i-Hrsfé

xl^ -2 I States

^T'O O tmentof

jlture

Economie

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report

Number 32

Hired Farmworkers

Background and Trends

for the Eighties

Leslie Whitener Smith

Robert Coltrane

f^%
/ ñ ^

HIRED FARMWORKERS: BACKGROUND AND TRENDS

FOR THE EIGHTIES, by Leslie Whitener Smith and Robert

Coitrane. Economic Development Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development

Research Report No 32

ABSTRACT

As farms became fewer and larger, hired farmworkers (2.7 million in 1979) are gradually replacing family members in the

agricultural work force. Workers dependent on farmwork for

their livelihood should be the focus of Government policy,

rather than laborers doing farmwork on a casual or seasonal

basis. Better information and more comprehensive data are

needed to design laws to help solve the economic and social

problems of farmworkers and their families.

Keywords: Hired farm labor, farm operators, agricultural labor,

migrant farmworkers, agricultural labor policy, employment, earnings.

Washington, D.C. 20250 September 1981
CONTENTS

Summary iii

Introduction 1

Agricultural Labor: Past and Current Levels 2

Farm Operators and Family Members 2

Hired Farmworkers 4

Foreign Nationals and the H-2 Program 6

Undocumented Workers 8

The Characteristics of Hired Farmworkers 9

Demographic Characteristics 9

Employment Characteristics 12

Migrant Farmworkers 15

Hired Farmworker Families 18

Farm Labor Trends for the Eighties 21

Implications of the Current Situation 22

Stability of Employment and Farm Earnings 24

National Farmworker Programs 26

Impacts of Technological Development on Farm

Employment 28

Data Requirements 28

References , 30
SUMMARY

Farmers and their families continue to provide the largest proportion of agricultural labor, but hired farmworkers are

increasingly supplying a greater part of farm employment. This

trend is expected to continue in the eighties with the hired labor

proportion gradually increasing.

Better information, including crucial individual State data on

numbers of farmworkers, duration of employment, and key

characteristics of workers, will be needed to assess current

policies and legislation. The most significant hired farm labor

issues of the eighties will be:

• Improved employee benefits and workplace protections,

such as farm safety regulations, workers' compensation,

social security, and unemployment insurance.

• Stability of employment and income for hired farmworkers, possibly through agricultural worker placement programs.

• Programs to show farm employers how to use hiring

and personnel management techniques to improve

labor-management relations and increase production

efficiency,

• The impact of technology on hired farmworkers.

Currently, minority hired farmworkers, and especially

Hispanics, are more dependent on farmwork for income than

other hired laborers in the agricultural sector. Young, White

males constitute the largest segment of the hired farm work

force, but their higher educational level and more marketable

skills make them less dependent on agricultural earnings. By

contrast, proportionally fewer hired minority farmworkers

supplement their agricultural wages with other jobs. Less

education and fewer marketable skills, combined with larger

families, have aggravated minority farmworker social and

economic problems.

ui
Hired Farmworkers:

Background and Trends

for the Eighties

Leslie Whitener Smith and

Robert Coltrane*

INTRODUCTION

Farm operators and their families still account for the largest

proportion of labor used in agriculture, but hired farmworkers

are providing a greater share of agricultural employment over

time. This situation should continue in the eighties as farm

employers seek hired laborers to do farmwork previously done

by family members.

Overall, employment in agriculture has declined in recent decades, largely due to trends toward fewer and larger farms and

increased mechanization. Annual farm employment in 1980 was

only slightly more than one-third the 1950 level f3 6J.^ However,

farm family employment declined more than that for hired

workers, leading to a gradual substitution of hired laborers for

family workers.

This report examines historic and current trends in farm employment in the United States, focusing on the numbers and

characteristics of hired farmworkers and migratory labor.

Factors affecting the size and composition of the farm work

force are identified, and probable farm employment trends in

the eighties are examined.

*Smith is a sociologist, and Coltrane is an economist, in the Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

'Italicized numbers in parentheses indicate items in the References section.
Smith & Coltrane

The relative growth in importance of hired workers in farm production suggests several policy issues related to the agricultural production process and the welfare of hired workers and

their families. These issues include both worker and

management responsibilities and procedures, efforts to

stabilize employment and earnings of farmworkers, and the

need for evaluation of current farmworker programs and

services. The issues are examined with the objective of defining

those areas of primary importance to both a productive

agriculture and the welfare of farmworkers.

AGRICULTURAL LABOR: PAST

AND CURRENT LEVELS

The U.S. agricultural labor force is comprised of four groups :

(1) farm operators and unpaid family members; (2) domestic

hired farm labor; (3) foreign nationals brought into the country

under the provisions of the H-2 Foreign Labor Certification Program; and (4) undocumented aliens employed in agricultural

work.

Farm Operators and Family Members

Despite record numbers of farm consolidations in recent decades, the American farm is still predominantly a family

operation. The number of family workers has consistently

declined since around the turn of the century, falling from 10.2

million workers in 1910 to 2.4 million in 1980. Despite this

decline, farm operators and their families still constituted about

two-thirds of all persons employed on farms in 1980 (table 1).

