17
Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture ELLEN WALL McMaster University* La main-d’oeuvre salaribe dans I’agriculture a rarement fait l’objet d’analyses dbtaillbes au Canada, malgrb son importance comme crit6re de classification des exploitations agricoles et comme indicateur de l’bvolution de la structure du secteur agricole. Dans cette communication, l’auteure cherche a rembdier a cette negligence en intbgrant des questions relatives au salariat dans l’agriculture au dbbat sur les changements structurels touchant le secteur agricole des bconomies industrialisbes. Son analyse est fondbe sur 1’8tudedu cas de l’industrie de la tomate conditionnbe en Ontario. Les incidences de l’industrialisation sur les marches du travail agricole sont particuli6rement intbressantes. La ou l’on moissonne a la machine plutBt qu’8 la main, les fermes embauchent moins d’ouvriers, on fait moins appel au travail des enfants et le nombre d’employbes rbsidentes augmente. Cette Btude est une source de donnbes qui contribuent non seulement 1 notre connaissance des ouvriers agricoles de I’Ontario mais aussi aux arguments en faveur du modele marxiste classique de l’bvolution de la structure de l’agriculture dans les pays industrialisbs. Although the presence of agricultural wage labour is important for classifying farm operations and for measuring changes in agricultural structure, it has received little detailed analysis in Canada. This article attempts to redress that oversight by integrating issues that affect hired farm labour into debates about the changing agricultural structure of industrialized nations. A case study of the Ontario processed tomato industry forms the basis for analysis. Of special interest is the influence industrialization has on hired farm labour markets. When mechanized harvesting replaces hand harvesting, there are fewer workers hired per farm, child labour decreases, and there is an increase in resident female employees. This research not only contributes to our knowledge of Ontario farm workers but also provides new empirical data to support the classical Marxist model of change in the agricultural structure of industrialized nations. * This article is based on research carried out for my Ph.D. dissertation, ‘Agribusiness and Hired Labour in the Ontario Tomato Industry’ (1992). I appreciate a research grant from the Labour Studies Programme at McMaster University, as well as the constructive com- ments from members of my supervisory and examining committees. This manuscript was submitted in November, 1992 and accepted in June, 1993. Canad. Rev. Soc. & Anth. I Rev. canad. SOC. & Anth. 31(1) 1994

Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

ELLEN WALL McMaster University*

La main-d’oeuvre salaribe dans I’agriculture a rarement fait l’objet d’analyses dbtaillbes au Canada, malgrb son importance comme crit6re de classification des exploitations agricoles et comme indicateur de l’bvolution de la structure du secteur agricole. Dans cette communication, l’auteure cherche a rembdier a cette negligence en intbgrant des questions relatives au salariat dans l’agriculture au dbbat sur les changements structurels touchant le secteur agricole des bconomies industrialisbes. Son analyse est fondbe sur 1’8tude du cas de l’industrie de la tomate conditionnbe en Ontario. Les incidences de l’industrialisation sur les marches du travail agricole sont particuli6rement intbressantes. La ou l’on moissonne a la machine plutBt qu’8 la main, les fermes embauchent moins d’ouvriers, on fait moins appel au travail des enfants et le nombre d’employbes rbsidentes augmente. Cette Btude est une source de donnbes qui contribuent non seulement 1 notre connaissance des ouvriers agricoles de I’Ontario mais aussi aux arguments en faveur du modele marxiste classique de l’bvolution de la structure de l’agriculture dans les pays industrialisbs.

Although the presence of agricultural wage labour is important for classifying farm operations and for measuring changes in agricultural structure, it has received little detailed analysis in Canada. This article attempts to redress that oversight by integrating issues that affect hired farm labour into debates about the changing agricultural structure of industrialized nations. A case study of the Ontario processed tomato industry forms the basis for analysis. Of special interest is the influence industrialization has on hired farm labour markets. When mechanized harvesting replaces hand harvesting, there are fewer workers hired per farm, child labour decreases, and there is an increase in resident female employees. This research not only contributes to our knowledge of Ontario farm workers but also provides new empirical data to support the classical Marxist model of change in the agricultural structure of industrialized nations.

* This article is based on research carried out for my Ph.D. dissertation, ‘Agribusiness and Hired Labour in the Ontario Tomato Industry’ (1992). I appreciate a research grant from the Labour Studies Programme at McMaster University, as well as the constructive com- ments from members of my supervisory and examining committees. This manuscript was submitted in November, 1992 and accepted in June, 1993.

Canad. Rev. Soc. & Anth. I Rev. canad. SOC. & Anth. 31(1) 1994

Page 2: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

66 ELLENWALL

Ontario agriculture, like that of most industrialized nations, is undergoing a major transformation. This is due to several factors including the rise of agribusiness,’ continuing industrialization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and ongoing GATT negotiations. Although scholars and analysts have examined the consequences of such developments for owner-operators and unpaid family labour,2 little attention has been paid to hired workers whose contribution to agricultural production is increasing (Smith, 1986). Recent scholarly work on hired farm workers in Ontario begins with Hay- thorne’s analysis (1960) which updates his earlier work (Haythorne and Marsh, 1941) and provides an overall picture of hired farm labour in Ontario after World War 11. Later historical accounts such as Parr (1985) and Satzewich (1988; 1989) use specific aspects of farm labour experience to sup- port their positions on wider sociological issues. Others have also used hired farm labour in Ontario to explore economic and legal concerns (Bruce and Kerr, 1983; Dawson and Freshwater, 1975; Neilson and Christie, 1975). As the ratio of paid farm labour to owner operators increases and as in-

dustrialization continues, the number and complexity of social and socio- logical issues that demand our attention also grows. In Ontario, for instance, farm workers are paid minimum wages and receive little protection from various labour laws (Stultz, 1987: 293). Despite recent modifications to pro- vincial labour legislation, farm labour is still denied the right to form asso- ciations, and to receive vacation, sick and/or overtime pay. Pregnancy leave is not applicable, nor is there significant protection against unjust dismiss- al and discrimination in hiring and promotions. In addition, farm work has no limits to the number of hours worked or to the use of child l a b o ~ r . ~

