TURNOVER AND SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE ON FARMS

TURNOVER AND SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE ON FARMS

Ruth Gasson* University of Cambridge

The paper investigates the nature of the relationship between size offarm labour force andrate of turnover of workers. A study of labour mobility on East Anglian farms suggests a negative relationship between size andgross outJow of workers but no significant association between size and length of service of present employees. The hypothesis that labour turnover would rise with increasing size, supported in some other studies, found no support here. Its assumptions that job satisfaction decreases with increasing size of organisation and that dissatisfaction lea& to withdrawal from the organisation may not apply for farm labour. Structurally induced mobility is more significant in agriculture than in most industries so it is inappropriate to seek to explain labour mobility in terms of workers’ attitudes alone. Employment policies of farmers may be equally influential. The fact that smaller farms usually employ younger workers provides an alternative explanation of the higher turnover on small farms.

In a recent paper Howard Newby(’) remarked that the lack of evidence on job satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover rates amongst agricultural workers might almost be regarded as a piece of sociological data in its own right. Else- where(2) he noted that absenteeism is believed to be virtually non-existent in agriculture and job satisfaction very high. Little seems to be known about labour turnover in agriculture, beyond the fact that it is low. During recent months the significance of industrial relations for the British economy has become increasingly apparent and consequently topics like job satisfaction and labour turnover have become popular with the mass media. The importance of good labour relations is gaining recognition in agricultural circles, too, and during 1973 labour management was discussed at conferences of the Agricultural Economics Society, the British Society for Agricultural Labour Science and the Farm Management Association. This paper is intended as a contribution to the debate on industrial relations in agriculture. It focuses on labour turnover and the infIuence of size of labour force on turnover rates.

The relationship between size of an organisation and rate of turnover of its membership could take one of several forms and some empirical support can be found for each of the alternatives suggested. Industrial psychologists of the ‘human relations’ school believed that the relationship would be positive because a high rate of turnover would indicate low job satisfaction and job satisfaction would decrease with increasing size of labour force. This proposition was clearly stated by Indik(3) who suggested three ways in which the size of an organisation, such as a labour force, might influence its aitractiircness te members and thereby affect the rate of withdrawal from the organisahon. First, the need for

~~ ~~~~~~ ~

* The author is grateful to Mr. G. B. A. Evans for his help with the statistical analysis.

RUTH GASSON 116

co-ordination and supervision increases with size so that the informal, personal methods of control typical of small organisations have to give way to more formal, impersonal methods in the larger system. Growth of bureaucratic structures and loss of personal relationships with those in authority make an organisation less attractive to its members. Second, as organisation size increases there is a relative decline in the amount of communication between members. This implies decreasing attraction between members and consequently decreasing satisfaction with the organisation. Third, increasing size of an organisation usually demands greater role specialisation and therefore less complex tasks for the individual worker. Simple, repetitive tasks are usually less satisfying and this, too, may contribute to decreasing attraction to the organisation. Indik assumed that the less attracted members were, the more readily would they withdraw from the organisation.

Indik tested these hypotheses with various types of ~rganisation.(~) He found that rates of absenteeism and labour turnover varied significantly with amount of communication between members and, to a smaller extent, with role specialisation but he did not find a significant association between rate of withdrawal and degree of bureaucratic control in an organisation. In a study of industrial plants in the Trenton area of New Jersey, Cleland(5) found that labour turnover was generally lower in smaller organisations despite the fact that smaller firms paid lower wages and slightly lower benefits, had a smaller pool of labour from which to fill vacancies and often no trained personnel specialists to advise on selection of employees. Cleland attributed the lower turnover to the more personal approach of small firms.

The combination of small labour groups with low turnover of workers in agriculture might support this hypothesis. Wagstaff(@ has pointed out that workers in manufacturing industry change jobs and occupations at a rate many times greater than the minimum required by a changing industrial structure, actual redundancies being far less common than moves due to job dissatisfaction or the search for alternative opportunities. His analysis of the Department of Employment and Productivity’s estimates for inter-industry movements in Great Britain for the period 1960 to 1966 showed that net inflows and outflows of workers for the economy as a whole disguised gross movements over eight times larger. Agriculture was unusual in losing only two workers for every net decrease of one.

