
s
oc
i
a
t
i
onwith Chávez was finished, and it was time for him to officially
step out on his own.
Whowa
st
obl
a
mef
ort
hef
a
l
l
i
ngou
t
?I
nOr
e
nda
i
n’
sde
f
e
ns
e
,heha
dwa
i
t
e
ds
i
x
l
ongy
e
a
r
sf
ort
he“
g
o-a
he
a
d”f
r
om Chá
v
e
z
,whi
c
hbyJ
a
nu
a
r
yof1
9
7
5her
e
a
l
i
z
e
dwa
s
never coming. Anyone who knew Orendain was amazed someone so headstrong had been
as patient as he had been. Was he wrong to act without Chávez? Surely the strike would
have been stronger if he could have waited for the full support of the UFW; since his
association with the union was finished, acting without its and the AFL-CI
O’
ss
u
ppor
t
would prove difficult. But he was dedicated to the cause in Texas and Chávez could have
dones
ome
t
hi
ngt
oha
r
ne
s
shi
se
nt
hu
s
i
a
s
ma
ndk
e
e
phi
mu
nde
rc
ont
r
ol
.I
nChá
v
e
z
’
s
defense, although he went back on his promise of 1969 by declaring the lettuce and
Arizona strikes in 1970, the UFW was still working hard in California. The smear campaign
started by Chandler in the summer of 1975 only made things worse. Perhaps the UFW
could have supported Orendain in gaining control of the strikers and curtailing violence
from the Reynosa workers. Why they chose instead to just slander and ostracize him is a
my
s
t
e
r
y
,a
nds
e
e
mst
obe
l
i
et
he“
u
ni
t
y
”oft
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
nt
.TheUFW c
l
e
a
r
l
y
would have been happy to drive Orendain out of business. Nevertheless, in August of
1
9
7
5
,Or
e
nda
i
n’
sde
s
i
g
nsonor
g
a
ni
z
i
nga
nda
c
hi
e
v
i
ngc
ol
l
e
c
t
i
v
eba
r
g
a
i
ni
ngf
orTe
x
a
sf
a
r
m
workers were alive and well, and would continue in the years to come.
82
CHAPTER 4
ORENDAIN MARCHES ON
On August 14, 1975, Antonio Orendain established the independent Texas Farm
1
Wor
k
e
r
s
’Uni
on(
TFW)
,of
f
i
c
i
a
l
l
ys
e
v
e
r
i
nghi
st
i
e
swi
t
hChá
v
e
za
ndt
heUFW.
The TFW
immediately intensified its campaign in Pecos, and also won a victory in Saragoza, a small
West Texas town where local farm workers voted overwhelmingly to be represented by the
union. The TFW also announced plans to organize Valley citrus workers in the fall, which
so far had been excluded from the then 3-month old strike.2
Orendain felt that by establishing the TFW he kept himself dedicated to the Texas
wor
k
e
r
s
,whom t
heUFW ha
df
or
g
ot
t
e
n.I
nhi
smi
nd,t
he“
mot
he
ru
ni
on”ha
da
ba
ndone
d
its original purpose:
[Orendain] speaks regretfully of his break with Chavez, suggesting that his
ol
df
r
i
e
ndha
sl
os
tt
ou
c
hwi
t
ht
hepe
opl
e
.“
Youg
e
taba
l
l
oona
ndpu
ts
ome
one
’
s
na
meoni
t
,
”hes
a
i
dr
e
c
e
nt
l
y
,“
a
ndy
oubl
owi
tu
pa
ndu
pi
tg
oe
si
nt
ot
hea
i
r
.You
tell everybody t
ha
t
’
smyba
l
l
oon,bu
ta
f
t
e
rawhi
l
ei
tg
e
t
ss
ohi
g
hu
pt
he
r
e
,wha
t
3
g
ooddoe
si
tdoy
ou
?
”
Interestingly, although the TFW was an independent union it did little to establish a
separate image from the UFW. Huelga flags and the UFW black eagle were still used in
demonstrations and the official TFW newspaper, El Cuhamil, reported on the activities of
the UFW. Orendain also emphasized that the union was acting independently not because
1
Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005; Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor, 256.
“
Pe
c
osAwa
k
e
n
e
dbyHu
e
l
g
i
s
t
a
s
;
”“
TFW Wi
nFa
r
m Wor
k
e
rEl
e
c
t
i
on
s
;
”“
TFW I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e
sVa
l
l
e
y
Ci
t
r
us
,
”a
l
li
nEl Cuhamil, 29 August 1975. 1-2, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
3
J
oeHol
l
e
y
,“
Th
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’Spl
i
t
,
”Texas Observer, 17 April 1981, 6.
2
83
they wanted to compete with the UFW but because it was their responsibility to press for
the rights of farm workers in Texas.4
By late September 1975 the citrus strike began in Mission, Texas. On the 29th,
twenty full-time workers at Sharyland Farms walked off their jobs under direction of the
TFW, to protest low wages and unbearable working conditions.5 Abuse of the workers was
common. One worker, Guadalupe Barbarosa, recalled an incident where he had broken his
finger while working, was taken to the hospital, and returned to work one hour later under
threat of losing his job. Another man was only allowed two days rest after breaking his
hand. Upon arrival on any given day, Sharyland workers were not allowed to leave and if
necessity forced them to, they would not be allowed to return that day or the following
two. The average Sharyland worker worked 50-52 hours per week and earned about $89.6
Chávez remained obstinate concerning Orendain and the TFW, emphasizing the
pr
e
e
mi
ne
nti
mpor
t
a
nc
eofUFW a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
si
nCa
l
i
f
or
ni
a“
be
c
a
u
s
eoft
hepr
e
s
e
ntc
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
ne
s
s
of the elections [to wi
nba
c
kc
ont
r
a
c
t
st
heu
ni
onha
dl
os
tt
ot
heTe
a
ms
t
e
r
s
]
.
”Cha
ndl
e
r
,
however, seemed to vacillate between opposing the TFW and supporting them. On
October 4, the Texas director for the UFW spoke at an Austin Friends of the Farm
Wor
k
e
r
sme
e
t
i
ng
,s
a
y
i
ng he“
s
piritually was in support of the Texas farm worker
u
ni
oni
z
i
nge
f
f
or
t
s
.
”De
s
pi
t
et
hi
s
,
Chá
v
e
za
ndt
heUFW of
f
i
c
i
a
l
l
yr
e
ma
i
ne
doppos
e
d.
On October 10 officials from the Texas Employment Commission visited El
Cuhamil to discuss the Special Unemployment Act, which covered farm workers. Not
4
“
UFW Af
t
e
rGa
l
l
o;
”Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Re
s
pons
i
bi
l
i
t
yNotCompe
t
i
t
i
on
,
”bot
hi
nEl Cuhamil, 29 August 1975,
2-3, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
5
Comunidad, February 1976, Folder 10, Box 2, MFWC-UTA.
6
“
Hombr
e
sEnLu
c
h
a
,
”El Cuhamil, 20 October 1975, 3, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
84
previously covered under any federal unemployment program, farm workers could apply
for aid under this new bill.7 Thus strides were being made, though the collective bargaining
legislation Orendain was fighting for remained a fleeting hope.
On October 22 three TFW organizers, Benigo Peña, José Salazar, and Lydia
Espinoza, began a three-da
yf
a
s
t“
t
opr
ot
e
s
tt
hede
ni
a
lofd
e
moc
r
a
t
i
cr
i
g
ht
st
of
a
r
m
8
wor
k
e
r
si
nt
heRi
oGr
a
ndeVa
l
l
e
y
.
”Or
e
nda
i
nwa
ss
i
l
e
ntont
hei
s
s
u
e
,
and it was unclear
whe
t
he
rhes
u
ppor
t
e
dt
hi
ss
y
mbol
i
ca
c
t
.A f
e
w da
y
sl
a
t
e
r
,hei
s
s
u
e
da
n“
ope
nl
e
t
t
e
rt
o
whome
v
e
rde
s
i
r
e
sj
u
s
t
i
c
ef
ort
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
,
”hopi
ngt
oc
l
a
r
i
f
yhi
su
ni
on’
sr
e
l
a
t
i
ons
hi
p
with the UFW. Orendain stated that despite recent confusion the TFW di
d“
notha
v
et
he
blessings nor the sanction of the executive board of the United Farm Workers of America,
AFL-CI
O.
”Hef
u
r
t
he
rc
l
a
r
i
f
i
e
dt
ha
t“
e
v
e
nt
hou
g
hwedonotha
v
et
heof
f
i
c
i
a
lba
c
k
i
ngof
the AFL-CIO, this does not mean that none of them support us. For we do have a number
ofu
ni
onl
oc
a
l
sa
ndme
mbe
r
swhoa
r
ema
i
l
i
ngu
sdona
t
i
ons
…wi
t
hou
tt
hea
u
t
hor
i
t
yoft
he
i
r
‘
Ma
s
t
e
r
s
.
’
”
Or
e
nda
i
nf
u
r
t
he
re
x
pl
a
i
ne
dt
ha
thedi
dnot“
a
tt
hepr
e
s
e
ntt
i
me
”e
x
pe
c
tc
ont
r
a
c
t
s
to be signed with the TFW. Instead, he hoped the demonstrations would force the Texas
legislature to pass a collective bargaining law similar to what the UFW had achieved for
Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
awor
k
e
r
s
.The
n,“
wewi
l
lde
c
i
dei
fwewi
l
lc
ompe
t
e[
wi
t
h]orhe
l
pt
heUFW
acquire contracts from Texas employers for theTe
x
a
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
.
”Thus
,a
tt
hi
ss
t
a
g
e
Orendain had not ruled out the possibility of future cooperation with the UFW. The
sought-after law was most important because if the TFW achieved contracts and then lost
7
“
Aus
t
i
nSu
ppor
t
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
;
”“
Un
e
mpl
oy
me
n
tf
orFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
s
,
”bot
hi
nEl Cuhamil, 20 October
1975, 3, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
8
Press Release, 23 October 1975, Folder 15, MGFP-UT.
85
them –as the UFW had done in California –then there would be legislation to protect the
rights of the workers no matter which organization represented them.9
With their intentions clarified, the TFW continued demonstrating. On October 24,
1975, a rally was held on the University of Texas at Austin campus to demonstrate against
Allen Shivers, UT Board of Regents member and owner of Sharyland Farms. Not only
using the occasion to embarrass Shivers and push for legislation, the union also collected
$500 in donations at the rally and several TFW organizers gave impassioned speeches.10 In
November, employees at a McAllen convenience store verbally abused a unionist who
asked why they were selling non-union (UFW) lettuce and grapes. In protest, over 100
union members gathered a few days later and picketed the store. During the protest, some
s
t
or
ee
mpl
oy
e
e
sbe
g
a
nr
a
c
i
nga
r
ou
ndt
hes
t
r
i
k
e
r
sa
thi
g
hs
pe
e
dsi
nt
he
i
rc
a
r
s“
whi
l
e
i
nt
i
mi
da
t
i
ngt
hec
hi
l
dr
e
na
ndmot
he
r
spr
e
s
e
nta
tt
hepr
ot
e
s
t
.
”Af
t
e
rt
heowne
roft
hes
t
or
e
promised to clear his shelves of scab produce, the picketers moved on to another store
whose owner was publicly hostile to the movement. No concessions were made there, but
an unidentified customer offered his services, those of his friends, and their German
11
S
he
pa
r
ds“
t
oc
l
e
a
rt
hepa
r
k
i
ngl
otof‘
t
hos
edi
r
t
ywe
t
ba
c
k
s
.
’
”
Efforts continued through the end of November and early December, but rather
quietly. On December 1 the union began a weekly article in its newspaper called
“
S
a
t
u
r
da
y
’
sChi
l
d
,
”whi
c
he
x
pos
e
dt
hea
bu
s
eofc
hi
l
dl
a
borbyVa
l
l
ey-area growers. The
9
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Ope
nLe
t
t
e
rt
oWh
ome
v
e
rDe
s
i
r
e
sJ
u
s
t
i
c
ef
ort
h
eFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
,
”29Oc
t
obe
r197
5,Fol
de
r
15, MGFP-UT.
10
“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s–St
u
de
n
t
sUn
i
t
e
!
”El Cuhamil, 8 November 1975, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWMUTA.
11
“
Va
l
l
e
yBoy
c
ot
tCon
t
i
n
u
e
s
,
”El Cuhamil, 8 November 1975, 4, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
86
Austin Friends of the Farm Workers continued working on behalf of the union, raising
money and collecting food. This group was the only organization openly supporting both
the UFW and TFW in Texas, and they were invaluable to Orendain, who stated the TFW
12
wa
s“
s
t
r
u
g
g
l
i
ngt
os
u
r
v
i
v
ei
nor
de
rt
oc
ont
i
nu
ei
t
se
f
f
or
t
s
.
”
Byt
hee
ndof1
9
7
5
,Or
e
nda
i
nwa
sa
c
t
i
v
e
l
ypu
r
s
u
i
nghi
spl
a
nof“
pa
v
i
ngt
hewa
y
”
for Chávez and the UFW for when they decided to organize in Texas. On December 23,
Orendain sent a telegram to Chávez requesting the UFW leader give an audience to a
delegation from the TFW at the upcoming UFW board meeting. The purpose of the
proposed meeting was a local affiliation for the TFW with the UFW. Unfortunately,
Chávez denied Orendain an audience, but three days later he received a symbolic
response.13
During this time Orendain worked from his office in San Juan, which technically
wa
sUFW pr
ope
r
t
y
,a
l
t
hou
g
ht
heTe
x
a
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
sha
dbu
i
l
tt
hes
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e“
wi
t
ht
he
i
r
ownha
nds
.
”Ea
r
l
i
e
ri
nDe
c
e
mbe
r
,aUFW a
t
t
or
ne
ya
tt
heof
f
i
c
e“
dr
e
wu
pa
ndbe
g
a
n
circulating a petition which denounced the Texas farm workers and Orendain, and
14
demanded their immediate removal from El Cuhamil.
”
Why they took so long to evict
Orendain is unknown, but in late December Gilbert Padilla visited the UFW offices and
th
left a three-pe
r
s
onc
ommi
t
t
e
et
o“
a
s
s
i
s
tTony[
Or
e
nda
i
n]i
nmov
i
ngou
tbyt
he1
5
of
15
Fe
br
u
a
r
y
.
”
Padilla also left a list of demands for Orendain, including that the TFW cease
12
“
Sa
t
u
r
da
y
’
sCh
i
l
d,
”El Cuhamil, 1 December 1975, 2, 4, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
Orendain, Jesus F. Luna, and Armando Acosta to Chávez, 23 December 1975, Folder 8, MGFP-UT.
14
Dou
g
l
a
sKe
l
l
a
r
,“
ABr
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mWor
ke
r
s
’Un
i
on
,
”Fol
de
r8,MGFP-UT.
15
James C. Harrington to Jerry Cohen, 26 December 1975, Folder 8, MGFP-UT.
13
87
16
using the UFW blacke
a
g
l
e
.
“
Anu
g
l
yc
onf
r
ont
a
t
i
on”a
ppe
a
r
e
dt
obei
nt
hema
k
i
ng
.