The decrease in family farm employment has been largely due

to changes in the structure of agriculture and subsequent declines in the number of farms. After the collapse of the plantation system in the late 1800's, improved farm production techniques and technological developments in transportation and

marketing resulted in higher productivity levels, lower production costs, and higher farm income. These economic changes

encouraged a move from subsistence farming to commercial
Hired Farmworkers

farming; however, they also led to farm enlargement, increased mechanization, and commodity specialization—moves

that had serious implications for some farm families. As

Holt [6] notes:

The result for the farming industry as a whole ... was

that productive capacity increased more rapidly than

Table 1—Family and hired employment on farms

Annual average farm Hired laboras Total

Year (employment^ a percentage of

total farm

employment

hired farm

work force^

Total : Family : Hired

——'Thousands- Percent Thousands

1910 13,555 10,174 3,381 25 NA

1920 13,432 10,041 3,391 25 NA

1930 12,497 9,307 3,190 26 NA

1940 10,979 8,300 2,679 24 NA

1950 9,926 7,597 2,329 23 4,342

1955 8,381 6,345 2.036 24 NA

1960 7.057 5,172 1,885 27 3,693

1965 5,610 4,128 1,482 26 3,128

1970 4,523 3,348 1,175 26 2,488

1971 4,436 3,275 1,161 26 2,550

1972 4,373 3,228 1,146 26 2,809

1973 4,337 3,169 1,168 27 2,671

1974 4,389 3,075 1,314 30 2,737

1975 4,342 3,025 1,317 30 2.638

1976 4,374 2,997 1.377 31 2,767

1977 4,170 2,863 1,307 31 2,730

1978 3,957 2,689 1,268 32 NA

1979 3,774 2,501 1,273 34 2,652

1980 3,705 2,402 1,303 35 NA

NA= Not available.

^Average of quarterly estimates of number of jobs on farms.

^Total number of persons employed for at least 1 day during the year.

Sources: [15, 16J
Smith & Coltrane

demand for farm products, reducing the prices of

commodities. The smallest and most inefficient units

were forced out of business, no longer able to provide

an adequate income for a farm family. The land used

by those units was absorbed by units that were

expandingor it reverted to less intensive uses. The

labor forced out of farming was replaced by capital

investment on the expanding units. The total labor

input in agriculture declined drastically as millions

of farm families and hired farmworkers could no

longer earn a living in agriculture.

The number of farms declined by nearly 3.6 million, from 6.1

million farms in 1940 to 2.5 million in 1978. and the number is

expected to drop to around 1.8 million by the year 2000 (17, 7J.

Theprojected decline in the number of farms will result in further reductions in the number of family workers.

Historical trends show that as the number of farms declines,

average farm size increases. Average farm size increased from

175 acres in 1940 to 416 acres in 1978, largely as a result of the

decline in the number of farms under 500 acres. By the year

2000, the largest 1 percent of farms is expected to account for

about half of all farm production (7). The current trend toward

fewer farms is due to many factors, including technological

development, economies of scale, tax laws, price instability,

differences in operators' managerial ability, capital requirements, credit availability, foreign trade arrangements, and

Government programs and regulations (7, il).

Hired Farmworkers

Farm family workers still provide the major portion of labor in

agriculture; however, hired workers have gradually replaced

family workers over the last three decades even as hired worker

numbers have declined. Hired workers accounted for about 23

percent of annual average employment in 1950, but by 1980 the
Hired Farmworkers

proportion had increased to 35 percent.^ Furthermore, the rate

of substitution accelerated slightly in the last decade. Hired employment as a percentage of all farm employment increased

from 23 to 26 percent between 1950 and 1970. However, between 1970 and 1980, the proportion increased from 26 to 35

percent (see table 1).

Although hired workers have replaced some family workers in

recent decades, the total number of hired farmworkers employed during a year has decreased by almost 40 percent, falling

from a high of 4.3 million in 1950 to about 2.7 million in 1979

(see table l).^ Most of the losses occurred in the fifties and sixties. In fact, during the seventies the number of workers

appears to have stabilized at 2.6 to 2.7 million annually.

Similar trends were observed for migrant farmworkers. The

number of migrants dropped from 422,000 to 217,000 between

1949 and 1979, a decrease of almost 50 percent. While the numbers fluctuated in the fifties and sixties, they tended to stabilize

al around 200,000 annually during the seventies (15J.

The decline in the numbers of hired farmworkers was largely

due to the adoption of new production and marketing technology on farms, including labor-reducing machines and higher

yielding crops and livestock. The shift to larger farms and crop

specialization provided the opportunity for mechanization and

adoption of other labor productivity enhancing technology.

In response to the decline in employment opportunities in agriculture. Federal programs under the Economic Opportunity Act

and the Manpower Development and Training Act were developed in the sixties to provide occupational training, job development, and comprehensive supportive services to help

migrant families withdraw permanently from the migrant

-'the annual average employment of hired farmworkers is the average of

quarterly estimates of jobs on farms.

'The number of hired farmworkers cited here and in the remainder of the report is based on the total number of persons employed for at least 1 day during

the year.
Smith & Coltrane

stream. These programs were supplemented with the Comprehensive Migrant Manpower Program of 1971 which was also

designed to help migrant and seasonal farmworkers find

alternative year-round employment in the nonfarm sector.

Opponents of these programs charged thatthey encouraged

workers needed for farm production to move out of agriculture.

However, it is not clear to what extent the programs actually

contributed to the reduction in the size of the farm labor force.

Undoubtedly, economic factors affecting the number, size, and

type of farms played a more important role in the farm labor

adjustment process.

During the seventies, however, hired worker displacement

slowed considerably as large-scale mechanization and technological innovations with large labor displacement potential

leveled off (2J. While planting and harvesting of many crops

(including cotton and various grains) were widely mechanized

during the fifties and sixties, large-scale mechanization did not

occur in the more labor-intensive fruit, nut, and vegetable

crops. In addition, in response to criticism of earlier farmworker programs, the Comprehensive Employment and

Training Act (CETA) of 1973 was developed with dual

farmworker objectives to help improve the lives and skills of

those wishing to remain in agriculture as well as to provide

alternatives to agricultural labor. The available evidence

suggests that experienced seasonal farmworkers are now more

likely to combine nonfarm activities with their farmwork,

rather than leaving the farm work force entirely fl5j.

