Farm size and job quality

20 Pages·2015·1.33 MB·English

by  Jill Lindsey Harrison

Farm size and job quality: mixed-methods
studies of hired farm work in California
and Wisconsin
Jill Lindsey Harrison & Christy Getz
Agriculture and Human Values
Journal of the Agriculture, Food, and
Human Values Society

ISSN 0889-048X
Volume 32
Number 4

Agric Hum Values (2015) 32:617-634
DOI 10.1007/s10460-014-9575-6
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
AgricHumValues(2015)32:617–634
DOI10.1007/s10460-014-9575-6
Farm size and job quality: mixed-methods studies of hired farm
work in California and Wisconsin
Jill Lindsey Harrison • Christy Getz
Accepted:10November2014/Publishedonline:23December2014
(cid:2)SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2014
Abstract Agrifood scholars have long investigated the peers, as well as farmers’ and immigrant workers’ fears of
relationshipbetweenfarmsizeandawidevarietyofsocial immigration enforcement.
and ecological outcomes. Yet neither this scholarship nor
the extensive research on farmworkers has addressed the Keywords Farm size (cid:2) Firm size (cid:2) Job quality (cid:2)
relationship between farm size and job quality for hired Agriculture (cid:2) Farm workers
workers. Moreover, although this question has not been
systematically investigated, many advocates, popular food
writers, and documentaries appear to have the answer— Introduction
portrayingprecarious workascommononlarge farmsand
nonexistent on small farms. In this paper, we take on this Agrifood scholars have long investigated the relationship
question by describing and explaining the relationship between farm size and a wide variety of outcomes,
between farm size and job quality for hired farm workers. including community wellbeing, air and water pollution,
To do so, we draw on data from two independently con- andfarmerlifesatisfaction(forreviews,seeCarolan2012;
ducted, mixed-methods case studies—organic fruit and Lobao and Meyer 2001). Yet neither this scholarship nor
vegetable production in California, and dairy farming in the extensive research on farmworkers has addressed the
Wisconsin—eachofwhichoffersadifferentsetofinsights relationship between farm size and job quality for hired
into the farm size-job quality relationship. In both cases, workers.Thatis,scholarswhoarewellpositionedtostudy
larger farms fared better than or no worse than their thefarmsize-jobqualityrelationshiphavenotyetdoneso.
smaller-scale counterparts for most job quality metrics This gap in the scholarship merits investigation for
investigated,thoughmanyoftheadvantagesofworkingon numerous reasons. In the United States alone, farms
large farms accrue disproportionately to white, U.S.-born employovertwomillionworkers,andfarmjobshavelong
workers. We explain that these patterns stem from econo- been marked by poor quality in terms of their physically
mies of scale, industrialization, firm size itself, the domi- arduous and hazardous nature, low wages, few fringe
nant class identities and aspirations of farmers and their benefits, and low job security. Scholars have extensively
investigated the firm size-job quality relationship in other
industries to identify the roots of such precarious
employment. Those studies have found firm size to be
J.L.Harrison(&) positively correlated with wages, nonwage benefits,
DepartmentofSociology,UniversityofColoradoatBoulder,
opportunity for promotion, formalized management pro-
219Ketchum,327UCB,Boulder,CO80309,USA
cedures (for communication, training, raises, promotion,
e-mail:[email protected]
and grievance resolution), equal opportunity policies,
C.Getz childcareassistance,extra-statutorymaternityandpaternity
DepartmentofEnvironmentalScience,PolicyandManagement,
leave, and flexible working time arrangements (Hollister
UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley,130MulfordHall#3114,
2004;KallebergandVan Buren 1996;Kersley et al.2006;
Berkeley,CA94720,USA
e-mail:[email protected] Marsden et al. 2001; Wilkinson 1999). Complicating the
123
Author's personal copy
618 J.L.Harrison,C.Getz
picture, some studies have found that small firms are less The farms in our studies reflect patterns consistent with
likely to use contingent labor (Kalleberg and Schmidt other industries. In both cases, larger farms fared better
1996) and are more likely to have jobs with higher than or no worse than their smaller-scale counterparts in
‘‘intrinsic’’ rewards such as autonomy, more harmonious terms of most job quality metrics investigated, with a few
working relations, better communication, more flexibility, notable exceptions. Additionally, many of the advantages
and lower levels of conflict (Kalleberg and Van Buren of working on large farms accrue disproportionately to
1996; Schumacher 1973; Wallace and Kay 2009). How- white, U.S.-born workers. As we explain, these patterns
ever, scholars have not studied these questions in an agri- stem from a complex array of political economic and
cultural context. Given that natural forces dictate and culturalfactors—economiesofscale,industrialization,firm
constrain agricultural production in ways that other size itself, the dominant class identities and aspirations of
industries do not experience, the conditions of farm work farmers and their kin and peers, as well as farmers’ and
cannot be assumed to mirror those of other sectors. workers’ fears of immigration policing. In addition to
Additionally, although the relationship between farm filling a notable gap in the scholarship, these findings
sizeandjobqualityforhiredworkershasnotbeenstudied, provide valuable empirical data for those striving to
many actors seem to believe that only larger-scale farms improve job quality for hired farm workers.
