Doors to Jobs: A Study in the Organization of the Labor Market in California

By Emily H. Huntington

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1942.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of California Press
• Release date: Nov 15, 2023
• ISBN: 9780520351936

Emily H. Huntington

Emily H. Huntington was Professor Emerita of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

Book preview

THE HELLER COMMITTEE FOR RESEARCH IN SOCIAL ECONOMICS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Membership in 1938:

EMILY H. HUNTINGTON, Chairman BARBARA NACHTRIEB ARMSTRONG CHARLES A. GULICK, JR.

ALBERT H. MOWBRAY

JESSICA B. PEIXOTTO

ERNEST F. PENROSE PAUL S. TAYLOR MARY GORRINGE LUCK, Research Associate

Membership in 1942:

EMILY H. HUNTINGTON, Chairman BARBARA NACHTRIEB ARMSTRONG MILTON A. CHERNIN CHARLES A. GULICK, JR.

ALBERT H. MOWBRAY

RUTH OKEY

DOROTHY S. THOMAS

MARY GORRINGE LUCK, Research Associate

DOORS TO JOBS

DOORS TO JOBS

A Study of the Organization of

the Labor Market in California

By EMILY H. HUNTINGTON

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS IN

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Issued under the Auspices of the Heller Committee

for Research in Social Economics of the

University of California

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES • 1942

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON, ENGLAND

COPYRIGHT, 1942, BY

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Preface

ALTHOUGH the United States has taken pride in its application of scientific principles to the organization of industry, one of the most important and difficult problems—that of bringing together jobs and workers—has been, if not entirely neglected, at least not attacked with the same vigor and determination which have been applied to other problems. This study of the organization of the labor market in California was undertaken for the purpose of determining in how far there are centers for the exchange of jobs and workers, how effectively these agencies function, and what are the hopes for the future. Although the data are geographically limited to California, and thus the analysis applies specifically to that state, it is believed that with certain variations the general picture of the types of agencies now in existence and of the disorganization of the labor market would be true for most other states.

This study was undertaken in 1938, a year in which the problem of unemployment was uppermost in the minds of everyone. There were literally dozens of workers for every job. Employers reported over and over again that workers come in droves, and workers realized that the first man in line at the factory or farm gate was most likely to get the job. The existence of many agencies through which labor might be marketed showed that there was a need for these organizations, but the fact that in practically no instance had a labor exchange been able to exercise control over a large proportion of the labor market indicated that there was little recognition of the enormous benefits which would result from a well-organized labor market.

The organization of a state-wide system of public employment offices in the period 1935—38 was at least a sign that the government recognized the need for a central marketing place

[v] for labor. A variety of factors, however, varying all the way from the state of the labor market to lacks in efficiency and prejudices against the use of any labor exchange, prevented the California State Employment Service from becoming a real factor in the organization of the labor market. Before this study was published, war had changed the condition of the labor market to one in which, in many occupations, jobs were plentiful and workers scarce, and this will undoubtedly be a strong incentive to employers to use the State Employment Service and probably other agencies as well. In March 1941 the State Employment Service reported nearly 30,000 placements, approximately 10,000 more than in the same month of 1940. The State Department of Employment reported that this increase was traceable to greater defense activity and to the general improvement in business conditions. Since the State Employment Service is the logical agency to coordinate, although not to monopolize, activities in the organization of the labor market, it is hoped that it can do a creditable job in the present emergency and that this may be of use in educating employers and workers to recognize the assistance which a public labor exchange can offer in bringing together employers and workers. If it becomes customary to use the State Employment Service when workers are scarce, a new attitude may be carried over into the future and the State Employment Service given an opportunity to act as a coordinating agency in the organization of the market for labor.

The author wishes to express her appreciation to those who assisted in the writing of this book. Special gratitude is due Mrs. Mary Gorringe Luck, Research Associate of the Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics. Mrs. Luck assisted in the planning of the book, in the field work, in editing the manuscript, and is the author of the chapter on labor contractors. Norman Corse, Irving Don Elberson, Hilda Kessler, Robert Muir, and Jessie Schilling interviewed dozens of people from whom the original information was obtained and also assisted in the first organization of some of the materials gathered in the field. Miss Bernice Luckenbaugh, secretary of the Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, was of great assistance in preparing the final manuscript for publication. It would be impractical and also would not preserve anonymity to list all of the people who cooperated in giving the information on which this study is based. Officials and staff of the California State Employment Service were most generous in their cooperation, as were also other state officials, managers of fee-charging and other types of employment agencies, trade imion officials, managers of factories, and farmers.

