The Bracero Program (1942-1964)

A Scholarly Examination of Mexican Labor Migration

Working Conditions

Braceros harvesting tomatoes in California
Braceros harvesting tomatoes in California fields, 1958. © Leonard Nadel Collection, National Museum of American History

Working conditions for braceros varied widely but often involved substandard housing, insufficient food, and wage violations despite contract guarantees.

Promises on Paper vs. Reality in the Fields

The Bracero Program established specific contractual requirements for working conditions through the Form I-100 (Work Contract). These contracts guaranteed minimum wages (starting at 30 cents per hour in 1942 and reaching $1.25 by 1964), adequate housing, decent food at reasonable prices, transportation to and from Mexico, and protection from employer exploitation.1

However, the reality of bracero working conditions often diverged significantly from these contractual guarantees, with inspection records and worker testimonies revealing systematic violations of the program's basic protections.

59% Percentage of bracero camps in California that failed to meet minimum housing requirements (1956 Department of Labor inspection)
Bracero contract form (Form I-100)
Bracero contract form (Form I-100) showing guaranteed working conditions and wages, 1956. © National Archives and Records Administration.

Contractual Guarantees vs. Documented Realities

Contractual Guarantee Documented Reality
Minimum wage ($0.30-$1.25/hour) 14,000+ braceros received back-pay for wage violations in 1959 alone
8-hour workday, 48-hour workweek Average 10-12 hour days during harvest, up to 14 hours reported
Adequate housing 59% of camps failed inspections; overcrowding with 100 men in barracks for 60
Nutritious food at reasonable cost 25% of daily wages spent on meals averaging only 2,200 calories (3,600 needed)
Occupational safety 22% of medical visits related to pesticide exposure or equipment injuries
Workers' compensation Injured workers often sent back to Mexico without treatment or compensation

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, "Inspection Reports," 1956-19592

Housing and Food: "Like Being in Prison"

Housing conditions varied widely but were frequently substandard. A 1956 Department of Labor inspection report covering 181 bracero camps in California found that 59% failed to meet minimum housing requirements. Common violations included overcrowding (with up to 100 men sharing a barracks designed for 60), inadequate sanitation facilities (one toilet per 40-50 workers), and unsafe structural conditions. The worst facilities were documented in Texas and Arizona, where state enforcement was particularly weak.2

Bracero Testimony: Lorenzo Cano (1958-1960)

"The housing was worse than animal pens. In a room about this size [gestures to small office], they would put forty, fifty men. Some had to sleep on the floor because there weren't enough cots. We used corrugated cardboard to make walls between beds for privacy. In summer, the temperature inside reached 110 degrees. The foreman would lock us in at night like prisoners—supposedly for our safety, but really to control us."

— Lorenzo Cano, bracero in Yuma, Arizona, 1958-1960, Bracero History Archive oral history, 2007

Food services were another frequent source of complaints. Braceros typically ate at camp mess halls, paying between $1.75 and $2.25 per day for meals (approximately 25% of their daily wages). Food quality investigations by Mexican consulates in 1958 revealed widespread problems including insufficient quantities, poor nutritional value, and unsanitary preparation conditions. A study of five California camps found average daily caloric intake at 2,200 calories—well below the 3,600 calories recommended for agricultural laborers performing strenuous physical work.3

Interior of bracero housing barracks
Interior of bracero housing barracks at a camp near Stockton, California, 1957. © Leonard Nadel Collection, National Museum of American History.

Bracero Testimony: Ramón Ávila (1956-1958)

"We paid almost half our daily wage for food, and what they gave us wasn't fit for dogs. Bean soup with a few pieces of fat, two tortillas, sometimes a little rice. No meat except on Sundays. We were working twelve hours in the fields—how could we survive on this? Many men fell ill from weakness. When we complained, the cook said, 'If you don't like it, go back to Mexico. There are plenty waiting to take your place.'"

— Ramón Ávila, bracero in California's San Joaquin Valley, 1956-1958, Oral History Interview, 2004

Department of Labor inspection report
Page from Department of Labor inspection report documenting housing violations at bracero camps in California, 1956. © National Archives and Records Administration.

