Abstract
During the 1990s, eastern Free State vegetable farmers increasingly relied on migrants from neighbouring Lesotho for seasonal labour. This coincided with a major downsizing of the mine labour force in South Africa, hitherto the major employer of Basotho migrant workers. However, there was no simple process of transfer of unemployed migrants from the mining to the farming sector; rather, decisions were mediated by domestic relationships and household poverty in Lesotho. Basotho women and girls have been a major casualty of mine retrenchments and the drying up of remittances, and those with domestic skills but little formal training have been forced into the labour market, mainly domestic work in towns and labour on farms. This article examines the Basotho migrants' experiences and conditions of employment, the regulatory environment within which they are recruited and employed, and their future in the context of changing immigration and migration legislation in South Africa.
1. INTRODUCTION
Previous studies have highlighted the history and persistence of poor working conditions on many South African farms (Marcus, Citation1989; Jeeves & Crush, Citation1997; O'Conchuir, Citation1997; Crush et al., Citation2000; Department of Labour, Citation2001; SAHRC, Citation2003). During the 1990s, eastern Free State vegetable farmers became increasingly reliant upon migrants from neighbouring Lesotho to meet their seasonal labour needs (Johnston, Citation1997; Sechaba Consultants, Citation2004). This trend coincided with a major downsizing of the mine labour force in South Africa, hitherto the major employer of Basotho migrant workers (Seidman, Citation1995; Sechaba Consultants, Citation1997; Crush et al., Citation2001). However, there was no simple process of transfer of unemployed migrants from one sector (mining) to another (farming). Rather, decisions on who would migrate were mediated by domestic relationships and household poverty within Lesotho. One of the major casualties of mine retrenchments and the drying-up of remittances has been women, not men (Coplan & Thoalane, Citation1995). Women and girls with domestic skills but little formal training have been forced into the labour market. Their options are very limited – confined, in the main, to domestic work in Free State towns and labour on Free State farms.
This article is based on the findings of a Southern African Migration Project (SAMP) survey of 152 Basotho farmworkers (including 40 undocumented workers). The farms concerned were located in six different districts in the eastern Free State: Ladybrand, Clocolan, Ficksburg, Fouriesburg, Bethlehem and Reitz, and ranged from 250 hectares to 5000 hectares in size. The labour force varied from 35 employees to 1300, with the number of Basotho employees ranging from 12 to 889. Supplementary interviews were undertaken with Free State farmers and farmers' unions, labour and home affairs officials in both countries and representatives of SAAPAWU (South African Agricultural Plantations and Allied Workers' Union) and the National Union of Farmworkers (NUF). Documentary sources include the Labour Agent's agreements entered into by the government of Lesotho and farmers, farmworkers' contracts and the inspection reports by Lesotho Ministry of Labour representatives in Welkom, South Africa.
2. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
There is a pervasive assumption in South Africa that all Lesotho citizens working in the country are (with the exception of contract miners) illegal. This is certainly not the case. South Africa has a bilateral treaty with Lesotho (signed in the 1970s and still in force) allowing South African employers to recruit temporary labour in Lesotho on legal contract (Crush & Tshitereke, Citation2001). Before the 1990s, the treaty was used only by The Employment Bureau of Africa (TEBA) and various smaller companies recruiting exclusively for the gold and coal mines. With the expansion of the market gardening industry in the Free State there was a need for a mechanism which would allow farmers to recruit labour legally in Lesotho. The bilateral treaty served the purpose well.
Farmers or their agents recruit labour at the Labour Offices of the Ministry of Labour in Lesotho. They must obtain what is called a ‘no-objection’, or BI-17 permit, from the Department of Home Affairs in South Africa, which they bring to Lesotho. They are issued with a Labour Agent's Licence permitting them to recruit a certain number of workers from a specific district. A separate Licence is issued for each district in which the farmer may recruit. Licences are valid for either six months (R75) or one year (R150). Farmers are also required to pay R10.15 for each farmworker recruited. A contract is completed for each recruit that stipulates the terms and conditions of employment, including rate of remuneration, type of accommodation and form of medical service provided.
Farmers' contracts with the Lesotho government specify that they must provide free transport to and from the place of employment, free accommodation, three free meals daily and medical care. However, the Lesotho Ministry of Labour neither sets minimum standards for accommodation, meals and medical care nor ensures that farmers adhere to the conditions laid down in the contracts.