This study was financed in part by the Rockefeller Foundation, to whom the author wishes to express sincere thanks. Without this grant the study could not have been made. The Heller Committee appropriated an equal sum from funds donated by Mrs. E. S. Heller and by the University.

E.H. H.

Contents

Preface

Contents

Tables

I. Introduction

II. Method

III. The Placement Resources of the Communities Visited

IV. California State Employment Service

V. Governmental Agencies Other Than the California State Employment Service

VI. Nongovernmental Free Agencies

VII. Fee-charging Employment Agencies

VIII. Labor Contractors

IX. Placement Work of Trade Unions‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡

X. Employers’ Associations

XI. The California Labor Market

APPENDIX California State Employment Service Statistics

Tables

PAGE

1. Placement Resources Visited in Each Area, Classified by Type of Agency and Extent of Placement Work. … 46

2. Source of Funds Expended for the Public Employment Service in California, 1932-33 to 1937-38 59

3. Active File of All Offices of the California State Employment Service and the National Reemployment Service, 1935—1938 78

4. Active File of the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service, 1935-1938 80

5. Occupations of Registrants in the Active File of the California State Employment Service at the Time of Five Inventories, July 1936-April 1938 84

5A. Classification of Registrants within Occupational Groups at the Time of Five Inventories of the Active File of the California State Employment Service, July 1936-April 1938. 85

6. Occupations of Registrants in the Active File of the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service at the Time of Five Inventories, July 1936-April 1938 86

7. Comparison of Occupations of Registrants in the Active File of the California State Employment Service in November 1937 with the Occupations of Those Registered as Unemployed in the Unemployment Census of 1937. … 88

8. Industrial Groups of Registrants in the Active File of the California State Employment Service at the Time of Five Inventories, July 1936-April 1938 90

9. Industrial Groups of Registrants in the Active Files of the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service at the Time of Five Inventories, July 1936-April 1938… 92

10. Comparison of Industries Represented in the Active File of the California State Employment Service in November 1937 with the Industries Reported by Those Who Registered as Unemployed in the Unemployment Census of 1937 96

11. Age Groups of Registrants in the Active File of the California State Employment Service at the Time of Five Inventories, July 1936-April 1938 98

[xvi]

PACE

12. Age Groups of Registrants in the Active Files of the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service at the Time of Five Inventories, July 1936-April 1938 100

13. Comparison of Ages of Registrants in the Active File of the California State Employment Service in November 1937 with the Ages of Those Registered as Unemployed in the Unemployment Census of 1937 102

14. Comparison of Ages of Registrants in the Active Files of the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service with the Ages of Those Who Registered as Unemployed in Those Counties in the Unemployment Census of 1937. … 103

15. Per Cent of Registrants in the Active File of the California State Employment Service Who Were Certified for Relief at the Time of Six Inventories, December 1935-November 1937 104

16. Placements by the California State Employment Service and the National Reemployment Service, 1935-1938 … 130

17. Placements by the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service, 1936-1938 133

18. Industrial Grouping of Placements by the California State Employment Service and the National Reemployment Service in California, 1936-1938 135

19. Industrial Grouping of Placements by the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service, 1938 139

20. Occupational Grouping of Placements by the California State Employment Service and the National Reemployment Service in California, 1936-1938 141

20A. Classification of Placements within Occupational Groups by the California State Employment Service and the National Reemployment Service in California, 1936-1938 … 142

21. Occupational Grouping of Placements by the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Kern County Offices of the California State Employment Service, 1938 145

22. Age Groups of Persons Placed by the California State Employment Service and the National Reemployment Service in California, 1936-1938 146