Wagstaff commented that a man is more likely to stay in agriculture than in several other industries in spite of lower wages. The small size of labour groups in agriculture could contribute to this modest rate of turnover. The work situation in agriculture tends to foster close interaction between farmer and worker so that authority relations are typically informal and personal rather than formal- ised.c7) As Bell and Newby@) have pointed out, decreasing numbers of hired workers per farm and, in many parts of the country, a declining proportion of the rural population engaged in farming, tend to strengthen personal bonds between farmers and their employees. A worker who is the only employee or one of a small group is likely to identify with the goals of the organisation and work with his employer rather than against him. Ingham(9) has suggested that in an industrial setting a labour force of up to thirty members can operate as a primary group where each member makes personal contact with every other member. Since fewer than 10 per cent of farm workers today are employed in groups of 20 or more, it can be assumed that excessively large work groups will rarely be a source of dissatisfaction here. Division of labour is far less advanced in most farming systems than in other industrial organisations so farm workers stand to gain more satisfaction than others through exercising control over processes and events and through variety inherent in the nature of farming.

TURNOVER AND SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE O N FARMS 117

Satisfaction derived from personal relations with employers and other workers and from work itself might contribute to the comparative stability of the agricultural labour force. Within agn’culture, too, there could be a positive relationship between size and turnover. The hierarchical authority structure on a large farm might mean that the ordinary worker has little contact with the employer, particularly where the ‘farmer’ is a board of directors. Increasing specialisation in very large enterprises might bring greater job satisfaction and involvement for the few key workers but only at the expense of more monotony for the rest. Greater emphasis on speed and timeliness on large farms and substitution of economic goals for the more traditional criteria of good husbandry might diminish job satisfaction for the craftsman. Declining job satisfaction on large farms could cause rates of turnover to rise towards levels found in manufacturing industry.

Ingharn(lo) has criticised the ‘human relations’ approach for placing too much emphasis on workers’ needs for intrinsically satisfying work and meaningful social relations to the exclusion of economic considerations. He suggested this approach implies that workers will leave their jobs if they fail to secure strong affective relationships in work but not if their wage is too low. It overlooks the obvious fact that labour turnover is sensitive to the wage level and that wages are generally higher in larger organisations.

Most of the studies of ‘the drift from the land’ in Britain have shown low wages to be the major cause(11) and in agriculture, too, earnings and other benefits tend to increase with size of labour force. The cost of employing a male worker full-time in 1972 was lowest on farms with only one worker (€1,193) rising to a maximum of E1,422 on farms with 20 or more men.(l2) Hours of work increase with size of labour force but even so, total cost per hour worked rose from 54p on farms with only one man to 60p on farms with 20 or more. The Farmers Weekly survey of farm workers’ earnings(l3) showed that wages, premiums and provision of tied cottages all increased with size of farm. Higher rewards on larger farms might be expected to contribute to a negative relationship between size of labour force and rate of turnover. Yet it would be dangerous to attribute too much to wage differentials within agriculture because presumably workers who were highly motivated to increase their earnings would seek higher paid non-farmjobs.

The third possibility is that there will be no association between size of labour force and rate of labour turnover. In his review of research on size of organisation and worker behaviour Ingharn(l4) noted that while absenteeism was consistently and positively associated with size, few studies showed any significant relationship between labour turnover and size. In his own study of Bradford engineering workers he found the relationship was not significant. Ingham attacked the assumption that all workers need to attain a high level of satisfaction from work activity and satisfactory relationships with employers and workmates. He suggested that orientation to work might be an independent variable causing workers to choose to work for the type of organisation which appeared congruent with their needs. In the Bradford study he found support for this hypothesis. Workers whose approach was ‘economistic-instrumental’ tended to work in large plants where wages were high but non-economic rewards lower. Those with a ‘non-economistic-expressive’ orientation tended to gravitate towards smaller low wage firms with less bureaucratic structures where rewards from interaction with employers, communication with other workers and work itself were show3 to be greater. Icgham conc!cded that in each type of organisation workers would be able to gratify the needs which seemed most important to them personally.

Farm workers, too, might choose to work on the type of farm which seems

118 RUTH GASSON

most likely to fulfil their needs. Those who prefer to work alone, who value a close association with their employer and desire maximum variety in work might seek employment on small farms while those motivated towards promotion and higher remuneration, who may not value interaction with the farmer or variety of work as highly, might prefer to work on larger farms. Young.men who have gained experience on small farms and are keen to advance their careers often move to larger farms; older men might tend to move in the opposite direction as the pressure of work and the burden of overtime become too onerous. Differences in orientation to work among employees on large and small farms might therefore correspond with the structure of rewards, to a certain extent. This suggests that turnover would neither rise nor fall with increasing size of labour force.