By late January 1976, the dispute over the building gained media attention.
Or
e
nda
i
n“
pu
bl
i
c
l
ya
c
c
u
s
e
dUFW l
e
a
de
r
soft
r
y
i
ngt
ou
nde
r
mi
net
hef
l
e
dg
l
i
ngTe
x
a
sFa
r
m
Wor
k
e
r
s
’Uni
on,
”bu
t“
UFW s
pokesmen quickly denied the allegations [as] the walls of
s
e
c
r
e
c
ya
r
ou
ndt
hef
a
mi
l
i
a
lde
ba
t
ec
a
met
u
mbl
i
ngdown.
”Thi
swou
l
dbet
hef
i
r
s
tofma
ny
times Orendain accused Chávez and the UFW of sabotaging his efforts. An article
appearing in a local newspaper recognized the dispute over the office space, but also that
the feud ran much deeper:
Ont
hes
u
r
f
a
c
et
hedi
s
put
ec
e
nt
e
r
sa
r
ou
ndOr
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
f
u
s
a
lt
oa
ba
nd
on
his office and meeting space in the union hall and the alleged hostility between and
interference of UFW personnel in TFW business. Deeper than this, are basic
philosophical and strategical differences between the two unions. The UFW is not
y
e
tr
e
a
dyt
ot
a
c
k
l
et
hev
a
l
l
e
y
’
spowe
r
f
u
la
g
r
i
-business employers, choosing instead
to build a following by providing social services to local farm workers. Orendain,
however, says the farm workers are willing to strike, to disrupt harvesting and to
force growers to negotiate union contracts.
Thea
r
t
i
c
l
ef
u
r
t
he
rou
t
l
i
ne
dOr
e
nda
i
n’
spl
a
ns
,t
ha
thedi
dnotwa
ntt
oc
ompete with the
UFW “
bu
tt
oa
i
di
tbydoi
ngt
hos
et
hi
ng
s[
t
he
y
]wou
l
dnotdo.Wea
r
epr
e
pa
r
i
ngt
he
ground so if the UFW comes in here, they will not have the same experience as in
Ca
l
i
f
or
ni
a
.
”Or
e
nda
i
na
l
s
os
t
a
t
e
dhewou
l
dnotl
e
a
v
eEl Cuhamil,whi
c
hwa
s“
f
or the farm
wor
k
e
ri
ng
e
ne
r
a
l
,t
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
rofTe
x
a
s
,notas
e
l
e
c
tg
r
ou
p.
”Re
be
c
c
aHa
r
r
i
ng
t
on,a
UFW r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
ea
tt
heof
f
i
c
e
,c
ou
nt
e
r
e
dt
hi
sbys
a
y
i
ng“
whe
nhebe
c
a
mei
nde
pe
nde
nt
,
hel
os
ta
l
lr
i
g
ht
sofs
t
a
y
i
nghe
r
e
.
”Thea
r
t
i
c
l
ec
l
os
e
dbys
a
y
i
ngt
ha
t“
de
s
pi
t
et
hee
v
e
r
-
16
Dou
g
l
a
sKe
l
l
a
r
,“
ABr
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mWor
ke
r
s
’Un
i
on
,
”Fol
de
r8,MGFP-UT.
88
widening chasm between the two unions, Orendain was not ruling out the possibility of a
17
re-me
r
g
e
rs
ome
t
i
mei
nt
hef
u
t
u
r
e
.
”
TFW activities did not cease despite the coming confrontation with the UFW. On
January 12, 1976 a general strike began against Valley citrus growers and hundreds of
wor
k
e
r
swa
l
k
e
dof
ft
hej
ob,r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
ngt
he“
s
i
g
ni
f
i
c
a
nta
ndwi
de
s
pr
e
a
ds
u
ppor
tf
or
”t
he
TFW. The strike began when five TFW organizers went to the international bridge at
Hidalgo and convinced 25 workers to strike. Through the rest of January organizers went
daily to the bridge and convinced about 75 workers per day to join their ranks. By early
February, the strike had ballooned to about 2,000 workers.18
In late January, Orendain led another large demonstration on the international
br
i
dg
ea
tHi
d
a
l
g
o,pr
ot
e
s
t
i
ngGov
e
r
norDol
phBr
i
s
c
oe
’
sobs
t
i
na
t
es
t
a
nc
et
owa
r
dst
hef
a
r
m
wor
k
e
r
sa
ndt
hei
na
bi
l
i
t
yoft
heGov
e
r
norofTa
ma
u
l
i
pa
s
,
Me
x
i
c
ot
o“
r
e
me
dyt
hepr
obl
e
ms
19
ofhi
ss
t
a
t
e
.
”
The event was planned because Briscoe was to be honored at the annual
Mission Citrus Festival, and Governor Cárdenas-González of Tamaulipas was invited as a
guest. The two were supposed to meet in the middle of the bridge, but because of TFW
pickets Briscoe refused to come to the bridge, forcing Cárdenas-González to cross alone.
As the Mexican Governor crossed, picketers walked alongside him and convinced him to
stop and listen to their complaints. After a few minutes, the Governor promised to raise
t
hewor
k
e
r
s
’i
s
s
u
e
swi
t
hBr
i
s
c
oel
a
t
er that day. The two men breakfasted at the Catholic
17
Clipping, Michae
lWa
l
s
h
,“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
:St
or
m Br
e
wi
n
gi
nt
h
eVa
l
l
e
y
,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 25
January 1976, 1D-2D, Folder 8, MGFP-UT; Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005.
18
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Pa
u
l
aWa
ddl
e
,“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
rSu
ppor
tNe
e
de
d,
”Daily Texan, 29 January 1976, Folder 17,
MGFP-UT;“
2000Su
ppor
tSt
r
i
k
e
,
”El Cuhamil, 6 February 1976, 2, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
19
Press Release, 31 January 1976, Folder 15, MGFP-UT.
89
Ve
t
e
r
a
ns
’
Ce
nt
e
ri
nMi
s
s
i
on,
whe
r
et
heu
ni
onc
ont
i
nu
e
di
t
spr
ot
e
s
t
,
u
ns
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
li
ng
a
i
ni
ng
an audience with either man for the rest of the day.
Al
s
o,be
c
a
u
s
eoft
heu
ni
on’
spr
e
s
e
nc
et
hel
oc
a
lme
di
ar
e
fused to cover the event.
Two local television stations, KGBT and KRGV, turned their cameras off when the
pi
c
k
e
t
e
r
sa
r
r
i
v
e
da
ndt
her
e
por
t
e
rf
r
om KRGV e
v
e
nr
e
f
u
s
e
dOr
e
nda
i
n’
spr
e
s
sr
e
l
e
a
s
e
.
Or
e
nda
i
na
c
c
u
s
e
dl
oc
a
lof
f
i
c
i
a
l
sofpr
ompt
i
nga“
ne
wsbl
a
c
k
ou
t
”i
nthe local media, and
claimed local newspapers also refused to cover union activities. Orendain feared this
blackout would be a serious setback, and the union would have to find ways to garner
media attention of future demonstrations and protests. His main concern was that a media
black out would de-emphasize the nonviolent nature of their efforts. Since the only farm
worker news being covered locally was the growing feud between the two unions,
20
Or
e
nda
i
nk
ne
wt
hi
sc
ou
l
dpr
ov
ed
e
t
r
i
me
nt
a
l
t
ot
heTFW’
si
ma
g
e
.
Meanwhile the February 15 deadline the UFW gave Orendain to vacate El Cuhamil
wa
sa
ppr
oa
c
hi
ng
.Ast
heda
t
ene
a
r
e
d,“
i
tbe
c
a
meq
u
i
t
eobv
i
ou
st
ha
tt
hepe
opl
ewho
c
ons
t
r
u
c
t
e
dElCu
ha
mi
l
,
”t
heTe
x
a
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
,“
ha
dnoi
nt
e
nt
i
onofl
e
a
v
i
ngi
t
,
”a
nd
t
ha
t“
a
nu
g
l
yc
onf
r
ont
a
t
i
onwa
si
nt
hema
k
i
ng
.
”I
twa
sr
u
mor
e
dt
ha
tRe
be
c
c
aHa
r
r
i
ng
t
on
would call the police to forcefully evict the TFW if they refused to leave. However,
Or
e
nda
i
na
ndt
heTFW “
we
r
epr
e
pa
r
e
dt
oc
ou
nt
e
rwi
t
hama
s
soc
c
u
pa
t
i
onoft
hebu
i
l
di
ng
”
to de
mons
t
r
a
t
et
he
i
ri
nt
e
nt
i
ont
os
t
a
y
.Ast
hede
a
dl
i
nene
a
r
e
dt
he“
Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
onf
a
c
t
i
on”
backed down, realizing that the ensuing feud would be bad publicity for the UFW.
After the incident, Harrington publicly denied the UFW had ever given Orendain a
deadline t
ol
e
a
v
e
,
notr
e
a
l
i
z
i
ngt
ha
tt
heTFW ha
das
i
g
ne
dc
opyofPa
di
l
l
a
’
sme
moor
de
r
i
ng
20
“
Gov
e
r
n
or
sMe
e
t
,
90
he
rt
odos
o.Whyha
dt
he“
Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
onf
a
c
t
i
on”s
u
dde
nl
yba
c
k
e
ddown?I
twa
sr
u
mor
e
d
that the upper echelons of the UFW wanted to avoid a public confrontation with Orendain
and the TFW, as it would have created bad publicity. Padilla turned on Harrington and
blamed her for providing inextricable links between the UFW and the eviction plans,
despite the fact that he had signed the original list that included the eviction notice. It is
unclear what Chávez thought of this whole process, but presumably he was behind the
effort to de-publicize the incident. Nevertheless, the TFW stayed in the building, victorious
21
ov
e
rt
heUFW’
sa
t
t
e
mptt
o“
s
a
bot
a
g
e
”t
he
i
re
f
f
or
t
s
.
In February 1976 Orendain began looking for a new building, sardonically saying
hewa
nt
e
dt
ohonort
heUFW’
sc
l
a
i
mt
oi
t
s“
pr
i
v
a
t
epr
ope
r
t
y
.
”Be
c
a
u
s
eofde
mons
t
r
a
t
i
ons
whe
r
eu
ni
onme
mbe
r
s
’l
i
v
e
swe
r
et
hr
e
a
t
e
ne
df
ort
r
e
s
pa
s
s
i
ng
,Or
e
nda
i
nc
onc
l
u
de
d,“
i
na
‘
f
r
e
ee
nt
e
r
pr
i
s
e
’
s
ystem private property has more worth than the life or liberty of a human
be
i
ng
.
”S
o,a
ba
ndoni
ngEl Cuhamil, which the farm workers so diligently built, was his way
of taking the moral high ground.22 Orendain outlined these plans at a fund-raising cocktail
party given by the support group in Austin, where he also gave a speech concerning the
need for union elections among farm workers. Over $1,000 in donations was collected for
the union at the event –a considerable sum, considering the TFW was perpetually broke.23
The citrus strike continued, and the TFW was again threatened with violence. On
Fe
br
u
a
r
y1
7ag
r
owe
r
’
swi
f
ea
ta
nor
c
ha
r
di
nMi
s
s
i
ont
hr
e
a
t
e
ne
dt
os
hootde
mons
t
r
a
t
or
s
,
a
ndl
i
k
e
wi
s
et
hes
a
meda
yal
oc
a
lg
r
owe
rboa
s
t
e
doft
hes
he
r
i
f
f
’
spr
omi
s
et
oprovide him
21
Douglas Ke
l
l
a
r
,“
ABr
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mWor
ke
r
s
’Un
i
on
,
”Fol
de
r8,MGFP-UT.
“
TFW:St
i
l
lSt
r
u
gg
l
i
ng
;
”Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Pr
i
v
a
t
ePr
ope
r
t
y
,
”bot
hi
nEl Cuhamil, 27 February 1976, 2,
Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
23
“
Su
ppor
tCon
t
i
n
u
e
s
,
22
91
onemont
h’
swor
t
hofs
hot
g
u
ns
he
l
l
st
ou
s
ea
g
a
i
ns
tu
ni
onme
mbe
r
swhoda
r
e
dt
r
e
s
pa
s
son
his property.24 Thankfully no violence occurred, and in fact, there were no publicized
instances of union members committing violence since the previous August. This indicates
that Orendain was finally able to control the more militant ranks of the TFW, meaning the
Mexican workers and the Brown Berets. That they did not react violently to being
t
hr
e
a
t
e
ne
da
l
s
oi
ndi
c
a
t
e
st
hi
sa
ndbe
l
i
e
st
heUFW’
sc
ons
t
a
nta
c
c
u
s
ations that Orendain
condoned violent behavior. Clearly, the TFW leader had gained better control of his
fledgling union than he had initially enjoyed.
The controversy over El Cuhamil flared again in March. Instead of attacking the
entire TFW as before, this time the local UFW focused on Orendain. Orendain was living
on the property in a mobile home, which the UFW ordered him to move. A UFW
s
pok
e
s
pe
r
s
on s
t
a
t
e
d“
t
heUFW ha
dd
e
l
i
be
r
a
t
e
l
yr
e
f
u
s
e
dt
oc
omme
nton Or
e
nda
i
n’
s
separation over the last nine months in an effort to avoid interfering with him or his future
pl
a
ns
.
”Howe
v
e
r
,
t
heUFW c
ha
ng
e
di
t
smi
nd:
The personal attacks and gross misstatements against local and national
UFW leaders, which have been consistently and carefully orchestrated by Orendain,
finally moved the local (emphasis added) UFW people to make a public statement.
During the last two months, Orendain has spent considerable time and energy
attacking UFW members in the state and local media, particularly in San Antonio,
Austin, and Houston.
Anot
he
rl
oc
a
lUFW s
pok
e
s
pe
r
s
onc
l
a
i
me
d“
l
a
s
tDe
c
e
mbe
rOr
e
nda
i
na
g
r
e
e
dt
omov
et
o
a
not
he
rl
oc
a
t
i
onbyFe
br
u
a
r
y1
5
,
”a
ndwhe
nhec
l
a
i
me
dhec
ou
l
dnotma
k
et
hede
a
dl
i
net
he
24
“
St
r
i
k
ePr
e
s
s
u
r
eHi
t
sGr
owe
r
s
,
”El Cuhamil, 27 February 1976, 1-2, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWMUTA.
92
UFW g
r
a
c
i
ou
s
l
ye
x
t
e
nde
di
tt
oMa
r
c
h1
5
.Not
a
bl
y
,“
noonee
l
s
eha
sbe
e
na
s
k
e
dt
or
e
25
loca
t
e
.
”Onl
yOr
e
nda
i
nwa
sbe
i
ngf
or
c
e
dt
ol
e
a
v
e
.
Clearly, the local UFW had a vendetta against Orendain. It is difficult to establish
what Chávez thought of thought, as the UFW leader was increasingly reticent concerning
his wayward former Secretary-Treasurer. He might have disapproved of the public nature
oft
hedi
s
pu
t
e
,a
si
tdi
ds
e
e
mt
oa
mpl
i
f
ydi
v
i
s
i
v
e
ne
s
swi
t
hi
nt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
nt
.