deserve critical interrogation in terms of their labor rela-
tions. Advocates, popular food writers, and documentaries
often address hired labor issues in polarized terms—con- Scholarship on farm size implications and hired farm
trasting the honorable labor of ‘‘family farms’’ with the workers
exploited labor of ‘‘factory farms’’, or only criticizing the
laborrelationsonlarge-scalefarms.Forexample,theLand Scholarsofagricultureandrurallifehavelongdocumented
Stewardship Project’s recent concern with wage theft was and described patterns of changing farm structure (Hef-
directed exclusively at large-scale ‘‘factory farms’’ (Nopar fernan 1998; Lobao 1990; Thomas et al. 1996) and inves-
2013). By empirically specifying the relationship between tigated its implications for a wide variety of outcomes.
farm size and job quality, we hope toinform the efforts of Motivated by concerns about the declining number of
those concerned about precarious employment and worker farms and increasing average farm size, Walter Goldsch-
livelihoods in agriculture. Of course, many factors shape midt’s seminal and controversial 1947 study investigated
job quality for hired workers. Notable examples include the implications of farm size for community wellbeing
certain labor policies, labor market conditions, racist anti- throughacomparison oftwotowns inCalifornia’sCentral
immigrant sentiment, and the exploitative dynamics of Valley: Arvin, surrounded by large farms, and Dinuba,
capitalism (Daniel 1981; Friedland et al. 1981; Galarza surroundedbysmallerfarms.Goldschmidtemphasizedthat
1964;Guthman2004;MajkaandMajka1982;McWilliams Arvin had a higher ratio of hired farm workers to farm
1999; Mitchell 1996; Thomas 1985; Wells 1996). In this owners and had higher rates of absentee ownership that
paper, we focus on the role of farm size in shaping job siphoned profits out of the local community. He thus
quality—both because it has not been investigated and argued that increases in farm size contributed to rural
because it is widely assumed to be relevant. population instability,a decline inrural economicactivity,
In this paper, we ask: What is the relationship between greater economic and political inequality, and lower par-
farm size and job quality for hired farm workers? What ticipation in community institutions (Goldschmidt 1978).
explains these patterns? To answer these questions, we A substantial literature has followed in Goldschmidt’s
draw on data from two independently conducted, mixed- footsteps (for reviews and overviews, see Carolan 2012,
methods case studies—organic fruit and vegetable pro- pp.94–106;LobaoandMeyer2001;LobaoandStofferahn
duction in California, and dairy farming in Wisconsin— 2008; Lyson and Welsh 2005; and Welsh 2009). In addi-
eachofwhichoffersadifferentsetofinsightsintothefarm tion to addressing the impact of farm size on community
size-job quality relationship. This is not a comparative wellbeing, rural sociologists have also studied the rela-
analysis, as each study was designed and conducted inde- tionships between farm size and farm household mental
pendently of the other, used different methods, and col- health (see Lobao and Meyer 2001), the gendered division
lected different data; each author learned about the other’s of farm labor (see Lobao and Meyer 2001), a farmer’s
project and the ability of both datasets to speak to debates propensity to diversify (Barbieri et al. 2008), adoption of
about farm size and job quality after completing data col- ecological farming practices (Buttel and Larson 1979;
lection. We bring the two datasets together here because Hinrichs and Welsh 2003; Parker 2013), adoption of new
having two cases from two different commodity sectors technologies (Buttel et al. 1990), pesticide use (Bellamy
allows us to test the farm size-job quality relationship in a 2011; Goldberger et al. 2011), and farm owner life satis-
broader set of contexts than one case study would allow. faction (Lloyd et al. 2007). Scholars have emphasized that
123
Author's personal copy
Farmsizeandjobquality 619
changesinfarmsizearedrivenbymanyfactors,including weekends. Goldschmidt (1978, pp. 332, 337) found that