The role of state policy is just one of several factors influencing condi- tions for hired farm labour in Ontario. One way to analyse some of these concerns is by narrowing the range of investigation to a specific commodity and examining in detail the web of relations and interactions found there. This strategy has been used successfully in the analysis of farm labour hired for tomato and lettuce production in California (Friedland and Barton, 1975; Friedland, Barton, and Thomas, 1981; Thomas, 1985). Those studies served as comparative models for my research into the Ontario processed tomato i n d ~ s t r y . ~ A variety of methodological techniques were employed in gather- ing the data.

During 1988 and 1989, in-depth interviews were conducted with 45 to- mato growers in southwestern Ontario who were contacted through a snowball sample technique. Any tables appearing in this article are based on data from 38 of those interviews.‘ The reduction in sample size reflects the need to have a balance between hand and machine harvest growers and to include only those who were involved in production after 1986. That core of information has been supplemented by interviewing various ‘experts’ and government officials and by extensive historical research. As well, I engaged in both participant and non-participant observation with farm workers when I worked with them in the fields and in community settings. Data col- lected by these various means were used to determine what influence the rise of agribusiness has had on labour market and labour process issues that

Page 3: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

67 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

affect hired farm workers in that industry. This article, which is based on that research effort, examines how farm

labour markets change as industrialization continues on the farm site.6 Such changes have important consequences not only for farm workers but also for debates about agricultural structure in Canada. Contributing to that debate is Ghorayshi who incorporates hired farm labour in her analysis (1987). Based on the work of Marx and others, she argues that farms hiring five or more person years of labour are capitalist while those hiring less than five are petit bourgeois (1986). After interpreting the census data for 1971 and 1981 using this classification, she draws several conclusions. One is that fruit and vegetable farms (which include tomato production) are more highly represented in the capitalist classification than are farms producing other commodities (Ghorayshi, 1987: 364). Another is that over the ten-year period there is a trend for the number of capitalist fruit and vegetable farms to increase both in relative numbers and in their percentage of total sales (Zbid).

While the increasing use of hired labour is the quantitative measure of the development of capitalist enterprises, it does not describe the whole pic- ture (Reimer, 1983). As we shall discover in this paper, a more qualitative examination of hired labour in agricultural enterprises improves our under- standing of what lies behind these numbers. What other characteristics of hired labour change when farms alter operations in a manner associated with capitalistic development - specifically, increased mechanization? What do farm labour market changes mean for different perspectives on the struc- ture of Canadian agriculture? We shall address both questions by looking at the Ontario processed tomato industry and the labour markets associated with it, but first some historical background is necessary.

THE ONTARIO PROCESSED TOMATO INDUSTRY

Tomatoes for processing were first grown in Ontario in the 1880s. At that time two small canneries in Prince Edward County provided a reliable market for several farmers who followed the lead of farmers in the United States where tomatoes had been grown for some time. During the first half of the 20th century tomato production spread from the eastern region of Ontario to the south and southwest. As well, both the number of growers and canneries increased dramatically. Records indicate there were approxi- mately 4,000 tomato growers in 1934 and 7,000 by 1949. For the same time period, canneries numbered 145 and 236 respectively (Statistics Canada, 1935; 1950).

In the early years of the industry, tomato production was a small-scale, farm-centred operation that most farmers considered lucrative. The aver- age number of acres per grower was small (less than 7) and most work re- quired little by way of machinery or tools (Nelson, 1954). The peak in labour demand occurred during the harvest season (mid-August to late September) when farm workers moved down the rows putting ripe tomatoes into 35-50 pound hampers. At the end of the day these hampers were collected and eventually hauled to the nearby cannery.

Page 4: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

68 ELLENWALL

After World War 11 major technological changes were introduced into to- mato farming. The most important development was the introduction of me- chanical harvesters starting in 1959. Although Ontario growers were slow to adopt these machines, by 1990 it was estimated that more than 70 per cent of the crop was harvested in this manner. The hand harvest style de- scribed above has been transformed into a system where up to 12 farm work- ers stand on a massive machine as it travels down the rows. This machine cuts vines and moves them through a series of operations that shake off the tomatoes, which fall onto a system of conveyor belts. Workers, standing side by side, throw off rotten, green or damaged product. The tomatoes are then conveyed into large wagons moving beside the mechanical harvester.