Approximately 7–10 000 Basotho per annum are recruited legally through Lesotho's Ministry of Labour. One-third of the farmers interviewed use the services of a recruiter, generally another farmer, to hire Basotho. The largest agency in Maseru, Lesotho – Agrilabour – recruits approximately 2000 Basotho each year for asparagus and potato farmers. Technically, before a Labour Agent's Licence is issued to a farmer, the Lesotho labour representative in South Africa should inspect the farm in question, although this rarely happens. For one district labour official, the reason was simple: ‘We do not have enough manpower or such funds to see to it that these requirements are actually being met.’ According to the Labour Commissioner, Lesotho must ‘rely on the decency of farmers for the meals and accommodation’. Labour officials reported that on the few occasions when inspections were actually carried out and recommendations made that a farmer's recruiting licence should not be renewed, the recommendations were ignored.
The Lesotho Ministry of Labour's inspection of farms is wholly inadequate. The Welkom office, which is responsible for inspecting places of employment for Basotho in the whole of the Free State, including the mines, has a staff of three. In the 13-month period from September 1997 to October 1998, for example, these labour representatives inspected a total of three farms, although reports only existed for two. The labour representative stated that the office is provided with insufficient information to perform more inspections: ‘Because we don't have the proper particulars of name and telephone number, only the physical address, we are afraid really of being shot if we come without calling.’ When inspections were conducted, they were hampered by the fact that labour representatives were not issued copies of the farmers' contracts, so they did not know if the conditions which had been stipulated were being adhered to. Furthermore, district labour offices and the labour representative in Welkom said it was difficult to determine on which farms inspections and improvements were necessary as farmworkers rarely lodged formal complaints.
The Government of Lesotho encourages Basotho to seek employment on Free State farms through the labour offices, rather than to ‘cross the river’ (a euphemism for working illegally). However, only 28 per cent of farmworkers interviewed believed the government had done enough to try and ensure adequate working conditions for its citizens on Free State farms. They complained that there were too many people at the labour office competing for jobs, that labour officials did not act on workers' grievances and that farmers hired through the labour offices only in peak seasons, whereas if a person went on their own, work could be found year-round. On the other hand, workers stated that if they were recruited through the labour office it was more difficult for farmers to cheat them, that they could be contacted through the labour office in the event of an emergency, and that they had the labour office to turn to in the event of a grievance.
Undocumented Basotho labour is certainly still used, especially on border farms. About a quarter of the survey respondents had worked or were working as undocumented farmworkers in the Free State. Interestingly, women seem less likely to work on farms ‘illegally’ than men: only 19 per cent of female respondents had been undocumented workers compared to 33 per cent of male respondents.
Lesotho and South African labour officials reported that farmers come to Lesotho with trucks in search of workers. When crossing the border back into South Africa they cover the truck with a tarpaulin and are never searched. When the season and the work are almost finished, the farmer calls the police to report that there are ‘illegal aliens’ on the farm. The farm is raided – often in the middle of the night – and the Basotho migrants are arrested and deported back to Lesotho. Workers do not have enough time to collect their belongings and are often not paid their wages. Lesotho labour officials believe these incidents are a result of collusion between border officials, South African police and farmers.
Undocumented workers fall into six categories: (a) those who go to South Africa on a 14-day visitor's stamp, search from farm to farm until they are hired, and return every 14 days to Lesotho to have their stamp renewed; (b) those who have family members who have found employment for them on a farm; (c) those who are initially employed through the Lesotho Labour Office and then seek work on their own after their contract has expired; (d) those who live in Lesotho and cross the border daily; (e) those hired by farmers who have come to Lesotho in search of illegal Basotho labour; and, a growing trend, (f) those who live ‘unofficially’ in South Africa in townships along the border and are recruited there by farmers. About half the undocumented workers interviewed fell into category (d). They live at home, some within walking distance of their workplace, while others must find daily transport. Generally these migrants do not cross at a formal border post.
Migrants must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of undocumented migration. Unlike migrants in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, they have a legal option readily available and are not loath to use it. In the survey, migrants were asked for their views on the advantages and disadvantages of using the district labour offices (). As primary advantages of the contract system they cited the protection offered and free transport. On the other hand, they found the system too inflexible for their needs, too competitive and the process too lengthy. Some clearly also thought that the protection offered by the labour office was more apparent than real.
Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of contract system
Migrants openly acknowledge the problems associated with undocumented status. They explained that, besides averaging a lower wage than farmworkers recruited through the labour offices, looking for a job is a costly procedure, they are easily cheated of wages, in which case there is no recourse, and they run the risk of being arrested. Over half the undocumented workers (53 per cent) said they had only a verbal agreement with their employer concerning wages, working hours and accommodation. An additional 10 per cent had written agreements but in nearly half these cases the agreements were not adhered to. Unsurprisingly, the primary problem was wages. Nevertheless, the benefits outweigh the risks for these individuals. Many are able to live with their families, and all have the freedom to change employers at will and to work throughout the year, and they do not require a passport.