the concentration and growing power of off-farm agri- annual household incomes of hired farm workers were the
businesses, farm and food policies, labor and immigration same in Arvin and Dinuba, the two communities he stud-
policies, scientific research priorities, and dominant norms ied. Indeed, he attributed many of the differences in com-
such as the industrial ideal. Together these factors have munity wellbeing between the two towns not to the notion
diminished farmers’ abilities to set the terms of trade, thatlargefarms offered worsejobs tohiredworkersbutto
compelled farmers to expand their operations or exit the the fact that Arvin, with its larger farms, had a higher
system entirely, and otherwise exacerbated inequalities of percentage of hired farm workers. More recently, Fogl-
wealth and decision-making power throughout the food eman et al. (1999, p. 32) found that farm size had no sta-
system(Bonannoetal.1994;BuschandLacy1983;Buttel tistically significant effect on employees’ average total
2001; Carolan 2012; Goodman et al. 1987; Heffernan compensation on New York dairy farms. Pilgeram (2011,
1998). p. 5) acknowledges that the interns and apprentices com-
Agrifoodstudieshasanequallylongandrichhistoryof monly hired on small-scale organic farms are typically
scholarship on hired farm workers, starting with studies poorly paid. Getz et al. (2008) and Shreck et al. (2006)
from the 1930s and 1940s by Louis J. Ducoff, Josiah C. show that small-scale farmers can be just as hostile to
Folsom, Margaret Jarmon Hagood, Olaf F. Larson, Carey proposed industry-wide worker protections as their larger-
McWilliams, Arthur Raper, Paul Taylor, Tom Vasey, and scale counterparts. Additionally, Alkon and McCullen
others (see Larson et al. 1992; Larson and Zimmerman (2011)andPilgeram (2012)raise troubling concerns about
2003; McWilliams 1999; Taylor 1983). Since that time, the racialized divisions of labor among farm employees at
empirical studies from across the United States, Canada, farmers markets, venues dominated by smaller-scale
and other countries have documented a litany of injustices growers;theynotethatwhiteinternsaregiventhepublicly
experienced by hired farm workers: low wages, hazardous visiblesalespositionswhileLatinoworkersdothehidden,
workplaces, polluted communities, occupational segrega- more arduous work (see also Guthman 2004, p. 207n14).
tion, child labor, racist hiring and firing practices, exclu- These tangential observations notwithstanding, we are
sionsfromlaborlaws,exploitationandabusebyfarmlabor not aware of any systematic empirical research on the
contractors and crew leaders, neglect by regulatory offi- relationship between farm size and job quality in contem-
cials, repression of farm labor unionization efforts, health porary agriculture. In this paper, we address this gap
disparities and barriers to health care, and food insecurity, directly by describing and explaining the relationship
among others (Besky 2013; Bonanno and Barbosa Caval- betweenfarmsizeandjobqualityforhiredfarmworkersin
canti 2012; Brown and Getz 2011; Daniel 1981; Friedland two independently conducted case studies: organic fruit
andNelkin1971;Friedlandetal.1981;Galarza1964;Gray and vegetable production in California, and dairy farming
2013; Harrison 2011; Harrison and Lloyd 2012, 2013; in Wisconsin. In the pages that follow, we first review our
Holmes 2013; Jenkins 1985; Majka and Majka 1982; cases and methods. We then present our descriptive find-
Maldonado 2009; Mitchell 1996; Mize and Swords 2010; ings documenting the patterns between farm size and job
Moses1993;Sachsetal.2014;SlesingerandPfeffer1992; quality in our two cases. In the subsequent section, we
Thomas1985;Wells1996).Nevertheless,thesefarmlabor explainthosepatternsasafunctionoffivekeyfactors.We
studiesprovidefewinsightsintowhetherjobqualityvaries conclude by summarizing our findings, highlighting their
by farm size. Instead, most studies of hired farm workers significance for scholars and advocates alike, and offering
have focused on large-scale, industrialized farming opera- recommendations for future research.
