When sugar was bitter
This past week, John DeSantis came out with a very well-done three-part series in the Thibodaux Daily Comet on the exploitation of labor, most assuredly African-American labor, in the not too distant past of our local sugar cane industry. The story illustrates several important points that beginning students should note. One article looks at the personal stories of people, now elderly, who worked the sugar cane fields many years ago.
Another story chronicles the ways in which workers were kept on the plantations, through payments in plantation scrip which could only be used on the plantation, at the plantation’s company store, denying workers the cash that could have been used to finance the worker’s escape from the plantation and extending plantation credit to the workers that kept the workers owing the plantation. Here, the monopsony power of the employer is strengthened, making it easier to take advantage of the workers, by reducing the workers’ options. In addition, workers are charged monopoly prices at the company store. You should note that the use of scrip and company stores was not just a agricultural phenomena, but was used to exploit workers in other industries, such as coal, which provided the inspiration for the Tennessee Ford song, 16 tons.
A third story discusses the fight for “fair” wages for sugar cane workers. Several things one should note in this article: 1) employers got together and fixed wages, the way a cartel gets together and fixes prices, which is usually very illegal, but there may have been some provision in the 1937 Sugar Act which made this a legal practice, but I just do not know about that; 2) wages are now similar to those in other area industries for those with similar education, in the $7-15 range; 3) mechanization has increased worker productivity tremendously, which increased the demand for labor; and 4) not mentioned in the article, but something we all know, is that there has been a reduction (I did not say elimination) in hiring discrimination in other local industries which has led to an increase in the opportunity costs of sugar cane workers, cutting the supply of sugar cane workers. The increase in demand and reduction in supply has definitely led to an increase in pay.
Of course, the elimination of payment in scrip made moving from the plantation possible, opening up other opportunities far away from the plantation and increasing the cane workers’ opportunity costs. The reduction in hiring discrimination in other area industries eliminated the monopsony position of the plantations, forcing the plantations to pay a wage sufficient to attract workers from other area industries as well as from industries further away (or at least high enough to keep workers from having to move away to get good pay).
Do take a look at these stories and keep in mind that employers always and everywhere will try to get workers for as little as they have to pay. What is different in the case of earlier day sugar workers is that they were denied opportunities away from the plantation through hiring discrimination, were tied to the land as much as a serf and it seems that employers were able, and perhaps encouraged, by legislation to act as a cartel to keep wages low.
To see the audio and video files of oral histories, please check this link out. but I cannot find it now. Mr. DeSantis emailed me for its location. By all means, though, read these three articles.
-MC
November 25th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
The low and unfair wages and the restriction to company stores were indeed great ways for owners of the plantations to keep the workers right where they needed them and that was in the fields. Lorna Bourg said it best when she said she “agreed with other critics of the system that company stores were the anchor for invisible chains that kept workers from making better lives for themselves.” What better way was there to maximize profits and reduce operating costs than to pay your workers with money that could only be put right back into the company itself by issuing scrips. This is an idea of a monopoly and definitely takes advantage of the worker. Of course today this could be almost impossible to run; people are smarter and have many more options to make a living. But during the time these stories took place, workers had limited transportation and skills for the sugarcane industry only. And they didn’t have to pay rent because they were allowed to live on the plantations themselves. Thats why it was hard to escape this type of economic trap that was placed on the workers of sugarcane industry.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
The low and unfair wages combined with the restriction to the company stores were the cause of unhappy sugarcane workers. This could not happen today because people are smarter and there are many more options to making a living. The idea of monopoly is present in that the companies took advantage of their workers by paying them with money that could only be put right back unto the company itself. But because of limited transportation, possessing only skills for the sugarcane industry, and rent free living, workers were stuck in this economic trap set by the owners of the plantations. Lorna Bourg said it best when she said she “agrees with other critics of the system that company stores were the anchor for invisible chains that kept workers from making better lives for themselves.”
November 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
How different are the fieldworkers to the working class of today? The fieldworkers were tied to the company stores by self-imposed debt that restricted them in their own minds from leaving. According to the Rev. Thomas Williams from the Daily Comet article some workers changed plantations leaving their debt behind. This would be the equivalent to modern day bankruptcy. The workers were not forced to use credit to fund their lifestyle. Like modern day worker using a credit card, if spending is not kept in check you will owe more than you can pay. Once you reach the “point of diminishing returns” it becomes a matter of pride. The determination to finish what you started because you said that it would be done. Modern day workers are conditioned to give up easily because someone else will wipe away your debt.
November 27th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Reading these stories and comparing them to the stories that my grandparents told reveal to me that not only Economics have been around like forever, but also is instrumental to society today. The plantation owners not only monopolized the workers time, money, possessions, and minds, they also bonded them with chains in those same categories. Everything they worked, lived, and died for, revolved around the owners. From their hands, back to their hands. When you know better, you do better. So many people wanted to break away from the ties that bonded them to their employers, but felt hopeless. All they thought they owned or would own, still belonged to the owners.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
The fieldworkers and the working class today are different in many ways. The fieldworkers were not allowed to save their money for things like we can. Cars, homes, education, and healthcare are a few of the things we as the working class can save or put money towards for the future. With the money (scrips) they made, they were allowed to take to the company store and get what they needed to live day to day. There was no option to put it away somewhere, it was worthless anywhere else. Now maybe we’re alike in the way that we accumulate debt, and our bankruptcy equals their leaving behind debt to relocate to another plantation, but like I said, we have more options with our money. It’s our choice where we spend it and what type of plan we have for it in the future. Today, the working class can work for their money and also make their money work for them. The fieldworkers didn’t have the latter option.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
sugarcane workers in the ealier decade as i know are either slaves, blacks,minorities or belong to lowest class of the society. back in the old days, the industry and economy were not really developed. the opportunity to get a job with fairly wages enough for people to spend for them, their families is very hard. those sugarcane workers had no choice but have to stick with and accept everything that their boss decided, either deal with it and survive or die.eventhough the working conditions were bad, wages were low, they really have no choice.Nowadays, the workers have many more opportunities to find a good job and they are also protected by certain acts or laws that secure them of unfairness.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
If I remember correctly, one of the major problems with that our nations formers faced was with each individual colony producing its own currency. This is why the Bureau of Engraving and Printing was formed, so that people could use a common currency. And if I’m remembering civics from high school right (it’s been around 6 years), the production of money became the sole responsibility of the federal government. What then made the sugar cane companies believe taht that had the authority to print “money.” This currency obviously wasn’t recognized by the govenrment, so in the government’s eyes were not these workers getting paid nothing for their labor.
Another thing that this reminded me of, as a get ready to make myself a snack, is the fact that many univeristies in the countries have meal plans with declining balances. Does this make the students “slaves” to consuming university food. Now that’s something I’d rather not think of.