The move to mechanical harvesters has consequences for all aspects of the Ontario tomato industry. These include changes in seedling production, transplanting, maintenance, harvesting and hauling the crop. Mechanical harvesting has been the central dynamic for all these modifications as the model indicates.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE ROLE OF MECHANICAL HARVESTERS IN THE PRODUCTION OF TOMATOES FOR THE PROCESSED MARKET

~~~~~~~~

PLANTS LAND requirements: requirements: (1) must produce tomatoes

-with tough skins -ripening at same time -forming clusters

(1) sandyflight texture (2) double raised rows (3) as many acres as possible (4) most southern part of Ontario

(2) must produce maximum number of tomatoes per plant

MECHANICAL HARVESTERS and

BULK WAGONS

MAINTENANCE

Planters Fertilizers Pesticides

Ripening agents Irrigation

Consequences for Grower: (i) increased capital and operating costs (ii) greater need to avoid risks from adverse weather, mechanical breakdown, and labour problems (iii) greater reliance on processor for secure contracts

Mechanical harvesters were introduced into Ontario primarily to meet the requirements of the food processing industry that needs a continuous supply of product, uniform in quality and size. Ontario tomato growers, who

Page 5: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

69 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

TABLE I AVERAGE NUMBER OF TOMATO GROWERS AND PRODUCTION IN ONTARIO, 1954-1988

Years Number of Growers Production (in Tons)

1954-58 5,714 224,699 1959-63 3,470 299,416 1964-68 2,771 325,645 1969-73 1,915 338,131 1974-78 1,544 410,234 1979-83 1,059 460,542 1984-88 827 555,037

Note: From Fisher (1987) and McFaul(1993)

are under contract to processors, adopt new harvesting technology and alter their farming operations when requested to do so. The fact that thousands of them have left tomato production during the last 25 years and that many of those who remain have been cautious in using mechanical harvesters, suggests that many question who really benefits from such innovations. At the same time, some processors have also insisted on maintaining contracts with a certain number of growers who use hand harvesting to avoid weather risks and to supply their juice production. It is the processor who ultimately decides what kind of harvesting is done. The grower either accepts the offer and stays in tomato production or rejects it and moves out of the industry.

Fewer, but bigger, farming operations dominate tomato production. As Table I indicates, the decrease in the number of tomato growers is matched by an increase in their productive output. The dramatic increase in produc- tion since the 1960s coincides with the introduction of mechanical harves- ters. Both are key indicators of industrialization and have affected all players in tomato production. As noted in the conceptual model, owner oper- ators have to alter several aspects of their enterprises to accommodate the new harvesting system. This in turn affects their relations with other to- mato growers, with processors under whom they are contracted, and with the farm labour they hire to harvest tomatoes. Because the focus for this ar- ticle is the latter group, they are described in the following section.

HIRED FARM LABOUR MARKETS IN ONTARIO TOMATO PRODUCTION

The farm labour market for hired workers in tomato production has under- gone a variety of changes as the industry has developed. Up to World War 11, individuals from nearby communities were the primary source of hired harvest help if the family labour was insufficient. By the n+id-l950s, however, local labour supplies were scarce enough that migratory workers from other provinces were called on to work in Ontario tomato fields. In the following decades labour shortages persisted so that migratory workers from outside the country have been called on to perform farm labour. Table 11, which is based on the sample surveyed for this study, reflects the differ- ent backgrounds of farm workers hired in Ontario processed tomato pro-

Page 6: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

70 ELLENWALL

TABLE 11 FARM WORKERS HIRED IN TOMATO PRODUCTION BASED ON STUDY SAMPLE

Mexican Mennonite French Canadian Ontarian Offshore (Mexico) Offshore (Caribbean)

Total

Number

62% 15% 18% 3% 2%

100%

(567)

duction. All non-Ontarian farm workers have established patterns of travelling to

Ontario for work, not only in tomato production, but also in a number of other labour intensive crops. The most numerous group, Mexican Mennon- ites, refers to individuals who belong to Mennonite colonies in Mexico and other Central and South American countries.' Those who travel north for the agricultural seasons are often the poorer members of these colonies (Sawatzky, 1971). They usually come in family units (with an average of 8 to 12 members) and likely have some kin contact in Ontario to help them get started in farm work.

The next most numerous group is made up of French Canadians from Quebec and the Maritimes. These individuals, sometimes with their fami- lies, travel to southern Ontario for the peak agricultural season. The pro- gram overseeing this movement of farm workers is directed by the Agricultural Employment Services (AES), a contemporary version of the Farm Labour Pool system instituted during the early 1950s. Like that serv- ice, AES is under the auspices of Employment and Immigration Canada but has input at the advisory level from provincial Ministries of Agriculture and Food and various commodity group representatives including the Federa- tion of Agriculture. The number of French Canadian farm workers travel- ling to Ontario through AES has been declining while the number of Mexican Mennonites has i n c r e a ~ e d . ~

The other major source for farm workers is the offshore seasonal agricul- tural worker program developed by the federal government in 1966-67. In 1987, the program was privatized and began operations under the direction of Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services (FARMS) with head- quarters in Mississauga, Ontario. Like AES, the board of directors for FARMS includes individuals from various government ministries and grower asso- ciations. Under current arrangements, FARMS oversees the importation of guest workers (virtually all males) who travel from various Caribbean coun- tries and Mexico to fulfil contracts for farm work with a specified grower. They are hired in large numbers for labour intensive agricultural produc- tion and can remain in Canada from six weeks to eight months each year, depending on individual arrangements.