Workers recruited through the district labour offices in Lesotho may also unwittingly become ‘illegal migrants’. Farmers who have finished with Basotho labour but whose contracts have not yet expired ‘transfer’ their labour force to other farmers. Besides contravening the conditions of the original contract, this practice places Basotho workers in a vulnerable position. For example, the second farmer may not adhere to the conditions stipulated in the original contract and workers run the risk of arrest by police and immigration officials. As the Labour Commissioner reported:
There was a case in June where there were a lot of people deported. So I said where are your passports and one man said here it is. They were all recruited from Quthing, all of them. And then I said, ‘No, how can you be recruited when you were all deported’ and then he said, ‘We were recruited by one farmer and then when we were finished the work he transferred us to another farmer’ and that is why they were caught by the police and deported. So one farmer recruited them from Quthing – he had a licence – and then he finished his job quickly and then he transferred his licence to this farmer and then they were caught. This is very common.
The next section of the article considers exactly who in Lesotho is recruited to work on the Free State farms. The evidence suggests that they are the most vulnerable and marginalised members of Basotho society.
3. BASOTHO FARMWORKERS: A GENDERED PROFILE
Typically, discussions of Basotho migrant workers in South Africa focus on male migrants (Ulicki & Crush, Citation2000). However, the farmworkers interviewed for this study were 47.5 per cent female. Information provided by farmers, recruiters and the Lesotho District Labour Officers and gathered from a previous study (Johnston, Citation1997) indicated there were many more women than men working on Free State farms as seasonal labour. Nine of the 15 farmers interviewed said they do not hire any men from Lesotho and all but two stated that the majority of their Basotho workforce is female ().
Table 2: Percentage of workforce on farms which is female
There were significant differences between the men and women who seek work on the farms:
-
The respondents in the survey had worked on Free State farms for one to 24 seasons, with a large majority being recent employees. Men were more recent additions to the farm workforce, averaging 2.4 seasons compared to the women's 3.7, and 85 per cent of the men had worked for three years or less, compared to 66 per cent of the women.
-
Female migrant farmworkers tend to be significantly older than the men. In the main, farmwork is the lot of older women (often widowed or divorced) and younger (unmarried) men. Men in Lesotho have traditionally gone to work in the mines at a relatively young age. For most this is no longer an option owing to the drastically decreasing number of mine jobs available to Basotho. Young men with no mine experience seem to be more inclined to take up farmwork than their mine-experienced, older counterparts.
-
About half of all farmworkers interviewed were married. However, many more men in the sample were single (31 per cent compared to 7 per cent of women), while many more women were widowed (26 per cent compared to 3 per cent of men). About 40 per cent of the respondents stated that they were heads of household – 53 per cent of the male and 28 per cent of the female respondents.
-
Both male and female farmworkers have limited formal education and few alternative employment opportunities. Roughly 11 per cent of all respondents reported no formal schooling – 16 per cent of the male and 5.5 per cent of the female respondents – and only 5.5 per cent had completed Junior Certificate and 1.5 per cent the Cambridge Overseas School Certificate. Only 26 per cent of the interviewees had completed primary school (one-third of the women and one-fifth of the men).
Farmworkers tend to be drawn from the most marginalised segments of Basotho society. Here, too, there were gender differences. The majority of respondents (around 60 per cent) said they are the only wage earners in their households, despite this income being low-wage and primarily seasonal. When not working as seasonal farm labourers in the Free State, 31 per cent (primarily male) were unemployed and engaged in no income generating activity. Many women undertake supplementary informal sector activity such as selling vegetables (12.5 per cent), beer brewing (5.3 per cent), piecework (4.6 per cent), herding (3.3 per cent), carrying parcels (2.7 per cent) and sewing (2 per cent).
Only 24 per cent of the respondents reported having a regular (as opposed to seasonal) wage earner in their household, a figure substantially lower than the 54 per cent of households with a regular wage earner in a 1994 Lesotho Poverty Study (Gay & Hall, Citation1994). When the figure is disaggregated by gender the women appear at more of a disadvantage than the men: only 10 per cent of female headed households had a regular wage earner in their household compared to 27 per cent of male-headed households.
To many Basotho, the primary measure of wealth and security is livestock ownership. While 69 per cent of households in Lesotho own livestock, only 49 per cent of farmworker households surveyed were livestock owners. Female-headed households, predictably, had a lower rate of livestock ownership than male-headed households at only 29 per cent compared to 54 per cent. Nearly 60 per cent of respondents reported having no access to fields in Lesotho. Of those who do have access, only 33 per cent owned the implements necessary to plough their fields.