Ne
v
e
r
t
he
l
e
s
s
,
i
ti
sdi
f
f
i
c
u
l
tt
oe
s
t
a
bl
i
s
hwhi
c
hofOr
e
nda
i
n’
sc
omme
nt
st
heUFW wa
st
a
k
i
ng
offense to. Since establ
i
s
hi
ngt
heTFW,hec
ons
i
s
t
e
nt
l
ya
r
g
u
e
dt
ha
thewa
s“
pa
v
i
ngt
he
wa
y
”f
ort
heUFW t
ot
a
k
eov
e
ri
nt
heVa
l
l
e
ya
ndi
nl
a
t
eDe
c
e
mbe
re
v
e
ns
ou
g
hta
n
a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
onwi
t
ht
heu
ni
on.Thu
s
,i
ts
e
e
msu
nl
i
k
e
l
yt
ha
thewou
l
dpu
r
pos
e
f
u
l
l
y“
s
l
a
nd
e
r
”
UFW members. Also, the c
ha
r
g
et
ha
t“
l
a
s
tDe
c
e
mbe
rOr
e
nda
i
na
g
r
e
e
dt
omov
et
oa
not
he
r
l
oc
a
t
i
onbyFe
br
u
a
r
y1
5
”i
ss
i
mpl
ynott
r
u
e
.Ne
v
e
rha
dOr
e
nda
i
nora
nyTFW me
mbe
r
stated they were leaving the compound; on the contrary, there were quite emphatic about
staying.
Orendain and t
heTFW i
s
s
u
e
dar
e
s
pons
et
ot
heUFW’
sor
de
r
s
.TheTFW a
r
g
u
e
d
that if the UFW wanted Orendain off the property so badly, why was the directive not
coming from card-c
a
r
r
y
i
ng UFW me
mbe
r
s
?Or
e
nda
i
nc
ha
r
g
e
dt
ha
tt
he“
Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
on
c
l
i
q
u
e
”wa
sa
c
t
i
ngi
nde
pe
nde
nt
l
y of the UFW leadership, and that none of them had the
written authorization of Chávez to kick him out.26 In fact, neither Jim Harrington nor his
25
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
UFW Con
f
i
r
msOr
e
n
da
i
nHa
sBe
e
nAs
k
e
dt
oLe
a
v
eCe
n
t
e
r
,
”Monitor, 12 March 1976;
c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Or
e
n
da
i
nTol
dMobi
l
eHomeMu
s
tbeMov
e
d,
”Corpus Christi Caller, 13 March 1976, 4B,
both in Folder 8, MGFP-UT.
26
“
TFW St
a
t
e
me
n
t
,
”El Cuhamil, 20 March 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
93
wife were official UFW members, they were only volunteers. Douglas Kellar, SecretaryTreasurer of the TFW, argued that the Harringtons wanted to relocate to Delano and were
invited to work full-time for the UFW by union attorney Jerry Cohen –thus, kicking
Orendain out of El Cuhamil “
wou
l
dbeav
e
r
ybi
gf
e
a
t
he
ri
nMr
.Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
on’
sc
a
pwhe
nhe
27
arrives in California t
owor
kf
orhi
sne
w bos
s
e
s
.
”
Unfortunately for the Harringtons,
Orendain simply would not leave.
The citrus harvest ended in March 1976 and Orendain and the union began looking
ahead to strike activities during for the upcoming melon harvest. Though no significant
gains were made during the citrus strike the union enjoyed widespread support from the
workers.28 Orendain also grew more hopeful about politics, applauding the efforts of a
newly elected county judge in Crystal City –José Ángel Gutiérrez –as a Mexican American
who was working to readjust the Anglo-dominated political system of South Texas.29
Political action combined with the strike might force legislation to be passed in Austin.
The job outlook for the coming summer of 1976 was not good for the workers.
Early reports stated that demands for farm work would be very slim in the north, while in
Texas farm worker wages, when one could find work, were only $1.70 per hour, an
increase from previous years but still only about half what workers were making in
California.30 Re
s
i
de
nt
soft
heVa
l
l
e
y
’
scolonias (shantytowns that farm workers and their
families lived in) took action into their own hands. On April 16, 200 residents of Colonia
27
Doug
l
a
sKe
l
l
a
r
,“
A Br
i
e
fHi
s
t
or
yoft
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Un
i
on
;
”J
a
me
sC.Harrington to Jerry
Cohen, 26 December 1975, both in Folder 8, MGFP-UT.
28
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
St
r
i
k
e
sNe
v
e
rEn
d,
29
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Cr
y
s
t
a
lCi
t
y
,
30
“
Don’
tGoNor
t
hYe
t
;
”“
Wh
a
tAbou
tTe
x
a
s
?
,
”b
ot
hi
nEl Cuhamil, 20 March 1976, 4, Oversize Box 82, MAFWM-UTA.
94
Cameron Park outside of Brownsville demonstrated and demanded Ca
me
r
onCou
nt
y“
do
something about the living conditions and lack of basic facilities at the Colonia.
”The
i
rma
i
n
demand was that the county provide them drinking water, paved roads, and sewage
disposal facilities, none of which they had.31
Demonstrations such as those by the colonia residents and the efforts of young,
mi
l
i
t
a
ntor
g
a
ni
z
e
r
ss
u
c
ha
sGu
t
i
é
r
r
e
zwou
l
dhope
f
u
l
l
ybu
oyOr
e
nda
i
n’
se
f
f
or
t
sa
twi
nni
ng
justice for the farm workers. Lacking the support of Chávez and the AFL-CIO, the TFW
needed all the support it could get, especially since opposition to the union was as
vehement as ever. Possibly in anticipation of the upcoming melon strike, on April 23, 1976,
two pickup trucks drove by El Cuhamil and fired several shotgun blasts into the building
while it was full of people.32 Thankfully, no one was injured but the incident indicated that
locals would again try to intimidate Orendain and the union into submission.
Wi
t
ht
hebe
g
i
nni
ngof“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
rWe
e
k
,
”Ma
y2
-8, 1976, the Río Grande
Valley farm workerswe
r
e“
r
e
a
dyt
or
e
de
di
c
a
t
et
he
ms
e
l
v
e
s
…a
ndr
e
g
e
ne
r
a
t
et
hec
r
ya
nd
33
c
ommi
t
me
ntf
orj
u
s
t
i
c
e
”byope
ni
ngane
wme
l
ons
t
r
i
k
ei
nt
heVa
l
l
e
y
.
Officially beginning
a
tar
a
l
l
yi
nHi
da
l
g
oonMa
y1
6
,t
heu
ni
ona
nnou
nc
e
di
twou
l
d“
f
oc
u
si
t
ss
t
r
i
k
ea
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
against three of the largest melon growers in the Valley –Griffen and Brand, El Texano
Ra
nc
h,
a
ndLaCa
s
i
t
aFa
r
ms
.
”The
ya
l
s
oa
ppe
a
l
e
dt
oMe
x
i
c
a
nwor
k
e
r
sf
r
om Re
y
nos
at
onot
break the strike.34
31
“
Col
on
i
aRe
s
i
de
n
t
sDe
ma
n
d;Wa
t
e
r
,St
r
e
e
t
s
!
”El Cuhamil, 29 April 1976, 1, 3, Oversize Box 8-2,
MAFWM-UTA.
32
“
Ope
nSe
a
s
ononBl
a
c
kEa
gl
e
s
,
”El Cuhamil, 29 April 1976, 4, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
33
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Ri
c
a
r
doPa
r
r
a
,“
Fa
r
m La
borOr
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
on
s
,
”El Renacimiento, 26 April 1976, 2, Folder 11,
MGFP-UT.
34
“
Me
l
onSt
r
i
k
eBe
g
i
ns
,
”El Cuhamil, 20 May 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
95
A violent local reaction soon followed. On May 31, a small-caliber gun was fired at
api
c
k
e
tl
i
nei
nWe
s
l
a
c
o.Ones
hotwa
sf
i
r
e
ddi
r
e
c
t
l
ya
tas
t
r
i
k
e
r
’
swi
f
es
i
t
t
i
ngi
napi
c
k
u
p
truck, damaging the windshield but fortunately missing the woman. Thankfully no one else
was hurt, but when Hidalgo Deputy Sheriff Marry Colwell was called in to investigate the
bu
l
l
e
t
su
s
e
d,hes
a
i
dt
hes
hot
smi
g
htha
v
ec
omef
r
om l
oc
a
l“
r
a
bbi
thu
nt
e
r
s
.
”Ac
t
u
a
l
l
y
,j
u
s
t
be
f
or
et
hes
hoot
i
ng
,t
hepi
c
k
e
t
e
dg
r
owe
r
’
swi
f
ema
r
k
e
d he
rpr
ope
r
t
yl
i
neof
fa
nd
threatened to shoot anyone who crossed. The union was picketing her husband for using
dangerous pesticides, driving large trucks through the fields, and abusing child labor.35 The
incident marked the one-y
e
a
ra
nni
v
e
r
s
a
r
yofC.
L.Mi
l
l
e
r
’
sde
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
onof“
ope
ns
e
a
s
on”on
farm workers at El Texano Ranch.
Pickets continued into June, with demonstrators visiting up to three or four fields
per day. The melon strike spread into the tomato fields, but as the end of June approached
the harvest for both of these crops was well underway. Thus, as he did the previous year,
Orendain planned to move the strike north and then west to follow the delayed harvest
season into other parts of Texas. A group of thirty was to leave in the third week of June
for Zavala and Uvalde Counties, subsequently traveling to Presidio, Pecos and Reeves
Counties, and ending in Muleshoe. Emphasis was to be on organizing the workers to
36
pe
r
f
or
mt
he
i
rowns
t
r
i
k
e
s
,
wi
t
honl
y“
he
l
pa
nda
dv
i
c
e
”c
omi
ngf
r
omt
heTFW.
Unfortunately for the union in a June 5 election run-off Brig Marmalejo was elected
Hidalgo County Sheriff, promising to be less receptive to the farm workers than his
defeated opponent, incumbent Claudio Castaneda, had allegedly been. He said that such
35
“
Sn
i
pi
ngI
n
c
i
de
n
tLa
i
dt
o‘
Ra
bbi
tHun
t
e
r
s
!
’
”El Cuhamil, 4 June 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWMUTA.
36
“
St
r
i
k
e
sGoNor
t
h
,
”El Cuhamil, 25 June 1976, 1, 5, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
96
f
a
v
or
i
t
i
s
m ha
dma
dei
t“
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
”f
org
r
owe
r
sl
i
k
eC.
L.Mi
l
l
e
r“
t
ot
a
k
et
hel
a
wi
nto their
ownha
nds
.
”Cont
r
i
bu
t
i
onst
oMa
r
ma
l
e
j
o’
sc
a
mpa
i
g
nwe
r
et
wi
c
et
ha
tofhi
soppone
nt
,
wi
t
h
Miller being his greatest contributor.37 The election clearly represented the political power
of the growers, who had basically purchased a sheriff who would be more receptive to their
side of the dispute.
Interestingly, the Harringtons suddenly decided to abandon El Cuhamil and relocate
to another part of San Juan. Why they did this is unknown. Perhaps Chávez and the UFW
leadership instructed them to do so in order to avoid negative press coverage. Although the
Harringtons never technically represented the national UFW in the dispute over El
Cuhamil, for the time being Orendain would not have to worry about opposition from the
other union. Instead, the UFW simply ignored him, and as one observer pointed out they
refused to publish any information on the dramatic situation developing in Texas.38 Clearly,
Chávez and the UFW were content to continue isolating the Texas farm workers by
ignoring their struggle.
In late June 1976, Orendain met with the Central Campesinos Independiente in Río
Br
a
v
o,Me
x
i
c
o,a
sas
e
a
r
c
hf
or“
g
r
e
a
t
e
ru
ni
t
y
”a
mongwor
k
e
r
sf
r
om bot
hs
i
de
soft
he
border. He was still running his radio program, which was reduced to a weekly broadcast
rather than six days per week, and claimed it was reaching many workers in Mexico who
understood and supported the union. Since the alienation of the poor involved politics on
both sides of the border, Orendain argued that Mexican and Texas farm workers had to
37
“
Gr
owe
r
sPotNe
wSh
e
r
i
f
f
,
”El Cuhamil, 25 June 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
“
Af
t
e
rt
h
eCa
l
m;
”“
Le
t
t
e
r
s
,
”bot
hi
nEl Cuhamil, 25 June 1976, 2, 5, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWMUTA.
38
97
joi
nt
og
e
t
he
r
.
“
Chr
i
s
ti
snotg
oi
ngt
oc
omea
nds
a
v
eu
sf
r
om t
hi
ss
t
r
u
g
g
l
e
,
”hes
a
i
d,
a
ddi
ng
,
39
“
i
ti
sonl
ywhe
nwet
r
e
a
te
a
c
hot
he
ra
sbr
ot
he
r
st
ha
thewi
l
l
r
e
t
u
r
n.
”
Despite this statement of unity, it is difficult to measure the success of the TFW at
this point. Although they successfully led large strikes and convinced workers to join them,
working and living conditions had not noticeably improved in the Valley. It also did not
appear that Orendain was any closer in effecting farm-worker legislation in the capital. To
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sc
r
e
di
t
,t
heoddswe
r
ei
nde
e
ds
t
a
c
k
e
da
g
a
i
ns
thi
m –the growers, political
structure, UFW, and AFL-CIO were all either unsympathetic or openly hostile to his
efforts. Nevertheless, the TFW director moved forward.
On June 27 Orendain led the strike north, when about 50 strikers left the Valley for
Río Grande City to lead strikes against local melon growers. Three days later a strike
unfolded in Saragoza, without the TFW, where 300 workers walked out of the tomato
fields. A large demonstration against melon growers in that area was being prepared, as
wor
k
e
r
swa
i
t
e
df
ort
hea
r
r
i
v
a
loft
heTFW a
si
tmov
e
dnor
t
h.Cl
e
a
r
l
y
,Or
e
nda
i
n’
spl
a
nof
encouraging workers to strike on their own was effective. The union leader also
encouraged them to be persistent in their efforts. Telling the workers not to be discouraged
that their demonstrations were so small in comparison to the UFW in California, Orendain
40
s
a
i
dt
heu
ni
onwa
su
s
i
ng“
a
l
lt
ha
ti
sl
e
f
tofou
rs
t
r
e
ng
t
ha
ndr
e
s
ou
r
c
e
s
.