Wage Violations: "They Cheated Us at Every Turn"

Wage violations were perhaps the most pervasive issue. Department of Labor records show that in 1959 alone, over 14,000 braceros received back-pay awards totaling more than $500,000 after investigations revealed underpayment. Common violations included failure to pay the prevailing wage, improper deductions for equipment or transportation, and manipulation of piece-rate systems. Many more violations likely went unreported due to workers' fear of retaliation and deportation.4

$500,000+ Back wages awarded to braceros in 1959 alone due to wage violations

Bracero Testimony: Jesús Campoya (1955-1959)

"They cheated us at every turn. Sometimes they would deduct for tools we never received. Other times, they would simply record fewer hours than we worked. The worst was the piece-rate system for picking cotton. The scales were rigged—100 pounds would register as 80. When a brave soul named Carlos complained, the next day his card showed he was 'released due to insufficient work' and he was sent back to Mexico. After that, nobody dared to speak up."

— Jesús Campoya, bracero in Texas cotton fields, 1955-1959, Bracero History Archive oral history, 2005

Common Wage Violation Tactics

  • Rigged Scales: Manipulated weighing of harvested produce in piece-rate payment systems
  • Unauthorized Deductions: Charges for tools, transportation, or housing that were supposed to be provided free
  • Hour Manipulation: Recording fewer hours than actually worked
  • Prevailing Wage Violations: Paying below the locally established minimum rate
  • Withholding the 10% Savings: Failing to properly deposit the required 10% savings fund in Mexican banks
  • Payment Delays: Withholding payment until end of season to prevent workers from leaving

Worker accounts and Labor Department investigations revealed that some employers maintained two sets of payroll records—one for government inspectors and another reflecting actual payments. These discrepancies were rarely caught in routine inspections, which were often announced in advance, giving employers time to temporarily improve conditions.5

Working Hours & Conditions: "From Sunrise to Sunset"

Working hours and conditions were often extreme. While contracts specified 8-hour workdays and 48-hour workweeks, braceros frequently worked much longer hours during harvest seasons. A study of tomato pickers in California's Central Valley found average workdays of 10-12 hours during peak harvest, with some workers reporting 14-hour days without overtime compensation. The physical demands of stoop labor, combined with extreme temperatures (often exceeding 100°F in summer), created hazardous working environments.5

Braceros working in lettuce fields
Braceros harvesting lettuce in California's Imperial Valley in summer heat, 1958. © Leonard Nadel Collection, National Museum of American History.

Bracero Testimony: Miguel Arroyo (1953-1956)

"In the contract they said we would work eight hours a day. But during the harvest, we worked from four in the morning until the sun went down. If you complained, they would threaten to send you back to Mexico. The heat was unbearable—I saw men faint in the fields. Once I counted only three water breaks in a 14-hour day. The crew boss would shout, 'Ándale! Ándale!' like we were animals. We kept working because we had families to feed back home."

— Miguel Arroyo, bracero in Texas cotton fields, 1953-1956, Bracero History Archive oral history, 2006

Health and safety concerns were inadequately addressed. Braceros received minimal training for operating potentially dangerous equipment and often worked with toxic pesticides without proper protection. Medical records from bracero health clinics in California's Imperial County show that 22% of visits in 1957-1958 were related to pesticide exposure or equipment injuries. Despite contractual guarantees of workers' compensation, many injured braceros were simply returned to Mexico without proper medical treatment or financial support.6

Bracero Testimony: Francisco Delgado (1960-1962)

"They sprayed the crops while we were working in the fields. The airplane would come and we could feel the mist on our skin, in our eyes, on our lips. No masks, no gloves, nothing. Many men developed rashes, breathing problems, stomach sickness. My friend Ernesto began coughing blood. When he went to the camp clinic, they gave him two aspirin and told him to rest for half a day. Three days later, he couldn't breathe and they sent him back to Mexico. We never heard from him again."

— Francisco Delgado, bracero in California's Salinas Valley, 1960-1962, Oral History Interview, 2008

22% Percentage of bracero medical visits related to pesticide exposure or equipment injuries (1957-1958)
1 "Agreement between the United States of America and Mexico respecting the temporary migration of Mexican agricultural workers," Executive Agreement Series 278, August 4, 1942, U.S. Department of State.
2 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, "Inspection Reports on Housing and Working Conditions, Mexican Agricultural Workers," File 56-34-111, RG 174, National Archives and Records Administration.
3 Henry P. Anderson, The Bracero Program in California (Berkeley: School of Public Health, University of California, 1961), 78-92.
4 U.S. Department of Labor, "Annual Report on Mexican Labor Program," 1959, RG 174, National Archives and Records Administration.
5 Ernesto Galarza, Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Bracero Story (Charlotte, NC: McNally & Loftin, 1964), 183-215.
6 California Department of Industrial Relations, "Health Services Reports, Imperial County Bracero Medical Program," 1957-1958, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7 Henry P. Anderson, "Occupational Safety Among Bracero Workers," American Journal of Public Health 48, no. 7 (1958): 914-919.