23. Licensed Fee-charging Employment Agencies in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, 1938 265

24. Unions Visited Which Make Placements, Classified by Extent of Placement Work in Each Area 348

25. Unions Visited Which Make Placements, Classified by Indus

try and by Extent of Placement Work in Each Area.. 352

26. Number of Hiring Halls and Part-Time Placement Officers in

Unions Visited Which Make Placements, Classified by Ex

tent of Placement Work in Each Area 363

I. Introduction

THE PROBLEM

How SHALL I find a job? is a question which occurs again and again during the lives of most of our working population. In spite of the possession of all the virtues of a good employee, vast numbers of our workers frequently find themselves in the position of a job seeker. This is due in part to the nature of our industrial system and in part to the lack of organization of the labor market. In many instances the employer, if he is to make profits, cannot give his employees steady employment. If he is engaged in agriculture, he cannot employ the large number of people required to pick the crop when the seed is germinating, and likewise in many industries the demand for labor is highly seasonal.’ And again, if a new machine is invented, certain jobs will be outmoded and fewer workers employed. The problem of unemployment rises to its height when a general business depression brings wholesale shutdowns. It is not, however, the purpose of this study to discuss what can and should be done to relieve distress which results from mass unemployment, when obviously the problem is one of relief and not one of bringing the job and the worker together.

Because of a lack of organization of the labor market, when workers are laid off for any one or a combination of the reasons mentioned above, how, where, and when they can find employment is left almost entirely to chance. Thus it is scarcely to be expected that the number of workers of a given skill who turn up at a given time and place will approach the number needed. The hit-and-miss process of job hunting is illustrated by the fact that large pools of labor congregate where they have heard, usually via the grapevine, that jobs are available. News travels fast, and the spectacle is often seen of a thousand workers ar-

Cl] riving at a factory gate or in an agricultural community when only a hundred are needed. These people tramp the streets or drive their cars over many miles of highway in search of work, and all but the first comers find a no help wanted sign at every gate. Some of these job seekers could find work elsewhere; for others there may be no jobs available; but, whichever is the case, this kind of job hunting is destructive. It results not only in economic loss of shoe leather and gasoline but in human suffering, in competition for jobs and consequent lowering of wage rates and earnings, and in disintegration of work habits. The employer is likewise faced with the problem of getting a given number of workers when and where he needs them. He not unnaturally wants to be certain of an adequate supply of labor. If the supply of labor is undirected, he may not be able to get qualified workers when he needs them; as a result he may lose an order, his crop may spoil, or he may be forced to employ inefficient labor. The employer, under the present condition of disorganization in the labor market, is often confronted with the dilemma of either encouraging a reserve of labor available for occasional employment or of suffering losses due to intermittent labor shortages at a given time and place. It is also frequently to the advantage of the employer to have an excess supply of labor in that it puts him in a better bargaining position. If there are, as has sometimes been said, two workers for every potato, it will almost certainly be possible to reduce wages; and, if there is a surplus of labor and the workers strike for higher wages, it is probable that there will be plenty of workers who have had scarcely any work for months and who will be willing to take the jobs left vacant by the strikers.

Society as a whole, as well as employers and workers, is concerned with the fact that, in general, mere chance determines whether the worker and the job are brought together. If employers cannot get workers properly qualified for their jobs, costs and prices rise and the whole community suffers. Furthermore, if there are jobs in one place and workers in another, unemployment compensation funds will be depleted and relief costs will rise.

There has never been any real organization of the labor market, that is, a central place or exchange, such as is found in most commodity markets, where buyers and sellers come together for the mutual advantage of both. Within the network of disorganization in the labor market there have, however, developed certain customs and institutions through which the man in search of a job and the employer in need of workers are brought together. It is the purpose of this study to examine in some detail these customs and institutions with a view to determining their relative importance in the various fields of activity, their interrelationships, wherein there are deficiencies in the placement resources of the community, and the prospects for better organization of the labor market in the near future.

This study was geographically limited to certain areas of California which represented California’s most important industries and crops, diversities in the make-up of its population, and many different types of intermediaries between jobs and workers. Although the facts and conclusions specifically apply only to California, some light will be shed on situations and problems which are inherent in our industrial system and therefore are not restricted to the state in which the investigation was made.