tions. Thirty years ago, Buttel (1983, p. 101) noted that
‘‘the full-time agricultural labor force in nonindustrial
farming settings has been almost totally ignored’’ by Cases and methods
sociologists of agriculture, and things have changed little
sincethattime.Inotherwords,thescholarswhoareinthe In this paper, we ask: What is the relationship between
best position to study the relationship between farm size farm size and job quality for hired farm workers? What
and job quality have not done so. explains these patterns? To address these questions, we
Thefewexceptionsthatexistindicatethatsmaller-scale showcase selected findings from two independently con-
operations deserve an interrogation as critical as their lar- ducted research projects—a study of work on organic fruit
ger-scalecounterpartsintermsoftheirlaborpractices.Ina and vegetable farms in California, and another of work on
rare and early comparison, Ducoff (1949, p. 286) noted dairy farms in Wisconsin. In each case, a case study
that,in1945,workersonlarger farms innearly allregions approach allowed us to collect multiple forms of data
of the United States earned higher hourly wages, worked (including labor-intensive, in-depth interview data) and
slightly fewer hours per week, and had slightly longer controlforexternalconfoundingvariablespresentinmulti-
123
Author's personal copy
620 J.L.Harrison,C.Getz
industry studies spanning large geographic areas (e.g., Farmers within both research sites share similar insti-
labor market conditions, government policies, union pre- tutional and cultural contexts. Labor unions do not have a
sence, and product market conditions). Each case was significantpresenceineitherofthesectorswestudied;only
designedandconductedindependentlyoftheother,andthe one of our research participants mentioned having a
two studies used different methods and collected data on unionized workforce. Both California and Wisconsin are
different sets of job quality (though all measures of job characterizedbystronglevelsofpublicconcernforfarmer
quality are generally consistent with those of the extant livelihoods but comparatively little public concern for
literature;e.g.,Kalleberg 2011,p. 9).Although the lackof hired farmworkers (Allen et al. 2003; Getz et al. 2008;
parallel data makes us unable to systemically compare the Guthman 2004; Shreck et al. 2006). With the exception of
twocases,wepurposivelybringtogetherthesestudiesfrom thosefarmerssellingdirectlytoconsumersinnicheoutlets,
twoverydifferentcommoditysectorsintwoverydifferent most produce undifferentiated commodities and thus share
regional settings to more comprehensively investigate the productmarketconditions.Theyallfaceincreasingcostsof
relationship between farm size and job quality. By using production due to rising land values and consolidation
twocasestudiesweareabletoidentifypatternsinawider among input manufacturers, as well as declining com-
range of contexts than just one case would afford. modity prices due to near-monopolistic consolidation
California is the U.S. agricultural powerhouse, produc- among food processors and retailers (Carolan 2012;
ing half of the nation’s high-value fresh fruits and vege- Guthman 2004; Howard 2009a, b; USDA 2004). Dairy
tables.MostjobsonCaliforniaorganicfarmsareseasonal, farmershavelongreceivedfederalpricesupports,butthose
temporary positions, and farmworkers face ergonomic and subsidies are often set below the cost of production. Uni-
mechanical hazards (Getz et al. 2008; Moses 1993). versity researchers and extension agents, farmer organiza-
Although organic farms differ from their conventional tions,bankers,andpolicymakershavelongarguedthatthe
counterparts in terms of chemical use and other material only sure way for farmers to survive these difficult cir-
conditions, their labor relations are similar. Over 70 % of cumstances is by expanding and industrializing their
California’sorganicfarmshireworkers(USDA2010),and operations or exiting the system entirely (Fitzgerald 2003;
anecdotal evidence suggests that they mirror the rest of Lobao and Meyer 2001). Accordingly, farmers in both
California’s estimated 800,000 farm workers. Of that total cases are industrializing in ways similar to other agricul-
agricultural workforce, 95 % are foreign-born, primarily tural and non-agricultural industries: expanding and
from Mexico, and anywhere from 50 to 90 % lack legal intensifying production, creating a division of labor, and
authorization (US Department of Labor 2001–2002). extracting as much value as possible from labor, land, and
IncontrasttoCalifornia’sindustrialagriculturalhistory, animals (Barham et al. 2005; Guthman 2004).