Although employment on Free State farms is, for the most part, seasonal and many endure exploitative conditions, for many households it can make the difference between destitution and survival. The quantitative data suggests that only the desperate go to work on South African asparagus farms. The absence of jobs in Lesotho, lack of food and the loss of mine jobs were the three most common reasons cited for migration (). This is confirmed by the qualitative evidence collected in this survey through the stories told by individual farmworkers: they go only as a last resort and when the economic situation of their household is especially dire.
Table 3: Reasons for working on South African farms
Gender differences in the economic and demographic profile of Basotho farmworkers are echoed on the farms themselves. There are two main categories of work: fieldwork and work in the processing and canning factories. Half the sample (39 per cent of women and 60 per cent of men) worked in the fields picking. A greater proportion of women (53 per cent) than men (11 per cent) worked in factories, cutting, canning, cleaning and packaging asparagus. Some 11 per cent of men (but only 3 per cent of women) also worked harvesting potatoes. Other jobs included cleaner, cook and supervisor; although the numbers of these were small ().
Table 4: Farm job categories
The majority of Basotho on Free State farms are hired as seasonal workers (some 83 per cent of the sample worked for four months or less at a time). There is little discernible gender difference here – 81 per cent of men and 86 per cent of women worked on a seasonal basis only. The remaining 17 per cent who worked between five and 12 months per year were not necessarily employed by only one farmer since many respondents reported seeking work on other farms once their initial contracts expired.
Farmers themselves expressed a distinct preference for female workers, both in the factories and the fields. They indicated that a female labour force was more placid, easily controlled, and problem-free: women are ‘better workers’, ‘more reliable and responsible than men’, ‘less complicated’ and ‘more humble’.
3.1 The ‘wages’ of work
Working conditions on the farms are onerous and poorly rewarded. The respondents in the survey worked for an average of ten hours per day, six-and-a-half days per week during the season. Many said they work split shifts or until everything in the fields or factory is harvested or packaged. This means a work-day which is inconsistent and unpredictable – perhaps five hours one day and 13 the next. The general pattern for those harvesting was to begin at about 5 a.m., break for breakfast/lunch mid-morning and work an afternoon shift until all the produce was harvested. In peak season this pattern was extended and work sometimes continued until midnight. In the factories, workers tended to work two five-hour shifts with five hours in between. Again, in peak season these hours could be extended. Although those in factories might only work ten hours, their working day began at 5 or 6 a.m. and only ended at 8 or 9 p.m., which is a 15-hour day.
The average monthly income for farmworkers at the time of the survey was R225.29, with the highest paid earning R600 per month. Others earn as little as R60 per month. Women averaged R234.49 per month, while the men earned slightly less at R216.22. The maximum monthly seasonal wage was the same for both men and women, but the minimum monthly wage for women was higher at R120 compared to R60 for men ().
Table 5: Monthly income of farmworkers (Rand)
The reported average daily wage was R8.05. Farmers claimed it was R10.90 but there were differences in perception. In one case, for example, the farmer stated that his workers averaged R400–600 per month while workers on that farm reported an average of only R313 per month.
A large majority of workers were only paid their wages on the day they left the farm to return to Lesotho – without the interest that had accrued. During the course of their contract they were paid R10 or R20 every two weeks to purchase necessities. Lesotho officials saw this as a method of control, preventing workers from leaving during a contract:
The monies that these guys have worked for, they deduct them and keep them until the end of the contract – sort of some deferment of wages – which in the contract is omitted. But in fact, even if someone is being ill-treated, they cannot leave their workplace.
Farmers, on the other hand, took the paternalistic view that this system benefits workers who otherwise would not have any money to take home with them. As one farmer noted disparagingly ‘If she gets it here, she drinks it’.
The majority of farmworkers, unsurprisingly, said their wages were unsatisfactory. As many as one-third claimed their wages were inadequate to meet even the basic needs of their families. Another 40 per cent said they did not believe that the rate of pay was commensurate with the workload. Many respondents said it is often unclear how much they are supposed to be paid, or that they are cheated. Each farmworker is supposed to have the terms of the contract fully explained by labour officials at the District Labour Offices in Lesotho, but only 55 per cent reported that this was done. Of those, half said the information was incorrect:
Even though I do not know how to read and write, I know the farmer cheats us. One cannot be paid R400 for three months yet every working day is equal to R10.
They do not tell us anything. We only overhear the farmer telling the labour office that ‘I will pay the workers R10 per day and they will also get bonuses’. But these were just dreams. The wages are not as stated and there is nothing like a bonus when we get to the farm.