Foreign Nationals and the H-2 Program

Legally admitted foreign workers have been an important part

of the farm labor force for decades, but their importance,

measured in numbers of workers, has diminished in recent

years. Almost 5 million braceros (Mexican laborers permitted

to work in the United States for a limited time) worked on U.S.

farms between 1942 and 1964. The Bracero Program (P.L. 78)

was the major legislative vehicle allowing entry of these

workers. P.L. 78 authorized an official agreement between
Hired Farmworkers

Mexico and the United States, designed to meet the U.S.

wartime need for supplemental farm labor and also to legalize

and protect Mexican workers from exploitation in this country.

The number of legally admitted workers reached a peak of

445,000 in 1956 and then declined to fewer than half that

number by 1964. This reduction was due to increases in farm

mechanization, tightening of certification requirements, and

more rigid enforcement of wage agreements and guarantees {8}.

Since the termination of the Bracero Program in 1964, the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 414) has been the major mechanism for legally admitting foreign agricultural

workers. This Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Labor to

administer the Foreign Labor Certification Program, often

referred to as the H-2 Program, which permits employers to ,

bring foreign workers into the United States to do temporary

work. Before workers can be admitted, the Department of Labor

must certify that there are insufficient numbers of domestic

workers available who are willing and qualified to perform the

work needed, and that the entry of the foreign workers will not

adversely affect either the wage rate or working conditions of

domestic workers doing similar work.

The number of H-2 workers entering this country to do farmwork has decreased over time, but has remained relatively

stable over the last few years. Each year, 15,000 to 18,000

foreign workers are certified for agricultural employment and

logging (iß). In 1979, almost half of the workers harvested

sugarcane in Florida; over one-third harvested apples in the

Eastern States; and the remainder were engaged in

sheepherding in the Western States and logging in the

Northeastern States.

The H-2 workers have little impact on the overall U.S. farm

labor market, but they do have a significant impact on some

areas, particularly sugar production in Florida and apple

production in the Eastern States. The H-2 workers accounted

for less than 1 percent of all hired workers in 1979. By contrast,

foreign workers constituted about 13 percent of hired farmworkers at the height of the Bracero Program in 1956.
Smith &Goltrane

The H-2 Program is the focal point of a continuing controversy

between the Department of Labor and growers requesting

worker certification. Except forsugarcane cutters, the Labor

Department maintains that a sufficient number of migrant and

local workers is available to meet grower demands, while the

growers maintain that there are not enough workers available

at peak labor demand periods. The controversy is likely to

continue and it may spread to include producers of other

commodities. Since 1979, for example, the Department of Labor

has received new requests for worker certification from both

citrus and tobacco growers.

Undocumented Workers

Because of their numbers, undocumented workers have a much

greater impact on the U.S. farm labor market than do legally

admitted foreign workers. However, it is impossible to make

reliable estima tes of the number of illegal workers in the

country or the number working in agriculture because of the

clandestine nature of their entry into the United States. Each

year, as many as 700,000 illegal aliens are apprehended, and

estimates of the size of the illegal populationliving in the

United States range from 4 to 12million (32). Slightly over

100,000 undocumented aliens are apprehended each year in

agriculture, but these figures are not accurate indicators of the

numbers working in agriculture. As many as 355,000

undocumented workers may be employed annually in

agriculture with most concentrated in the Southwestern and

Pacific Coast States, and the remainder scattered throughout

the Nation (10).

Most of the information available on undocumented workers in

the United States is based on official testimony, hearsay, and

unreliable statistics. Additional quantitative informatian is

needed to estimate more accurately the impact of illegal

workers on the farm labor market, and to provide the

foundation for policy regarding undocumented workers.
Hired Farmworkers

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF

HIRED FARMWORKERS

Agriculture in America has been primarily a family endeavor,

but hired farmworkers have made a significant contribution,

Over time, the character of the hired farm work force has

changed considerably. During the colonial period, farmworkers

were comprised largely of Indians, convicts, indentured

servants from England, and slaves from Africa. In the 1800's,

agriculture provided opportunities for employment to a large

number of immigrants from Germany, Ireland, and

Scandinavia. Many of these immigrants settled in the Northeast

and North Central States. In the Southwest, the hired farm

labor force has been comprised of a succession of minority

groups starting with the Chinese and followed by the Japanese,

Filipinos, and Mexicans. Mexican workers have historically

been employed in the United States in a cyclical fashion

depending on the economic situation and supply of available

domestic labor [4).

Although demographic characteristics of hired farmworkers

have changed, the tendency for these workers to be at the

bottom of the income scale and generally to have few other

economic opportunities has persisted to the present.

Demographic Gharacteristics

In 1979, approximately 2.7 million persons 14 years of age and

older in the United States worked on farms for cash wages or

salary at some time during the year (IS)."^ These workers were

predominantly young, White, and male, and the majority lived

off the farm. Only two of every five hired farmworkers were

heads of households; most were spouses or other family

members, specifically:

• 57 percent of hired farmworkers were under 25 years of

age; one-fourth were between 14 and 17 years.

^See Pollack (9) for additional information on sampling procedures, survey

design, and statistical reliability of these data.
Smith &CoItrane

• 22 percent were female,

• 75 percent were White,

• 4 out of 10 farmworkers lived in the South, and

• the majority {83 percent) lived off the farm.

Contrary to the popular image, racial/ethnic minorities do not

constitute the major portion of the hired farm work force {fig.

1). In 1979, 75 percent were White, 12 percent were Hispanic,

and 13 percent were Black and Other.^ However, the proportion

of minority farmworkers varied by region. About 53 percent of

the farmworkers in California, Nevada, and Arizona were

Hispanic, and about 34 percent of the workers in eight Southern

States {Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) were Blacks and

Others. The majority of farmworkers in other regions were

White.

While the minority groups account for a relatively small

number of hired farmworkers nationwide, minorities,

especially Hispanics, are more dependent on agriculture than

Whites. Minority workers were more likely than White workers

to cite hired farmwork as their principal activity during 1979,

and for the large majority, hired farmwork was their only

employment. Furthermore, White workers were more likely

than Hispanics and Blacks and Others to move out of hired

farmwork as they became older {fig. 2). This suggests that

farmwork serves more as an entry level and/or a supplemental

jobfor Whites, while minority workers are more likely to

depend on agriculture as their major source of support.