”
“
De
s
pi
t
ea
downt
u
r
ni
na
c
t
i
v
epu
bl
i
cs
u
ppor
t
,a
l
mos
tnof
u
ndsa
nde
v
e
nl
e
s
sme
di
ac
ov
e
r
a
g
e
,
”t
he
TFW continued working hard. To support the current strike, the Austin Friends of the
39
“
Me
e
t
i
ngMe
a
nsUni
t
y
…”El Cuhamil, 25 June 1976, 6, 5, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
“
TFW St
r
i
k
eMov
e
sont
o…Cr
y
s
t
a
lCi
t
y
;
”Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Ou
rSt
r
ug
gl
eMu
s
tMov
eFor
wa
r
d,
”bot
hi
nEl
Cuhamil, 9 July 1976, 1, 2, 4, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
40
98
Farm Workers organized a statewide caravan to collect food and money. Groups from
Houston, San Angelo, Eagle Pass, and El Paso contributed to the effort and met in San
Juan on the weekend of July 16, 1976.41 During this time, Orendain also began publicly
pushing for farm worker legislation to be passed, and began planning a petition to collect
signatures in support of such a bill. Though not scheduled to begin until late September,
t
hepe
t
i
t
i
onwou
l
ds
e
e
k“
s
i
g
na
t
u
r
e
s
…c
a
l
l
i
ngf
orwor
k
e
r
s
’r
i
g
ht
s
,c
ol
l
e
c
t
i
v
eba
r
g
a
i
ni
ng
,a
nd
fair procedures for establishing representation in a body authorized to guarantee
a
g
r
e
e
me
nt
s
.
”Ma
nyg
r
ou
psa
g
r
e
e
dt
opa
r
t
i
c
i
pa
t
e
,s
u
r
pr
i
s
i
ng
l
yt
oOr
e
nda
i
n,whoi
nt
he
u
ni
on’
sne
ws
pa
pe
ri
s
s
u
e
dapu
bl
i
cs
t
a
t
e
me
ntofg
r
a
t
i
t
u
dea
nde
x
pl
a
na
t
i
onofwha
tt
he
sought-after bill would accomplish.42 Time would tell if this impassioned effort would
prove successful.
The “
mi
g
r
a
t
or
ys
t
r
i
k
e
”c
ont
i
nu
e
da
nd e
v
e
nt
u
a
l
l
ye
nd
e
d wi
t
hl
i
t
t
l
ef
a
nf
a
r
e
.
Meanwhile, Orendain held a meeting with State Representative Gonzalo Barrientos to
discuss the proposed farm labor bill. Barrientos told Orendain he would introduce the bill
during the upcoming legislative session in January 1977, although he doubted it would
pass. To pass it, Barrientos said the bill needed widespread support, including that of César
Chávez and his union, which was highly unlikely.43 Nonetheless, with the petition and bill
Or
e
nda
i
nde
c
i
de
dt
heTFW wa
s“
g
oi
ngt
ot
r
yi
t
sl
u
c
kbyme
a
nsoft
hede
moc
r
a
t
i
c
”pr
oc
e
s
s
,
41
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ma
r
i
aFl
or
e
sa
n
dGl
e
nnSc
ot
t
,“
‘
Fr
i
e
n
ds
’Se
e
kAi
d,
”9J
u
l
y1976,Daily Texan, 5, Folder 17,
MGFP-UT; Press Release, 15 July 1976, Folder 6, MGFP-UT.
42
Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor,256;“
Ope
nLe
t
t
e
rFr
om t
h
eAu
s
t
i
nFr
i
e
ndsoft
h
eFa
r
m
Wor
k
e
r
st
oSu
ppor
tt
h
eTFW,
”7J
u
l
y1976,Fol
de
r6,MGFP-UT;Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
TFW Pu
s
h
e
sForLa
bor
La
w,
”El Cuhamil, 6 August 1976, 1-2, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
43
“
I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
wWi
t
hGon
z
a
l
oBa
r
r
i
e
n
t
os
,
”El Cuhamil, 6 August 1976, 1, 3, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWMUTA.
99
a
ndt
ha
ta
ni
nt
e
ns
epe
r
i
odof“
l
obby
i
ng
”a
ndpol
i
t
i
c
k
i
ngwa
sf
a
c
i
ngt
he
mi
nt
hef
a
l
lof
1976.44 Thus a new phase in the struggle was about to begin.
As Orendain began publicizing his petition plan, a sixteen-year old farm worker
and UFW member, Juan José Trinidad, was shot and killed in the small town of Donna,
a
l
l
e
g
e
d
l
ya
t
t
e
mpt
i
ngt
obr
e
a
ki
nt
oag
r
owe
r
s
’homea
t6
:
3
0i
nt
hea
f
t
e
r
noon, August 6.
According to the grower, he and his wife were watching television when they heard
someone trying to force their way through a front window. As the boy fell through the
window and continued to advance on the grower, he was shot six times with a small-caliber
handgun and died on the scene.
TheTFW i
mme
di
a
t
e
l
yt
ooki
s
s
u
ewi
t
ht
hes
u
s
pi
c
i
ou
ss
t
or
y
.“
Why
,
”t
he
ypos
e
d,
“
wou
l
dTr
i
ni
da
da
t
t
e
mptt
obu
r
g
l
a
r
i
z
eahou
s
ei
nbr
oa
dda
y
l
i
g
ht
,wi
t
ht
heowne
r
si
ns
i
de
?
Exactly why did the grower fire six shots at Trinidad without giving any warning? And was
Tr
i
ni
da
da
c
t
u
a
l
l
yi
ns
i
det
hehou
s
eorj
u
s
tl
ook
i
ngi
n?Pe
r
ha
pse
v
e
nk
noc
k
i
ng
?
”Theu
ni
on
a
l
s
owonde
r
e
dwha
tbe
c
a
meoft
het
wof
r
i
e
ndshewa
sa
l
l
e
g
e
dl
ywi
t
h,a
st
hes
he
r
i
f
f
’
s
department was unable to find them. Union officials also cited the C.L. Miller shooting in
1
9
7
5
,s
a
y
i
ngi
ts
e
tapr
e
c
e
de
nti
nt
heVa
l
l
e
y
,“
whi
c
hs
a
y
st
ha
ta
nyf
a
r
m wor
k
e
ronpr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
ope
r
t
yc
a
nbel
e
g
a
l
l
ys
hota
nde
v
e
nk
i
l
l
e
dbyag
r
owe
r
.
”Tr
e
s
pa
s
s
i
ngwa
samor
el
i
k
e
l
y
cause for the incident. Either way, the grower was never indicted.45
The next day, Orendain traveled to San Antonio and participated in a march of
about 500 Chicanos who were protesting the murder of a young Mexican American by a
44
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
At
t
e
n
t
i
on!At
t
e
n
t
i
on!At
t
e
n
t
i
on!
”El Cuhamil, 6 August 1976, 3, Oversize Box 8-2,
MAFWM-UTA.
45
“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
rKi
l
l
e
dbyGr
owe
r
,
”El Cuhamil, 6 August 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
100
police officer in 1975. Several different Chicano organizations participated, and Orendain
u
s
e
dt
hee
v
e
ntt
opu
bl
i
c
i
z
et
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’pl
i
g
ht
,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
wehopet
ha
tou
rma
r
c
ha
nd
r
a
l
l
ywi
l
lma
k
eou
rc
ompl
a
i
nt
sk
nownt
ope
opl
ebe
y
ondDol
phBr
i
s
c
oe
.
”Hec
ont
i
nu
e
d,
“
a
Chi
c
a
nowa
sk
i
l
l
e
d…weha
v
eapurpose. We want justice to be done. If justice will not
46
pr
e
v
a
i
l
t
he
ni
twi
l
l
bemor
eda
ng
e
r
ou
sf
oru
sa
sChi
c
a
nos
.
”
These were strong words from
Orendain, who to this point had carefully kept his union separated from the Chicano
movement. By publicly allying himself with Chicano activists, Orendain was clearly making
a political move aimed at strengthening the upcoming petition for farm worker legislation.
Over the next month, violence against migrant farm workers escalated across the
Southwest. Although probably not related to the activities of the TFW, the union did take
advantage of each occurrence, protesting anti-farm worker sentiment to dramatize their
efforts. In late August, three Mexican nationals looking for work were tortured in Arizona
–stripped, stabbed, burned with hot pokers, dragged across the desert and finally shot; the
three victims amazingly survived the ordeal. In their newspaper, El Cuhamil, the TFW
c
onde
mne
d“
t
he
s
ea
c
t
soft
or
t
u
r
ea
nds
a
v
a
g
e
r
ya
g
a
i
ns
tt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
sf
r
om Me
x
i
c
o
whose only crime was to come to this country to look for work to be able to feed their
c
hi
l
dr
e
n.
”Uni
onof
f
i
c
i
a
l
sa
g
r
e
e
dwi
t
hMe
x
i
c
a
nof
f
i
c
i
a
l
swhos
a
i
dt
het
hr
e
eme
nwe
r
e
47
“
v
i
c
t
i
msoff
a
s
c
i
s
m.
”
In a separate incident in September, another farm worker was
tortured –this time in the Río Grande Valley –and unfortunately died of his wounds. The
union also raised alarm over this event, utilizing it to publicize the plight of the farm
worker and the need for passage of the farm worker bill in the upcoming legislative
46
“
Ma
r
c
hForJ
u
s
t
i
c
e
,
”El Cuhamil, 23 August 1976, 1, 3, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
“
Th
r
e
eWor
k
e
r
sTor
t
u
r
e
di
nU.
S.
;
”“
TFW Ta
k
e
sSt
a
n
d;
”“
Me
x
i
c
oPr
ot
e
s
t
s‘
U.
S.Sa
va
g
e
r
y
,
”a
l
li
nEl
Cuhamil, 3 September 1976, 1, 4, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
47
101
session.48 Morose events like these would hopefully demonstrate the necessity of a farm
worker bill and ease its passage.
Continuing his plan to ally with other Chicano groups, a delegation from the TFW
led by Orendain publicly announced its statewide petition campaign for the upcoming
labor bill on September 19 at the state La Raza Unida convention. José Ángel Gutiérrez of
La Raza Unida pl
e
d
g
e
dhi
spa
r
t
y
’
ss
u
ppor
tf
ort
heu
ni
ona
ndi
t
spe
t
i
t
i
on,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
t
hepa
r
t
y
and the TFW will become the meat a
ndboneoft
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
rmov
e
me
nt
.
”The
delegation announced a 500,000-signature goal for the petition, as well as some details of
the bill itself, which at the time was still being drafted by Barrientos. The bill would call for
a Texas Agricultural LaborRe
l
a
t
i
onsboa
r
d,whi
c
hwou
l
d“
a
c
tv
e
r
ymu
c
ha
st
heNa
t
i
ona
l
La
borRe
l
a
t
i
onsBoa
r
ddoe
s
.
”I
twou
l
da
l
s
o“
c
e
r
t
i
f
yu
ni
onst
hr
ou
g
hs
e
c
r
e
tba
l
l
ote
l
e
c
t
i
ons
”
a
ndwou
l
d“
a
l
l
owc
ont
r
a
c
t
sonl
ybe
t
we
e
nc
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
du
ni
onsa
ndg
r
owe
r
s
.
”Uni
onor
g
a
ni
z
e
r
s
would also be sent to different areas of Texas, which was divided into four targeted zones,
to collect signatures.49
The support of La Raza Unida was greatly appreciated but Orendain knew that
without the backing of the UFW passage of the bill would be unlikely. Thus, the union
c
ont
i
nu
e
dt
oi
s
s
u
e“
c
a
l
l
sf
ors
u
ppor
t
,
”k
nowi
ngt
he
yne
e
de
dmu
c
ha
s
s
i
s
t
a
nc
et
oov
e
r
c
ome
Te
x
a
s
’
s“
r
i
g
htt
owor
k
”l
a
ws
.Ci
t
i
ngt
hebr
u
t
a
l
i
t
yoft
heTe
x
a
sRa
ng
e
r
sa
tt
hee
ndoft
he
Starr County strike and the C.L. Miller shooting, the union arguedt
ha
tt
he
y“
a
ndt
hef
a
r
m
wor
k
e
r
swhos
u
ppor
t[
t
hebi
l
l
]wi
l
lnotbea
bl
et
oc
a
r
r
you
tt
hi
ss
t
r
u
g
g
l
ebyt
he
ms
e
l
v
e
s
.
”
48
“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
rBe
a
t
e
nt
oDe
a
t
h
,
”El Cuhamil, 20 September 1976, 1, 3, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWMUTA;“
Su
ppor
tt
h
eFa
r
m Wor
k
e
rLa
w,
”El Cuhamil, 20 September 1976, 2, Oversize Box 8-2,
MAFWM-UTA.
49
“
TFW La
u
n
c
h
e
sLe
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
onCa
mpa
i
g
n
,
”El Cuhamil, 31 September 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2,
MAFWM-UTA.
102
Orendain and the union targeted sympathetic individuals and organizations, such as labor
locals and churches, in the call for support. They were needed because the TFW lacked the
funds to lobby for the bill in the traditional manner. The support of either the UFW or the
Texas AFL-CIO would certainly have been welcome, but both organizations remained
silent on the issue. If the bill did not pas
s
,
Or
e
nda
i
n“
pr
omi
s
e
d”t
ha
te
v
e
r
yu
ni
onme
mbe
r
,
which at this point was about 3,000 workers, would walk off the job in protest.50
In late September 1976 Orendain visited Southern California to garner out-of-state
support for the petition. Workers in San Jose who supported the UFW called for support
of the TFW, and the Texas Farm Workers Support Committee was formed in San Diego,
51
whe
r
eOr
e
nda
i
n’
swi
f
eRa
q
u
e
lha
dg
i
v
e
n as
pe
e
c
hi
nJ
u
l
y
.
All efforts were being
concentrated on the petition and no demonstrations were planned for the time being. On
October 11, four TFW organizers –Jesus Luna, Douglas Kellar, Jorge Zaragoza, and
Armando Acosta –left the Valley to organize the petition drive. Luna was sent to Houston,
Kellar to Austin, Zaragoza to San Antonio, and Acosta to rural West Texas. It was not
known how long each organizer would be gone, except that Kellar planned to remain in
Austin for the legislative session in January.52
Orendain felt encouraged after returning from his California trip. To him, the state
wa
spr
e
s
e
nt
i
nga“
de
moc
r
a
t
i
cma
t
u
r
i
t
y
”a
ss
e
v
e
r
a
l
f
a
r
m wor
k
e
rbi
l
l
swe
r
ea
bou
tt
obev
ot
e
d
50
“
TFW Ca
l
l
sForSu
ppor
t
,
”El Cuhamil, 31 September 1976, 1, 6, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA;
c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,Wa
n
daPr
y
or
,“
Fa
r
m Un
i
on
i
s
t
sPl
a
nPe
t
i
t
i
onf
orLa
borBi
l
l
,
”Austin American-Statesman, 13
October 1976, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
51
“
Le
t
t
e
r
s
,
”El Cuhamil, 31 September 1976, 8, Oversize Box 8-2, MAFWM-UTA.
52
“
TFW Or
g
a
n
i
z
e
r
sLe
a
v
eOnPe
t
i
t
i
onDr
i
v
e
,
”El Cuhamil, 22 October 1976, 1, Oversize Box 8-2,
MAFWM-UTA.
