Introduction

Wayne Gerard Trotman, a British award-winning black author, said: “As long as there is racial privilege, racism will never end.” Racial issues have long existed in the American history since the birth of the nation. Slavery had influenced the American society significantly resulting in racial discrimination that still exists long after abolition. In the early 20th century, the Industrial Revolution had raised the living standards for some people, however worsening that of several others. As businesses competed in profits, most workers were subjected to brutal working conditions. Therefore, as the Progressive Era started, reformers aimed to leverage the federal government's power to end unethical and unjust business practices, minimize corruption, and alleviate the negative social consequences of industrialization. The stock market crash of October 1929 marked the end of the 1920s' economic prosperity. The Great Depression had placed the U.S. into a tough position in all aspects for the next ten years. Among all people, African Americans were at the worst position during the Great Depression. By 1932, approximately half of African Americans were out of work. Being "last hired first fired", most African Americans were working at the worst jobs for long hours and least pay. The Jim Crow "separate but equal" doctrine resulted in worse educational, housing, and job opportunities for African Americans. As a result, the New Deal, a domestic program of the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1939, was enacted to yield economic relief and reforms in industry, agriculture, finance, waterpower, labor, and housing, enlarging the scale of the federal government's activities. Widely recognized as the New Deal's last significant legislative achievement, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a minimum wage of 25 cents per hour for the first year, to be increased to 40 cents within seven years; no worker was obliged to work, without compensation at overtime rates, more than 44 hours a week during the first year, 42 the second year, and 40 thereafter; and other strict child labor laws regarding working age and conditions. Although the establishment of the Fair Labor Standards Act had successfully changed the lives of many, it still failed to protect multiple groups of people. The complete exemption of agricultural workers from the FLSA was an intentional and unconstitutional consequence of the powerful influence of the anti-FLSA Southern congressmen and the implicit existence of racial discrimination more than 50 years after the abolition of slavery, leaving these workers powerless and vulnerable.

Background

American society in 1920 seemed to be moving beyond the anxieties of the postwar period. In 1919, a series of massive labor strikes for higher pay erupted, ringing the alarm  including the Seattle worker strike, steelworker and coal miner national strikes, and the protest by the Boston police department. Rather than dismissing experienced and skilled employees, several companies attempted to hold them on at reduced hours and low wages. The general prosperity of the 1920s did not benefit all Americans equally. When the economy collapsed in the 1930s, not everybody was in the same position. However, just as most people benefited in the 1920s by technological and cultural changes, in the 1930s, they also experienced the severe economic depression. By 1932, an unprecedented 28 percent of the nation's families, or 34 million residents, were without a single wage earner.

The Great Depression placed most African Americans in the worst living and working conditions. Wages fell nearly 60%, more than 13.5 million people were unemployed in 1933. Farms were hit greater by the terrible droughts in 1930 and 1931. African American workers lost their jobs to white men, facing greater competition for the worst jobs. Jim Crow segregation separated black lives from others. The segregated schools would ensure that black children would stay trapped in poverty and racism like their parents. Private institutions or businesses excluded black people; schools and hospitals for white people were clearly better than those for black people. Segregation was the mechanism to remind black people of their inferiority and to disproportionate public prosperity based on race. After the Civil War, most freedmen did not have land or money and ended up working for white farm owners under the mechanism called “sharecropping”. Land owners favored this system because they charged the workers for land, room and board by deducting the workers’ harvest. In poor seasons, the workers ended up owing the farm owners rather than making profits, which continued to keep them in the cycle of continuous debts and poverty.

Some of the New Deal programs prior to the FLSA acknowledged that unions, particularly unorganized ones, could not do anything for their members. As a result, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Deal's last big labor-related measure. In effect, the Fair Labor Standards Act was the origin of the American weekend. The Act established a minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards, changing multiple people’s lives. However, there were still several shortcomings in the Act that caused some specific groups to suffer, especially African Americans.

Racial discrimination

De jure and de facto, racial discrimination against black American farm workers was also a factor leading to their exemption from the FLSA. The root cause of racial discrimination can be traced back to the beginning of the United States. Before the Civil War, slavery was facilitated by the need of cheap labor and mass labor force. Despite all efforts post-Civil War to form policies of fair treatment for African Americans, the social expectation in the South was still that freed blacks would still be the main cheap labor force. Although they were no longer slaves, African Americans were still not equal to whites. As a result, farm labor became the issues of economics and race. The system of slavery was the main cause to the social racism to the African Americans, not allowing them to change their lives even after the Civil War. They were still supposed to supply the need for cheap labor for plantations in the South. Because of not seeing social equality as a must, in addition to the end of the Reconstruction Era, and several triumphs of Southern governments undoing the reconstruction work of the government, the Southern whites kept the idea that they had the rights to exploit black people’s social standing for cheap labor. This state law system forced the workers to obey and accept to be oppressed and exploited because of the threat of criminal conviction. The laws of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina claimed that any attempt to obtain advances from an employer to intentionally defraud during employment violating employment terms and conditions was considered a criminal offense. As a result, any attempt of refusing to do or finish the job was considered basic evidence of defraud intention. The U.S. Supreme Court realized that these laws violated the 13th amendment in 1911. However, nothing was done, and black Americans kept being exploited on the farm providing cheap labor until the 1940s.