A major source of conflict and confusion is that workers rarely seem to be paid according to the stipulations of their contracts. Most farmers reported that they pay their workers on a piecework basis and one-third of farmworkers stated they are paid according to what they produce. However, an examination of contracts showed that most did not stipulate a piecework but rather a daily rate. Interviews with farmworkers and with officials indicated that the practice of not paying the wage stipulated in the contract is widespread. As one District Labour Officer noted:
You know this practice of paying 20 cents per kilo or whatever is not negotiated at our office. When I was at Mohale's Hoek that was the first time I heard about that. The workers were complaining that their wages were lower… It is breaking the contract to use that pay method.
Adding to the confusion were overtime rates and deductions. Over 40 per cent of respondents claimed that they work overtime hours, but were either not paid overtime wages or their wages did not correspond to the number of overtime hours worked. Only 16 per cent stated they were paid overtime wages, although few knew how much they actually received for overtime:
We worked extra hours, but we were never paid overtime wages, rather the farmer would only say ‘thank you’. We tried to complain but the farmer told us that it was his farm and not Mandela's.
We are not sure if we get overtime because we get our money at the end of the contract. We do not ask as she does not want to talk to us. Even when we have complaints, we just keep quiet… But we find we are paid the same even if we have worked overtime. Sometimes we think that we will be paid much as we have worked a lot of overtime, but we find that we are still paid the same.
According to farmers' contracts with the government of Lesotho, employers are required to provide Basotho farmworkers with free transport, accommodation, medical care and meals. However, 30 per cent of the farmworkers said these are deducted from their wages. Lesotho's Labour Representative responsible for inspecting Free State farms agreed: ‘There are too many deductions, like for medical and rent… Wages are also deducted if workers stay in the clinic for too long.’
The respondents also claimed that money was deducted from wages in the form of fines or penalties. They said that wages were withheld for breaking equipment or toilets, poor work, damaging produce, taking too long in the toilet, damaging clothing and fighting. They were also not paid for rainy days when they could not work, or for days they were assigned other duties:
You find that some days he gives us different jobs to what he hired us for. For example, he said we had to go and cut trees and never paid us for that day. He said we were helping ourselves as that wood would be used by us.
3.2 Living and working conditions
The majority of seasonal farmworkers (85.5 per cent) said they lived in accommodation provided by the farm. After wages this was the area they felt needed most improvement. Only 44 per cent of respondents found their accommodation satisfactory (61 per cent of women and 29 per cent of men). However, a judgement of ‘satisfactory’ does not necessarily indicate habitable accommodation since it depends largely on expectations. For example, one worker who classified his accommodation was ‘satisfactory’ was actually living in a storeroom with 20 other workers, none of whom were provided with mattresses or beds. Others were more direct in their evaluation of living conditions:
We live in shacks. These are stables where animals used to be kept. The roofing is very old and we encounter problems during harsh weather… To bathe, we need to fetch wood from the bushes to make a fire. There are no toilets, we go to the bushes… The food is not well cooked.
Accommodation is not satisfactory at all. The mattresses are very old, smelly and have lice. There are no beds and these mattresses are very thin and we put them on dirty floors. Moreover, there are no lights in some hostels and we must buy candles with our own money.
The most common complaints about accommodation are listed in . Farm inspection reports by Lesotho's Ministry of Labour contain numerous negative comments: ‘uninhabitable for human beings’, ‘the bedding was so dirty that you [the farmer] did not even want to get inside the hostels – you were waiting outside during our inspection’, ‘unhealthy with no ventilation’, ‘what is called a hostel for the employees is something out of this world’, and so on.
Table 6: Stated reasons for dissatisfaction with accommodation
Visits to farms by the research team revealed that the quality of housing varied a great deal from farm to farm. On the best farms, there was adequate electrified hostel-type accommodation with ablution blocks with running water. On others, accommodation consisted of tents in the middle of fields with no water or proper cooking facilities. Dwellings were rarely built specifically for the purpose of housing seasonal workers. Rather, stables, sheds or perhaps storage rooms were converted into seasonal accommodation.
Service and sanitation facilities are also inadequate on most farms. Seventy per cent of farmworkers reported using pit latrines and only 19 per cent had access to flush toilets. On one farm, there are only two pit latrines for 140 workers. Nearly all the farmworkers reported access to water primarily from a communal tap, pump or tank, but 93 per cent had no hot water. Provision of electricity was less common – 37 per cent of farmworkers had no electricity in their dwellings.
In terms of the Lesotho Government's Contract of Foreign Service for migrants, farmers are required to provide workers with three cooked meals per day. Only 15 per cent of interviewees reported that they were given no meals, which suggests a reasonably high level of compliance. Quality of food is another matter entirely. Only two per cent of respondents judged the meals they receive to be satisfactory. Inspection reports and interviews revealed that the food provided was often insufficient, nutritionally unbalanced and unpalatable. Some farmworkers boosted their rations with purchased food.