103
on.Hehope
dt
o“
f
ol
l
owi
nt
hef
oot
s
t
e
pst
he
yha
v
ema
det
he
r
e
,
”a
ndt
hou
g
hts
i
nc
ema
ny
California workers migrated from Texas it would only be a matter of time before
sympathetic Californians (namely, UFW members) turned their attention towards Texas.53
Aside from the support he gained while in California, committees in Houston, Austin, El
Paso, San Angelo, Crystal City, Dallas, Fort Worth, Lubbock, Muleshoe, and even Chicago,
were hard at worker gaining signatures and publicizing the legislation.54 The petitions
s
i
g
ne
di
nt
r
odu
c
e
dt
hebi
l
l
’
ss
pe
c
i
f
i
cpa
r
t
s
,
c
i
t
i
ngal
a
bor
-relations law passed in California in
1975 as its predecessor. It also warned that the continued refusal of growers to recognize
r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
on“
a
ppe
a
r
st
obel
e
a
di
ngu
st
owa
r
dpr
ol
ong
e
du
nr
e
s
t
,
”i
ndi
c
a
t
i
ngt
ha
ti
ft
he
bill failed to pass the union would increase demonstrations.55
The petition drive continued with strong support throughout the winter of 1976,
and the union achieved its goal of 500,000 signatures.56 The Legislature convened in
January 1977, and by early February Barrientos completed the 35-page bill, with special
emphasis being given to the proposed five-person Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The
union hoped that the five people would be full-time workers and that at least three would
be lawyers. Under the bill both the TFW and UFW would remain autonomous, but
workers from both unions would pay dues directly to the board.57 Chá
v
e
z
’
sa
ndt
heUFW’
s
continued silence on the issue can only be interpreted as continued opposition to
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sbr
e
a
k
a
wa
ye
f
f
or
t
s
.
53
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Pr
opos
i
t
i
on14,
Or
e
n
da
i
n
,“
Su
ppor
tCommi
t
t
e
e
s
,
55
“
Pe
t
i
t
i
onbyTFWUt
oTe
x
a
sLe
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
ea
n
dGov
e
r
n
or
st
obeSi
g
n
e
dbyTe
x
a
sCi
t
i
z
e
ns
,197
6,
”Fol
de
r
3, TFWUP-UT.
56
Gómez-Quiñónez, Mexican-American Labor, 256.
57
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
rAi
dBi
l
lDr
a
f
t
e
d,
”Daily Texan, 7 February 1977, 2, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
54
104
The bill was introduced into the Texas House in late February, with similar
legislation introduced in the Senate. At this point, Orendain enjoyed the support of the
Catholic Church, American GI Forum, Texas Council of Churches, and the League of
United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Still, the most important missing piece –the
UFW –refused to acknowledge his union. Orendain knew that for the bill to have a chance
he had to dramatize his efforts. Thus, he decided to lead a march from San Juan to Austin
–440 miles –to publicize and gain support for the bill. Orendain also contacted Governor
Briscoe, who to his amazement agreed to meet with him and a small delegation from the
union once they reached Austin.
Thus the march began with hope, and on February 26 the marchers left Our Lady
of San Juan Shrine for Austin. From the moment they left, insults and obscenities were
constantly hurled at them from passers-by, and one observer noted that police protection
oft
heg
r
ou
pwa
s“
s
pot
t
y
”a
tbe
s
t
.Or
e
nda
i
nl
e
dt
heg
r
ou
pbu
tt
oi
nt
e
r
e
s
t
e
dr
e
por
t
e
r
s
di
s
c
l
a
i
me
dbe
i
ngt
hema
r
c
h’
sl
e
a
de
r
,s
a
y
i
ngi
ns
t
e
a
d“
t
hepe
opl
el
e
a
dme
.
”De
s
pi
t
ethe
t
y
pi
c
a
ldi
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
i
e
si
nv
ol
v
e
di
nt
hema
r
c
h,oneonl
ook
e
rnot
e
dt
hepe
opl
ewe
r
e“
g
i
v
i
ng
a
bs
ol
u
t
e
l
y1
0
0pe
r
c
e
ntf
orapr
og
r
e
s
s
i
v
ec
a
u
s
e
,
”a
ndag
e
ne
r
a
l
s
pi
r
i
tofopt
i
mi
s
m pe
r
me
a
t
e
d
their ranks.58
After a trying journey of a month and a half, the group arrived in Austin. Orendain
me
ta
nds
hookha
ndswi
t
hBr
i
s
c
oea
tt
heGov
e
r
nor
’
sMa
ns
i
oni
nf
r
ontofac
r
owdof
reporters, and was subsequently invited inside with a small delegation for a private meeting.
Br
i
s
c
oewa
spr
e
s
e
nt
e
dwi
t
ht
heu
ni
on’
spe
t
i
t
i
ona
ndin a 30-mi
nu
t
eme
e
t
i
ngou
t
l
i
ne
d“
hi
s
58
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,J
u
a
nMa
l
don
a
do,“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sWa
g
eSy
mbol
i
cBa
t
t
l
e
,
”Daily Texan, 1 April 1977, 1, 8,
Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
105
t
hou
g
ht
sonwha
tt
hes
t
a
t
eha
sa
l
r
e
a
dydonef
orpoorwor
k
e
r
s
.
”Af
t
e
rt
heme
e
t
i
nge
nde
d
,
both sides characterized it as positive and friendly, but Orendain and the marchers –
demonstrating their political naiveté –were not
i
c
e
a
bl
ydi
s
a
ppoi
nt
e
d
.“
Ia
mc
e
r
t
a
i
nl
ynot
s
u
ppor
t
i
ngt
ha
t[
t
hebi
l
l
]t
oda
y
,
”t
heGov
e
r
nort
ol
dr
e
por
t
e
r
sa
f
t
e
rt
heme
e
t
i
ng
.Or
e
nda
i
n
wa
su
ps
e
tbu
tr
e
ma
i
ne
dde
t
e
r
mi
ne
dt
oc
ont
i
nu
et
hes
t
r
u
g
g
l
e
.“
Ia
m notg
oi
ngt
og
i
v
eu
p,
”
het
ol
dt
her
e
por
t
e
r
s
,“
Idi
dn’
tg
i
v
eu
pi
n1
9
6
6a
ndt
ha
twa
s1
1y
e
a
r
sa
g
o.Wha
t
’
sa
not
he
r
1
1y
e
a
r
s
?
” Oneobs
e
r
v
e
rnot
i
c
e
dt
ha
t
,a
l
t
hou
g
ht
heg
ov
e
r
nort
r
e
a
t
e
dt
hema
r
c
he
r
s
59
c
or
di
a
l
l
y
,
he“
wa
s
n’
ts
mi
l
i
ngmu
c
h.
”
Later that day, a special Senate subcommittee heard testimony from the union on
the legislation, but its passage remained unlikely. Orendain spoke to the committee and
u
r
g
e
dpa
s
s
a
g
eoft
hebi
l
l
,s
a
y
i
ngwe“
ha
v
ec
omet
oAu
s
t
i
ns
e
e
k
i
ngt
hebe
s
ts
ol
u
t
i
ont
oour
problems, in a nonviolent manner, seeking a way by which we can take part in our free
e
nt
e
r
pr
i
s
es
y
s
t
e
m.
” Af
t
e
rhe
a
r
i
ng s
e
v
e
r
a
lhou
r
soft
e
s
t
i
monyt
hes
i
t
u
a
t
i
on r
e
ma
i
ne
d
unchanged. Carlos Truan, who had sponsored the bill in the Senate, remained doubtful of
i
t
sc
ha
nc
e
s
,s
a
y
i
ng
,“
The
r
ewi
l
lbenopu
s
ht
opa
s
st
hi
sl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
on.I am hopeful we can
establish an interim study commission that will come forth with solutions to these
60
pr
obl
e
ms
.
”
Thus the day ended on a sour note for Orendain and the marchers.
Unable to pass the farm worker bill and with no strikes planned for the near future,
things remained quiet through April and May 1977. In early June, Orendain got an idea: the
governor of Texas and lawmakers had killed the farm worker bill, but what if he brought
59
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,J
a
me
sTr
ot
t
e
r
,“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sMe
e
tWi
t
hBr
i
s
c
oe
,
”Austin American-Statesman, 5 April 1977,
1, 9, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
60
Ibid.
106
the struggle to the national level? Of course farm worker issues already occupied the
national spotlight under Chávez and the UFW, but the TFW was fighting a different battle
with different issues. Would President Jimmy Carter and the lawmakers in Washington
scorn their efforts? Orendain did not think so, especially if the union took drastic
measures. Thus, Orendain got the idea for a 1,600-mile march from Austin to Washington.
Theg
ov
e
r
nme
ntofTe
x
a
sc
ou
l
di
g
nor
et
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’pr
obl
e
ms
,bu
tc
e
r
t
a
i
nl
yt
he
government of the United States would not.
The march to Washington was scheduled to leave Austin on June 18 at 7:30 a.m.
Thepr
i
ma
r
ypu
r
pos
ewa
st
og
a
i
n“
adi
a
l
og
u
ewi
t
ht
hePr
e
s
i
de
ntt
oa
c
q
u
a
i
nthi
m wi
t
ht
he
plight of the Farmworker [sic]. Perhaps in this manner proposals made by the
Farmworkers [sic] will receive fa
v
or
a
bl
ec
ons
i
de
r
a
t
i
on.
”Theu
ni
ons
ou
g
hte
ndor
s
e
me
nt
s
and financial support, as Orendain estimated that $15,000 was needed to begin the march.
They also needed medical supplies, food, doctors and lawyers who were willing to donate
their time.61
The expensive and highly publicized march began in earnest on June 18 with about
45 participants, and for the first month the strikers traveled unabated across southern
Texas and Louisiana –waving their huelga flags and successfully garnering support along
the way. TFW rallies were held in Lake Charles, Lafayette, New Orleans, and several other
small towns along the route. On July 18 when they reached Poplarville, Mississippi, union
me
mbe
r
sha
dt
he
i
rf
i
r
s
ta
ndonl
y“
r
u
n-i
n”wi
t
hl
a
we
nf
or
c
e
me
ntdu
r
i
ngt
hema
r
c
h.At
noonl
oc
a
ls
he
r
i
f
f
’
sde
pu
t
i
e
ss
t
oppe
dt
hema
r
c
he
r
sa
bou
t8mi
l
e
ss
ou
t
hwe
s
toft
own.Not
61
News Release, Folder 12, MGFP-UT;“
Ur
g
e
n
tAppe
a
l
,
”International Peoples Appeal Newsletter,
June-July 1977, 1, 3, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
107
knowing that Orendain and the marchers were traveling through the county, the officers
thought that the group had assembled simply to obstruct traffic on the highway, thus
Orendain and 35 others were arrested and taken to prison in Jackson. Sheriff Lawrence
Hol
l
i
d
a
y
,who k
ne
wt
hema
r
c
he
r
swe
r
es
i
mpl
y“
t
r
a
v
e
l
i
ng t
hr
ou
g
h,
”c
l
e
a
r
e
du
pt
he
mi
s
u
nd
e
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
,f
r
e
e
i
ngOr
e
nda
i
na
ndt
heot
he
r
s
.“
Ev
e
r
y
bodyl
e
f
tf
r
i
e
ndl
ya
nd no
cha
r
g
e
swe
r
ef
i
l
e
d,
”Hol
l
i
da
yl
a
t
e
rs
a
i
d.
The marchers arrived in Hattiesburg, Mississippi about two days later, where
another rally was held in their honor. Various human rights groups attended in support of
the effort. Keeping a planned 20-mile per day schedule which would put them in
Washington on September 5, the union next stopped in the small town of Laurel.62 From
Laurel the marchers continued east through Mississippi and Alabama, largely without
incident, until they reached Atlanta on August 6. In Atlanta a high-profile rally was held,
wi
t
hMa
r
t
i
nLu
t
he
rKi
ng
’
swi
dowCor
e
t
t
aS
c
ot
tKi
ngi
na
t
t
e
nda
nc
e
.Ther
a
l
l
ywa
shi
g
hl
y
publicized in the media, and more extensive coverage was being given to the march.63
The marchers arrived in Greenville, South Carolina on August 11, and held a rally
at a local Catholic Church. Upon arrival Orendain and the marchers were in good spirits.
Orendain issued a statement on the purpose of the march, saying he hoped to meet with
President Carter and other legislators after arriving in Washington on Labor Day. Instead
of getting the collective bargaining agreement for farm workers in just Texas, Orendain
said he would argue for extending the law in California across the entire nation. He also
62
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ka
r
lHi
l
l
,“
Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
si
nSt
a
t
eonWa
l
kt
oNa
t
i
on’
sCa
pi
t
ol
,
”Greenville News, 11
August 1977, Folder 17, MGFP-UT; Press Release, 21 July 1977, Folder 6, MGFP-UT;c
l
i
ppi
ng
,“
35
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sAr
r
e
s
t
e
d,Fr
e
e
d,
”Austin American-Statesman;c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sa
r
eBa
c
k
onRoa
d,
”Hattiesburg American, 19 July 1977, 2, last two in Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
63
Press Release, 3 August 1977; Press Release, 6 August 1977, both in Folder 6, MGFP-UT.
108
said that the marchers had experie
nc
e
df
e
w pr
obl
e
mss
of
a
ront
het
r
i
p,“
ot
he
rt
ha
n
bl
i
s
t
e
r
e
df
e
e
ta
ndac
ou
pl
eofdr
e
nc
hi
ng
sonr
a
i
nyda
y
s
,
”a
ndt
hea
r
r
e
s
ti
nMi
s
s
i
s
s
i
ppi
,“
s
o
f
a
rt
her
e
s
pons
eha
sbe
e
ng
ood.
”Theu
ni
onha
dma
de“
mor
ef
r
i
e
ndsa
nd[
g
ot
t
e
n]mor
e
64
names for our petitions alongt
hewa
y
.
”
Indeed, public reaction so far was encouraging.
Next the marchers shifted north, and during their mid-August sojourn through
North Carolina received the aid of various Catholic groups of that state.65 By August 16 the
group reached Charlotte,
a
ndc
ha
nt
sof“
viva la marcha”a
nd“
viva Antonio Orendain”c
ou
l
dbe
heard as they marched up Interstate 85. Orendain remained pragmatic, and by this point
dou
bt
e
dwhe
t
he
ra“
f
e
de
r
a
lr
e
me
dy
”t
ot
he
i
ri
s
s
u
e
swou
l
dbef
ou
ndonc
et
he
yr
e
a
c
he
d
Washington. In Charlotte Orendain also called on all union supporters to write President
Carter urging him to receive the marchers and talk.66
After Charlotte the marchers traveled north through Virginia without incident. As
the group neared Washington, word reached Orendain that Carter would not be able to
meet with them once they arrived. Reports as to why conflicted. Some said the President
did not want to involve himself in the dispute while others claimed the President was
simply too busy to meet with them.67 The news came as a shock to Orendain –Briscoe,
despite being a grower himself, had at least given them an audience in Austin. Why, after a
64
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ka
r
lHi
l
l
,“
Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
si
nSt
a
t
eonWa
l
kt
oNa
t
i
on’
sCa
pi
t
ol
,
”Greenville News, 11
August 1977, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
65
Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Nor
t
hCa
r
ol
i
n
aCa
t
h
ol
i
c
st
oAi
dTe
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sAl
ongMa
r
c
hRout
e
,
”14Aug
ust
1977, 1, 11, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
66
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,Ma
r
yBi
s
h
op,“
Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sBr
i
n
gPr
o
t
e
s
tMa
r
c
ht
oCh
a
r
l
ot
t
e
,
”Charlotte Observer,
16 August 1977, 1B, Folder 17, MGFP-UT; Press Release, 16 August 1977, Folder 6, MGFP-UT.
67
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sSe
e
kCa
r
t
e
r
,
”San Antonio Express-News, 3 September 1977, 5, Folder 17,
MGFP-UT.
