so i figured id post it here from home, and then login to here at the library computer tomorrow, retrieve it, and finish it before class. thanks guys. please don't mock my writing ability 1. Chavez’s UFW boycotts had some successes, in terms of drawing public attention towards the widespread use of pesticides in California produce and the treatment of rural workers. One tangible policy change that this ushered in was the passing of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which gave workers the right to unionize. To an extent, there was an alliance between the UFW and establishment New Left figures like Robert Kennedy. But, but this didn’t really last, as by 1983 the Labor Relations Act was reinterpreted by conservatives and subsequently very few grapes were produced by union protected workers, and Chavez’s 1984 led “Grapes of Wrath” campaign was less about the rights of workers and more about public health (pesticides). Aside from the UFW, the Chile solidarity movement was never really particularly organized in its denouncement of Pinochet. Overall, its effect was seen educationally but didn't impact policy: the Reagan administration vehemently supported authoritarianism in Latin America, and consumption of grapes didn’t decline in the same way it did during the 1960’s Chavez led boycotts, but at least American consumers were more conscious of the link between boycotting Chilean produce and supporting a nascent pro-Democracy movement, and the general contrast of many Chileans not being able to afford food and American abundance. But, the Chile Solidarity Movement and the UFW never formally aligned because the UFW saw the grape issue as exclusively related to American democracy, whereas the former stressed the connection between the struggles of American and Chilean workers alike.