The general plan of the study was to visit for a month or longer certain representative areas of California in order to determine what placement resources were available in each of these communities, and to investigate an adequate sample of the more important of these agencies to discover what type of jobs they were filling, how they operated, and how much placement they were actually doing. In addition, a sample of employers was visited in each area as a check on the agencies’ report of the extent of their operations and, more important, to determine how the employer and job seeker got together in the very large proportion of placements where no intermediate agency operated. Time and funds did not permit visiting a sample of workers to determine how they set about job hunting. Only problems related to placement in commercial employment were considered to come within the scope of this study; thus any discussion of placement of workers on relief projects, W.P.A., N.Y.A., etc., was omitted from the analysis. The civil service, a source of placement for large numbers of governmental workers, was also excluded, since this would have required an extension of the study beyond the limits set by the funds available. It cannot be claimed that this study is all inclusive. Limitations of time and of funds made it impossible to list every possible type of placement agency in the areas visited; furthermore, it was necessary to limit the number to be studied and the amount of information which could be gathered concerning their activities. It is, however, believed that all of the more important types of intermediaries between job and worker were included in this study and that sufficient evidence was gathered to give a fairly complete picture of the extent to which the labor market in California was organized.

CALIFORNIA—ITS POPULATION, INDUSTRIES,

AND CROPS

Since this is a California study, it is important to characterize the state briefly in terms of its population, industries, and crops, that is to say, in terms of who are the job seekers and what jobs they may expect to find. In general, California resembles the major part of the United States in offering employment in both industry and agriculture; and, as in many parts of the country, there is a large seasonal variation in the demand for labor. California also resembles other parts of the United States in that it has a considerable foreign-born white population; but, in addition, there is a large nonwhite population, and in recent years there have been migrations of drought refugees from the Middle West and South.

California’s Population.—In 1940 California was the fifth largest state in the union, with a population of 6,907,000. Approximately 60 per cent of this population lived in the two large cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles or in the metropolitan areas surrounding them. Of the population outside the two metropolitan areas, about 60 per cent lived in towns of less than 5,000 or in unincorporated rural areas.1 The smaller towns and cities of the state are usually centers of agricultural areas.

The population of California is composed to a considerable extent of people who were born in many different countries and who are of a variety of races. Migrations to California have been somewhat different from those to the East and Middle West. Although California has been the final destination foj- considerable numbers of people of the white races from European countries, it has been the port of entry for large numbers of the nonwhite races from the Orient and from Mexico. In recent years the principal migrations have been of native-born whites from the drought-stricken Middle West.

In 19302 nearly 15 per cent of the population of California were foreign-born whites, chiefly from England, Italy, Germany, Russia, and Sweden. Many, before arriving in California, have had work experience elsewhere in the United States, have become partially assimilated, and thus have created no serious social or economic problems. California, like the other states, has had no large additions to its European- born population since the Immigration Law of 1924.

Very important in the economic and social life of California is that part of the population which is of the nonwhite races. In 1930, 11 per cent of California’s population were classified as nonwhite. Although about half of these were born in the United States, they nevertheless continue to remain groups apart. The largest group of nonwhites in 1930 were the Mexicans, 368,000. There were also considerable numbers of five other races, Japanese, Negroes, Chinese, Filipinos, American Indians, and about 3,000 of various minor races. To a large extent these groups represent a series of labor migrations to California, stimulated first by the needs of gold mining, then by the railroads, and finally by the needs of intensified agriculture.’ The Chinese came with the gold rush in ’49 and were later used extensively in railroad construction and agriculture, but immigration was cut off by the exclusion act in 1882, and today most of the Chinese are found in the cities, particularly San Francisco and Sacramento. They were followed at the end of the 19th century by the Japanese, who completely displaced Chinese labor in agriculture and white labor to a large extent. The importance of the Japanese in California agriculture was greatly decreased by immigration restrictions, by the 1913 law which prohibited selling or leasing land to them, and by the tendency of second-generation Japanese to prefer city to farm labor. By 1930 nearly 30 per cent of the Japanese in California were living in the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland. From about 1915 the Mexicans began to fill the gap left by the Japanese in the agricultural labor supply, but the great influx of Mexicans occurred between 1920 and 1929, when they became the principal source of farm labor in the state and gained a strong foothold in California industries.3 4 5