109
1,600-mile journey would Carter deny them? The answer was not immediately apparent to
Orendain, but with time he would learn why.
On September 6, 1977 the marchers reached Washington, and the following day
Orendain held a meeting with Labor Secretary Ray Marshall, afterwards pronouncing their
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
onsa
s“
pr
odu
c
t
i
v
e
.
”Or
e
nda
i
nwa
ss
t
i
l
lr
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
ngame
e
t
i
ngwi
t
hCa
r
t
e
r“
for just
f
i
v
emi
nu
t
e
s
”whi
c
h wou
l
donl
ybe“
l
a
r
g
e
l
ys
y
mbol
i
c
,
”a
ndpr
os
pe
c
t
ss
e
e
me
dt
o be
br
i
g
ht
e
ni
ng
.
TheWhi
t
eHou
s
ef
i
r
s
tof
f
e
r
e
dame
e
t
i
ngwi
t
honeofCa
r
t
e
r
’
sa
s
s
i
s
t
a
nt
s
,
whi
c
h
the union initially rejected but then accepted on the condition the meeting would not
pr
e
c
l
u
dea
not
he
rme
e
t
i
ngwi
t
ht
hePr
e
s
i
de
nt
.Or
e
nda
i
ndr
y
l
yr
e
ma
r
k
e
d,“
wek
e
e
phopi
ng
to see President Carter, any time of the day, any day of this week, in the same way that he
ha
sbe
e
na
v
a
i
l
a
bl
et
ot
he
s
edi
c
t
a
t
or
s
,
”r
e
f
e
r
r
i
ngt
ot
heLa
t
i
nAme
rican leaders who were in
Washington to sign the Panama Canal Treaty. This confrontational rhetoric would certainly
not endear Orendain to the President, but the union leader promised the marchers would
stay in Washington until Carter agreed to meet.68
As the next week passed the meeting with Carter appeared unlikely. In response,
Orendain and 11 of the marchers agreed to go on a water-only fast for the next 15-30 days
until Carter agreed to meet with them. They also started a 24-hour-a-day vigil outside of
the White House on September 12, hoping it would also affect a meeting with the
President. Only 12 would participate because many of the marchers, mostly women and
children, returned to Texas.69
68
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sTe
l
lWoe
st
o Ma
r
s
h
a
l
l
;
”c
l
i
ppi
n
g
,“
Y’
a
l
lComeOv
e
r
,
”bot
hi
n Austin
American-Statesman, 8 September 1977, 2B, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
69
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Ma
r
c
h
e
r
sFa
s
t
;Wa
i
tf
orCa
r
t
e
r
,
”Dallas Times-Herald, 13 September 1977, 15, Folder 17,
MGFP-UT.
110
Unfortunately, it appeared they were wasting their time. Orendain was granted a
me
e
t
i
ngwi
t
hMi
dg
eCos
t
a
nz
a
,oneofCa
r
t
e
r
’
sa
s
s
i
s
t
a
nt
s
,bu
twa
su
na
bl
et
opr
oc
u
r
ea
meeting with Carter. The marchers later received word that no matter how long they
s
t
a
y
e
d,
Ca
r
t
e
rdi
dnotha
v
et
i
mef
ort
he
m.
“
He
’
st
oobu
s
ye
nt
e
r
t
a
i
ni
ngdi
c
t
a
t
or
s
,
”Or
e
nda
i
n
angrily reiterated. As the reality of the situation began to set in, Orendain realized there was
nothing more he could do. When a reporter asked him why he thought Carter refused to
70
me
e
tt
hema
r
c
he
r
s
,Or
e
nda
i
nr
e
pl
i
e
d,“
be
c
a
u
s
ewea
r
et
oos
ma
l
l
.
”
Had the TFW enjoyed
the backing of either the UFW or the AFL-CIO, the meeting would likely have happened.
Ac
t
i
nga
l
onea
ndwi
t
hou
tt
hes
u
ppor
tOr
e
nda
i
nha
ds
ou
g
hts
i
nc
et
heTFW’
si
nc
e
pt
i
on,he
simply had little power.
Orendain was given an unexpected meeting with Vice President Walter Mondale
on September 16. The two had met before in 1966, and part of the meeting was spent
reminiscing on the early days of the movement in Texas. Mondale, who had long been
popular with the Mexican-Ameri
c
a
nc
ommu
ni
t
y
,pl
e
dg
e
dhi
ss
u
ppor
tf
ort
heu
ni
on’
s
e
f
f
or
t
st
og
e
tTe
x
a
s
’
sr
i
g
ht
-to-work laws repealed, although a meeting with Carter was still
notpr
odu
c
e
d.Howe
v
e
r
,t
heme
e
t
i
ngdi
de
nda
mi
c
a
bl
y
,wi
t
hOr
e
nda
i
ns
a
y
i
ng
,“
t
heonl
y
thing I say is I feel sorryMonda
l
ei
snotou
rPr
e
s
i
de
nt
.
”Af
t
e
r
wa
r
dsher
e
t
u
r
ne
dt
ot
he
ma
r
c
he
r
sa
ndc
a
l
l
e
dof
ft
hehu
ng
e
rs
t
r
i
k
ebe
c
a
u
s
e“
t
heg
r
ou
pwa
sphy
s
i
c
a
l
l
yu
na
bl
et
o
c
ont
i
nu
e
,notbe
c
a
u
s
eoft
heme
e
t
i
ngwi
t
hMonda
l
e
.
”Howe
v
e
rde
j
e
c
t
e
dhef
e
l
ta
tnot
gaining an audience withCa
r
t
e
r
,Or
e
nda
i
nc
l
a
i
me
dt
hema
r
c
hwa
s“
ag
r
e
a
ts
u
c
c
e
s
s
”
be
c
a
u
s
ei
t“
r
a
i
s
e
dt
hea
wa
r
e
ne
s
soft
hepu
bl
i
c
.
”
70
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,“
Fa
r
mwor
k
e
r
sonHu
ng
e
rSt
r
i
k
ePr
e
s
sf
orCa
r
t
e
rTa
l
k
,
”Austin American-Statesman, 14
September 1977, 1B, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
111
As the 12 marchers began preparing to leave Washington the next day and travel
back to the Valley by bus, rumors began circulating that the President had refused
Or
e
nda
i
na
na
u
di
e
nc
e“
be
c
a
u
s
et
heTe
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sa
r
enote
ndor
s
e
d byt
he
71
leadership of the AFL-CIO, which supports the California-ba
s
e
dUni
t
e
dFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
.
”
It soon came out that Chávez contacted Carter and told him that Orendain and the TFW
“
we
r
enotpr
ope
rr
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
e
soft
heTe
x
a
sf
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
.
”Or
e
nda
i
ndi
dnotl
e
a
r
nt
hi
s
until sometime after he had left Washington, but the news infuriated him. In his mind, all
72
ofhi
su
ni
on’
sa
r
du
ou
se
f
f
or
t
s“
we
r
es
a
bot
a
g
e
dbyCha
v
e
z
.
”
If he had previously hoped
for a future reunion with Chávez and that the UFW would get involved in Texas, he now
understood that this would never happen. The march to Washington had been his grandest
e
f
f
or
t
,a
nd i
fi
tc
ou
l
d be“
s
a
bot
a
g
e
d”byChá
v
e
z
,t
he
r
ec
l
e
a
r
l
ywas little room for
Or
e
nda
i
n’
ss
ma
l
l
u
ni
onwi
t
hi
nt
hef
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’
mov
e
me
nt
.
Establishing why Chávez did this is easy but it seems uncharacteristic of him. His
antagonism toward Orendain had continued unabated for 2 years. Why not just let
Orendain do what he could for the Texas farm workers while the UFW was embroiled in
a
c
t
i
onse
l
s
e
whe
r
e
?We
r
et
hes
u
ppos
e
d“
di
f
f
e
r
e
nc
e
si
nt
a
c
t
i
c
s
”s
ou
npa
l
a
t
a
bl
et
ha
thef
e
l
t
t
hene
e
dt
ot
hwa
r
tOr
e
nda
i
n’
sl
a
r
g
e
s
te
f
f
or
t
s
?Ag
a
i
n,i
tmu
s
tber
e
i
t
e
r
a
t
e
dt
ha
tOr
e
nda
i
n
had never condoned violence and was still advocating non-violence. In fact, one could
argue that violence was more common on UFW picket lines. Whether the violence was
coming from members of either union was never easy to establish, but violent occurrences
71
Cl
i
ppi
ng
,J
oh
nGe
ddi
e
,“
Texas Farm Workers End 4-Da
yHu
ng
e
rSt
r
i
k
e
,
”Dallas Morning News, 17
September 1977, 9A, Folder 17, MGFP-UT.
72
Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005; Nina Melanie Orendain interview by the author, 18
J
a
n
u
a
r
y2005;J
oeHol
l
e
y
,“
TheTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’Spl
i
t
,
112
seemed more common in California. Thus, Chávez could not criticize Orendain for failing
to protect his picketers from violence. Yes, the two men had different styles –Orendain,
although soft-spoken, was much more confrontational and argumentative than Chávez,
who tended to be quieter and less confrontational.73 Bu
tt
hi
sma
k
e
sChá
v
e
z
’
smov
et
o
block Orendain from meeting with Carter seem very out of character. Nevertheless, the
man who claimed to be their true leader stymied a move by Orendain that could have
contributed to the improvement of working and living conditions for Texas farm workers.
An internal dispute that Chávez could not let go of was clouding his judgment.
Because of the publicity surrounding the movement, some working conditions in
Texas had nominally improved,74 although in general they remained poor. By early 1978,
seventy percent of Texas farm workers were still earning wages under the poverty level. A
staggering eighty-six percent of farm worker children did not finish high school, while
seventy percent of adults had less than four years of schooling. Conditions also remained
poor in the colonias, thirty-three percent of which had no water at all, forcing the residents
to either collect it from irrigation ditches or golf course sprinklers.75
The hostilities of Chávez coupled with the ever-oppressive conditions of the farm
workers made Orendain realize that the TFW would probably never achieve its
objectives.76 Howe
v
e
r
,
t
oOr
e
nda
i
n’
sc
r
e
di
t
,
hewa
snoty
e
tr
e
a
dyt
og
i
v
eu
p.
The
r
ewe
r
eno
significant strikes or demonstrations in 1978, but Orendain continued to lobby the Texas
Legislature in hopes of getting a new farm worker bill passed. In October Orendain
73
Nina Melanie Orendain interview by the author, 18 January 2005.
Ibid.
75
“
Fa
c
t
sAbou
tTe
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
,
”Fol
de
r1
3,Box1,
MFWC-UTA.
76
Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005.
74
113
petitioned the legislators, asking each individual lawmaker to inform the TFW as to
whether they would support a new farm worker bill, since the old ones were tied up in
committees in both the House and the Senate. He also said that in the coming session the
union was prepared to have many more people on the steps of the capitol than they had
t
hey
e
a
rbe
f
or
e
,t
o“
c
ommu
ni
c
a
t
eou
rd
e
s
i
r
e
st
oobt
a
i
nc
ol
l
e
c
t
i
v
eba
r
g
a
i
ni
ngr
i
g
ht
sf
ort
he
wor
k
e
r
.
”Hec
l
a
i
me
dt
he
ywou
l
ds
t
a
yont
hos
es
t
e
psa
sl
onga
sne
c
e
s
s
a
r
yt
os
e
c
u
r
et
hos
e
rights.77
For the duration of 1978 things remained quiet for the TFW, aside from a hunger
strike led by Orendain on the steps of the capitol during a special legislative session. In
February of 1979 House Bill 227, the new farm worker bill, was introduced. Initially, the
bill appeared to have more support than its predecessor, and Orendain –who relocated his
mobile home and personal base of operations from San Juan to Pharr –worked hard at
garnering support for the bill throughout the Valley. He also led a group of union members
on a little-publicized march from Muleshoe to Austin to publicize the bill.78 Orendain
c
ons
i
de
r
e
dt
hebi
l
la
s“
t
heonl
ynon-violent, secure way to accomplish justice. By the same
79
t
ok
e
n,
i
fweha
v
et
of
i
nda
not
he
rwa
yt
or
e
a
c
ht
hes
a
meg
oa
l
,
wewi
l
l
.
”
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sr
e
ma
r
k
sc
l
e
a
r
l
ybe
t
r
a
yhi
sf
r
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
on,
likely at Chávez and the UFW for
their open hostility and lack of support. Lobbying for a farm worker bill was his last option
–if Chávez would oppose his actions on a national scale and refuse to support his activities
in Texas, what else could he do? Predictably, the new bill met the same fate as its
77
Orendain to Texas Legislators, 2 October 1978, Folder 1, TFWUP-UT.
De León, Mexican Americans in Texas,147;BobFa
t
h
e
r
e
e
,“
Ha
r
dRoa
dt
oTr
a
v
e
l
,
”Texas Observer, 2
February 1979, 18.
79
Ibid.
78
114
predecessor, requiring that Orendain and the TFW think of a new strategy. Thus they
returned to strikes, although activities were small in scale and somewhat sporadic. In 1980,
Orendain assigned Jesus Moya, a TFW organizer, to the Hereford area, where he led
workers at onion packing sheds in a strike for better wages and toilets. The strike was
broken, but Moya successfully encouraged workers to continue organizing on their own,
80
and they did so into the mid-1
9
8
0
sa
f
t
e
rt
heTFW’
sde
mi
s
e
.
Two events occurred in 1980 that did little to advance the cause of the workers but
were remarkable for Orendain. As a part of a goodwill tour to express solidarity among
indigenous, working-class peoples, Orendain gained an audience with Yasser Arafat in
Lebanon, where he delivered a warmly received speech to the Palestinian leader and his
entourage. He next flew to Iran, and in a move that drew criticism expressed support for a
group of reform-minded Iranian students holding some American hostages. This and other
events brought charges that Orendain was a communist, which the union leader laughingly
r
e
bu
k
e
d:
“
Wha
ti
sc
ommu
ni
s
m?Idon’
te
v
e
nu
nde
r
s
t
a
ndi
t
.
”De
s
pi
t
et
hi
s
,
Or
e
nda
i
ns
a
i
dhe
would work with anyone willing to help hi
m,
“
c
ommu
ni
s
t
,
s
oc
i
a
l
i
s
t
,
Re
pu
bl
i
c
a
n,
”e
v
e
n“
t
he
81
de
v
i
lhi
ms
e
l
f
,a
sl
onga
smyha
ndsdon’
tg
e
tbur
ne
d.
”
This kind of rhetoric would not re-
endear him to his ever-cautious, former mentor.