In addition, the cycle of continuous debts did not allow African Americans to escape from poverty and change their living conditions. Historian Edward Royce wrote in his book about sharecropping in the South: “The crop-lien system and the rather permanent indebtedness of laborers, therefore, undermined whatever relative autonomy and independence the tenant might have otherwise enjoyed.” At the time, the sharecroppers had “practically no voice in deciding what crops to grow or what methods to follow in cultivation.” White farmers had a chance to finally purchase their own farms, which would not happen to black farmers. In fact, black workers usually received much less, and had to also sell their crops for a very low price that barely paid back their rent amount. Intrastate economy in the Southern states did not allow most black sharecroppers to pay back their rent or gain profit.

The situation got even worse for those who attempted to fight back discrimination. Whenever there was any sign of pushing for equality, for better working and living conditions, or protesting for more rights from the farm workers, the farm owners would eventually use violent methods to reinforce their powers in the eyes of the workers, attempting to emphasize the racial discrimination, the fact that they were at higher social status and superior. For instance, in 1937, when cotton pickers were highly desirable for low wages, cotton farms were seeking for cotton pickers by offering a better deal than the workers’ current owners, who eventually used hard power to deal with the situation. In a New York Times article, it was written:

"Following alleged attempt by farmers of an adjoining county to entice Negro pickers away by offer of higher wages, Sheriff G. P. Hogan of Warrenton confirmed reports that growers had fired their guns into the air “just to show that they meant business."

Glascock County was offering a better wage and conditions than Warren County to persuade Warren’s cotton pickers to come and work in Glascock. Consequently, Warren’s farm owners had armed guards over the laborers on the field to force them to stay.

 At the time, one of the ways African American farmers could hope for some protection was labor unions and collective bargaining. Regarding this issue, the FLSA stated:

"Similarly, employers, on their own initiative or under a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union, are not precluded by the Act from providing a wage higher than the statutory minimum, a shorter workweek than the statutory maximum, or a higher overtime premium (double time, for example) than provided by the Act."

The FLSA allowed the practice of collective bargaining, which would be more efficient in receiving better wages, and working conditions by negotiating with the farm owners as a union. However, the workers at the time did not use this method effectively. They ended up on the same boat of being exploited, oppressed, and abused by the farm owners who mostly relied on cheap labor to make profits. Over several decades, the government continues to encourage labor workers to join labor unions and effectively use collective bargaining for their rights. In the 1930s, the number of farmer workers being a member or represented by labor unions was lower than 3%. Agricultural lobbies, big farmer unions, had an influential voice but lacked adequate representation. Members of such unions were mostly powerful farm owners and agricultural businessmen, who favored making profits by exploiting cheap labor. They were not in favor of paying a higher wage for such a large-scale workforce, which would significantly reduce the profits from their business. As a result, these farm owners strongly advocated for the exemption.

Southern domination in Congress leading to the exemption

From a political perspective, the underlying reason for the exemption of agricultural workers from the FLSA was the concession of President Roosevelt to the powerful domination of several white-supremist Southern congressmen in the construction process of the initial bill. For example, in the 1935 Social Security Act, Robert C. Lieberman once said:

The Old Age Insurance provisions of the Social Security Act were founded on racial exclusion. In order to make a national program of old-age benefits palatable to powerful Southern congressional barons, the Roosevelt administration acceded to a Southern amendment excluding agricultural and domestic employees from OAI coverage.

At the time, the majority of New Deal policies were considered threats to the ruling system in the South. However, the Southern block in Congress was solid and held such a powerful influence in Congress, which made President Roosevelt pay cautious attention in forming his New Deal program. In most of the cases, Roosevelt ended up excluding agricultural workers from those New Deal legislations, including the FLSA.