In 1930,45 per cent of the Mexicans enumerated in California gave Los Angeles County as their permanent residence. Since 1930 the number of Mexicans admitted has been reduced by stricter administration of the likely to become a public charge clause in the immigration law,6 and the repatriation policy of the Mexican Government has started many Mexicans on their homeward journey, so that the number of Mexicans now in California is probably considerably smaller than in 1930. At about the same time that the stream of Mexican immigration began there was also an influx from the Philippines. In 1922 only 545 Filipinos entered through the ports of San Francisco and Los Angeles, whereas in 1929, 5,795 were admitted. These workers have competed with white labor in the cities in hotel and domestic employments and with Mexicans and other nonwhite races in agriculture in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and in the northern and central coast counties.⁷ The number of Filipinos now in California is probably smaller than in 1930 because of immigration quotas established by the Philippine Independence Act of 1935 and because of free repatriation by the Philippine Government. The number of Negroes in California, on the other hand, has probably increased since 1930, because within the last few years considerable numbers have migrated to California from the cotton districts of the South. According to Professor Taylor, it is possible that Negroes may play an increasingly important role in the future.8 Until recently about 60 per cent of the Negroes of the state lived in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles and were employed almost exclusively in various types of restaurant and domestic service and by the Pullman Company.

The most recent influx into California has been that of the dust bowlers, who, in the main, are native whites migrating from the southwestern part of our own country. Hardly had the Mexicans turned their faces towards Mexico when the droughts and dust storms of 1933 to 1936 struck the Great Plains. From 1933 to 1938 streams of stricken people have sought refuge by migrating to other regions. Many of these were truly drought refugees, but others came because of the accumulated forces of years of agricultural depression, and now the beginning of mechanization in the Cotton Belt.9 One of the most important movements in this flight has been to California, where nearly continuous crops of one kind or another offer opportunity to earn something, however little that may be?

Accurate figures as to the magnitude of this most recent migration are not available, but through the efforts of Dr. Paul Taylor a count of persons in need of manual employment has been taken at the Plant Quarantine Stations since 1935. Between July 1935 and March 1938, roughly a quarter of a million persons (241,930), usually in family groups, entered California. It is impossible to determine the extent to which this migration has been a net increase in our working or in our total population, but it has probably been of considerable magnitude.10 Eighty-five per cent of the migrants who where counted at the border came from the so-called drought states. The largest number, nearly a quarter, gave Oklahoma as their state of origin, 10 per cent gave Texas, 10 per cent Arizona, and 8 per cent Arkansas.11 Information was not available as to the occupational status of these refugees, but a study of the heads of transient families on relief in Imperial County between 1935 and 1937 revealed in broad outlines the occupational characteristics of the migration. Approximately half of those included in this study reported former experience in agriculture, and the remaining 50 per cent had worked in miscellaneous business and industrial activities. It should, however, be pointed out that these figures must be interpreted with caution since the material was drawn from relief families and from only one county.12

No statistical data were available to indicate the extent to which the new migrants had sought employment in the cities and on the farms of California. Several months spent in interviewing employers in industry and agriculture in California, however, furnished evidence that the vast majority were seeking employment in agriculture, whatever may have been their past work experience. While city employers occasionally mentioned the Arkies and the Okies (by which names they characterized all of the new migrants) as having applied for jobs, farmers almost without exception said, The ‘Arkies’ and the ‘Okies’ are arriving in droves; they camp in the ditch banks or on our property in hope of work.

California’s Industries.—From 1849 through the 1850’s California was chiefly known as a gold-mining state. The growth in population, however, and the availability of land in the fertile valleys soon brought an expansion of agriculture, at first extensive and later, with the development of irrigation, intensive farming. For many decades California was thought of primarily as an agricultural state. This is not surprising in view of the quality of the land available for cultivation and also because, in general, industries move more slowly than does population. Manufacturing in California first developed in those goods necessary to supply consumer needs and in commodities for which raw materials were available locally, such as the canning of fruit, fish, and vegetables. As the population increased there was an expansion of manufacturing into other fields.