Earlier, we claimed that industrialization in Ontario tomato production

Page 7: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

71 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

TABLE I11 HARVESTING PROCESS BY NUMBER OF WORKERS AND RESIDENCE

Hand Harvest Machine Harvest (22 Farms) (16 Farms)

Resident 18% Non-resident 82%

Total 100%

Number of workers (387)

66% 34%

100%

(180)

is symbolized by the adoption of mechanical harvesting. Therefore, if differ- ences in hired labour markets appear when hand and machine harvest operations are compared, they will reflect the influence mechanization or industrialization has had.

MECHANIZATION AND CHANGES IN THE FARM LABOUR MARKET

One of the more obvious changes that has occurred with machine harvesting in Ontario is a decrease in the number of jobs for hired farm workers. Cal- culations based on Table 111, reveal that the average number of employees for hand harvest operations is 18 (387/22), while for machine operations it is 11 (180/16). This decline in absolute numbers of farm workers reflects the decrease in hours needed to harvest a hectare of tomatoes once machine harvesters are introduced. Hand harvesting requires 334 hours of labour per hectare whereas machine harvesting requires 73.4 hours for the same area (Fisher, Campbell, and McKibbon, 1987).

Based simply on numbers of farm workers employed, it would appear that hand harvest operations tend to be more capitalistic than machine harvest operations because they hire more workers. But, using only the number of workers hired as an indicator of capitalist agriculture can be misleading, as Shaver points out in her analysis of the factors influencing women’s farm activity (1990). According to Shaver, the dual nature of capitalist farming needs to be acknowledged. Capitalist development incorporates both changes in the relations of production and elements of modernization. Fac- tors related to farm labour issues must be interpreted in terms of the de- gree to which an enterprise has mechanized, specialized, and consolidated its operations (Shaver, 1990: 343). With respect to tomato production, the decrease in hired labour that accompanies mechanizing the tomato harvest reflects the intensification of productivity typical of non-farm industrializa- tion.” Fewer workers are hired because mechanized harvesters have radi- cally altered the labour process. The Marxist model for the evolution of capitalist agriculture is in fact supported by the decrease in hired labour be- cause it means operations are being ‘rationalized’. Tomato growers are ad- vised to adopt mechanized harvesting to improve efficiency (Prescott, 1981).

Not only are there fewer workers per farm but their residence also changes. Employees in hand harvesting are much more likely to have a per-

Page 8: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

72 ELLENWALL

manent residence outside the province while those on mechanical harves- ters are more likely to be Ontario residents.

One possible conclusion from figures in Table 111 is that migratory work- ers, who are all non-residents, will lose jobs when mechanization eliminates hand harvesting. However, at 34 per cent, they are still frequent candidates for jobs on harvesters. This contradicts California studies which found resi- dent farm workers became more than 90 per cent of the hired labour force when machine harvesters were used (Friedland and Barton, 1975). The main reason for this dramatic shift in farm workers’ residence was the federal government’s cancellation of the Bracero Program with Mexico. Scholars argue that this uncertainty in labour supply is, in fact, why mechanization was embraced so eagerly by California producers (Emerson, 1984: 257; Friedland et al., 1981: 38). In Ontario, mechanization has not coincided with the sudden reduction in large numbers of available workers, nor has it been rapidly introduced into the industry. However, we do find a similar trend for residence patterns 6.e. from non-resident to resident) but in attenuated form compared to California.

The reduction in the number of non-resident workers hired when the to- mato harvest is mechanized is a significant finding for the purposes of this study. If the use of non-resident workers persisted, despite the change in harvesting technique, it would support the integrationist model of changes in agricultural structure which claims non- or pre-capitalist forms continue because they serve capitalist interests more successfully. Instead, the move to resident from non-resident workers fulfils one of the requirements for the ideal typical capitalist mode of production, i.e. the presence of fully com- modified labour power (Marx, 1976: 270-80; Miles, 1987: 33; Weber, 19271.’’

Commodification of labour power refers to the separation of workers from their labour power so that they can sell it in the labour market. Although non-resident migratory workers sell their labour power to the tomato growers who hire them, they do not do so ‘freely’ but under various restric- tions. Offshore workers sign contracts for specific time periods with the same employer and are confined to farm work by law. Migratory workers from outside the province but within Canada are supposed to fulfil the terms of agreements which designate a specific employer and a certain time pe- riod. However, penalties for not complying with these agreements are rarely meted out. Mexican Mennonites from Central America may be here as ‘vis- itors’ and legally speaking, should not take any employment, agricultural or otherwise.

The use of non-resident workers means tomato operations that hire them are capitalistic in form, i.e. they exchange wages for labour-power. However, the content of the relations may be non-capitalist because all non-residents are not ‘free’ to circulate in the competitive marketplace. Nor are they ‘free’ with respect to a number of other rights guaranteed to resident workers (Wall, 1992: 272). When the hired labour component in mechanized opera- tions shows a trend to being resident and therefore ‘free’, form and content merge and meet the requirements for capitalist operations more fully.

In tomato production, hired farm labour works either in a group based

Page 9: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

73 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

TABLE IV HARVESTING STYLE AND WORKING GROUP

Hand Harvest Machine Harvest ~

Family 73% Family 19% Single 27% Single 81%

Total 100% 100%

Number (22) (16)