In 1931, in the House of Representatives, several Southern congressmen, who opposed social reforms, chaired 29 of 47 committees  such as Ways and Means (James W. Collier of Mississippi), Rules (Edward W. Pou of North Carolina), Rivers and Harbors (Joseph J. Mansfield of Texas), Naval Affairs (Carl Vinson of Georgia), Military Affairs (Percy Quin of Mississippi), Judiciary (Hatton Sumners of Texas), Interstate and Foreign Commerce (Sam Rayburn of Texas), Banking and Currency (Henry B. Steagall of Alabama), Appropriations (Joseph W. Byrns of Tennessee), and Agriculture (John Marvin Jones of Texas). Similarly in the Senate, Southern legislators chaired 13 of the chamber’s 33 committees in 1933. At the time, Congress faced the “Southern Domination” with numerous Southern congressmen serving in the most influential positions throughout the Senate and the House. These authorities formed a powerful block sharing the same perception of white supremacy and fighting against all social reforms that would place them in disadvantages. They held plenty of influential positions such that their votes were essential for any laws to be passed. As a result, in his speech first introducing the bill to the Senate, Senator Black claimed that the bill “specifically and unequivocally” excludes certain industries and certain types of business, and that it would specifically exclude “workers in agriculture of all kinds and of all types.” Facing such a powerful and solid political block, President Roosevelt was clear that without votes from them, several of his New Deal programs would fail to be established. He would definitely have the support from these legislators “[as] long as the New Deal did not disturb southern agricultural, industrial, or racial patterns.” Therefore, Roosevelt had no choice but to exempt agricultural workers from the Act to appease the votes from the Southern legislators. As a result, the exemption already existed in the initial introduction of the bill without the need of debating. In arguing against the exemption, New Jersey Representative Hartley said:

Political expediency rather than relief for the exploited workers of America has dictated the terms of this bill. We are told that this measure will raise the wages and lower the working hours of the exploited workers of America. If that is the case then why is it that the poorest paid labor of all, the farm labor, whose weekly average for 1937 was $4.76 has been omitted from this bill? The answer is that the votes of the farm bloc in the House, the best organized bloc we have here, would have voted against the bill and defeated it.

Unfortunately, the Southern domination block was so powerful and influential that supportive effort against the exemption like these was barely heard and noticed. Some other attempts in advocating for agricultural workers’ rights were the National Farmers Union fighting to apply federal minimum wage and hour policy to farm workers and lessen farm owners’ ability to exploit cheap labor; the National Negro Congress refering to the exemption as a form of racism against African Americans. Similarly, such attempts were not sound enough to make a big impact.

Constitutional issues around the FLSA

First of all, the Commerce Clause did not allow federal regulations such as the FLSA to touch on intrastate matters. As a result, agriculture was completely excluded from the initial bill for being considered an intrastate matter, when it should not be. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution stated:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

This clause significantly limits Congress’s power to regulate commerce across states and internationally. President Roosevelt soon recognized this as an obstacle to several New Deal policies, including the FLSA. After 4 years of consistently working on the bill, Thomas Corcoran and Benjamin Cohen, two trusted advisors of the President, and Senator Hugo Black and Sidney Hillman had managed to construct the FLSA in a way that dealt with this obstacle. Since the FLSA was designed to regulate wages, working hours and conditions, which were arguably intrastate commerce matters that Congress should have no power to regulate based on the Commerce Clause, President Roosevelt intentionally attacked this issue by forming a relationship between working conditions and interstate commerce when stating the objectives of the FLSA. Sending the bill to Congress for the first time, President Roosevelt stated that its objective was “to protect the fundamental interests of free labor and free people”, and that products made under decent standards “should be considered as contraband and ought not to be allowed to pollute the channels of interstate trade.” He claimed that businesses with goods selling and shipping across state borders are considered to be involved in interstate commerce, and will be subjected to the FLSA. However, at the time, in the South, the workforce of agricultural workers was not well organized as they mostly sold locally within the community. As a result, lawmakers always perceived agriculture as an intrastate matter, for which it was excluded from the bill initially. In addition, when officially introducing the bill to the Senate, Senator Hugo Black of Alabama claimed he believed that “businesses of a purely local type which serve a particular local community, and which do not send their products into the streams of interstate commerce” could be better managed by their State laws. He argued that since the U.S. is based on a Democratic principle, they could not rely on the diversity of commerce laws of 48 states (at the time). Any action related to goods shipped interstate is a matter of the federal government. With this being said, agricultural workers should also be protected by the FLSA, since the majority of them were based in the South, and their agricultural goods were supplying the population across the nation. For example, in the United States v. Darby case of 1941 in the Supreme Court, respective questions were raised around the 1938 FLSA and the problems of federalism. The United States government brought a suit against the defendant, Darby Lumber Company alleging that Darby “failed to meet the requirements of Fair Labor Standards Act [of employment standards] while [shipping the products in the flow of] interstate commerce.” This was a case, although it happened after the establishment of the FLSA, raising the question of whether or not the federal government had the authority to make such regulations of employment standards in the intrastate production of goods, no matter if they would be involved in the flow of interstate commerce. Through the case, the Court explained that the government has the power “to prevent states from using sub-standard labor practices to gain advantage in interstate commerce”. As agricultural goods from the Southern farms were also shipped into interstate commerce, agricultural workers should not be exempted from the coverage of the FLSA for this reason.