Wisconsin’s farming sector has long been comprised On California’s organic farms, industrialization varies
mostly of small-scale dairy farms (DuPuis 2002; Gilbert with the commodities grown but variously includes
and Akor 1988). Most dairy farms today are still quite expanding acreage; intensifying production through con-
small, and, as of 2006, 77 % rely solely on family labor tinuous cash-cropping and fertilization; mechanization for
(Lloyd et al. 2006). However, numerous factors over the preparing, planting, cultivating, and harvesting fields;
past few decades have compelled structural changes in the rationalizing the labor process; and hiring non-family
industry such that hired workers are an increasingly com- labor. In dairying, industrialization includes expanding the
monpartofdairyfarming.Mostdairyjobsareyear-round, farm’s herd size; regularly upgrading the barns, milking
full-time positions, which can be a boon for workers. parlors, tractors, and other equipment with the latest tech-
However,mostofthosejobsarefarfromideal.TheFiscal nologies; confining the cows indoors and feeding them
Timesmagazinerecentlyrankedtheentry-leveldairyjobof scientifically formulated feed rations tailored to each ani-
milking as one of the ‘‘10 Dirty Jobs that Nobody Wants’’ mal’s life stage rather than managing them on pasture;
in the U.S. because of the low wages, late shifts, extreme milking the cows three times per day in machine-assisted
temperatures, and repeated exposure to manure (Yoder milking parlors (compared to historical practice of twice
2011). Wisconsin dairy farmers in just the past 15 years perday,intie-stallorstanchionbarns);dividingworktasks
have started to hire immigrants from Mexico and Central intospecializedpositions;hiringnon-familylabor;and,on
America, who now constitute 40 % of the state’s dairy some farms, using synthetic bovine growth hormone
farm workforce Harrison and Lloyd (2012, 2013). Evi- (Barham et al. 2005). The relationship between industri-
dence suggests that immigrant dairy workers mirror the alization and farm expansion is neither a necessary nor an
broader immigrant farmworker population in the U.S. in even one; rather, owners of all size farms variously
terms of nationality and legal status (Harrison and Lloyd industrialize their operations, and often owners will
2012, 2013). simultaneouslyexpandtheiroperationwhenindustrializing
123
Author's personal copy
Farmsizeandjobquality 621
in one or more ways to maximize the return on their definedbytheUSDA(2007,p.4).Werecognizethatsales
investment. is an imperfect size metric in a study of multiple com-
modity sectors, as some commodities are more valuable
California data andmorecostlytoproducethanothers. Tocontrolforthis
variability, we purposively sampled for a wide range of
Our California data derive from a collaborative study of crops within each farm size category. We do not use two
labor practices of California’s organic growers conducted other potential farm size measures—acreage and size of
by the University of California at Berkeley and California workforce—because widespread variation across com-
Institute for Rural Studies, in which one of the authors modity types and cropping patterns render them both
collaborated. The growers surveyed were drawn from a problematic for comparison purposes, due to differing
publicly available 2006 list of 2,176 organic farms regis- levels of land and intensiveness of labor needed for pro-
tered with the California Department of Food and Agri- duction. In our survey, growers reported wide variation in
culture’sOrganicProgram.Growerswhoreportedhiringat both acreage (0.25–16,800 acres) and the percentage of
least one worker and who had at least some percentage of total production costs attributed to labor (4–95 %). Defin-
land in organic production were included in the sample. ing farm size in terms of number of employees is also
We have not included farms that do not have workers, as problematic in agriculture because most farm jobs are
ourinterestisinthetermsandconditionsofworkforhired temporary, seasonal positions.