Note: Table IV and any other tables with a number of 38 are based on the number of growers interviewed

on kinship, or as single individuals. Another consequence of changing to me- chanical harvesting is reflected in the decreased instances of families labour- ing together. As Table IV indicates, 73 per cent of hand harvesters are working in families but this declines to 19 per cent when machine harves- ters are introduced.

When hand harvesting in 1985-88, a family often picked 500 bushels a day and would earn approximately $250 for that effort. By contrast, work on mechanical harvesters involves being paid an hourly wage (in 1988, it was $5.20/hour). Unless poor weather or mechanical problems arise, a harvester operates from four to six hours a day to get the required amount of product. Therefore, the daily wage per worker will vary from $20 to $35, a substantial drop from hand harvesting revenue.':!

When families hand harvest in the fields, it is not unusual for children under 12 to be present and working with their families. One Mexican Men- nonite woman told me with pride that her eight-year-old daughter could pick 80 hampers of tomatoes in one day. (This is approximately 3,000 pounds of tomatoes.) Those too young to help out may be left behind in the housing facility or stay in and near the vehicles parked y the edge of the field. In both cases older siblings are often supervising.

Although it is generally considered unacceptable to employ young child- ren, the Canadian Labour Code does not set an absolute minimum age for employment (Labour Canada, 1986: 7). In Ontario, regulations concerning child labour are found in several acts. One is the Occupational Health and Safety Act which states that children under 14 cannot be employed in or about any industrial establishment. Because agricultural operations are ex- cluded from this act, children under 14 are legally employed. The Education Act forbids children under 16 to work during school hours. Several provinces have exemptions for different reasons. New Brunswick, for example, allows children to miss six weeks of school to help with the potato harvest. Ontario is on record as having no exemptions (Labour Canada, 1986: 21). However, officials in Essex county do excuse children for a maximum of three weeks in September to allow them to work in the tomato harvest. Those officials expressed their consternation over the number of Mexican Mennonite child- ren who were working instead of attending sch001.'~

The decrease in family working groups that occurs when tomato produc-

1B

Page 10: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

74 ELLENWALL

TABLE V HARVEST PROCESS AND GENDER

Hand Harvest Machine Harvest

Females 47% Females 70% Males 53% Males 30%

Total 100% 100%

Number (387) (180)

tion undergoes mechanization also has implications for the structure of ag- riculture. For instance, the lower labour costs associated with mechanical harvesting are among the factors that economists cite when arguing that tomato growers are better off abandoning hand harvesting (Prescott, 1981). The estimated cost for hand harvest labour is $1,777 per hectare while the cost for mechanized harvesting is $394 (Fisher et al., 1987: 49,511. However, when other costs are included the differences between the two kinds of operations lessen. According to economic analysts with the Ontario Minis- try of Agriculture and Food, a mechanized harvest should realize a final re- turn of $2,451 per hectare while hand harvesters might get $1,168 per hectare (Ibid.). Closer scrutiny reveals that any advantage to machine growers may, in fact, be accruing to tomato processors rather than growers. The most recent contracts between the two have included a separate and lower price for machine harvested tomatoes (Farming Today, March 12, 1990). Thus, capital interests at the food manufacturing level might be the true beneficiary from any reduction in hired labour costs on the farm. This is an added confirmation of the classical Marxist model for changes in agri- cultural structure because industrial capital interests (processors) may be gaining at the expense of both growers and their employees.

The reduction in child labour that occurs in mechanized operations also supports a classical Marxist interpretation of changes in agricultural struc- ture. As argued in a previous section, fully commodified labour power is a feature of industrial capitalism in its ideal form. Just as non-citizens do not have the freedom to circulate in the labour market (thus not commodifying their labour power), so do children have restricted access. They are a form of ‘unfree’ labour, not only because they are subject to the demands of their parents, but because it is illegal for them to work in other industries. The reduction in child labour that occurs with mechanization means the com- modification of labour power is not blocked and therefore results in a more capitalistic form of production.

Table v indicates that there is a substantial change in the ratio of males to females when machines replace hand harvesters. In hand harvesting, the ratio is close to equal (47% female to 53% male) because of the large num- ber of families working the fields. Machine harvesting, where the ratio is 70 per cent female and 30 per cent male, is significantly different. These re- sults are comparable to findings from similar studies on the California to- mato industry (Friedland and Barton, 1975). As noted, the change in this

Page 11: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

75 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

case was more dramatic because hand harvesting had been a job primarily for Mexican nationals (all male) who came to the U.S. under the Bracero Pro- gram. When that labour agreement between Mexico and the U.S. ended in 1964, tomato growers faced the loss of low cost, dependable labour power. Their overwhelming response was to mechanize the harvest procedure. In- stead of employing male Braceros hand harvesting in the field, tomato growers hired resident Mexican -American women to work on machines. Friedland and Barton (1975) claim the increased use of female workers re- flects the employers' need to ensure a reliable, docile labour force.

In his study of mechanizing the California lettuce harvest, Thomas ar- gues that the consequent increase in the number of female employees hired when machines are introduced reflects the growers' desire to control wages and working conditions more effectively (Thomas, 1985: 170). Others writ- ing on mechanized harvest operations describe women as more efficient and trainable employees (Gould, 1983: 69). Two of the growers interviewed for this study expressed a preference for women employees. They thought females were less likely to complain and cause disturbances.