Labour turnover on East Anglian farms The hypotheses were tested using data from three samples of about 100 farms each in Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and West Suffolk. All occupiers of labour- employing farms in selected parishes were contacted and 95 per cent co-operated in the survey, providing data on size and composition of the labour force at the time of interview (1970 to 1972) and ten years previously and on workers leaving their employment over that period. Of the 292 farms in the sample there were 33 which had changed hands within ten years and these were excluded from comparisons over time. On the remaining 259 farms the average number of regular non-family workers was 4.6 in 1960-62 and 3.1 in 1970-72. The largest business in 1962 employed 64 men, the largest in 1972 had 33 men.

Labour turnover can be defined as the number of workers leaving the labour force in a given period relative to some measure of total employment. A crude measure is the number of regular workers leaving over the survey period as a percentage of the number employed initially. This is here termed 'gross outflow'. Taking all farms together, farmers recalled 906 regular workers, including some farmers and family workers, having left from an initial regular labour force of 1,616 persons, a gross outflow of 56.2 per cent.

Rates of turnover are always higher for non-family workers than for farmers and family workers. Wagstaff noted that although gross losses of hired workers from Scottish farms were roughly double the net losses, for farm family workers gross losses were not significantly larger than net. This implied that family workers left the farm only when there was a permanent reduction in the labour force. In a Nottinghamshire study(15) the gross out-mobility rate for non-family workers was 62.2 per cent, for paid family workers 27.1 per cent. In the present study, too, gross outflow of non-family workers was 7 1 4 per cent over the ten years, for paid family workers 42.0 per cent and for farmers and other unpaid family workers only 9.8 per cent. Analysis was confined to non-family workers because they account for the greater part of the outflow.

The rate of turnover of hired workers was of the same order as that found in other studies, and like the others showed a 2:l ratio between gross and net losses. A gross reduction of full-time male workers on Scottish farms of 11 -9 per cent was matched by a net annual loss of 6.6 per cent.(l6) The gross out-mobility rate of non-family workers from Nottinghamshire farms of 62.2 per cent compared with a net reduction of 38.4 per cent. Here, a gross outflow among non- family workers of 71-4 per cent in ten years accompanied a net reduction of 32.3 per cent.

Gross outflow of non-family workers in this survey decreased with increasing size of labour force. This might reflect a weakness in the method of data collection, in that farmers with many workers would be less likely to remember all those leaving their employment during the previous ten years, thereby underestimating

TURNOVER AND SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE ON FARMS 119

turnover on larger farms. It should be noted, however, that operators of larger businesses were more likely to refer to wages books to provide accurate informa- tion. Excluding records from 12 farmers who admitted they had lost workers but could not remember the numbers accurately, a negative relationship emerged between size of labour force in 1960-62 and gross outflow of non-family workers, as shown in Table 1. The correlation was significantly different from zero (r=-O-218, significant at 99 per cent level).

Table 1 Gross outflow of hired workers and size of farm labour force

SIZE OF GROSS OUTFLOW

1 9 6 M 2 FARMS EMPLOYED (PER CENT) LABOUR FORCE NUMBER OF TOTAL 1960-72

1-3 150 180 101.0 4-5 40 177 63.9 6-8 29 188 75.0 9-15 18 213 47-4 16 and over I0 I87 50.8

All sizes 247 945 67.0

The probability of expansion or contraction in the labour force could affect the relationship between turnover and size. It might be expected that labour turnover would be low on expanding farms because all existing workers would be retained while more were recruited. As Table 2 shows, however, gross outflow was considerably higher on farms increasing than on those not changing or decreasing the size of labour force. Within each labour size group, gross outflow was highest on farms which had increased employment over the decade. Although farms with a large labour force initially were the most likely to have reduced the number of workers (Table 3), in the few cases where they had expanded,

Table 2 Turnover by size of labour force and changes in size

CHANGES IN SIZE 1960-62 TO 1970-72 SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE CONTRACTING NO CHANGE EXPANDING NUMBER OF

1960-62 (GROSS OUTFLOW PER CENT) FARMS

0-3 58.4 22.7 66.0 151 4-7 62.0 38.9 68.5 65 8 and over 48 .O 80.0 134.0 43

All sizes 54.0 42.4 87.8 Number of farms 155 59 45 259

Table 3 Net reduction in hired labour and size of labour force ~~

SIZE OF NET REDUCTION IN LABOUR LABOUR FORCE TOTAL HIRED LABOUR 1960-62~01970-72

1960-62 1960-62 (PER CENT)

1-3 4-5 6-7 8-10 11-15 i620 Over 20

183 177 155 133 194 I42 205

29.5 33-9 23 -2 28.6 17-5 20.4 64.9

~~ ~

All sizes 1,189 32-3

1 20 RUTH GASSON

turnover was exceptionally high. This might be because farmers seeking extra labour would be obliged to recruit from the less satisfactory ‘floating’ workers who would be less likely to stay in a job. Cleland found in the Trenton study that rapid expansion was damaging to good personal relations and therefore tended to increase rates of turnover because management would lose contact with new workers and once lost this was very difficult to recapture.