The relatively greater dependence on agriculture by minority

workers may be due to their lower levels of education and the

^Hispanic refers to all those who identified themselves as Mexican American,

Ghicano, Mexican, Mexicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American,

or other Hispanic. White refers to White persons other than those of Hispanic

origin. Black and Other includes| Blacks, Indians. Chinese, Japanese, and others

not of Hispanic origin. For simplicity of presentation, these mutually exclusive

groups are termed Hispanic, White, and Black and Other.

10
Hired Farmworkers

Figure 1.

Racial/Ethnic Background of Hired

Farmworkers, 1979

Black and

Other/13%

27%

White/75%

Migrant 217,000

Source: (9)

All 2,652,000

lack of alternatives to farmwork. Many hired farm jobs require

few skills and training, and workers with low educational

attainment compete effectively for these jobs.

Hired farmworkers, in general, have lower educational levels

than most other occupational groups. In 1979, hired

farmworkers 25 years and older had a median educational level

of 10.4 years compared with 12.5 years for the total U.S.

population 25 years and older. However, educational

attainment was even lower for minority farmworkers. Hispanic

farmworkers had a median educational level of only 5.4 years.

Blacks and Others reached only a slightly higher level, with 1.1

years of schooling. Whites had a median 12.3 years of school

completed.

11
Smith & Goltrane

Figure 2.

Hired Farmworkers, by Age, Sex, and

Racial/Ethnic Group, 1979

Years Male

1.596,000

Femate

381,000

Male Female Male

222.000 «98,000 258,000

Female

98,000

Source: (9)

1

40% 0

Hispanic

40% 0 40%

Black & Other

Employment ChaFacteFistics

In 1979, the majority of farmworkers were employed on a

casual (less than 25 days) or seasonal (25 to 149 days) basis

(fig. 3). Almost three-fourths of the laborers worked for less

than 150 days during 1979. Many of the easual and seasonal

workers were students and housewives who worked only a few

weeks a year, either during harvest or some other peak labor

demand period. Only 16 percent of all hired farmwarkers

worked on a year-round basis for 250 days or more; another 13

percent worked from 150 to 249 days during the year. However,

those working 150 days or more accounted for 73 percent of the

total days of farmwork.

Additional data illustrate the weak labor force attachment of

most hired farmworkers :

• Almost half (47 percent) of all farmworkers were

12
Hired Farmworkers

Figure 3.

Hired Farmworkers, by Days of Farmwork, 1979

Source: (9)

outside the labor force most of the year; more than

three-fourths of these workers were students.

• Less than one-third did hired farmwork as a principal

activity during the year.

• About 34 percent of all workers did less than 25 days of

farmwork during the year.

• About 44 percent of all workers have been employed in

farmwork for 3 years or less.

The variation in duration of employment caused annual

earnings to vary considerably among workers (table 2]. All

hired farmworkers averaged $4,185 in annual earnings from all

farm and nonfarm sources in 1979, with over half of the

earnings ($2,444) from farmwork. Persons citing nonfarm

employment as their primary activity earned $8,348, with only

about 15 percent ($1,210) of the earnings from farmwork. Those

13
Table 2—Hired farmworkers' average annual earnings by primary employment status, 1979i

Total Farmwork only

Annual

Workers farm

earnings

Both farm and nonfi

Total

Workers annual

earnings

irmwork

Primary

employment

status^

Work

Number

:ers

Percentage

distribution

Total

annual

earnings

Annual

farm

earnings

Annual

farm

earnings

Thousands Percent —Dollars— Thousands Dollars Thousands —Dollars —

In labor force

Hired farmwork

Other farmwork^

Nonfarmwork

Unemployed

1,393

759

90

496

48

53

29

3

19

2

6,602

6,089

3,406

8.348

4

3,789

5,843

1.879

1,210

4

732

656

54

22

5,573

6,042

1,580

4

661

103

36

496

26

7,740

6,388

4

8,348

4

1,813

4.579

4

1.210

4

Not in labor force

Keeping house

Attending school

Other

1,259

176

956

127

47

7

36

5

1.510

1*215

1,434

2,484

956

890

839

1,935

792

139

558

95

1.029

896

917

1,883

467

37

397

32

2,327

4

2,162

4

834

4

729

4

All hired farmworkers 2,652 100 4,185 2,444 1,524 3,212 1,128 5,501 1,408

All migrant farmworkers 217 8 4,852 2,277 98 3,258 120 6,155 1,476

— = Not applicable.

^Number of workers may not add to totals due to rounding.

^Refers to respondent's major or chief activity during the year.

^Includes operating a farm and unpaid famUy labor.

^Averages not shown where base is less than 50,000 workers.

Source: (9)
Hired Farmworkers

citing hired farmwork as their primary activity earned less; this

group averaged $6,089 in total earnings, with almost 96 percent

derived from farm employment. Housewives and students

received the lowest total earnings and farm earnings of any

group. Holt (6) summarizes the reasons earnings from hired

farmwork are low:

Hired farmworkers' earnings are kept low by a

potentially large supply of unskilled workers, the

highly competitive structure of an industry with

many small producer employers, and the lack of

organization and bargaining power among workers.

On the other hand, agricultural employment is one of

the last remaining major employment opportunities

for youth, low-productivity rural workers, and

persons unwilling or unable to cope with the regimen

and discipline imposed by a highly industrialized

society.

Migrant Farmworkers

Migrant farmworkers provide a necessary supplement to local

labor supplies during planting and harvesting seasons when the

demand for labor sometimes exceeds the supply of farmworkers

living in a local area. But contrary to some popular impressions,

the hired farm labor force is not dominated by migrants.

