811.504 Mexico/12–1647
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Mexico (Thurston)
No. 1631
Sir: Reference is made to the conversations between representatives of this Government and of the Government of Mexico at El Paso, Texas, from November 20 to December 3, 1947, with a view to the continued employment in the United States of Mexican agricultural workers, and to the draft over-all agreement and contract form which was prepared during that conference,60 copies of which were forwarded directly to Consul General Maurice L. Stafford of the Embassy on December 9, 1947. Reference is also made to Ambassador Thurston’s memorandum of conversation, dated December 5, 1947,60 covering comments made to him by the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs in regard to the agreement and contract.
As Consul General Stafford was informed by telephone on December 9 by an officer of the Department, most of the points raised by the Foreign Minister were definitely covered in the documents under reference. Article 10 of the over-all agreement and Article 4 of the individual work agreement, for example, assure workers of free lodging and travel expenses. Article 8 of the over-all agreement does not establish Torreon and Saltillo as recruiting centers but establishes a line from coast to coast through Torreon and Saltillo as the limit to which transportation for workers is to be paid by employers. The Mexican Government, as stated in the agreement, is free to establish recruiting centers wherever it wishes. For your own strictly confidential information, considerable pressure is being brought to bear on certain committees of the Congress to provide funds for the United States Employment Service which it could use to cover transportation costs [Page 834] of workers from recruiting centers in Mexico to the international border, from which point the travel cost would be obligatory on the employer. As this is merely in the proposal stage, it of course should not be communicated to the Mexican Government, but you will recognize that it would simplify the travel problem for both Governments if action were taken along this line.
In regard to the desire for guaranteed wages for 75 per cent of contract period and the Minister’s emphasis that Mexico did not expect better than the 1943 terms in this regard, it was pointed out to the Mexican Delegation at El Paso that the 1943 agreement was a wartime measure of so much importance that the Mexican workers were given guarantees far beyond those available to domestic agricultural workers. With the cessation of hostilities, there is no longer justification for this discrimination, nor is there any fund or appropriation which would permit continuance thereof. Notwithstanding the above, the El Paso documents still represent considerable preferential treatment for the Mexican workers. Domestic agricultural workers do not receive free lodging, have no subsistence guarantee, and usually must cover their own transportation both to and from the place of employment. Workers presently being brought in from other countries in the Caribbean region, incidentally, are not receiving transportation. All of these things illustrate the earnest and sincere efforts of the United States Delegation to provide for these workers from Mexico in the best possible manner within the existing framework of laws and customs in the United States.
The United States Delegation offered a 50 per cent guarantee of wages and pointed out that the amount of money that employers would have invested in these workers would insure the great majority of them fulltime and probably overtime work. However, the Mexican Delegation turned this proposal down as not “looking like enough.” It accepted as preferable the present wording of Article 24. If the Mexican Foreign Office presses for a guarantee, this Government will accept a revision of Article 24 in the over-all agreement to read somewhat as follows:
“The employer guarantees the worker employment for one-half of the work days of the period during which the contract is, in fact, in effect. If the employer offers the worker less employment, the worker shall be entitled to the amount which he would have earned had he, in fact, worked for the required guaranteed period. In determining whether the guarantee provided for in this paragraph has been met, days on which the worker refuses employment without justification shall be added to the number of days of actual employment.
“Furthermore, the United States Department of Labor will use its good offices in order that Mexican workers under this agreement may obtain maximum employment and wage rates. Information in regard [Page 835] to salary and working conditions is to be circulated among the workers in the contracting centers in the manner specified in the final paragraph of Article 3 of this agreement with a view that the workers themselves may be in a position to decline employment offered if the contracting conditions and wage rates do not appear to be to their interest.”
The above is independent of and additional to, of course, the provisions guaranteeing subsistence to the worker on any day in which he is not given at least four hours of employment (see Article 19 of the individual work contract).
The Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the United States Employment Service of the Department of Labor are under heavy pressure from employers and from members of Congress for the earliest possible approval and functioning of the El Paso agreement. They are particularly interested in the continuance of employment through the present crop cycles of workers now in the United States both under the agreement of April 26, 1943, and under the agreement of March 10, 1947. Especially in the southwest, including California, these workers are engaged in the harvesting of important crops, and there will be heavy losses if their services do not continue to be available. There is also great interest in completion of the agreement in order that workers may be assured from Mexico for the new crop year beginning in March 1948, and the uncertainties caused by the lack of decision on the part of the Mexican Government in regard to the proposed agreement and contract has resulted in the very interested examination of possibilities for bringing in workers from Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The Mexican worker, however, is preferred because of his experience and because of the general understanding that it is mutually advantageous to have a sound economy in Mexico, to which the earnings of these workers can make a very substantial contribution.
You are therefore instructed to take every appropriate action with a view to early adoption of this agreement and contract by the Mexican Government, and you are authorized to exchange notes making them effective on the part of this Government upon the earliest date which can be arranged with that Government.61 The Department has received communications from both the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice and from the Department of Labor expressing approval of the terms of the proposed agreement and asking that it be made effective between the two Governments as soon as [Page 836] possible. It will be appreciated if you will keep the Department informed of developments and progress by telephone or telegraph in order that immediate steps can be taken, when approval is received, to extend any contracts of Mexican workers now in the United States who wish to remain.
Very truly yours,
Director for American Republic Affairs
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- An agreement between the United States and Mexico respecting temporary migration of Mexican agricultural workers, superseding the agreements of April 26, 1943, and March 10, 1947, was effected by exchange of notes signed at Mexico City February 20 and 21, 1948. For texts, see TIAS No. 1968.↩