The nature of the sample ensured that farms which had been small initially would include a disproportionate number which had expanded, since small farms becoming smaller would have been too small to be included in the sample or ceased to exist as separate units. In fact 35 of the 45 farms increasing the number of workers over the ten years were in the smallest size group. Smaller farms which had expanded did not, however, show exceptionally high rates of turnover. They would normally take on only one or two extra men and this would be unlikely to disrupt personal relations within the business. Therefore the greater probability of expansion would help to account for the higher rates of turnover on smaller farms but this is mitigated by the fact that if large farms expand, they are likely to incur much higher rates of wastage among employees than the small farms.

In a critical appraisal of methods of measuring labour turnover, Van der Merwe and Miller suggested(l71 that turnover should be defined as ‘controllable’ losses expressed as a proportion of the average numbers in employment over the period of study. ‘Controllable’ outflow includes voluntary separations initiated by workers and separations initiated by employers (dismissals) but excludes moves due to retirement, illness, death, marriage or further education. On this refined measure the negative relationship between labour turnover and size of labour force was more obvious (Table 4). The correlation between average size of hired labour force and controllable outflow was significantly different from zero (r=0.497, significant at 99 per cent level).

Table 4 ControIiable losses of hired workers and size of labour force

AVERAGE NUMBERS 196042 TO 1970-72 CONTROLUBLE LOSSES 1960-72 PER FARM NUMBERS NUMBERS PERCENT

0.0- 2.0 111.5 2.5- 4.0 194.5 4.5- 6-0 147 6.5-10.0 128

10.5-1 5.0 124 15.5-20.0 135 Over 20.0 55.5

116 104.0 122 62-6 90 61.3 47 36.7 35 28.2 41 30.4 13 23.4

All sizes 895.5 464 51.5

Van der Merwe and Miller pointed out that this measure is still ambiguous since a turnover rate of 50 per cent could mean that half the labour force had turned over once, a quarter twice and so on. They suggested that labour turnover rates should be supplemented with data on length of service of workers. Table 5 suggests that where the labour force was larger, workers remained longer. The mean length of service of workers employed on survey farms in 1970-72 was 13.4 years. The correlation between mean years employment and size of hired labour force was not, however, significantly different from zero ( r=O-l l l ) nor were correlations between size of labour force and proportion of long-serving workers or proportion of recent recruits.


Table 5 Lengtb of service of workers employed on survey farms and initial size of labour force

LENGTH OF SERVICE IN 1970-72 (YEARS) SIZE OF 20 AND ALL

LABOUR FORCE OVER 10-19 5-9 UNDER 5 WORKERS NUMBERS 1960-62 (PER CENT OF WORKERS)

0 - 2 18.3 18.3 22.1 41 $3 100.0 104 3- 4 43.3 19.3 16.3 21 . I 100.0 104 5- 6 20.9 25.2 16.5 37.4 100.0 139 7-10 32-1 28.4 11.0 283 100.0 109

11-15 36.3 18.6 20.6 24.5 100.0 102 16 and over 36.1 25.7 13.2 25.0 100.0 136

0-6 26.7 21-3 18.2 33.8 100.0 347 7 and over 34.8 24.5 14.7 26.0 100.0 347

All sizes 30.8 22.9 16.4 29.0 100*0 694

Interpretation of findings Depending, therefore, on which measure is preferred, the relationship between turnover and size of labour force would be either negative or non-existent. There is no support for the hypothesis that the relationship would be positive.

The observed negative relationship between size of labour force and labour turnover can be explained in terms of increasing financial rewards, and consequently increasing satisfaction with rewards, as size of labour force rises. Payment of premiums and provision of tied cottages increased with number of employees, larger farms also offering more opportunities for overtime and a few of the largest operating private pension schemes, as Table 6 shows.

Table 6 Benefits provided and size of labour force

REGULAR WORKERS PER FARM 1970-72 1-5 6-10 O V E R 1 0

TYPE OF BENEFIT (PER CENT OF WORKERS RECEIVINGBENEFITS)

Premium 60 .O 80.0 98.0 Unlimited overtime 18.7 29.4 44.4 Pension scheme 0.0 0 .o 49 -0 Tied cottage 49.3 61.5 70-6

The absence of any relationship between length of service of present employees and size of labour force could be regarded as rather negative support for the suggestion that turnover will not be associated with size since workers will choose the kinds of farms which are most likely to satisfy their requirements.