Workers said they often began their first shift before 5 a.m. without any breakfast and might only be fed two meals per day – breakfast/lunch at the mid-morning break and dinner after the afternoon shift. Few farms had proper kitchens. Meals were generally cooked on open fires in three-legged pots. On one farm where kitchen facilities were examined, 100 meals were cooked over an open fire in a shed with no running water. While conditions vary enormously, cooking facilities tend to be better in the larger corporate-owned farms. Meat and fruit were rarely provided.
Lesotho government contracts also stipulate that farmers must provide Basotho farmworkers with free medical care. The medical care available to farmworkers ranged from clinics on the farm to doctors and hospitals in town. On some farms, workers were immediately dismissed if sick or injured. The majority (79 per cent) stated that in the event of illness they receive no wages and only 20 per cent of employers actually pay for medical expenses. Most respondents claimed that medical fees were paid by the farmers but then deducted from their pay. Farmworkers said that rather than forfeiting wages by not working they preferred to work when ill. Furthermore, those farmers who paid for medical costs were selective as to which illnesses were covered. Sexually transmitted diseases were considered ‘self-inflicted’ by farmers – as were injuries from fights – and were therefore not the responsibility of the farmer.
Occupational health and safety experts consider commercial farming in South Africa to be among the most dangerous of occupations. Virtually all farming operations use pesticides or poison. On these farms, only 42 per cent of respondents said they received protective clothing. Of those who did, nearly one-third stated that the clothing was in poor repair, or that key pieces, such as gloves and face masks, were missing. Nearly 40 per cent of workers used dangerous chemicals and/or machinery, but half of these said they received no training or unsatisfactory training.
In the event of a serious injury or death, the majority of respondents (61 per cent) stated that workers received no compensation from the farmer, even if the farmer was directly or indirectly to blame. Some farmers deducted the medical costs of injuries from workers' wages. Some Basotho working legally on South African farms are eligible for South African Workers' Compensation; however, payment can take years. In order to be eligible for compensation, the death or injury has to be work-related; however, the Ministry of Labour in Lesotho suspects farmers report many deaths as ‘natural’ when a work-related injury or illness may be the cause.
The standard of treatment at work was low. Overall, 15 per cent of respondents reported physical abuse (19 per cent of men and 11 per cent of women) and 32 per cent reported verbal abuse (36 per cent of men and 28 per cent of women). While it is likely that only a minority of farmers are guilty of such abuses, the numbers are still unacceptable and all such acts are illegal. In total, nearly 40 per cent of all farmworkers interviewed reported some kind of abusive treatment from farmers. One farmworker commented that abusive language was so common it ceased to have any impact: ‘Insulting and offensive language is used so often on the farm that we are used to it, so that we hardly feel offended when insulted, rather we laugh.’
The stated reasons for abusive treatment differed widely but included working more slowly than expected, making mistakes, complaining about work-related issues, and eating produce. Hitting and kicking were the most common forms of physical mistreatment reported. But they were not the only kinds. One farmworker testified that a farmer forced him and another worker to hold a hot iron bar which burnt their bare hands. The farmer laughed and called them ‘stupid fools’.
3.3 Freedom of movement
Farmers in the Free State complain about two things. First, they maintain that South Africans will not work on the farms and they are forced to hire from Lesotho. In fact, the benefits of hiring impoverished Basotho migrants outweigh any incentive to improve conditions to attract South Africans. Secondly, farmers complain that Basotho labour is too expensive and costs them extra. These costs include payment to the Ministry of Labour in Lesotho and transport, housing, and food on the farms.
Once they have recruited their workers and transported them to their farm, farmers must ensure they retain them – that their Basotho farmworkers do not vote with their feet and move on to another farm seeking greener pastures. The easiest way of doing this is to retain their labourers' passports. As many as 68 per cent of the workers surveyed said that they are not allowed to keep their passports during their contract. Farmers claimed that they retain Basotho workers' passports to prevent them from getting lost or stolen, or in case of an inspection by Lesotho's Ministry of Labour or South African immigration officials.
Farmworkers do not accept the farmers' explanation. Half said it was a tactic to prevent them from ‘escaping’ back to Lesotho or going in search of jobs elsewhere. The legal implication for Basotho farmworkers travelling without their passports was a source of concern for the Ministry of Labour in Lesotho, as was the legality of farmers confiscating workers' passports. The Labour Commissioner commented as follows:
I think it is illegal. A passport is issued to a particular person and it should be kept by that person it has been issued to. But I'm sure it is common for foreign labour where employers say ‘I've got you here, you can't run away’. For me, I am not surprised to hear this. It is to avoid their movement.