The greater proportion of females hired for mechanized harvesting re- peats historical patterns in the non-farm sector. Early in industrial history, the introduction of large-scale machinery into some factories meant women could replace men as the labour force (Marx, 1976: 92). Capitalists were advantaged by the consequent decrease in labour costs and by having a more exploitable labour supply.

In tomato production, machines eliminate the heavy manual labour as- sociated with hand harvesting so that women can perform the sorting tasks as easily as men.15 However, in Ontario there is no difference in wage rates for males and females, who may work together sorting on the harvesters. It is for reasons other than reduced labour costs that women have become the preferred labour supply on mechanical harvesters. One of the important fac- tors is the availability of resident or local women for such part-time, tem- porary employment. Hand harvesting, which is infrequently performed by resident females, does not qualify as part-time to the same degree that ma- chine harvesting does for a t least two reasons. First, the working day for hand harvesting is ten to twelve hours compared to four to six hours for ma- chine harvesting. Second, women who hand harvest tomatoes usually work in other labour intensive commodities for the entire :%ason (often for the same employer) whereas machine workers do not. Mechanizing the harvest changes the work activity to something more similar to the low wage, part-time work many women perform. Because their prevalence as machine harvest employees reflects the continuing trend in industrial capi- talism towards concentrating women into such sectors (Armstrong and Armstrong, 1982; White, 19831, the classical Marxist position on changes in agriculture is confirmed.

In this article we have seen that mechanizing the tomato harvest, which signifies industrialization, influences the hired farm labour market with re- spect to a number of features. Concurrent with a decline in the total num- ber of workers hired is a change in residence where hand harvesters are

Page 12: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

76 ELLENWALL

more likely to be non-residents than those who work on machine harves- ters. The latter group also includes fewer children and more females. We have argued that this change means labour power is more fully commodified with mechanical harvesters and therefore confirms the classical Marxist model of changes in agricultural structure. That model receives further sup- port when we consider that mechanized harvesting also has a stronger as- sociation with female employees whose low-status, part-time work is typical of their position in non-farm and service industries.

The influence which mechanization has on farm labour markets for to- mato production may not hold true for other agricultural commodities. For example, the dairy industry, which has also increased its reliance on hired farm labour (Ghorayshi, 1987: 364), has undergone major technological change. Have there been significant alterations in features of the wage labour market for dairy farms that can be related to mechanization? Likewise, nursery and greenhouse enterprises where close to year-round employment is possible are increasingly mechanizing some aspects of their operations. What significant changes if any have occurred in their hired labour component as growers modify work activity there? Before more con- clusive statements can be made about industrialization, labour markets, and agricultural structure in Ontario, more comparative work must be completed. The information and ideas presented here serve as a beginning.

NOTES

1 The term agribusiness refers to a system where various components ( i.e. the farms, the state, financial interests, food processors/manufacturers, the farm machinery sector, and biotechnology interests) are all integrated to produce food as a commodity. Agribusi- ness replaces ‘the farm’ and ‘the farmer’ with the commodity itself as the central fea- ture of food production. Elements in the production process, which are understood in terms of their relation to the commodity, vary with respect to the power each has in con- trolling production. When the phrase ‘rise of agribusiness’ is used, it refers to the in- creasing power that non-farm elements exercise in the agro-food industry. In fact, North American scholars writing about the political economy of agriculture have focused on what Buttel (1980) calls the decomposition question ‘that is, whether corporate or capitalist agriculture is progressively replacing the family labor farm as the major form of agricultural production’. He suggests there are essentially two positions in the debate. The ‘evolutionist’ or classical Marxist thesis that agriculture under capi- talism will follow the same path as all industry. In time, there will be concentration and centralization of agrarian capital, the emergence of large-scale enterprises, and rural class divisions between agrarian capitalists and workers (Mouzelis. 1976: 483). In opposi- tion to that argument is the ‘integrationist’ stance where the persistence of petty com- modity production is explained by using interpretations from underdevelopment, dependency, and articulating modes of production theories (Denis, 1982; Foster-Carter, 1978). These perspectives rely on Marx’s claim that older forms of production can ‘sur- vive and reproduce themselves as transitional subforms within the framework of capital- ist production’ (Chevalier, 1982: 91). Sinclair adds a third approach which emphasizes the influence of historical and ecological factors not recognized by either evolutionist or integrationist perspectives (Sinclair, 1984). According to advisors a t the Ministry of Labour, there is some work being done on developing a separate package of labour legislation to cover farm workers.

2

3

Page 13: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

77 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