Transportation costs have, however, been a deterrent to the development of manufacturing in California, and to some degree there has been specialization in products with a high ratio of value to weight which can be transported at a cost which is not so high as to be prohibitive.¹³ Certain natural advantages have led to the development of some of California’s industries. The discovery of oil has stimulated the growth of plants to construct machinery to be used in oil wells and refineries, and the moving picture and the airplane industries have developed here largely because of the climate.¹⁴

In 1935 products manufactured in California were valued at 2 billion dollars, and the manufacturing industries employed an average of nearly 250,000 wage earners. The following were the most important manufacturing industries in 1935:¹⁵

The manufacturing industries of the state are, in the main, concentrated in the San Francisco-Oakland and the Los Angeles industrial areas. However, the centers of several manufacturing industries are found elsewhere. Sacramento has the largest railroad repair shops; fruit and vegetable canning is widely distributed throughout the agricultural districts; and lumbering is concentrated in the northern counties. In general, California’s manufacturing is urban in character, not scattered through the rural districts.

The extractive industries have always been important in certain areas of California. Petroleum has become the most important of the extractive industries. Los Angeles and Kern Counties are the chief centers for the output of crude oil. Gold is the only metal which is mined in considerable quantities. It is mined chiefly in the northern counties.

Wholesale and retail trade play an important role in California’s economic system. Combined sales amounted to 5 billion dollars in 1935, and these establishments employed an average of about 350,000 wage earners. Although wholesale and retail trade is carried on in every district of the state, San Francisco and Los Angeles are the most important centers.

Another industry of importance in California is the transportation industry. For many years this state has been the terminal point for several transcontinental railroads, and a number of railroads have shops at various points which employ considerable groups of workers. Since California is a seacoast state, many of its products are transported by water; thus a large group of workers are employed in the maritime trades. California’s Crops.—Although the value of manufactured products fabricated in California in 1935 was approximately four times the value of its farm products, the fact that 538 million dollars was yielded by farms indicates that agriculture is of enormous importance to the state. In 1936 California’s most important farm products in order of their value were livestock, field crops, fruits and nuts, and truck crops."

™Ibid., No. 4.

The development of transportation, refrigeration, and irrigation facilities since about 1885 has made California agriculture what it is today.16 Field crops such as hay and grain, which require little labor, are being displaced by such field crops as cotton, beets, and potatoes and by fruits and vegetables, all of which have a highly seasonal demand for large amounts of hand labor. This is especially noticeable in truck crops, which increased from 3 per cent of the state’s total income from crops in 1889 to 20 per cent in 1936.17

The crops which in the twentieth century have taken precedence in California agriculture demand large amounts of labor, much of which is highly seasonal and thus must be mobile. There is no reliable count or even estimate of the number of farm laborers in California. In the Census of 1930 about 195,000 farm laborers were enumerated, but this figure is, for reasons already indicated, undoubtedly a serious underestimate for 1938, and there is no way to determine by what amount it should be increased. Various attempts have been made to estimate the demand for efficient seasonal workers.18 Professor Taylor and Mr. Rowell have quoted these estimates, which run from about 47,000 in March to 198,000 in September.19 One estimate has been made of the need for migratory workers, excluding those resident within the county where employed. These figures are 13,000 in January and 49,500 in October.20 There are no figures available to indicate with exactitude the size of our migratory labor population. Professor Taylor and Mr. Rowell, however, came to the conclusion that from the limited data available there would appear to be no ground for lowering the prevailing estimate of 150,000 men, women, and children who at some time during the year leave their residence, if any, in order to work in the crops. They suggested that the influx of dust-bowl migrants warrants an increase in the estimates but made no attempt to indicate a figure by which the 150,000 should be raised.21

1 Because in California there are large numbers of migratory laborers who are never found by the census enumerators, it is probable that the proportion of the population which lived in small towns and rural areas was considerably underestimated.

2 These data for the 1940 Census had not been published at the time of writing.

3 ⁸ For more complete details on California immigrants see State Relief Administration of California, Migratory Labor in California, prepared under the direction of Alma Holzschuh (San Francisco, 1936), from which much of the following information has been taken.