In the spring of 1981, Chávez visited San Juan and spoke at a UFW convention,
sounding much more practical than the Chávez of old. During his speech, Chávez said,
80
Yol
a
n
daRome
r
o,“
Tr
i
n
iGome
z
,t
h
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
,a
n
d Me
x
i
c
a
n
-American Community
Empowe
r
me
nt
:Tr
i
a
la
n
dTr
o
u
bl
eont
h
eTe
x
a
sSou
t
hPl
a
i
n
s
,
”i
nMexican Americans in Texas History,
editors Emilio Zamora, Cynthia Orozco, and Rudolfo Rocha (Austin: The Texas State Historical
Association, 2000), 143-155.
81
J
oeHol
l
e
y
,“
Th
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’Spl
i
t
,
”Texas Observer, 17 April 1981, 8; Nina Melanie
Orendain, email correspondence with the author, 24-25 January 2005.
115
“
wet
a
l
ka
bou
tj
u
s
t
i
c
ea
nddi
g
ni
t
ya
nda
l
loft
hos
ephr
a
s
e
st
ha
ta
r
ebe
a
u
t
i
f
u
la
ndr
e
a
c
ht
he
82
heart of all of us. But on this day we want more pragmatic changes –”
an allusion to his
opinion that the union was still not prepared to lead a large-scale movement in Texas.
Ne
v
e
r
t
he
l
e
s
s
,a
f
t
e
rt
hei
nc
i
de
ntOr
e
nda
i
n“
s
pok
er
e
g
r
e
t
f
u
l
l
yofhi
sbr
e
a
kwi
t
hCha
v
e
z
,
suggesting his old friend had lost touch with the people.
”Or
e
nda
i
na
r
g
u
e
d,“
i
fCha
v
e
z
really believed in Texas, he could help us get a [collective bargaining] law. It would
a
u
t
oma
t
i
c
a
l
l
ypu
tu
s[
t
heTFW]ou
tofbu
s
i
ne
s
s
,bu
tt
ha
t
’
sf
i
nebe
c
a
u
s
ewed
on’
tha
v
et
he
money from the AFL-CI
Ol
i
k
ehedoe
s
.
”Hef
u
r
t
he
rs
t
a
t
e
d“
Idon’
ts
e
enot
hi
ng[
s
i
c
]wr
ong
wi
t
hmepr
e
pa
r
i
ngt
hel
a
nda
ndhec
omi
ngi
nbe
hi
ndt
or
e
a
pt
heha
r
v
e
s
t
.
”
Amazingly, sometime that spring Chávez did offer Orendain an olive branch,
a
l
t
hou
g
ht
het
e
r
mswe
r
eu
na
c
c
e
pt
a
bl
e
.Chá
v
e
zs
a
i
d“
[
Or
e
nda
i
n]c
ou
l
dreturn to the UFW
f
ol
du
nde
ronec
ondi
t
i
on:hewou
l
dha
v
et
opu
ti
nay
e
a
r
’
swor
ki
nt
hef
i
e
l
d
s–as a farm
worker, not an organizer –a
ppa
r
e
nt
l
ya
sak
i
ndofpe
na
nc
e
.
”Or
e
nda
i
nr
e
f
u
s
e
d,r
e
a
l
i
z
i
ng
that even if he did rejoin the UFW Chávez would still not organize in Texas. Also during
t
hes
pr
i
ngRe
be
c
c
aHa
r
r
i
ng
t
onbe
g
a
ns
l
a
nd
e
r
i
ngt
heTFW a
g
a
i
n,s
a
y
i
ngi
t“
i
snotau
ni
on”
a
ndt
ha
tt
he
y“
ha
v
enope
opl
e
,
t
he
ydon’
tk
nowhowt
oor
g
a
ni
z
e
,
[
a
nd]t
he
yma
k
epr
omi
s
e
s
83
t
hej
u
s
tc
a
n’
tk
e
e
p.
”
Li
k
et
heTFW,t
he“
Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
onf
a
c
t
i
on”wa
spu
s
hi
ngf
orl
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
on
t
obepa
s
s
e
d,bu
tonl
ywor
k
e
r
s
’c
ompe
ns
a
t
i
ona
ndu
ne
mpl
oy
me
ntbe
ne
f
i
t
s
,i
ns
t
e
a
dof
collective bargaining. The TFW introduced another bill for collective bargaining, but
Harrington opposed it, saying the timing was not right and the UFW needed contracts
before they would support such a bill. Harrington argued that the bill, if it passed, would be
82
83
Ibid., 4.
Ibid., 6.
116
s
o“
g
u
t
t
e
dbya
me
ndme
nt
s
”t
ha
ti
twou
l
dnota
c
c
ompl
i
s
ha
ny
t
hi
ngf
ort
hewor
k
e
r
s
.
Orendain remained unconvinced:
So what? [Orendain] responds. Right now, even in Arizona, farmworkers
[sic] are under contract, even with 100 percent illegal workers. Those people are
a
bl
et
oor
g
a
ni
z
e
.He
r
ei
nTe
x
a
sweha
v
enol
a
w,ba
dorg
ood,a
ndwec
a
n’
t
84
organize. The law is only a tool to mak
eau
ni
on.
I
tdoe
s
n’
tg
u
a
r
a
nt
e
ea
ny
t
hi
ng
.
Thi
swa
st
heTFW’
sma
i
npr
obl
e
m wi
t
hHa
r
r
i
ng
t
on,a
sbot
hOr
e
nda
i
na
ndl
a
t
e
rMoy
a
publicly stated, that the workers primarily wanted the ability to organize before their other
i
s
s
u
e
s
,s
u
c
ha
swor
k
e
r
s
’c
ompe
ns
a
t
i
ona
ndu
ne
mpl
oy
me
ntbe
ne
f
i
t
s
,we
r
ea
d
dr
e
s
s
e
d.“
Thi
s
woma
ni
sbe
t
r
a
y
i
ngt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
,
”Moy
ade
c
l
a
r
e
d,
“
S
he
’
sg
oi
nga
g
a
i
ns
tt
he
i
rde
ma
nds
.
85
The workers want t
obeor
g
a
ni
z
e
d.
”
These tactical differences would never be bridged.
By 1981, TFW activities were limited as Orendain realized the Chávez-led
opposition was simply too much for his small union.86 The previous year, the TFW led a
small-scale strike in the onion fields of Deaf Smith County, and Moya returned to
Hereford trying to revitalize the onion strike of the previous year, but to no avail.87
Or
e
nda
i
n’
sa
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
st
hr
ou
g
hou
tt
her
e
s
tof1
9
8
1we
r
ea
l
s
ol
i
mi
t
e
d.S
omes
ma
l
l
-scale
demonstrations took place, but nothing of consequence happened for the union.
Press coverage of both the TFW and Orendain also began to wane. In May of
1982, Orendain spoke out on several issues. He talked about the poor conditions in the
Va
l
l
e
y
’
scolonias, and how despite them the workers spoke proudly of their homes because
t
he
yowne
dt
he
m,
“
e
v
e
ni
fi
twa
sonl
yapi
l
eofboa
r
ds
:
”
84
J
oeHol
l
e
y
,“
Th
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’Spl
i
t
,
Ibid., 7.
86
87
J
oeHol
l
e
y
,“
Th
eTe
x
a
sFa
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
’Spl
i
t
,
”Texas Observer, 17 April 1981, 5; Ruperto García,
“
Con
di
t
i
onsi
nt
h
eOn
i
onFi
e
l
ds
,
”Texas Observer, 24 July 1981, 10-12.
85
117
What do you expect, with an annual salary of only $2,000 or $3,000? Why
do they live that way? Because they, too, are proud and want to be able to partake
of the American way of life, to have a nice house and well, this is all they can
afford.88
He also publicly refuted allegations that the TFW paid people to participate in its
demonstrations –a ridiculous charge against an impoverished union that did not even
charge membership fees. Also that spring, Orendain went on fund raising trips to Chicago
a
ndl
a
t
e
rt
oAu
s
t
i
n,
t
os
pe
a
kwi
t
hal
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
orwhowa
sc
ons
i
de
r
i
ng“
s
pons
or
i
ng
”t
heu
ni
on.
When he returned to the Valley, the union led about 32 strikes during the onion harvest in
May and Orendain was arrested on one occasion for trespassing. Union representatives
were also still making daily trips to the international bridge at Hidalgo to divert greencarders from entering Texas.89
After the onion strikes of 1982, Orendain realized that the TFW simply could not
c
ont
i
nu
e
.Hi
se
f
f
or
t
sa
t“
pa
v
i
ngt
hewa
y
”f
orChá
v
e
zwe
r
ef
a
i
l
i
ngbe
c
a
u
s
et
heUFW l
e
a
d
e
r
notonl
yoppos
e
dOr
e
nda
i
n’
sa
c
t
i
ons
,bu
ta
l
s
obe
c
a
u
s
eChá
v
e
zha
dnopl
a
nst
oor
g
a
ni
z
ei
n
Texas in the foreseeable future. Thus, with no support and the continued opposition of
Chávez, Orendain resigned as TFW director in 1982 and the union quickly fell apart. Had
Chávez and the UFW not interfered in TFW activities, or had they or the AFL-CIO
provided financial backing, Orendain and the TFW undoubtedly could have persisted.
However, intra-union politics, jealou
s
i
e
s
,a
ndba
c
ks
t
a
bbi
ngf
r
om t
he“
mot
he
ru
ni
on”ha
d
88
Clipping, Evelyn Hernán
de
z
,“
Th
eTi
r
e
da
n
dPoorHu
ddl
ei
nt
h
eCol
on
i
a
soft
heVa
l
l
e
y
,
”a
n
d,
“
Mi
g
r
a
n
t
sToi
li
nFe
r
t
i
l
eVa
l
l
e
y
,
”bot
hi
nFort Worth Star Telegram, 16 May 1982, 1,8, 13, Folder 13,
Box 1, MFWC-UTA.
89
I
bi
d.
;Cl
i
ppi
n
g
,Ev
e
l
y
nHe
r
n
á
n
de
z
,“
Fa
r
m La
borUn
i
onsHoe
i
n
gaTou
g
hRow i
nt
heVa
l
l
e
y
,
”Fort
Worth Star Telegram, 17 May 1982, 1-2, Folder 13, Box 1, MFWC-UTA.
118
successfully driven Orendain and the TFW out of business.90 The alienation of Orendain
and the Río Grande Valley farm workers, a process over 10 years in the making, was finally
complete.
The UFW retained its presence in the Valley, as it had during the lifespan of the
TFW.Fr
om 1
9
7
8t
o1
9
8
1t
he“
Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
on f
a
c
t
i
on”a
nd ot
he
rUFW r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
v
e
s
lobbied the Texas Legislature, eventually getting a bill passed in May of 1981 outlawing the
use the short handled hoe, which caused severe back and neck injuries for the workers.
Also in 1981, Chávez led a march from Brownsville to San Juan, which was largely
symbolic in nature. This was his last major appearance in the area. By 1982, the union had
forced the Health Department to require toilets in the fields. However, after 1982 the
UFW’
spu
s
hf
orf
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
si
nt
heVa
l
l
e
yr
e
ma
i
ne
dmi
ni
ma
l
a
tbe
s
t
.
Today the union maintains a presence in the Valley, but under an organization it
created entitled La Union del Pueblo Entero (
LUPE)
.
LUPEi
sa“
non-profit organization that
focuses on community-based organizing, self-development, and civic engagement of
me
mbe
r
s
.
”Theu
ni
ona
l
s
oma
i
nt
a
i
nst
heNa
t
i
ona
lFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sS
e
r
v
i
c
eCe
nt
e
ri
nS
a
n
Juan, which focuses on building low-income housing.91 There are no plans currently to
or
g
a
ni
z
et
heVa
l
l
e
y
’
sf
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
s
.
Unf
or
t
u
na
t
e
l
y
,
Or
e
nda
i
n’
swi
f
eRa
q
u
e
lpa
s
s
e
da
wa
ynotl
onga
f
t
e
rhel
e
f
tt
heTFW.
For many years afterwards Orendain continued his radio show, La Voz del Campesino,
where he continued to talk about farm worker problems and conditions in the colonias. He
90
“
Th
eUn
i
t
e
d Fa
r
m Wor
ke
r
s
,AFL-CI
O,i
n Te
x
a
s
,
”Fol
de
r13
,Box 1,MFWC-UTA; James C.
Ha
r
r
i
n
g
t
on
,“
Fr
om LaCa
s
i
t
at
oLUPE,
”Te
x
a
sObs
e
r
v
e
r
,3De
c
e
mbe
r2004,www.texasobserver.org,
accessed 11 January 2005; Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005.
91
119
worked diligently in community activism, and also did volunteer work with local children.
When his health began declining he became somewhat less active in the community,
although he continued to be a regional celebrity with the Hispanic population of South
Texas and northern Mexico. Orendain currently resides in Pharr, Texas.92
Reflecting on his career as a farm labor organizer in the Río Grande Valley,
Orendain had much to be proud of but also reason to be embittered. During his early years
in California with CSO, Orendain became committed to helping his fellow farm workers,
and during the formative years of the NFWA became a committed huelgista. During the
Starr County s
t
r
i
k
e
,Or
e
nda
i
nbe
c
a
met
he“
Cé
s
a
rChá
v
e
zofTe
x
a
s
,
”de
mons
t
r
a
t
i
nghi
s
commitment not only to the UFW and its leader but also to the impoverished workers of
the Río Grande Valley. After a brief sojourn in California, Orendain returned to the Valley
in 1969 and waited six frustrating years for Chávez to bring his labor movement to Texas.
When he understood Chávez had no designs on Texas, Orendain stepped out on his own
and in 1975 formed the TFW, with various UFW factions and finally Chávez himself
opposing his efforts. Upon disbanding the TFW in 1982, Orendain must have realized that
t
hes
t
r
u
g
g
l
eonbe
ha
l
foft
heVa
l
l
e
y
’
sf
a
r
mwor
k
e
r
swa
ss
t
i
l
l
f
a
rf
r
ombe
i
ngwon.
S
t
u
dy
i
ngOr
e
nda
i
n’
sc
a
r
e
e
ri
si
mpor
t
a
ntf
ors
e
v
e
r
a
lr
e
a
s
ons
.Fi
r
s
tofa
l
l
,i
tr
e
v
e
a
l
s
that despi
t
eChá
v
e
z
’
sa
ndt
heUFW’
se
f
f
or
ta
tdi
s
pl
a
y
i
ngau
ni
f
i
e
df
r
ont
,t
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’
movement was by no means a cohesive effort, as different ideas and goals were
conspicuous after Orendain left the UFW in 1975. It also shows that Chávez, an extremely
well respected man in the Mexican-American community, was not perfect and showed
92
Orendain interview by the author, 11 January 2005; Nina Melanie Orendain interview by the author, 18
January 2005.
120
several clear lapses in judgment when dealing with the wayward Orendain. The sabotaging
ofOr
e
nda
i
n’
se
f
f
or
t
sbyt
he“
mot
he
ru
ni
on”c
ont
r
a
di
c
t
sChá
v
e
z
’
spa
s
s
i
v
ephi
l
os
ophy
.