The majority of farmworkers are on three- to four-month contracts in the Free State. Nearly 20 per cent said they were not permitted to return home at all and another 22 per cent said they could only go home if they had a particularly good reason – such as a death in the family. The practice of confiscating documentation is clearly also used to control the movement of workers in their off-duty hours. Fully 40 per cent of workers stated that they were not permitted to leave the farm even during their free time. While one-third could offer no explanation, others said the farmer had told them it was dangerous to leave the farm (19 per cent), that workers commit criminal acts and farmers are held responsible (10 per cent) and that other farmers would shoot them if they are found on their property (10 per cent). Clearly, many of these explanations are merely scare tactics by farmers to keep migrant workers on the farm.
Flexibility and mobility are important to farmworkers who wish to avoid or escape unacceptable conditions or find a better deal (). But once they have fixed on a particular farm, they try to return to the same one each year. Almost two-thirds of the survey respondents had worked on only one farm. As a group, however, they had experience of 42 different Free State farms. Familiarity and acceptable treatment by the farmer are the major determinants here ().
Table 7: Reasons for working on the same farm
Table 8: Reasons for not working on the same farm
4. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Three-quarters of the farmworkers surveyed stated that there was no grievance committee on the farm where they worked. Those committees which do exist are limited in their ability to deal effectively with the grievances of seasonal Basotho workers because of how they are structured. Many of the committees are limited to permanent (therefore primarily South African) employees, conduct meetings in Afrikaans only (thereby limiting Basotho participation), allow only workers who have worked on the farm a certain number of years to participate, and have no female members. On one farm where 81 per cent of the staff is seasonal Basotho and female, the grievance committee is comprised entirely of permanent, male South Africans. Here the grievance committee doubles as a disciplinary structure and dispenses corporal punishment to offenders. According to one respondent:
[Fighting] is against one of the regulations which says that whenever we have disputes amongst ourselves, we should report to the committee. The punishment for women [who fight] is to be beaten by the committee members.
Many of the so-called ‘grievance committees’ deal with disputes between workers rather than employee dissatisfaction with work conditions. In fact, few farmers will admit the possibility that workers are dissatisfied with employment conditions. One, for example, noted that:
Before they come to the farm they know what they are going to get, what are the conditions. If it is a problem with one or two men or women, I just send them back to Lesotho and they can't come back to the farm. You see, everyone working here gets 0.8 kilograms of mealie maize a day and milk and meat, so there couldn't be a problem.
In contrast, the farmworkers interviewed had no shortage of work-related grievances, which suggests either that they were not expressing their grievances, or grievances were not being reported by supervisors to farmers, or farmers were not being honest when responding to the question. A study by Heunis & Pelser Citation(1995) found that the majority of farmers in the Bloemfontein area addressed workers' grievances by maintaining an ‘open-door’ policy. In other words, they wanted workers to approach them directly with any problems. A similar situation was found in this study. On farms where there are no grievance committees, grievances are dealt with in an arbitrary fashion ‘based on the farmer's perception of himself [or herself] as a sort of father figure’ or perhaps as ‘chief of the village’. As one farmer commented:
The committee is the way it should be, but that is not the way it always works. They are having difficulty to keep the committee going. With the traditional system, the chief of the village, he is the headman and his word is law, but he is approachable and that way it works better actually. I think I can solve their problems with the authority of the committees, even if they elect them themselves. There is more respect for the chief. The call me the chief of the work. I prefer the more direct method of personal involvement. You can do that if you speak their language.
‘Open-door’ policies are also ineffective because employees risk retaliation and victimisation, as they are very well aware:
Everybody is afraid of the farmer and no one can complain to him because if you do he will give you your passport and you will have to walk to Lesotho.
We are expected to report our concerns or complaints to the farmer; however, because he is the one ill-treating us, there is nowhere we can complain.
When I have a complaint I do not tell the farmer because it is the same if I tell or if I do not tell him, so I find it useless.
Less than a third of workers (30 per cent of females and 29 per cent of males) said they felt they could approach the farmer with a concern. Respondents who said relations were ‘poor’ focused on the failure of the farmer to listen and the ‘cruel and abusive’ behaviour of farmers and supervisors (). Those who thought that relations were good cited the farmer's friendliness or lack of intrusiveness.
Table 9: Labour relations on farms
Of the 152 farmworkers interviewed, only one belonged to a union. Many stated that there was no time for unions or that the contract was short term and organisation was not feasible, and many expressed fear of being dismissed for union involvement. According to some, labour organisation of any form is discouraged or even forbidden by the Lesotho District Labour Offices where they are recruited. Those responsible for recruiting in Lesotho tell farmworkers they have been hired to work and there are many who are willing to replace them. One recruit complained, ‘It is as if we are sold’. Furthermore, there is a real lack of knowledge regarding unions amongst the respondents. Savings societies, grievance committees and even the South African Department of Labour's local manpower office were all mistakenly identified as unions by respondents. Farmers are opposed to the extension of collective labour legislation to agriculture.