Lack of evidence for any positive relationship between size and turnover could be interpreted in various ways. It might be argued that a positive relationship dues exist in agriculture but that the farms in this sample were too small to demonstrate it. The largest farm employed 33 men in 1972. It is possible that relations with the employer on such a farm would not be significantly less satisfactory to workers than on a small farm. The amount of communication between workers on a 30-man farm might not cause a significant diminution in satisfaction compared with a f m ha-jiog few workers. It is xguable, too, that division of labour was nowhere so advanced that workers were leaving through boredom; in fact it was more common for a man interested in a particular enterprise to move to another farm in order to specialise more. Farms in the

122 RUTH GASSON

survey might therefore have been too small to demonstrate the adverse effects of bureaucratic control, lack of communication between workers and highly repetitive tasks on workers’ morale and behaviour. Possibly such effects would manifest themselves more readily in large poultry or glasshouse enterprises than in the predominantly labour extensive arable farms of the eastern counties. Yet the average size of labour force in this sample was well above the national average ; more than 40 per cent of the workers were employed on farms with ten or more workers in 1970-2 compared with less than 20 per cent nationally. If the size effect only begins to influence labour relations unfavourably on farms larger than these, it can scarcely be regarded as a serious threat to British agriculture as a whole. Still less will it be a danger in future since the average number of workers per farm is shrinking steadily.

It is possible that a weak positive relationship between turnover and size was masked by the effects of a stronger negative relationship. More probably, the hypothesis of a positive relationship is not valid for agriculture. It rests on the assumptions that satisfaction with authority relations, peer relations and work itself decreases as size of labour force increases and that decreasing satisfaction with work results in higher turnover. Neither of these assumptions is necessarily true in the farm context.

While job satisfaction may be lost if the labour force is too large, belonging to a very small workforce may also have its drawbacks. Indik suggested that personal relationships between employees and those in authority are generally preferred to formal relationships. Yet it seems possible that the relationship can suffer from being too close; propinquity is no guarantee of satisfaction for either employer or workers. A disagreement with the farmer may be more damaging to further relationships if the worker is the only employee rather than one of a group. Newby has suggested that the very fact of the relationship being a personal one may intensify grievances.

It was assumed that relationships between workers would be closer in a smaller organisation and that this, too, would be a source of satisfaction. Labour groups on farms may often be too small, rather than too large, to allow workers to derive maximum support or satisfaction from communication with one another. More than one-Mth of farm workers today are employed singly and an individual can scarcely form a primary group on his own. Evan(l*) has shown that student- employees who were ‘isolates’ had higher turnover rates than those with two or more peers and it has elsewhere been suggested that existence of small, tight-knit primary groups can lead to excessive turnover because new workers are refused entry to the Even on farms with many workers, increasing mechanisation and greater acreages per man may allow few opportunities for workers to communicate during working hours. In Newby’s phrase, ‘vertical’ integration between farmer and workers is increasing while ‘horizontal‘ integration between workers is being reduced.

Thirdly, is was assumed that members of small work forces derive satisfaction from performing a wide range of tasks while workers in large organisations would become bored through repeating the same job. It seems possible that in agriculture, enjoyment of change might be tempered by the inconvenience of spending too much time going from one job to another. Some workers at least may derive more pleasure from working on larger farms with more adequate facilities and upto-date machinery and equipment than from the greater variety of work on a smaller farm. In short, the arguments put forward for decreasing job satisfaction with

increasing size of organisation may not apply in agriculture. A case might even be made for a curvilinear relationship, such that job satisfaction increased over


the size range representing most farm labour forces towards an optimum size and decreased with further increase in size.

The other assumption behind the hypothesised positive relationship was that increasing dissatisfaction with the organisation would lead to a more rapid rate of withdrawal. Yet withdrawal in the sense of being less committed to the organisation does not necessarily result in withdrawal from membership altogether. Goldthorpe, Lockwood and associates(m) made a clear distinction between liking a job and attachment to the job; a worker may dislike his job and yet remain in it because the pay is good or because he sees no alternative. Ingham suggested that workers who are less satisfied will withdraw from work through absenteeism; they may, for instance, take longer to return to work after an illness than those who are more satisfied. But dissatisfied workers may not, in Ingham’s view, be any more inclined than committed workers to leave the organisation altogether. On the other hand, a worker who derives great satisfaction from his job may be obliged to leave through circumstances beyond his control. The latter situation is especially likely to occur in agriculture since structurally induced mobility is more important here than in most industries. Broadly speaking, the fact that gross losses of workers are twice the net losses implies that ‘push’ factors are as powerful as ‘pull’ in causing workers to leave farms. Because of this, any theory attempting to account for labour turnover in agriculture should make allowance for employment policies of farmers as well as attitudes of workers. Job satisfaction undoubtedly contributes to mobility but it would be a mistake to emphasise this to the exclusion of all other reasons for workers moving.