workers.Growerswerestratifiedbycommoditysector,and
surveys were administered to a random sample of growers Wisconsin data
within each sector. Sectors known to be labor-intensive
were oversampled. We contacted 1,801 growers and Our Wisconsin data derive from a study of work on Wis-
completedsurveyswith300ofthem,foraresponserateof consin dairy farms that was conducted by one of the
17 %.Giventhatthesamplerepresents14 %ofallorganic authorsandherresearchteamfrom2007to2011.Withthe
growers registered in California in 2006, it is one of the helpofcountyextensionagents,weconstructedalistofall
most extensive surveys ever to specifically address labor dairy farms large enough to have any hired workers (gen-
issues in organic agriculture. In this paper, we showcase erallymorethan100cows).Westratifiedthatlistbyregion
thefindingsfrom220surveyscompletedwithgrowerswho and farm size and randomly selected farmers from within
employed workers directly (although they may have also each farm size category for each region. After an intro-
hired contract workers through farm labor contractors at ductory phone call to explain the research project and
key points in the growing season). Surveys included solicit participation, a survey was administered in person
structured questions about growers’ farms and their labor by a bilingual, U.S.-born male research associate with
management practices (including wages, benefits, and personalexperienceindairyfarming.Participantsincluded
management policies) and open-ended questions asking 83farmersandalloftheirhiredemployeesavailableatthe
participants for qualitative comments on each major topic timeofthevisit(103U.S.-bornworkersand270immigrant
area. Each survey was administered by telephone by a workers). Survey questions addressed wages and nonwage
graduate student researcher, lasted approximately thirty benefits, opportunities for promotion, management prac-
minutes,and was conducted inSpanish orEnglish,per the tices, the organization of work and workers in the work-
respondent’s preference. Responses were transcribed by place, background and demographic information about
theadministrator;telephone-administeredsurveyswerenot hired workers, and workers’ job aspirations.
audio recorded. Respondents not wishing to complete the Perindustrynorms,wedefinedairyfarmsizeaccording
survey over the telephone were offered other options; six to the number of animals; farmers, university extension
respondents chose to complete a paper copy of the survey, agents, researchers, industry organizations, and others
while 20 chose to respond using an Internet-based survey characterize dairy farm size in terms of the number of
program. cows.Wecharacterizethedairyfarmsinourstudyassmall
To categorize the California farms, we follow the (1–300 cows), medium (301–600 cows), and large ([600
industry norm by adopting USDA’s definition of ‘‘small’’ cows),whichcorrespondroughlytolocalideasoffarmsize
farms as those with annual sales\$250,000 and ‘‘large’’ fordairyfarmslargeenoughtohaveanyhiredworkers.We
farms as those with annual sales [$250,000 (Volkmer have not included farms that do not have workers, as our
1998). Although more than half of the USDA-designated interest is in the terms and conditions of work for hired
‘‘small’’ farms in the United States are ‘‘residential/life- workers. We do not define farm size by the number of
style’’ or ‘‘retirement’’ farms with little or no income and employees in this sector because immediate kin conduct a
no hired labor (Hoppe and Banker 2010, p. 8), fully 40 % significantbuthighlyvariable portionoftheworkonmost
of hired workers are employed on ‘‘small’’ farms, as dairy farms (anywhere from approximately 10–80 %), and
123
Author's personal copy
622 J.L.Harrison,C.Getz
our survey did not collect data on family members’ labor. interviewerrecordedherobservationsandtranscribedallof
As a result, categorizing farms by the number of hired, the interviews.1
nonfamily employees would inconsistently represent the
size of the operations. We also do not define dairy farm Data analysis
size by sales because we did not collect that data.
Our Wisconsin study also includes in-depth interviews Withineachcase,weanalyzethesurveyandobservational
with workersand employers,which provideadeeperlevel data to describe how job quality varies by farm size. We
of insight into the patterns revealed by the structured sur- then analyze our quantitative and qualitative data to iden-
veys. After the survey was conducted, members of the tifythefactorsdrivingtheobserved patterns betweenfarm
research team recruited a subset (n = 12) of the surveyed size and job quality, augmenting our original data with
immigrant workers to participate in private, loosely struc- secondary data where appropriate. We systematically
tured, in-depth interviews in which workers were asked coded our data using a shared coding scheme. Most ofour
about their migration histories, aspirations, concerns, and coding themes emerged from the literature and original
frustrations at work and otherwise. To select the interview survey data that had prompted our interview questions
participants, we purposively sampled for variation in gen- (e.g., the relationship between farm size and key measures
der, farm size, and position on the farm; the sample was of job quality, such as entry-level wages; variations in
designed to capture a wider variety of perspectives than those rewards by race and nativity; and farmers’ explana-
mightemergeina‘representative’sample.Weinterviewed tionsfortheinfluenceoffarmsizeonjobqualitymetrics).
five women and seven men representing a range of posi- Several themes emerged unexpectedly in the interviews
tions held on dairy farms (six milkers, two managers, and and open-ended survey responses and without solicitation
fourfeedersorotherpositionssituatedbetweenmilkerand (e.g., the relevance of employers’ class identities to their
manager in the dairy farm workplace hierarchy). Two views on job rewards; and the value of shift flexibility to
bilingual, white, female graduate student interviewers workers). Accordingly, drawing on the principles of
conductedtheseinterviewswiththeworkersinSpanishata grounded theory (Bryant and Charmaz 2007), we also
private setting of their choice, usually their homes. Each coded for these emergent themes. We also identified the
interview lasted one to two hours, and most consented to cases that did not seem to fit our emerging theories, used
audio recordings. The interviewers recorded their obser- analytic induction to explain those deviant cases, and
vationsandtranscribedandtranslatedalloftheinterviews. identify the deviant patterns we were unable to explain.