Migrant farmworkers are defined as those persons who leave

their home county, stay overnight, and do farmwork for cash

wages or salary. They constituted only 8 percent of the 2.7

million persons doing hired farmwork in 1979. The proportion

of the hired farm work force that is migrant remained fairly

constant in the seventies, but decreased from the 10- to 14-

percent range common in the sixties.

Since 1960, the number of migratory workers declined by

almost 50 percent, falling from about 400,000 in 1960 to 217,000

in 1979 (fig. 4). However, the decline has not been continuous

from year to year. The number of migrants increased sharply to

466,000 workers between 1964 and 1965. This increase

represented a temporary adjustment to the termination of the

15
Smith & Coltrane

Figure 4.

Migrant Farmworkers, by Days

of Farmwork, 1960-79"

Thousands

500

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

^Data for 1978 are not available.

Source: (9)

Bracero Program as farmers replaced foreign workers with

domestic labor. The number of migrants declined steadily

between 1965 and 1970, but since 1970 the number has

remained relatively stable at around 200,000,

In summary, in 1979, migrant workers as a group differed from

other hired farmworkers in some basic characteristics :

• Migrants were more likely to be members of minority

groups than nonmigrants. In 1979, about 62 percent of

the migrants were Whites, 27 percent were Hispanics,

and 11 percent were Blacks and Others. By contrast,

nonmigrant workers were 75 percent White, 11 percent

Hispanic, and 14 percent Black and Other (see fig. 1).

• Migrants earned an average of $4.852 in annual

earnings, with $2,277 Goming from farmwork;

16
Hired Farmworkers

nonmigrants earned $4,126 with $2,459 coming from

farmwork.

• Migrants were more likely to combine nonfarmwork

with farmwork, About 55 percent of the migrants did

both farmwork and nonfarmwork compared with only

41 percent of the nonmigrants.

• Migrants appeared to be more economically dependent

on nonfarm earnings than nonmigratory workers. Over

half of their total earnings came from nonfarmwork

while only 40 percent of nonmigrant total earnings came

from nonfarm activities.

• Some migrants traveled considerable distances to do

farmwork. Almost one-third were employed in farm

jobs over 500 miles from their homes, while about 14

percent traveled 1,000 or more miles. Hispanics tended

to travel longer distances than Whites, who were more

likely to be short-distance migrants.

In other characteristics, however, migrants were about the

same as nonmigrants:

• About 55 percent wereless than 25 years of age; 22

percent were between 14 and 17 years old.

• Almost one-third were students and out of the labor

force most of the year.

• 76 percent were males.

• Less than half were household heads.

4 out of 10 resided in the South at the time of the survey,

and over half of these were Hispanics or Blacks and

Others.

17
Smith & Coltrane

Hired Farmworker Families

Some farmworker issues are centered on economic conditions

and needs of the farmworker*s family. The socioeconomic

characteristics of farmworker families are diverse, ranging

from the low-income family where the household head is a

farmworker and the family's only source of income is from

hired farmwork, to the high-income family where the

farmworker is a spouse, son, or daughter working only a few

days in the summer.

One study showed that approximately 2 million families in the

United States contained at least one hired farmworker in 1975

[1.3]. That study also showed that farmworker families, as a

group, were one of the most economically disadvantaged groups

in the Nation. Their 1975 median family income was $8,522.

about 72 percent of the median income for all U.S. families.

However, when family income is examined in relation to family

size, farmworkers are at a greater disadvantage than income

levels alone suggest. Farmworker families tend to be much

larger than other families atall income levels. This places a

greater than average per capita demand on family income. For

example, of those farmworker families receiving incomes below

$5,000, the majority (54 percent) had at least three members

and almost one-fifth contained six members or more. By

contrast, the majority of all U.S. families with incomes below

$5,000 contained only one or two members.

The racial/ethnic composition of farmworker families was

about the same as the composition of other families. Over threefourths of the families were White, 8 percent were Hispanic,

and 15 percent were Black and Other in 1975. The minority

farmworker families in general were more economically

disadvantaged than White families. White farmworker families

received a median family income of over $10,000, compared

with $5,939 for Hispanic and $4,339 for Black and Other

families. Also, only 22 percent of the White families had six or

more members compared with 45 percent of Hispanic and 31

percent of Black and Other families. Heads of minority

farmworker families, whether they did farmwork or not,

18
Hired Farmworkers

completed fewer years of schooling than White family heads.

Lower educational levels of minority household heads tended to

restrict opportunities to move into higher paying jobs and

thereby limited opportunities to improve the family's economic

status.

The largest proportion (39 percent] of farmworker families was

located in the South and, in general, these families had lower

incomes than families in other regions. The median family

income for farmworker families in the South was $5,912

compared with $9,439 in the West and over $10,000 in the

Northeast and North Central States. Farmworker income

problems in the South were further complicated by poor

accessibility to public services, such as health care, education,

vocational training, housing, and welfare programs [14, 19).

Hired farmworker families included 8.2 million family

members, averaging 4.1 members per family. A large proportion

of these were dependents. About 26 percent were children

under the age of 14 years; another 3 percent were 65 years of age

and over. More than one-third of the dependents lived in

minority families, although minority families constituted only

23 percent of all farmworker families.

Half of the 2 million hired farmworker families were headed by

a person who did farmwork at some time during the year. The

remaining families contained a family member other than the

head who did farmwork. The characteristics of these two

groups differed significantly.

Families headed by a farmworker were more economically

disadvantaged than farmworker families headed by a nonfarm

worker. About 37 percent of the farmworker-headed families

had an income of less than $5,000, compared with only 14

percent of other farmworker families. The median family

income for the families headed by a farmworker was $6,250,

compared with over $10,000 for families in which the

farmworker was not the household head. A large part of the

family earnings for the farmworker-headed families was from

relatively low-paying farm jobs held by the head of household.

19
Smith & Coltrane

By contrast, most farmworkers who were not household heads

were not responsible for the major share of family support.