Farmers in the survey were asked why workers had left their employment over the previous ten years. While the replies might be biased to show farmers in a favourable light, this should not invalidate comparisons between farms. As Table 7 shows, small, medium and large farms differed significantly from one another in the reasons given for workers leaving. Moves initiated by workers themselvesaccountedformore than half thegross outflow from small and medium- sized farms but only a third from farms with a large labour force. Workers from small farms were the most likely to leave in search of higher wages and through dissatisfaction with other aspects of the job, such as long hours or weekend

Table 7 Reasons for workers leaving farms and size of labour force

REGULAR WORKERS 1960-62

(PER CENT OF WORKERS LmvrnG) REASON 0-3 4-7 ANDO OVER ALL SIZES

More money Dissatisfied Advancement Personal. family Redundant Dismissed Retired Died, ill health

20.8 13.3

8.1 13.7 10.0 12.8 14.2 7.1

16.4 8 .8

15.1 11.5 9.3

10.6 17.3 11.0

10.1 8 *2 6.5 9.7

13-4 12.0 29.0 11.1

15.7 10.1 10.0 11-6 10.8 11.8 20.2

9.8 ~~~ ~

Worker initiated Farmer initiated Natural causes

55.9 22.8 21.3

51.8 19.9 28.3

34.5 25.4 40.1

47.4 22.6 30.0

All reasons 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Numbers leaving 21 1 226 217 654

~~ ~~

(Reasons for workers leaving farms in each size group differ significantly from other two groups; Chi square testp<0.01).

124 RUTH GASSON

working. Those leaving large farms were the least likely to move for better pay and least likely to have expressed dissatisfaction with farm work. This supports the notion that satisfaction with material rewards increases with farm size and is also consistent with the view that satisfaction with work itself increases with size of labour force. Numbers of workers dismissed and leaving through ill health or death varied little with size but retirement was twice as common for large businesses as for small.

Differences in reasons for workers leaving large and small farms can be explained partly in terms of the level of rewards but they also reflect differences in employment policies. Small farms employ more young workers and age is closely related to reasons for moving. The N.E.D.O. survey of the agricultural labour force(21) showed that the average age of workers on farms employing only one worker was 31.2 years as compared with 40.1 years on farms with five or more. Table 8 shows that workers leaving larger farms in the survey differed signscantly in age from those leaving medium and small farms, although there was little difference in age structure between those leaving medium or small farms.

Table 8 Age of workers leaving farms and size of labour force

SIZE OF 65 AND ALL LABOURFORCE UNDER25 25-44 45-64 OVER WORKERS N W E R S

1960-62 (PER CENT OF WORKERS LEAVING)

0-3 36.1 30.0 16.4 17.5 100.0 183 4-7 30-5 33.0 17-0 19.5 100-0 200 8 and over 15.0 27 .O 21 .o 37.0 100.0 200

All sizes 27 .O 30.1 18.2 24.7 100.0 583

(Age distributions of workers leaving small and medium-sized farms differ significantly from large; Chi square test p c 0.01 : No significant difference in age distribution of workers leaving small or medium-sized farms.)

Farms which employed many workers in the past have tended to economise in labour by not replacing those retiring or leaving of their own accord. Although mechanisation might have allowed such farms to dispense with workers rather sooner, they are frequently employed until the retiring age rather than being declared redundant in their aties. Redundancy was not exceptionally high on larger farms in the survey (Table 7). The core of younger men on these large farms would probably be less inclined to move than their contemporaries on smaller holdings, having less reason to be dissatisfied with earnings and less need to move elsewhere in search of promotion. Turnover would be mainly due to older workers retiring and as Table 7 shows, natural wastage accounted for more than 40 per cent of losses from large farms.

The majority of young workers in agriculture are employed on small farms but few remain on these small farms until retiring age. More than one-third of those Ieaving smaller farms in the survey was under 25. There are many reasons why labour turnover is high for youths and these have been discussed by BesselL(22) Sometimes the size of business does not justify employing an adult worker and the farmer may hire a succession of youths, dismissing each as he becomes eligible for the adult wage. The gap between agricultural and other earnings widens significantly at this age. Then again, some young people try a variety of jobs before settling down, some may be obliged to seek better paid work when they marry and some only regard farm work as a stop-gap. Turnover of labour on small farms is strongly influenced by the fact that small farms employ predominantly young workers.