4 The Ontario tomato industry was chosen for other reasons besides the possibility of com- paring this study with work in the US. First, it has been operating in the province for more than 100 years and has become the most significant vegetable crop for processing in Ontario (Harling, 1987). Second, the seasonal labour requirements for producing to- matoes have been, and still are, among the highest in the province (OMAF, 1986). Third, the tomato-producing regions of Ontario are within 150-200 miles of my home so travel- ling to the ‘field’ was relatively convenient. Based on the fact that there were 533 Ontario tomato growers in 1988, this represents a 7% sample. I began with initial contacts from an advisor a t the Ontario Ministry of Agri- culture and Food, a representative of the National Farmers’ Union, and an employee of a small processing firm. Elsewhere I have discussed the existence of personal labour relations between employ- ers and their hired farm labour (Wall, 1992). I use the word ‘migratory’ rather than ‘migrant’ in keeping with other scholars who dis- tinguish between the two terms (Thomas-Lyclama B Nijeholt, 1980). Migratory connotes travelling to a destination for work and then returning to a home community. Migrant, on the other hand, may refer to individuals who intend to stay in the new location as well as to those who move on after a work period. Because of possible confusion with the term ‘migrant,’ migratory is preferred. These colonies were first established in the 1920s when groups of Mennonites left their Manitoba settlements. Since then the Mexican colonies have become too small for the in- creasing population. consequently, Mennonites continue to seek areas in Central and South America for new communities. As economic pressures and difficulties with national governments escalate there, many of them leave and hope to rc-establish them- selves in Ontario where Mennonites have a long history. For many who cannot stay in the province permanently, seasonal migration is the only alternative.

9 At first I thought the Mexican Mennonite farm workers might be taking jobs previously offered to these French Canadian workers. However, this is not the explanation most growers and officials gave. They claimed that the economic climate in previously depressed areas, such as the Lac St. Jean region of Quebec, had improved enough that travelling to Ontario was a less attractive idea. As well, many of the families who had es- tablished patterns of returning to Ontario have children who are young adults with no interest in farm work.

10 The harvesting of peas and corn for processing is now entirely mechanical and requires human labour power only for driving the harvester. Such a development is also possible for tomato harvesting if a low-grade product is desired. One grower told me he had harvested with no workers sorting.

11 Without the unrestricted movement and so-called ‘free’ workers who have to earn wages to buy commodities for their own reproduction, capitalism as a mode of produc- tion cannot function (Marx, 1976).

12 It is interesting to note how methods of payment differ with crop despite using the same workers. When a family is hired to work both cucumbers and tomatoes, they will be paid according to the care required in harvesting. In cucumber production the grower splits the proceeds from the sale of the product with the family in a 50/50 or 60/40 ratio (some- times the pickers get a larger share) rather than paying a piece-rate as with hand harvested tomatoes or an hourly wage as with mechanically harvested crops. The differ- ence in payment reflects the difference in product quality and the care required to harvest it. In cucumber picking the plants are gone over several times so that, ideally, only the highest grade cucumbers are picked each time. (The highest grade - and there- fore highest price paid - is for small straight cucumbers.) Hand harvested tomatoes are not graded in the same way. Most go to the juice market and have to meet a specific standard that is not as difficult to achieve as it is for cucumbers. With cucumbers. both

5

6

7

8

Page 14: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

78 ELLENWALL

grower and picker will benefit from the top grade and price. Prices paid for tomatoes de- pend on getting the product to the processor on time. Thus, the grower does not have to link remuneration with quality but more with quantity. For mechanically harvested to- matoes the grading is even less dependent on farm workers’ ability to sort product. The majority of tomatoes are augured into bulk wagons with only superficial sorting. The minimum wage paid to machine harvest workers reflects their unimportant role in the procedure. Hand harvest workers are paid a piece-rate to give them some incentive to continue picking until the required amount is harvested. By contrast, cucumber harves- ters can earn a substantial amount if they are willing to take the time to pick carefully (and if the weather and growing conditions are right).

13 As Table IV indicates, 16 of the growers in my survey hired families to work in their hand harvest operations. Several had more than one family employed so that the total number of families hired is 34 (28 Mexican Mennonite and six French Canadian). The average Mexican Mennonite family has six children capable of working in the fields. Be- cause the number of hand harvest employers is 16, the total number of children working for them is 6x16 or 96. It is difficult to get reliable information about the ages of the children working, but from my observations, from employers and from other commu- nity residents, the perception is that Mexican Mennonite children are helping in the fields from age five or six. French Canadian families usually have four children with fewer youngsters and more teenagers. Calculating child labour among this group is more problematic.

14 In 1988, there were proposals to increase the truancy fines from $100 to $1000 for parents guilty of keeping children from school, and from $1000 to $10,000 for employers guilty of hiring truant youngsters. It was hoped these fines would be a deterrent since the Board members did not want to create further financial hardships for either Mexi- can Mennonite families or local growers. The severity of the fine indicates that Mexican Mennonite truancy is viewed as a significant problem.

15 According to Table V, our study found 30% of the workforce on mechanized harvesters is male. When they do work on harvesters men usually perform tasks other than sorting the produce on conveyor belts. For instance, on harvesters with electronic sorting they often have a strategic position where the vines are cast off after the tomatoes have been removed. This is considered a problem area because vines can clog up the belts and cause a breakdown. Males are chosen for these positions for several traditional reasons. One is that the job requires more physical strength than sorting. Another is the contact with moving parts which requires some mechanical knowledge. Finally, the position serves a supervisory function second to the machine driver. Based on my observations, when males do work alongside females on the sorting lines they are often young (ages 10-14) and likely to have a mother and/or sister also on the line.