4 Mexicans in California, Report of Governor C. C. Young’s Mexican Fact-Find

5 ing Committee (San Francisco: California State Printing Office, Oct. 1930), pp. 28, 94, and 171; State Relief Administration of California, op. cit.

6 U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics: 1931 Edition, Bulletin No. 541 (Washington: Government Printing Office, Sept. 1931), p. 281.

7 For additional information on Filipinos in California see State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Facts about Filipino Immigration into California, Special Bulletin No. 3 (San Francisco: California State Printing Office, Apr. 1930).

8 Paul S. Taylor and Edward J. Rowell, Refugee Labor Migration to California, 1937, Monthly Labor Review, 47 (Aug. 1938), p. 245.

9 Ibid., p. 240.

’Paul S. Taylor and Tom Vasey, Drought Refugee and Labor Migration to California, June-December 1935, Monthly Labor Review, 42 (Feb. 1936), p. 312.

10 Taylor and Rowell, op. cit., pp. 240-241.

11 Ibid., p. 242.

12 Ibid., p. 246.

13 G. E. McLaughlin, Growth of American Manufacturing Areas (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1938), pp. 211-214.

14 Z6id., pp. 224-225.

15 California State Chamber of Commerce, Economic Survey Report, Nos. 8 and 10, Series 1937-1938. Mimeographed.

16 State Relief Administration of California, Migratory Labor in California, pp. 4-8.

17 Ibid., p. 7. California State Chamber of Commerce, Economic Survey Report, No. 4, p. 1.

18 "See especially R. L. Adams, Seasonal Labor Requirements for California Crops, Giannini Foundation Bulletin 623 (Berkeley: University of California, July 1938), pp. 22-23.

19 Paul S. Taylor and Edward J. Rowell, Patterns of Agricultural Labor Migration within California, Monthly Labor Review, 47 (Nov. 1938), p. 980.

20 State Relief Administration of California, Migratory Labor in California, pp. 4-8.

21 Taylor and Rowell, op, cit., p. 981.

II. Method

THE AREAS SELECTED FOR STUDY

IN ORDER TO bring this study within reasonable limits, it was necessary to make a choice as to the areas to be included. In a state as large as California it is difficult to choose a relatively small number of districts which will represent diversities of population, industries, and crops. With these problems in mind the areas chosen were San Francisco; Los Angeles city, with its adjacent urban areas in which certain important industries are located,1 the citrus belt to the east, and the diversified agricultural region of the San Fernando Valley; Sacramento city, the delta region and Yolo County to the south and west, and Eldorado, Sutter, Yuba, Placer, and Nevada counties, which are adjacent to Sacramento County on the north and east; Bakersfield city, the centers of oil production in the vicinity of Bakersfield and to the west, and the cotton, potato, and grape areas about 30 miles north, south, and west of Bakersfield, all within Kern County; and a grape district in the vicinity of Fresno.2 Although the study was centered in the districts mentioned above, a few days were spent in Santa Maria and its vicinity, which represents one of the large pea-producing areas of the state, and one day in the Santa Clara Valley to secure some additional information on labor contractors.

It should be pointed out that, although the geographic area of this study may be described in a general way in the above terms, it was not possible to include all the placement resources in each of the areas. In the four chief cities visited all aspects of the problem were studied. The investigation in the smaller cities, towns, and agricultural areas, on the other hand, was concentrated on problems peculiar to them. For instance, Taft in Kern County was visited to secure information regarding employment methods in oil refineries; Inglewood and Santa Monica, only to ascertain employment methods in the aircraft factories.

San Francisco and Los Angeles represent the large metropolitan centers of the state; Sacramento, with a population of 106,000 in 1940, represents the fairly large cities of the state; and Bakersfield, with a population of 29,000, the smaller cities. The areas surrounding the above cities included, for certain aspects of the study, some fairly large population centers; but, with the exception of Los Angeles County, the towns in these districts were either small incorporated places of two to three thousand or smaller and unincorporated, and the major portion of the outlying districts was purely rural.

