IPO Logo Home Search Browse About IPO Staff Links

The State of the State

The strikes by farmers and coal miners

LAST December saw the beginning of two nationwide strikes affecting Illinois, one by farmers and one by coal miners. Coal mining and farming are two of Illinois' oldest and largest industries. Yet it was both ironic and indicative of these times that neither strike was unanimous, and neither had any immediate or important economic impact.

The mining strike was organized by the United Mine Workers of America (UMW), who represent only about half of the nation's miners (although UMW represents most Illinois miners). The farmers' strike was organized by the American Agriculture Movement, a new and loose-knit group representing mostly small farmers in the West and South. The movement's strongest support in Illinois was in the southern third of the state, where the land is generally poorer, the farms smaller and the people more fiercely independent than upstate.

The two striking groups had much in common. Both farmers and miners have a long history of sporadic dissatisfaction with their incomes. Mining and farming are both highly mechanized today, but they are still dangerous occupations involving the hardest kinds of work. Each is crucial to the national economy in its own way.

The differences are much more startling. Miners have traditionally been well-organized. They are among the most unified of American laborers, despite much erosion in the labor movement in the last decade. The UMW won its work and wage benefits through real sacrifice in scores of bitter strikes against terrible work conditions. Farmers, however, have never achieved much on their own behalf through nationwide organization. There are far too many unorganized and independent-minded farmers, and geographic and economic differences are too wide for unanimous action. Also, farmers are in the unenviable position of being both laborers and capitalists. They own the land they use and sell its produce. Miners have nothing to sell but their hard labor; the coal is owned by the companies.

Yet farmers are no more independent of the vagaries of the economy than are miners. In fact, farmers are wedged between suppliers of seed, farm equipment, fertilizer and pesticide, and buyers of farm produce who package and transport food for retail sale. Their lack of organization and the cornucopia of foodstuffs they market puts them at the mercy of constant price fluctuation that seldom affects all farmers at once (most grain prices are down now, while hogs, milk and soybeans are still relatively profitable). This uncertainty of market price gives farmers the choice of selling their produce on the futures market, at a small profit margin, or waiting until harvest time. To wait is to gamble on a better price, with the risk of losing one's shirt.

The natural rhythms of farming also impose certain restrictions. Farms can't be turned on and off like the opening and closing of coal mines. Dairy cows must be milked twice a day. Corn must be planted in the spring, and winter wheat must be seeded in autumn, otherwise there will be no production until after the next planting season. Farmers, with their high capital investments, cannot afford not to produce.

Another farmers' problem that miners don't share is overproduction, which drives down prices. While a strike in the coal fields may reduce the stockpiles of coal within 60 days, a similar reduction of food supplies by farmers would most hurt those who participate in the strike, meanwhile raising profits for those farmers who didn't strike. Farmers can't bring about any immediate food shortage in the United States the way miners can bring about a coal shortage. There is a two-year supply of wheat, corn and rice in this country, to say nothing of the warehouses full of most other foodstuffs. Even if this weren't so, it would be difficult to make the choice not to grow food in a world where millions of people rely on American food exports.

In view of their situation, it isn't surprising that farmers have longer-range, less specific and more social goals than miners. While the UMW demands a "substantial wage increase" and better financing of union health and pension funds (mine operators want specific union penalties for wildcat strikes), farmers demand "100 per cent parity" and better terms for federal export sales. Parity is a federal concept, guaranteeing that farmers have the same buying power as their forebears had from 1910 to 1914, when farm profits were in line with those of industry and labor. Recent prices for corn and wheat have been below 50 per cent of parity. Overall farm prices now are at about 66 per cent of parity.

Illinois farm strike organizers admit that Illinois farmers are not as excited about the strike as farmers in some other states. Participation is weak in upstate counties where the farms are bigger and the land richer than downstate. According to Ronnie Goddard, American Agriculture Movement spokesman, there is upwards of 60 percent participation in the southern part of Illinois. Estimates of upstate participation were from 2 to 10 per cent. Yet it is probably safe to say that most Illinois farmers are in sympathy with the strike as a means of publicizing low farm prices and influencing the administration in Washington. The leaders of most Illinois farmer organizations agreed that the strike would probably not bring about the desired 100 per cent parity, but all endorsed the strikers' cause. "Most of our members are in sympathy," said National Farmers Organization (NFO) Illinois President Ken Strenlau. Harold Dodd, president of the Illinois Farmers Union, agreed personally, as did Harold Steele, head of the Illinois Farm Bureau.

But none of these farm groups officially backed the strike, and the leaders disagreed on the best way to solve the farmers woes. Steele said he favors

Continued on page 30.

2/ February 1978/ Illinois Issues


The state of the State

Continued from page 2.
expansion of export markets and does not think that a strike is any solution. Dodd "endorse[s] their [farmers] right to strike," but believes the "ultimate answer has to be in some kind of production control and supply management." Ken Strenlau says the NFO is trying to organize 30 per cent of production to "bargain for fair prices." Illinois Department of Agriculture Director John Block thinks that better foreign markets and federal production guidelines would help most.

An example of the kind of solution Block and Steele advocate to help farmers is a bill introduced in Congress by U.S. Rep. Paul Findley (R., Pittsfield) and Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D., Minnesota). Their proposed Agricultural Trade Expansion Act would expand American agricultural exports by easing credit terms for foreign buyers. It would offer repayment terms of up to ten years instead of the present three and allow Communist nations to participate. The coal strike will likely require a shorter-range solution and will probably be solved first. 

30 / February 1978 / Illinois Issues


Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library
Sam S. Manivong, Illinois Periodicals Online Coordinator