Students and housewives made up a large proportion of the

workers who did farmwork for only a few weeks during the

year. Inmost cases, the bulk of their family income came from

the earnings of the family head who was employed in nonfarm

activities. For example, in 1975, farmworkers who were not

family heads earned an average of $1,300 from all sources, and

more than half worked less than 25 days at farmwork, On the

other hand, farmworker heads averaged $4,500 in annual

earnings with over half the earnings derived from farmwork.

In 1975, 143,000, or 7 percent, of all farmworker families had at

least one member who did migratory farmwork. The

information on characteristics of migrant families is limited,

but available data suggest that family size and income do not

differ significantly from all hired farmworker families. In 1979,

25 percent of migrant families received incomes of less than

$5,000. They had a median family income of $8,607 and

averaged 3.7 members per family, compared with $8,522 and 4.1

members per family for all hired farmworker families.

Migrant families included about 550,000 household members.

One-fourth of these members were children under 14 years old.

However, the data do not show the proportion of children who

traveled with their parents or other family members in the

migrant stream, or what proportion actually did farmwork

themselves during the year.

In summary, the socioeconomic characteristics of hired

farmworkers and their families indicate that there are two

distinct groups of hired farmworkers. One group is comprised

of those who are engaged in hired farmwork on a casual or

seasonal basis and use their earnings from farmwork to

supplement family income; they are generally young and/or

White; the majority cite attending school or keeping house as

their primary activity, but some are primarily employed at

nonfarm work; and half of the group does nonfarm work.

20
Hired Farmworkers

The second group consists of persons who are more dependent

on hired farmwork for their livelihood and family support; they

are employed in agriculture for longer periods during the year

than the casual and seasonal group, and often cite hired

farmwork as their principal activity. For the large majority,

farmwork is their only employment. When they do off-farm

work, it is usually only for short periods of time. The workers

are older and are often household heads or spouses who have

primary responsibility for their families' support, probably

receiving much of the family income from farmwork. They are

more likely to be members of racial/ethnic minorities, and their

agricultural dependence is partially due to the lack of

employment alternatives to farmwork.

FARM LABOR TRENDS FOR THE

EIGHTIES

Farm labor in the last three decades showed dramatic changes,

and definite employment trends emerged in the seventies. Hired

employment stabilized during the seventies after years of

decline, while farm family employment continued to decrease.

These changes show what has happened, but what do they

suggest for farm labor requirements in the eighties?

A number of factors will determine farm labor use in the

eighties: technological development, changes in the structure of

agriculture, farm programs, farmworker programs,

immigration policy, relative prices of major farm inputs—

especially energy, and legislative developments on collective

bargaining for farmworkers. The many unknowns regarding

future changes in these factors and in the interaction among

these factors make attempts to estimate farm labor

requirements in the eighties a difficult task.

However, two sets of USDA estimates are useful in discussing

farm labor trends for the eighties. First, it is estimated that the

number of farms will likely continue to decline, while the size of

farms will continue to increase to the year 2000 (7). Second, a

study concludes that American agriculture will have adequate

21
Smith & Coltrane

capacity to produce in the eighties (1). This conclusion is based

on projections of agricultural productivity and farm output.

PFoblems involving labor, cropland, water, and manufactured

inputs are not expected to be major constraints on farm

production in the near future.

The two sets of projections suggest that the recent trend of

substituting hired labor for farm family labor will likely

continue in the eighties. The increase in the hired labor

proportion of total farm employment is likely to be small in any

year, but should gradually increase in the eighties. Factors that

could change this trend are unexpected shifts in the demand for

farm products and unexpected changes in relative prices of

major agricultural inputs.

The characteristics of the hired farm work force suggest that

enough workers should seek employment in agriculture to meet

overall demand. The hired farm labor market is highly

fragmented. Although there are exceptions, the amount of hired

labor required on a per farm basis is small> and most farmwork

requires little work experience, few skills, and is of a seasonal

nature. In 1979, nearly half of all farmworkers were teenagers,

housewives, and other persons who did farmwork on a

temporary basis. Another 19 percent were primarily nonfarmworkers who took farm employment on a part-time basis fl9J.

Some exceptions to the general trend may occur. The potential

exists for periodic farm labor shortages in areas with

concentrations of farms which require many workers. During

periods of peak labor demand, the need for labor frequently

exceeds the local labor supply. In those situations, additional

workers must be recruited from outside the local community.

Problems associated with recruitment or labor-management

conflicts could lead to local labor shortages.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE

CURRENT SITUATION

The data and analysis suggest several policy issues related to

the welfare of the workers and their families. Public policy

22
Hired Farmworkers

responses to hired farmworker issues have generally focused on

problems related to stability of employment levels and

stability of wages, quality of work environment, and family

well-being. Policy issues related to the welfare of farmworker

families are inseparable from issues related to employment,

wages, and the working environment because work and wage

conditions are closely linked to economic and social conditions

which impact directly on the well-being of the family, including

housing, health, and education.

The hired farmworker characteristics mentioned before and

summarized as follows tend to define policy issues:

• Income is at or near the bottom of the income scale for

all occupations.

• Families tend to be larger than average, placing a

greater than average per capita demand on family

income.

• Economic conditions are worse for migrant families

because of the transient nature of the work.

• Workers with few alternatives to farmwork must often

find several short-term jobs during the year to earn even

a minimal annual income. This may require migrant

work.

• The structure of agricultural employment has changed

in recent decades with hired employment increasing

relative to farm operator and farm family employment,

placing a new set of labor-management responsibilities

on farm operators and workplace responsibilities on the

worker.

Thus, two major groups appear to require different policy

considerations. One group depends on farmwork for a

significant part of its income. Many workers in this group

also do nonfarmwork, but farmwork is the group's central

employment focus. The workers normally have low labor

23
Smith & Coltrane

market skills, little education, and seem lo have little

opportunity for employment in higher skilled, higher wage

occupations in either agriculture or nonagricultural industries.