Since nativity and race are important factors in the labor market of California, it was necessary that the areas chosen represent these population characteristics. All of the important countries of origin of California’s foreign-born white population are represented by considerable numbers in San Francisco and in Los Angeles. Both these cities contain a large proportion of the foreign born, whereas in Kern County the proportion is small. The nonwhite races are also adequately represented. The discussion of California as a whole showed that the Chinese, Japanese, and Negroes were largely resident in the metropolitan areas, which were included in the sample visited, and that nearly half the Mexicans of the state reported Los Angeles County as their permanent residence. No information was available on the residence of the Filipino population of the state, but it is a well-known fact that considerable numbers live in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento, where they are engaged in domestic and restaurant pursuits. The Mexicans and Filipinos engaged in migratory agricultural labor were well represented in the rural districts visited. The newer group of Negroes engaged in agriculture were found in Kern County. The dust-bowl migrants came into the state chiefly in the extreme south and spread north. Because the sample included rural areas in both the northern and southern portions of the state, a broad view was obtained of the infiltration of this latest wave of migrants.

The sample districts were likewise representative of the major industries of California. Three-quarters of the manufacturing in California was concentrated in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas, and, with the exception of railroad repair shops and lumbering, all of the important manufacturing industries of the state (see p. 10) were represented here. The Sacramento area contained large railroad shops and fruit and vegetable canneries that produced one- third of California’s canned goods output.3 Bakersfield was not a manufacturing center, but it was one of the chief centers for petroleum manufacturing and refining. Over half of the wholesale and retail trade of the state was concentrated in the two metropolitan areas. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento were all important railroad centers, and San Francisco and the harbor towns of Los Angeles were the only important commercial shipping ports of the state. The only two important industries inadequately represented in the sample were lumbering and mining. The lumber industry was, in the main, concentrated in northern counties which were excluded from the study, but there were several lumber mills in the vicinity of Placerville which were included as a small sample of the industry. Gold mining was important in only one of the counties (Nevada County) which were included in the sample, and the extent to which it was covered there cannot be considered representative of the whole industry in the state.

On the whole, the sample districts also represented California’s most important crops (see p. 11). The field crops were represented by large acreages of cotton and potatoes in Kern County, sugar beets around Sacramento, and beans in the San Fernando Valley outside Los Angeles. Hay and grains and livestock were produced in each of the agricultural areas visited. The citrus belt east of Los Angeles was included; peaches, pears, prunes, apricots, and almonds were grown in the area around Sacramento; walnuts, around Los Angeles. Truck crops, with the exception of asparagus, were less adequately represented. The Imperial Valley and the coast counties north of Los Angeles, the two most important areas of production of commercial vegetable crops, were omitted from the study because of lack of time and funds. However, almost all of the asparagus acreage of the state lay in the Sacramento delta, some peas and tomatoes were grown around Sacramento and Los Angeles, and Santa Maria was one of the large centers for peas. Three of California’s important truck crops—lettuce, cantaloupes, and celery—except for insignificant acreages were not grown in the areas chosen for study.

It is apparent therefore that the sample districts chosen for study represented California with fair adequacy in regard to rural districts and urban centers, type of population, industries, and crops. Since this study is concerned with the mechanics of bringing the job and the worker together, it seems reasonable to assume that areas which included most of the types of workers and of jobs to be found in the state will be representative for our purposes, that is to say, that they will contain examples of all the important placement agencies operating in California. No doubt there were local peculiarities in the type of placement resources available and in their use in some of the areas which were not visited. But the sample studied should give at least the main outlines of the organization of the labor market throughout California.

TECHNIQUES OF INVESTIGATION

Within a labor market characterized by disorganization there are innumerable avenues along which the job hunter and the employer in need of workers may travel in search of a meeting place. Some of these are well-established routes, and others are like a maze in which the meeting of the two is almost entirely a matter of chance. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the routes between job and worker may be well defined for certain industries, occupations, or groups and ill defined and haphazard for others. A study of placement resources is complicated not only by the fact that the worker may seek a job or the job may seek a worker in many different ways but also by the fact that organization, custom, and prejudice have resulted in the development and more or less habitual use of different methods of bringing the job and the worker together in various spheres of activity.

The first step in this study was to list all known placement resources. The next step was to consult various sources of information in each of the communities included in the study for general information which might bear on the subject under discussion in order to make the list of placement resources as exhaustive