The final question is whether the contract system and the Lesotho Labour Offices offer protection and a means of redress. The workers were uniformly negative on this point. Respondents reported that they have no effective advocates despite the fact that Lesotho's Ministry of Labour supposedly represents their interests. Furthermore, while labour officials in Welkom are responsible for inspecting farms and protecting the interests of the Basotho working on these farms, it appears they do little of either.
5. CONCLUSION
This article contributes to the growing literature on conditions on commercial farms in the post-apartheid period. Commercial farming is sometimes heralded as one of the success stories of the post-apartheid economy. It is clear, however, that much of South Africa's economic ‘success’ in this area continues to be built (as it has been in the past) on the backs of migrants from neighbouring countries.
By focusing on the personal profiles, experiences and perceptions of Basotho migrant farmworkers in the Free State, this article shows that Basotho working on Free State farms are predominantly older women, among the poorest citizens of Lesotho, who generally see farmwork in South Africa as the only option available to them. Almost without exception, the farmworkers interviewed testified that they endure exploitative employment conditions, including wages below the minimum living standard, unhygienic and crowded living conditions and abusive treatment from farmers and supervisors. The mutual mistrust exhibited by Basotho farm labourers and Free State farmers undermines productive labour relations; furthermore, the farmers' determination to deny their labour force basic rights and freedom of movement often results in abusive treatment. Conditions on many farms have changed little since the end of apartheid. The state and the unions have a major task on their hands if they are to undo this scenario.
Notes
1Respectively, Assistant Professor, International Development Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; and Director, Southern African Migration Project, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada, and Honorary Professor, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town.
REFERENCES
- Coplan , D and Thoalane , T . 1995 . Motherless households, landless farms: employment patterns among Lesotho migrants . IDRC Migrant Labour Working Paper , no. 18
- Crush , J , Lincoln , D , Maririke , C , Mather , C , Mathebula , F and Ulicki , T . 2000 . Borderline farming: foreign migrants in South African commercial agriculture , Cape Town : SAMP . SAMP Migration Policy Series no. 16
- Crush , J and Tshitereke , C . 2001 . Introduction to special issue: evaluating South African immigration policy after apartheid . Africa Today , 38 ( 3 ) : 1 – 14 .
- Crush , J , Ulicki , T , Tseane , T and Van Vuuren , E . 2001 . Undermining labour: migrancy and sub-contracting on the South African gold mines . Journal of Southern African Studies , 27 ( 1 ) : 5 – 31 .
- Department Of Labour . 2001 . Report on determination of employment conditions in South African agriculture , Pretoria : Department of Labour .
- Gay , J and Hall , D . 1994 . Poverty in Lesotho, 1994: a mapping exercise , Edited by: Gay , J and Hall , D . Maseru : Sechaba Consultants .
- Heunis , J and Pelser , A . 1995 . Basic labour practice in commercial agriculture: the need for formalisation . South African Journal of Sociology , 26 ( 2 ) : 62 – 8 .
- Jeeves , A and Crush , J . 1997 . White farms, black labour: the state and agrarian change in southern Africa, 1910–50 , Pietermaritzburg : University of Natal Press .
- Johnston , D . 1997 . Migrant workers in the Free State . South African Labour Bulletin , 21 ( 6 ) : 64 – 5 .
- Marcus , T . 1989 . Modernising super-exploitation: restructuring South African agriculture , London : Zed Books .
- O'conchuir , R . 1997 . Farm worker conditions of employment on Free State commercial farms , Bloemfontein : Free State Rural Committee .
- Sechaba Consultants . 1997 . Riding the tiger: Lesotho miners and attitudes towards permanent residence in South Africa , Cape Town : SAMP . SAMP Policy Series No. 2
- Sechaba Consultants . 2004 . “ How can you tell the sun not to shine? Behavioural surveillance survey report ” . Maseru : Ministry of Labour .
- Seidman , G . 1995 . “ Shafted: the social impact of down-scaling in the OFS goldfields ” . In Crossing boundaries: mine migrancy in a democratic South Africa , Edited by: Crush , J and James , W . 176 – 184 . Ottawa : International Development Research Centre .
- South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) . 2003 . Final report into human rights violations in farming communities , Braamfontein : SAHRC .
- Ulicki , T and Crush , J . 2000 . Gender, farmwork, and women's migration from Lesotho to the new South Africa . Canadian Journal of African Studies , 34 ( 1 ) : 64 – 79 . [Sechaba Consultants]