Opposing Argument and Rebuttal

In the article “Lost in a loophole: The Fair Labor Standards Act’s Exemption of Agricultural Workers from Overtime Compensation Protection”, Autumn L. Canny argued that the exemption was primarily because of their genuine concern for farmers and agriculture. Canny quoted Pennsylvania Representative Fred Keller, who proudly claimed that the exemption was helping agriculture “directly and indirectly” because “an increase in the income of one large group of consumers [of other occupations] creates a correspondingly better market for all producers.” Representative Keller’s claim was not wrong. However, the “producers”, who would benefit from a better market, would most likely be the farm owners and not the laborers. In this case, the African American laborers, who usually worked for or sold goods to the farm owners, would continue to be oppressed and exploited. Additionally, Senator Black said that he could not imagine that any board with common sense… “would ever handicap the operation of a law by attempting to bring within its scope activities that are purely and wholly seasonal.” Moreover, New York Representative Francis D. Culkin exaggerated the issue by saying:

May I say that the cow cannot be regulated by any law you may pass here. She gives down her milk at 6 o'clock in the morning. You can pass law until hell freezes over and you cannot change that... So I say, for God's sake, Mr. Chairman, do not attempt to invade the God-given province of the cow by this regulation.

Several legislators believed that because agriculture was seasonal and needed longer working hours, the inclusion of agricultural workers in the FLSA would place a burden on the farmers. It is true that the regulation might affect the farm owners financially, but the laborers for those owners also needed their rights. They could not work longer than the longest hours a human body physically could; in which case, if they worked longer than a usual working day, they should be paid overtime. The legislators were concerned about the burden being put on the farm owners for suddenly paying a higher wage, but they had never considered the fact that the African American laborers had always been receiving such low wages and always struggled to afford a life. Lastly, during the 1930s, agricultural workers’ wages, in several cases, included cash with room and board too. Moreover, small farmers worked scattering broadly in many states, which posed a difficulty in the government's ability to manage the practice of the FLSA. Several of these reasons were brought up as obstacles to the inclusion of agricultural workers in the FLSA. However, it can be clearly seen that although these obstacles required effort to be solved, they should not be the stop to protect black farmers and advocate for African Americans’ rights.

Conclusion

The FLSA exempted agricultural workers because it was believed that agriculture was an intrastate matter that the federal government did not have control over; however, the domination and the racist beliefs of the Southern Congressmen at the time, and the long-existing racial discrimination were the underlying reasons simultaneously. As a result, agricultural workers, who were mostly African Americans living in the South at that time, were left vulnerable, without a voice or representation. They were forced to work devastatingly by several oppressive and violent means during the depression. It was not until the Civil Rights movements happened later in the 20th century advocating for racial and gender equality that their lives moved towards a more positive and hopeful direction. For the last 80 years, the FLSA has been active, revised, and amended several times to allow better working conditions for workers. The American Civils Right Movement had played an important role in changing African Americans’ lives. Massive rebellions to abolish the effects of Jim Crow in the society, effort of Du Bois, James Weldon Johnson, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, and several others contributed significantly in advocating for African Americans’ rights and equality among races and genders especially. It was not until the 1966 FLSA Amendment, which extended the minimum wage to cover approximately 400,000 agricultural workers on large farms to provide them some measure of protection. Throughout history changes made to the FLSA regarding agricultural workers, it is learned that it is necessary to go beyond just a law to achieve actual equality. Time, effort, lives, struggles. Equality resides deeply inside the nature of a society, from each individual’s beliefs, which would cost more than just a policy to change. Nowadays, agricultural workers, with specific requirements, are protected and included in certain provisions of the FLSA. Specifically, they are still exempted from the overtime requirements; however, they are protected to be paid the federal minimum wage, except for certain individuals such as direct family members of the employer, those principally engaged on the range in the production of livestock,... Additionally, employment of minors in agriculture includes numerous restrictions to ensure their rights and safety. Although labor rights and conditions have improved apparently throughout the last 80 years, there are still many more issues to tackle in the future in order to achieve equality and full protection despite races and gender for all people, and for agricultural workers specifically.