Conclusions A study of labour turnover on farms in the eastern region showed a significant negative relationship between size of labour force and rate of workers leaving but no significant relationship between size and length of service of present workers. The negative relationship was consistent with the view that labour turnover would be lower on larger farms because earnings were greater. The lack of association between size and length of service could be taken as evidence that workers choose to work for the type of organisation which offers rewards congruent with their own needs.

There was no support for the suggestion that workers on smaller farms would derive more satisfaction than those on larger farms from relations with employers and peers and from work itself, and would consequently be less inclined to move. It is questionable whether any but a tiny minority of farms in this country is organised so bureaucratically or has such a marked division of labour as to affect rates of turnover significantly. Instead it could be argued that the labour force on most farms today is so small that the relationship with the employer might almost become too close, that diversification rather than specialisation of work could become a source of dissatisfaction and that there may be no fellow workers with whom to communicate. Moves attributed to dissatisfaction were in fact more common on the smaller farms.

Since half the gross outflow of labour from farms is due to structural change in the labour force, it is not appropriate to concentrate on workers’ attitudes to the exclusion of other iniluences in seeking to account for mobility. Recruitment policy of farmers may be equally significant. The fact that smaller farms employ more young workers could be used to account for the greater turnover on smaller farms and the different reasons for workers leaving.

The main conclusion to be drawn from this study is that size of labour force per se does not help to explain why labour turnover in agriculture is low. It needs to be asked, however, whether this conclusion would be valid outside East Anglia. Labour turnover might be exceptionally Iow in this region owing to the absence of competing industries. Arable farming might provide greater variety for the worker and therefore stimulate more job satisfaction than, for example, dairying or horticulture. Yet in fact the ratio of gross to net losses of workers was slightly higher in this study than in the Scottish or Nottinghamshire studies. If size of labour force does not contribute to the explanation of rates of turnover in this region, where the range of farm sizes is greatest, it will be unlikely to have greater explanatory power in any other region.

References 1. Newby, H.: ‘The Low Earnings of Agricultural Workers: A Sociological Approach’.

2. Newby, H.: ‘Agricultural Workers in the Class Structure’. The Sociological Review, 20,

3. Indik, B. P.: ‘Some Effects of Organizational Size on Member Attitudes and Behaviour’.

4. Indik, B. P.: ‘Organization Size and Member Participation: Some Empirical Tests of

5. Cleland, S.: The Influence of Plant Size on Industrial Relations. Princeton University,

6. Wags-, H. R.: ‘Recruitment and Losses of Farm Workers’. Scottish Agricultural

7. Newby, H.: Journal of Agricultural Economics, op. cit. 8. Bell, C. and Newby, H. ‘Sources of Variation in Agricultural Workers’ Images of society’.

Journal of Agricultural Economics, X W I , No. 1, pp. 15-24, 1972.

No. 3, New Series, pp. 413439,1972.

Human Relations, 16, No. 4, pp. 369-384, 1963.

AIternative Hypotheses’. Human Relations, 18, No. 4, pp. 339-350, 1965.

Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 22-50, 1955.

Economics, 2I, pp. 7-16, 197:.

The Sociological Review, 21, pp. 229-253, May 1973.

D

126 RUTH GASSON

9. Ingham, G. K.: Size of Industrial Organization and Worker Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, pp. 63-64,1970.

10. Ingham, G. K.: op. cit., pp. 41-52. 1 1. See for example :

Orwin, C. S.: 'The Demands for Labour in Agriculture'. The Scottish JournalofAgriculture, 21, No. 4, pp. 1-5, October 1938. Pedley, W. H.: Labour on the Land: A Study of the Developments Between the Two Great Wars. P. S . King and Staples Ltd. 1942. Cowie, W. J. G. and Giles, A. EL: An Inquiry into Reasons for 'The Drift from the Land'. University of Bristol Department of Economics (Agricultural Economics) Selected Papers in Agricultural Fconomics, 5, No. 3,1957. McIntosh, F.: A Survey of Workers Leaving Scottish Farms'. Scottish Agricultural Economics, 22, pp. 147-152, 1972.

12. Mhklry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Agricultural Labour in England and Wales.

13. Butcher, F.: 'We Pay: €1,245 a Year - and a Free House'. Farmers Weekly, pp. 58-61,

14. Ingham, G. K.: op. cit., pp. 17-25 and pp. 72-1 12. 15. Hawkesworth,R.I.: AStudyofthe MobilityofFarmLabourinSouthEast Nottinghamshire

1965-1970. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis University of Nottingham Department of Agricultural Economics, 1971.