Workers in the second group include persons who work on a

casual or seasonal basis, usually as a means of supplementing

individual or family income. These workers spend most of their

time at nonfarm employment, attending school, keeping house,

or pursuing other nonlabor market activities.

One set of policy issues and needs relates to both groups of

workers. These concern the lack of employee benefits and

workplace protections generally available to other workers in

the economy, including minimum wage guarantees, farm safety

regulations, and such social benefits as workers' compensation,

unemployment insurance, and social security. In recent years,

labor and safety law coverage has increased for farmworkers,

but the special exemption for agriculture based on size of

operation still exists in most legislation (3).

It is not enough, however, to demonstrate that current policies

on minimum wage or social security contribute to inequity in

income or employment opportunities among workers. Estimates

of the impacts of proposed changes are also required for

effective policy decisions. An increased minimum wage, for

example, could affect the number of employed workers,

duration of employment, workers' earnings, and income of farm

operators. This type of impact analysis requires better

information than is generally available.

The group that depends on farmwork for a significant part of

family income is the most logical primary target for farmworker

policy, mainly because it has few alternatives for other

employment. Several issues focus on this group of workers,

including stability of employment and earnings, national

farmworker programs, and impact of technology on agriculture.

Stability of Employment and Farm

Earnings

Annual earnings are determined by the wage rate and duration

of employment. In addition to low wages, much of hired

24
Hired Farmworkers

farmwork is characterized by periods of employment lasting

only a few days or weeks. About 71 percent of the hired farm

work force worked less than 150 days in agriculture in 1979.

The year-round worker was the exception rather than the rule.

Only 16 percent were employed 250 days or more on farms.

Furthermore, many of these workers held several jobs during

the year to piece together year-round employment [9]. Income

stability could be enhanced by greater stability in employment

spurring families toward better housing, more adequate health

care, and higher levels of education.

Improving the stability of farm employment and farm wages

will require changes in the way farm jobs are viewed by both

the farm operator and the worker. Farm operators have

traditionally had little incentive to improve the stability of farm

employment. Workers are hired to do specific tasks, and

employment is frequently terminated as soon as the tasks are

completed. This pattern of employment has evolved because of

the seasonal nature of farmwork and because there usually has

been an adequate supply of farmworkers available from either

domestic or foreign sources.

Most farm tasks are associated with planting and harvesting.

The labor required to operate the farm between these periods of

peak labor demand traditionally has been provided by family

labor. There are, of course, exceptions to this pattern—many

livestock farms require year-round hired labor, but as noted

earlier, only 16 percent of all workers are employed year-round.

The structure of farming has changed significantly in recent

decades altering the composition of the farm labor force. As

hired workers provide more of the labor used on farms, farm

operators must assume more labor-management

responsibilities if they are to compete for workers in the farm

labor market. The better managers will improve their personnel

management skills in order to minimize hiring, turnover, and

training costs. This includes improving skills related to

recruiting, supervising, training, developing work plans, work

assignments, and employee benefit packages; understanding

Federal, State and local employment, safety and health

25
Smith & Coltrane

regulations; and being knowledgeable of labor relations and

labor contract negotiations procedures.

Contemporary personnel management encourages workers to

take responsibility for their work assignments. This should

result in greater labor productivity, greater attachment to the

work force, and higher quahty performance. This, of course,

requires a greater commitment by workers to do quality work.

An educational effort may be needed to improve the level of

personnel management. Many farm operators and farm

managers would benefit from education and training on

relevant labor laws and regulations, as well as training in

principles of personnel management.

National Farmworker Programs

Currently, eight Federalprograms have special provisions for

farmworkers (table 3). The Comprehensive Employment and

Training Act of 1973 (CETA), for example, authorized the U.S.

Department of Labor to provide educational opportunities, job

training and placement, family counseling and child care, and

other services to seasonal and migrant farmworkers. Other

Federalfarmworker programs provide free or low-cost health

services to migrants and their families, support physically or

mentally disabled farmworkers, provide funds to local school

districts for the education ofmigrant children, enforce safety

regulations for the transportation offarmworkers, provide

employment services, provide loans and grants to farm

operators for construction of onfarm housing for farmworkers,

and enforce safety regulations of crew leaders and farm labor

contractors. The budgets for these programs were approximately $400 million in 1979, nearly double the level in 1975.

Despite increased funding, these programs have received

relatively little evaluation. Additional research is required to

determine the impact of Federal programs on farmworkers,

their families, farm operators, and the farm labor market.

26
Hired Farmworkers

Table 3—Annual budgets for Federal migrant and seasonal farmworker

programs, fiscal years 1975-79

Programs provided by: 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975

Million dollars

Section 303, Comprehensive

Employment and Training Act,

19731 95.3 111.0 63.8 75.2 63.2

Rehabilitation Act, 19732 1.5 1.5 ,6 1.5 .7

Interstate Commerce Act,

19573 NA NA NA NA NA

PublicHealth Act, 1962^ 34.5 34.5 30.0 25.0 23.8

Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, 1967^^ 173.5 145.8 130.9 97.1 91.9

Housing Act. 19496

Grants

Loans

Wagner-Peyser Act, 1934^

Farm Labor Contactor

Registration Act, 1963« 2.3 2.1 1.2 1.1 ,5

Total 378.1 312.4 244.0 217.4 197.6

NA = Not available.

' Provides training assistance with budgets reported by calendar year.

^ Supports physically or mentally disabled farmworkers.

'enforces safety regulations for transportation of farmworkers.

''Provides primary health care and supplemental services.

'' Provides funds to local school districts for education of children of migrant

workers.

^ Makes loans and grants to farm operators for construction of onfarm

housing for farmworkers.

^Provides employment placement and related services.

** Enforces regulations of crew leaders and farm labor contractors.

Source: The budget data are from unpublished sources in the respective

departments.

