Employment conditions commission

Inputs from farm workers in KwaZulu-Natal

Workers in Boston indicated that R70 per day is too little for them to survive on. They argued that farmers supply the whole world with food and cannot understand why is it difficult to ensure that the food producers being workers are taken care of. They alleged that irrespective of the challenges relating to Trading Agreements which farmers raise as an obstacle to them having to conduct their business successfully, farmers can still afford to better the wages for farm workers. They further indicated that the fact that farmers have already bought huge tractors to work on their farms, it’s an indication that farmers can afford and that also farmers do need workers in the farms since the machines needs to be operated by the workers. Workers in Boston argued that as workers they cannot demand something which will have negative impact on the employment levels and that the R150 demand is achievable without any negative impact on the employment levels.

11. Inputs from farm workers in Gauteng

In Bronkhospruit, workers indicated that situation on farms is very difficult to survive on the current level of the minimum wage. Workers indicated that farmers do not see them as assets in their farms hence they do not even care about paying them decent wages. They further indicated that farmers export their production to the whole country and cannot argue that they cannot afford to pay them decent wages. They further raised concerns regarding the safety standards under which they are working in one of the farms around the area. They therefore supported the R150 per day as the appropriate minimum wage but urged the Department to conduct inspections to ensure that farmers comply and that they are protected by the law.

Workers further indicated that farmers grow their businesses but do not think of farm workers. They also alleged that farmers buy expensive tractors whilst workers do not benefit anything. They indicated that as part of the motivation for R150 is that their kids have to go to Universities and they also have the responsibility for building houses for their families, and they cannot achieve that if they continue to receive the level of the wage which they currently earn.

The COSATU representative who attended the public hearing also raised concerns regarding the level of the minimum wage in the sector. He requested that the Department seriously consider the issue of ensuring that a decent wage is paid to farm workers. He further pointed out that South Africa cannot have a situation where workers are paid wages equal to the old age grant. In addition, COSATU pointed out that the provident fund for farm workers need to be established in bettering the lives of farm workers.

12. Inputs by workers in Grabouw

In line with the demand of R150 per day, workers indicated that the agricultural sector uses labour brokers especially during the harvesting period. They further indicated that the Department needs to relook at the minimum wage as it is not appropriate for workers to earn lower wages than pensioners. Workers further alleged that the reason why farmers pay low wages it is due to the fact that the sectoral determination prescribes the low wages and therefore farmers do not want to pay more. In support of the R150 per day, workers indicated that it’s better for them to be unemployed instead of earning low wages which they cannot afford to survive on. One farm worker indicated that if the Minister after considering all the information received sees that R150 will have a negative impact on the employment levels, the Minister should lower it to ensure that workers do not loose their jobs.

13. Inputs by workers in Paarl

In Paarl, a representative from Workers Against Regression (W.A.R) trade union indicated that the Minister and the ECC did not comply with the requirements of the BCEA when determining minimum wages. He indicated that the BCEA requires the Minister to consider cost of living and poverty alleviation issues and further argued that the level at which the current wages are pegged does not attempt to address the situation. In addition, it was also indicated that South Africa as a member State of the ILO does not seem to promote the ‘decent work’ agenda as adopted and advocated by the ILO.

Workers indicated that the current wage level is a slave wage also considering the intensity of the work in the sector.

Workers gave different scenarios based on the current level of minimum wage that on top of the little which they earn, farmers still deduct for electricity, accommodation; and water and therefore are left with nothing to sustain their families.

Workers further indicated that in 2004, Statistics South Africa conducted a study which revealed that in order for workers to survive and make a living, they need to be paid at least R2600 per month. Workers argued that as this study was conducted in 2004, it therefore mean that the acceptable wage is more than R3000 per month if that was a case in 2004. They in addition indicated that R150 per day is too little for them to survive on and to be able to educate their kids but at least it will be able to address some to the challenges which they faced with. In general farm workers indicated strongly the demand for R150 and that they know that farmers can afford to pay them. A worker gave an example where she indicated that every day she on behalf of her employer, receives a cheque of R60 000, and therefore R150 is nothing to farmers. Workers further indicated that R1500 per month as legislated is even more than the money which the farmers spend to buy food for their dogs.

In addition to the R150, there was also an outcry that the determination should prescribe that seasonal workers be provided with accommodation by the farmer since they are not permanent and spent most of their wages on transport.

14.