M.A.F.F.,pp. 17-18,197'3.

September 15, 1972.

16. Wagstaf€, H. R.: op. cit. 17. Van der Merwe, R. and Miller, S.: 'The Measurement of Labour Turnover: A Critical

Appraisal and a Suggested New Approach'. Human Relations, 24, No. 3, pp. 233-253,1971. 18. Evan, W. M.: 'Peer-Group Interaction and Organizational Socialization: A Study of

Employee Turnover'. American Sociological Review, 28, pp. 436-440, 1963. 19. HoteI and Catering Economic Development Committee: Stuff Turnover. N.E.D.O., London,

1969. 20. Goldthorpe, J. H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. and Platt, J.: The AfPuent Worker: Industrial

Attitudes and Eehaviour. Cambridge University Press, pp. 25-37, 1968. 21. Agricultural Economic Development Committee: Agricultural Manpower in England and

Wales. N.E.D.O., H.M.S.O., p. 45, 1972. 22. Bessell, J. E.: The Younger Worker in Agriculture: Projections to I980. N.E.D.O., London,

pp. 20-33,1972.

R6SW6 FLUCTUATIONS ET DENSITE DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE DANS LES EXPLOITATIONS AGRICOLES

Cet article examine la nature du rapport entre I'importance numkrique de la main-d'oeuvre agricole et le taux des fluctuations de travailleurs. Une ktude portant sur la mobilitk de la main-d'oeuvre dans les exploitations de I'East Angliapermet de conclure Ci un rapport nigatif entre le chizre des effectifs et le taux des travailleurs qui quittent leur emploi, sculs voir toutefois &incidence signijicative du chrffre des effectfs sur la durke de service du personnel actuel. L'hypothbe qui veut que les mouvements de personnel augmentent au fur d mesure de I'accroissement des effectif, hypothgse soutenue dans plusieurs autres ktudes, n'est pas retenue dans la prksente enquite. I1 se pact que I'apriorisme que renferme cette hypothise, selon Iequel la satisfaction h I'kgard du travail dkcroit avec I'accroissement de la taille de I'entreprise et I'absence de satisfaction conduit le travailleur d quitter I'entreprise, ne s'applique pas aux travailleurs agricoles. La mobilitk suscitke par des facteurs structuraux est plus significative drms I'agriculture que dans la plupart des industries et I'on aurait donc tort de vouloir expliquer la mobilitk de la main- d'oeuvre par le seul argument des attitudes des travailleurs. La

TURNOVER AND SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE ON FARMS - 127

mkthode des employeurs au regard de l’emploi perit Ctre kgalcment influente. Le fait que les petites exploitations emploient gknkralement des ouvriers plus jeunes est peut-Ctre la raison de leursfluctuations de personnel plus klevkes.

Zusammenfassung

V E U N D E R U N G UND GROSSE DER ARBEITS- KRAFTSTARKE AUF FARMEN

Der Artikel untersucht die Art der Beziehung zwischen der Anzahl von Farmarbeitskrayten und der Rate, wie oft Farmarbeiter ihre Stelle wechseln. Eine Untersuchung der Arbeitsmobilitat auf ostanglischen Farmen deutet auf einen negativen Zusammenhang zwischen der Anzahl und der Gesamtabwanderung von Arbeitern, aber auf keine signijikante Verbindung zwischen der Grosse und der Dauer der Beschaytigungszeit von Angestellten heutzutage hin. Die Hypothese, dass der Stellenwechsel von Arbeitskriiften mit steigender Farmgrosse zunimmt, wie sie in einigen anderen Studien aufgestellt wurde, fand hier keine Bestatigung. Die Annahme dieser Hypothese, dass die Arbeitsbefriedigung mit zunehmender Grosse der Organisation abnimmt und dass die Unzufriedenheit zum Ausscheiden aus der Organisation fuhrt, mag fur Farmarbeitskrafte nicht zutrefen. Die strukturell induzierte Mobilitat ist in der Landwirtschaft bedeutender als in den meisten Industrien, daher ist es nicht angebracht zu versuchen, die Arbeitskraftmobilitat allein mit dem Verhalten der Arbeiter zu erklaren. Die Beschafti- gungspolitik von Farmern kann genau so einjlussreich sein. Die Tatsache, dass kleinere Farmen gewohnlich jungere Arbeiter beschaytigen, bietet eine alternative Erklarung fur den haujigeren Stellenwechsel auf kleinen Farmen.

Documents

TURNOVER AND SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE ON FARMS