27

71.0 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5

38.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

33.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

NA NA . NA NA NA
Smith & Coltrane

Impacts of Technological Development on

Farm Employment

Technological development, including labor-reducing

machines, higher yielding crops and livestock, and chemicals

which improve yields, have had significant impacts on labor

productivity in agriculture. In almost every case, the adoption

of new technology has reduced labor input per unit of output,

while expanding output of agricultural commodities.

Although technological development has had significant

impacts on farm employment, the evaluations of technology

have not usually looked at the effects on hired farm

employment. However, employment impact research, as a part

of the evaluative process of technological development, could

be a significant tool for improving employment and wage

stability. For example, technology has the potential to create

varieties of fruits and vegetables which could be harvested over

longer periods of time, thus increasing the stability of farm

employment (5).

Data Requirements

There is a need for better information for analysis of policy

issues, legislation and regulations, and to assess the impact of

legislation, technological developments, and other social and

economic changes on employment levels and income of hired

farmworkers. The only comprehensive data presently available

on the number and characteristics of farmworkers and their

households come from a survey conducted by the Census

Bureau for the Economic Research Service as part of the

December Current Population Survey. This survey was

conducted annually until 1977, and is now conducted

biennially.

The Hired Farm Working Force Survey has shortcomings which

limit its usefulness as a data source for analysis of policy

issues. It provides national-level data and regional estimates of

numbers of workers, duration of employment, and some key

worker and household characteristics for farmworker groups

28
Hired Farmworkers

having special policy significance, such as migrants, Hispanics,

and youth. However, these data are inadequate for analysis of

issues related to farm labor markets below the national level.

For example, analyses of State-level markets are often

necessary for policy purposes because the demand for labor

varies significantly from State to State, depending on the type

and structure of agriculture. Farms in the Southwestern and

Pacific Coast States employ more hired labor relative to family

labor than do farms in the Corn Belt and Southeastern States.

The State variations in the use of hired labor create different

requirements for various State farm labor markets. Until Statelevel data are available, analyses of many issues will be

incomplete and policies based on the analyses may not include

elements important to the proper functioning of farm labor

markets and to the well-being of farmworkers and their

families.

29
Smith^& Coltrane

REFERENCES

1. Davis, Velmar, and others. American AgricultUTe—Its

GupQcity to Produce in the 1980s. Unpublished manuscript.

1980.

2. Durost, Don, and Evelyn Black. Changes in Farm

Production and Efficiency. SB-612. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Stat.Goop. Serv., Nov. 1978.

3. Erven, Bernard L. "ImpacloíLabor Laws and Regulations on

Agricultural Labor Markets." Sea son aJ AgriculturQl Labor

Markets in the united States. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Sept. 1980, pp. 477-512.

4. Fulton, Tom. "Labor Has Been Partner in Progress," The

Packer. Dec. 1975, pp. 45-47.

5. Glover, Robert. "Unstructured Labor Markets and

Alternative Labor Market Forms." Seasonal Agricultura J

Labor Markets in the United States. Univ. of Florida,

Gainesville. Sept. 1980, pp. 317-347.

6. Holt, James L. "Farm Labor and the Structure of

Agriculture." Structure Issues of American Agriculture.

AER-438. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., Nov.

1979. pp. 143-149.

7. Lin, William, George Coffman, and J.B. Penn. U.S. Farm

Numbers, Sizes, and Related Structural Dimensions:

Projections to Year 2000. TB-1625. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Slat. Coop. Serv., July 1980.

8. McElroy, Robert C., and Earle E.Gavett. Termination of the

Bracero Program—Some Effects on Form Labor and

Migrant Housing Needs. AER-77. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ.

Res. Serv., June 1965.

9. Pollack, Susan. The Hired Farm Working Force of 1979.

AER-473. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv., Aug. 1981.

30
Hired Farmworkers

10. Rochin, Refugio I. "Illegal Aliens in Agriculture: Some

Theoretical Considerations," Labor Law /ournaJ. Mar. 1978,

pp. 149-167.

11. Schertz, Lyle P., and others. Another Revolution in U.S.

Forming? AER-441. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv.,

Dec. 1979.

12. Siegel, Jacob S., Jeffrey S. Passel, and J. Gregory Robinson.

"Preliminary Review of Existing Studies of the Number of

Illegal Residents in the United States." Prepared for the

Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy,

U.S. House of Representatives. Jan. 1980.

13. Smith, Leslie Whitener, and Gene Rowe. Food Stamp

Participation of Hired Farmworker Families. AER-403. U.S.

Dept. Agr., Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., Apr. 1978.

14. U.S. Congress. Rural Development Seventh Annual Report

on Government Services to Rural America. House Doc.

95051. Jan. 19, 1977.

15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. The Hired Farm Working Force, 1950, 1955, 1960,

1965,1970-77,1979.

16. , Statistical Reporting Service. Farm

Labor, 1910-1980.

17. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Census of Agriculture. General reports, 1974, 1978.

18. U.S. Department of Labor. Administrative reports of the

Employment and Training Administration, 1980.

19. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Administrative and Legislative Uses of the Terms

''Poverty,^' ''Low-Income,^' and Other Related hems. Tech.

Paper II. Sept. 1977.

31
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WASHINGTON. DC 20250 POSTAGE ANO FCeS PAtO

US 0£PA«TMCNT Of

AG«»CULTUBC

AGR 101

THIRD CLASS

Economic Research Service

The Economic Research Service carries out research on the production and

marketing of major agricultural commodities; foreign agriculture and trade; economic use, eonservation, and development of natural resources; trends in rural

population, employment, and housing; rural economic adjustment problems;

and performance of the U.S. agricultural industry. ERS provides objective and

timely economic information to farmers, farm organization members, farm

suppliers, marketers, processors, consumers, and others who make production,

marketing, and purchasing decisions, and to legislators and other public

officials at the Federal, State, and local government levels.