16 Based on my observation, women who worked on machine harvesters might go on to other seasonal employment such as food processing, or work irregularly in other low-sta- tus jobs throughout the year, or seek no other employment outside the home.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, Pat, and Hugh Armstrong 1982 The Double Ghetto. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart Bruce C., and W. Kerr 1983 ‘The Determination of Wages and Working Conditions in the Agricultural

Sector: Three Alternatives.’ Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(J~ly): 177-96

Page 15: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

79 FARMLABOURMARKETS

Buttel, F. 1980 ‘The Political Economy of Agriculture in Advanced Industrial Societies:

Some observations on Theory and Method.’ Paper presented to the annual meeting of the CSAA, (June) Montreal

Chevalier, J. 1982 There is Nothing Simple about Simple Commodity Production. Studies in

Dawson, D., and D. Freshwater 1975 Hired Farm Labour in Canada. Ottawa: Food Prices Review Board Denis, W. 1982 ‘Capital and Agriculture: a Review of Marxian Problematics.’ Studies in

Emerson, R. 1984 Seasonal Agricultural Labor Markets in the United States. Ames, IA: Iowa

Farming Today 1990 ‘Future looks Profitable.’ March 12 Fisher, G.A. 1987 ‘Processing Tomato Statistics.’ Economics and Policy Coordination Branch,

Fisher, G.A., B. Campbell, and E. McKibbon 1987 Vegetable Crops, Estimated Production Costs, Ontario. Toronto: Economics

and Policy Coordination Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Foster-Carter, A. 1978 ‘The Modes of Production Controversy.’ New Left Review 107: 47-77 Friedland, W., and A. Barton 1975 Destalking the Wily Tomato. Davis, CA: University of California, Depart-

Friedland, W., A. Barton, and R. Thomas 1981 Manufacturing Green Gold. New York: Cambridge University Press Ghorayshi, P. 1986 ‘The Identification of Capitalist Farms: Theoretical and Methodological Con-

1987 ‘Canadian agriculture: capitalist or petit bourgeois?’ The Canadian Review

Gould, W.A. 1983 Production, Processing and Quality Evaluation. Westport, CT: AW Publishing Harling, K. 1987 Competitiveness of Ontario Horticultural Industries. Toronto: Ontario Min-

Haythorne, George 1960 Labour in Canadian Agriculture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Haythorne, George, and L. Marsh 1941 Land and Labour. London: Oxford University Press Labour Canada 1986 Labour Standards in Canada M a n , K. 1976 Capital (Vol.#l). New York: Vintage Books

Political Economy 7: 89-124

Political Economy 7(winter): 127-54

State University Press

Chatham, ON: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

ment of Applied Behavioral Sciences

siderations.’ Sociologia Ruralis ~ ( 2 ) : 146-59

of Sociology and Anthropology 24(3): 358-73

istry of Agriculture and Food

Page 16: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

80 ELLENWALL

McFaul, Arlie 1993 ‘A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Government Policy on Business:

The Case of the Ontario Tomato Industry.’ Unpublished M.A. thesis in Agri- cultural Economics, University of Guelph

Miles, Robert 1987 Capitalism and Unfree Labour. London: Tavistock Publications Mouzelis, Nicos 1976 ‘Capitalism and the development of agriculture.’ Journal of Peasant Studies

Neilson, K., and I. Christie 1975(6) ‘The Agricultural Labourer in Canada: A Legal Point of View.’ The

Nelson, J. 1954 ‘Tomato Processing Production Costs.’ Farm Economics Bureau, Ontario

Ontario MinistIy of Agriculture and Food ( o w ) 1986 ‘Seasonal Labour in The Ontario Tobacco and Horticultural Industries.’ A

report prepared for the Joint Ontario Agricultural Human Resources Planning Committee

3: 483-92

Dalhousie Law Journal 106: 330-68

Department of Agriculture

Parr, J. 1985 ‘Hired Men: Ontario Wage Labour in Historical Perspective.’ Labourbe

Prescott, D. 1981 The Role of Marketing Boards in the Processed Tomato and Asparagus

Industries. Economic Council of Canada, Technical report No. E/I 5 Reimer, William 1983 ‘Sources of farm labour in contemporary Quebec.’ The Canadian Review of

Satzewich, V. 1988 ‘The Canadian State and Racialization of Caribbean Migrant Farm Labour,

1989 ‘Unfree Labour and Canadian Capitalism: The incorporation of Polish war

Sawatzky, H.L. 1971 They Sought a Country. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Shaver, Frances M. 1990 ‘Women, work and transformations in agricultural production.’ The

Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 27(3): 341-56 Sinclair, P. 1984 ‘Fishermen of Northwest Newfoundland: Domestic Commodity Production

Smith, Pamela 1986 “‘Not Enough Hours, Our Accountant Tells Me”: Trends in Children’s,

Travail 15(Spring): 91-103

Sociology and Anthropology 20(3): 290-301

1947-1966.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies ll(3): 282-304

veterans.’ Studies in Political Economy 28(spring): 89-110

in Advanced Capitalism.’ Journal of Canadian Studies 19(1): 34-47

Women’s and Men’s Involvement in Canadian Agriculture.’ Canadian Jour- nal of Agricultural Economics 33: 161-95

Statistics Canada 1935 Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industries 1950 Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industries

Page 17: Farm labour markets and the structure of agriculture

81 FARM LABOUR MARKETS

Stultz, E. 1987 ‘Organizing the Unorganized Farmworkers in Ontario.’ In R. Argue et al.

(ed.), Working People and Hard Times. Toronto: Garamond Press Thomas, R. 1985 Citizenship, Gender, and Work: The Social Organization of Industrial Agri-

Thomas-Lyclama a Nijeholt, G. 1980 On the Road For Work. Boston: Nijhoff Publishing Wall, E. 1992 ‘Personal Labour Relations and Ethnicity in Ontario Agriculture.’ Pp 261-

70 in V. Satzewich (ed.), Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multicul- turalism and Racism in 90s Canada. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing

culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Weber, Max 1927 General Economic Theory. New York: Adelphi Publications White, J. 1983 Women and Part-Time Work. Ottawa: The Canadian Advisory Council for

the Status of Women