Finally, Or
e
nda
i
n’
sc
a
r
e
e
rwa
si
na
ndofi
t
s
e
l
fi
mpor
t
a
ntbe
c
a
u
s
eofhi
ss
t
e
a
df
a
s
tde
di
c
a
t
i
on
to and hard work on behalf of the workers in the Río Grande Valley. For those not familiar
with the TFW, it would be easy to assume that farm labor organizing in Texas ended when
the Starr County strike was defeated in 1967. But against all odds Orendain struggled until
1982 and because of his hard work and many sacrifices, his story deserves to be told.
In an article in El Malcriado on May 24, 1986, the UFW celebrated the 20-year
anniversary of its presence in Texas. The author recounted the history of the union in the
state from the beginning of the Starr County strike, citing Chávez, Nelson, Huerta, and
Chandler as the major players in union activity. Orendain is left out and given no credit for
having led substantial union activities in the Valley. Likewise, the TFW was completely
ignored.93 The“
g
r
e
a
tu
ni
on,
”a
sOr
e
nda
i
nof
t
e
nc
a
l
l
e
di
t
,wa
st
r
y
i
ngt
obl
othi
ma
ndhi
s
contributions from the historical record. Orendain clearly made invaluable contributions as
al
e
a
de
ri
nt
hef
a
r
m wor
k
e
r
s
’mov
e
me
nti
nTe
x
a
s
,howe
v
e
r
,whi
c
hi
nt
hee
nd,c
a
nnotbe
denied.
93
“
LaUn
i
onCe
l
e
br
a20Añ
osdeLu
c
h
ae
nTe
x
a
s
,
”El Malcriado, 24 Mayo 1986, 26-27.
121
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manuscript Collections
AFL-CIO Mexican-American Affairs Committee Collection, Special Collections, Central
Library, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Fort Worth Boycott Council Collection, Special Collections, Central Library, University of
Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Maria G. Flores Papers, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Nettie Lee Benson Library,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Mexican American Farm Workers Movement Collection, Special Collections, Central
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Migrant Farm Workers Collection, Special Collections, Central Library, University of Texas
at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Newspaper Collection, Special Collections, Central Library, University of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Pancho Medrano Papers, Special Collections, Central Library University of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, Texas.
Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Uni
onPa
pe
r
s
,Ra
r
eBook
sa
ndMa
nu
s
c
r
i
pt
s
,Ne
t
t
i
eLe
eBe
ns
on
Library, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Interviews and Correspondence
Lucey, Robert E. Interview by Jan Hart Cohen, 3 March 1972, San Antonio, Texas. Oral
History Project, Special Collections, Central Library, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, Texas.
Muñoz Jr., Henry. Interview by Charles Carr Winn, 12 August 1971, Dallas, Texas. Oral
Arlington, Texas.
Orendain, Antonio. Interview by Charles Carr Winn, 20 July 1971, McAllen, Texas. Oral
Arlington, Texas.
Orendain, Antonio. Telephone interview by the author, 7 January 2005.
122
Orendain, Antonio. Telephone interview by the author, 11 January 2005.
Orendain, Nina Melanie. Telephone interview by the author, 18 January 2005.
Orendain, Raquel. Interview by Martha Cortera, 23 May 1976, San Juan, Texas. Rare Books
and Manuscripts, Benson Library, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
Orendain, Nina Melanie. Correspondence with the author, 24-25 January 2005, email.
Periodicals
El Malcriado, 1986.
Fort Worth Star Telegram, 1960-1969.
New York Times, 1965-1978.
Texas Observer, 1979-1982.
Magazine Articles
Ada
i
r
,
Dou
g
.
“
Te
x
a
sS
t
r
i
k
e
.
”Liberation, August 1967, 6-9
“
Bl
a
c
k(
Li
s
t
s
)a
ndWhi
t
e
.
”New Republic, 26 October 1968, 7-8.
“
Br
e
a
k
t
hr
ou
g
hf
orLaHue
l
g
a
.
”Time, 27 June 1969, 18.
“
Ce
s
a
r
’
sWa
r
.
”Time, 22 March 1968, 23.
“
Chi
c
a
g
oS
u
pe
r
ma
r
k
e
tDr
opsCa
nne
r
yBr
a
ndi
nWa
k
eofCa
l
i
f
or
ni
aFa
r
mS
t
r
i
k
e
.
” Business
Week, 16 April 1966, 158.
Cohe
n,
I
r
v
i
ngJ
.
“
LaHu
e
l
g
a
!
De
l
a
noa
ndAf
t
e
r
.
”Monthly Labor Review, June 1968, 13-16.
Compt
on,Ne
v
i
l
l
e
.“
Thi
sGr
e
e
nVa
l
l
e
yI
s
n’
tS
oJ
ol
l
y
.
”New Republic, 7 September 1968, 1920.
“
Fa
r
mUni
onRe
a
psFi
r
s
tCa
l
i
f
or
ni
aVi
c
t
or
y
.
”Business Week, 16 April 1966, 158.
“
For
bi
dde
nFr
u
i
t
?TheBoy
c
ot
tonGr
a
pe
si
sRi
pef
orEx
pos
ur
e
.
”Ba
r
r
o
n
’
s
, 2 June 1969,
1,8.
“
Gr
a
pe
sofWr
a
t
h.
”Newsweek, 27 December 1965, 57-58.
123
“
Gr
a
pe
sofWr
a
t
h.
”Time, 10 December 1965, 96.
“
Gr
a
pe
sofWr
a
t
h:
Fr
e
e
domt
oBu
ya
ndS
e
l
l
i
sPe
r
i
s
ha
bl
eToo.
”Ba
r
r
o
n
’
s
, 5 August 1968, 1.
“
Gr
a
pe
sofWr
a
t
h–Ne
wS
t
y
l
e
.
”Economist, 3 April 1965, 52.
“
Gr
a
pe
sTa
bl
e
d.
”Economist, 28 June 1969, 49-50.
Ha
r
r
i
ng
t
on,J
a
me
sC.“
Fr
om LaCa
s
i
t
at
o Lu
pe
,
”Texas Observer, 3 December 2004,
www.texasobserver.org, accessed 11 January 2005.
“
Ha
r
v
e
s
ti
nt
heVi
ne
y
a
r
ds
.
”Economist, 16 April 1966, 248.
Kopk
i
nd,
Andr
e
w.
“
Pov
e
r
t
ya
ndPol
i
t
i
c
si
nCa
l
i
f
or
ni
a
.
”New Republic, 18 February 1967, 1920.
Koz
i
a
r
a
,
Ka
r
e
nS
.
“
Col
l
e
c
t
i
v
eBa
r
g
a
i
ni
ngont
heFa
r
m.
”Monthly Labor Review, June 1968, 39.
“
La
bor
:
S
e
e
t
hi
ngVi
ne
y
a
r
ds
.
”Newsweek, 8 July 1968, 62.
“
La
bor
:
TheFa
r
mVot
e
.
”Newsweek, 8 July 1968, 83-84.
“
Ma
r
c
hofMi
g
r
a
nt
s
.
”Life, 29 April 1966, 93-94.
Ma
v
e
r
i
c
k
,Ma
u
r
y
.“
Ma
r
c
hi
ngf
ora‘
Gha
s
t
l
yRe
c
ompe
ns
e
’i
nTe
x
a
s
.
”New Republic, 24
September 1966, 11.
Mi
l
l
e
r
,Pa
u
lB.
,a
ndGl
a
s
g
ow,J
ohnM.“
J
obCr
i
s
i
sAl
ongt
heRi
oGr
a
nde
.
”Monthly Labor
Review, December 1968, 18-23.
Mi
l
l
s
,
Nor
ma
nC.
“
Wor
k
e
r
sont
heFa
r
ms
.
”New Republic, 23 September 1967, 9.
“
NowThe
yWa
l
kWi
t
hUs
.
“
Te
x
a
sFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
sUni
on.
”TheHa
ndbookofTe
x
a
sOnl
i
ne
,www.tsha.utexas.edu,
accessed 30 August 2004.
“
TheMi
g
r
a
t
or
yFa
r
mWor
k
e
r
.
”Monthly Labor Review, June 1968, 10-12.
“
TheNe
wMi
l
i
t
a
nc
yofLa
bor
.
“
TheWr
a
t
hofGr
a
pe
s
.
”Time, 16 May 1969, 24.
124
“
Tor
ont
oFe
e
l
sCa
l
i
f
or
ni
aGr
a
pePi
c
k
e
r
sa
sUni
onS
t
a
r
t
sLong
-Ra
ng
eCons
u
me
rBoy
c
ot
t
.
”
Business Week, 14 October 1967, 152.
“
Uni
oni
z
i
ngt
heFa
r
m.
”Bu
s
i
ne
s
sWe
e
k
,
2
2Apr
i
l
1
9
6
7
,
1
6
4
.
Theses and Dissertations
Ba
i
l
e
y
,
Ri
c
ha
r
dRa
y
.
“
Fa
r
mLa
bori
nTe
x
a
sa
ndt
heS
t
a
r
rCou
nt
yS
t
r
i
k
e
.
”M.
A.
t
he
s
i
s
,
Te
x
a
s
Christian University, 1973.
Cohe
n,J
a
nHa
r
t
.“
ToS
e
eChr
i
s
ti
nou
rBr
ot
he
r
s
:TheRol
eoft
he Texas Roman Catholic
Chu
r
c
hi
nt
heRi
oGr
a
ndeVa
l
l
e
yFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
nt
,1
9
6
6
-1
9
6
7
.
”M.
A.
thesis, University of Texas at Arlington, 1974.
Le
de
s
ma
,I
r
e
ne
.“
Me
x
i
c
a
n-American Women in Strike Activity in Texas, 1919-1
9
7
4
.
”
Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1992.
Mor
r
i
s
,Ma
r
i
onBe
t
h.“
TheHi
s
t
or
yoft
heMe
x
i
c
a
nCont
r
a
c
tLa
borPr
og
r
a
m,1
9
4
2
-1
9
6
6
.
”
M.A. thesis, North Texas State University, 1967.
Py
c
i
or
,
J
u
l
i
eLe
i
ni
ng
e
r
.“
LaRa
z
aOr
g
a
ni
z
e
s
:Me
x
i
c
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nLi
f
ei
nS
a
nAnt
oni
o,1
9
1
5
1
9
3
0
.
”Ph.
D.
di
s
s
.
,
University of Notre Dame, 1979.
S
t
a
a
t
s
,Dona
l
dJ
a
me
s
.“
Tr
a
v
e
lPr
obl
e
msofTe
x
a
s
’
sMi
g
r
a
ntFa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
.
”M.
A.t
he
s
i
s
,
University of Texas at Austin, 1962.
Wi
nn,Cha
r
l
e
sCa
r
r
.“
Me
x
i
c
a
nAme
r
i
c
a
nsi
nt
heTe
x
a
sLa
borMov
e
me
nt
.
”Ph.
D.di
s
s
.
,
Texas Christian University, 1972.
________.“
The Va
l
l
e
y Fa
r
m Wor
k
e
r
s
’Mov
e
me
nt
,1
9
6
6
-1
9
6
7
.
” M.
A.t
he
s
i
s
,The
University of Texas at Arlington, 1970.
Books
Allen, Ruth. Chapters in the History of Organized Labor in Texas. Austin: University of Texas
Publication, 1941.
Anderson, Terry H. The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in American From Greensboro to
Wounded Knee. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Arreola, Daniel D. Tejano South Texas: A Mexican Cultural Province. Austin: Univeristy of
Texas Press, 2002.
Briggs Jr., Vernon M., Walter Fogel, and Fred H. Schmidt. The Chicano Workers. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1977.
125
Calderón, Héctor, and José David Saldívar, eds. Criticism in the Borderlands: Studies in Chicano
Literature, Culture, and Ideology. Duke University Press, 1991.
Castro, Tony. Chicano Power: The Emergence of Mexican America. New York: Saturday Review
Press, 1974.
Cortés, Carlos E. Mexican Labor in the United States. New York: Arno Press, 1974.
Dalton, Frederick John. The Moral Vision of Cesar Chavez. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2003.
De León, Arnoldo. Mexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History. Wheeling: Harlan Davidson,
Incorporated, 1999.
De Toledano, Ralph. Little Cesar. Anthem Books, 1971.
Dunne, John Gregory. Delano: The Story of the California Grape Strike. New York: Farrar,
Stras, and Giroux, 1967.
Ferris, Susan, and Ricardo Sandoval. The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers
Movement. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1997.
Fodell, Beverly. Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers: A Selective Bibliography. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press, 1974.
Galarza, Ernesto. Farm Workers and Agri-business in California, 1947-1960. University of
Notre Dame Press, 1977.
García, Mario T. Memories of Chicano History: The Life and Narrative of Bert Corona. University
of California Press, 1994.
Gómez-Quiñónez, Juan. Mexican-American Labor, 1790-1990. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 1994.
Griswold del Castillo, Richard, and Richard A. García. Cesar Chavez: A Triumph of Spirit.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
Hammerback, John C., and Richard J. Jensen. The Rhetorical Career of Cesar Chavez. College
Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1998.
________., eds. The Words of Cesar Chavez. College Station: Texas A&M University Press,
2002.
Horowitz, George D. La Causa: The California Grape Strike. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1970.
126
Jenkins, Craig J. The Politics of Insurgency: The Farmworker Movement in the 1960s. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1985.
Kiser, George C., and Martha Woody Kiser, eds. Mexican Workers in the United States:
Historical and Political Perspectives. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,
1979.
Levy, Jacques E. Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa. New York: W.W. Norton and
Company, 1975.
Matthiessen, Peter. Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution. New York:
Random House, 1969.
Muñoz Jr., Carlos. Youth, Identity, and Power: The Chicano Movement. London: Verro, 1989.
Navarro, Armando. Mexican American Youth Organization: Avant-Garde of the Chicano Movement
in Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995.
Nelson, Eugene. Huelga: The First Hundred Days of the Great Delano Grape Strike. Delano:
Farm Worker Press, 1966.
Parigi, Sam Frank. Latin American Unionization in Austin, Texas. New York: Arno Press,
1976.
Pitrone, Jean Maddern. Chavez: Man of the Migrants. St. Paul: Alba House, 1972.
Steiner, Stan. La Raza: The Mexican Americans. New York: Harper and Row, 1969.
Taylor, Ronald B. Cesar Chavez: La Interminable Batalla por la Dignidad. Mexico D.F.: El
Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras de Edamex, 1979.
Vargas, Zaragoza, ed. Major Problems in Mexican American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1999.
White, Florence M. Cesar Chavez: Man of Courage. Champaign: Garrard Publishing Company,
1973.
Zamora, Emilio, Cynthia Orozco, and Rodolfo Rocha, eds. Mexican Americans in Texas
History. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 2000.
127
128

What About Texas? The Forgotten Cause of Antonio

Transcription

Similar documents

THE TEXAS HEAD START DIRECTORS` ROUNDTABLE

César Chávez: An American Legend Remembered

Wednesday, Dec. 12, 11 am to 1 pm Texins Activity Center

Riparian Flyer – Pedernales River on December 5, 2015

Cotton Defoliation Turn Row Meeting

KTSU 90.9 FM 13th Annual Tennis Classic

505(b)(2)

ch-5 intro

August 1 - Brownfield Chamber and Visitor Center

TASUS Corporation by Walter Barkalow