Finally,membersoftheresearchteamrecruitedasubset Our qualitative data provide rich analytical insights, espe-
of the surveyed employers (n = 20) to participate in pri- cially regarding how and why farm size influences
vate, loosely structured, in-depth interviews in which the employers’ management and compensation decisions, and
employers were asked to describe and explain the organi- themeaningstheyattachtokeyphenomenalikefarmsize.
zation of work and workers on their farms. We also asked These data collection methods give participants the
them to describe their perceptions of and concerns about opportunity to define the issues in their own terms and
U.S.-born and immigrant workers, and about what they facilitate rapport between researcher and participant, thus
perceive as relevant differences among workers. We pur- increasingparticipants’comfortindiscussingcontroversial
posively sampled for variation in two factors that seemed issues.Qualitativemethodsthuscanhelptogeneratenovel
likelytoinfluenceemployers’labormanagementpractices: explanatory frameworks for quantitatively documented
farm size (our sample included seven from ‘‘small’’ farms patterns.
withfewerthan300cows;fivefrom‘‘medium’’farmswith The fact that the two cases have different research
301–900 cows; and eight from ‘‘large’’ farms with more designspreventsusfromdoingafullcomparativeanalysis
than 900 cows), and employee demographics (our sample of the two cases; that said, our analysis does include
included3withonlyU.S.-bornemployees;5withamixof comparative analysis of the few job quality metrics for
immigrant and U.S.-born employees; and 12 with only which comparable data are available. The Wisconsin case
immigrant employees). Consistent with the broader popu- receives more attention in this article both because the
lation of Wisconsin dairy farmers, most (16) of the 20 Wisconsin study included a wider range of data, and
farmers interviewed were male; all were identified as because that extra data stem from interviews and ethno-
white; and most (19) were farm owners. All were from graphicobservation,whichcannotbereportedasconcisely
separatefarms(i.e.,nonewereco-owners).Awhite,female as survey data.
researcher with personal experience in dairy farming con-
ducted the interviews. Each interview took place at the
participant’s home or farm office, lasted one to two hours,
and was recorded with the participant’s consent. The 1 Alluncitedquotationscomefromoursurveysandinterviews.
123
Author's personal copy
Farmsizeandjobquality 623
Descriptive findings: farm size and job quality in two overrecentyearsaswayforfarmerstodistancethemselves
cases for responsibility for working conditions and as one of the
primary causes of the deterioration of working conditions
Ourdescriptivedatarevealtwooverarchingpatterns.First, on California’s farms. One farmer in the California survey
despite the differences between these two commodity noted how happy he was to find an FLC that ‘‘treated the
sectors, large farms in both cases fared better than or no workers well’’, implying how uncommon that is.
worse than smaller farms for most job quality metrics As detailed in Table 1, large farms were more likely to
studied, with a few notable exceptions. Second, the Wis- report that they have formal systems in place for supervi-
consin data indicate that U.S.-born, white workers have sion and management, including an employee manual,
disproportionate access to many of those advantages of discipline and termination practices, formal grievance
working on large farms, relative to their immigrant procedures,formaljobdescriptions,employmentcontracts,
counterparts. and policies in Spanish. Additionally, large farms are sig-
nificantly more likely than small farms to report that they
California organic farms provide supervisors with specific guidelines or training to
ensure formal respectful of farmworkers. When asked
WesummarizethedescriptivefindingsfromtheCalifornia about communication mechanisms in the workplace,
employer survey in Table 1, which shows, for each job smaller growers reported informal mechanisms such as
qualitymetric,theaveragesforsmallfarmsandlargefarms more one-on-one contact and working side-by-side with
as well as the result of statistical significance tests. employees. Formal management practices help protect
Although small farms reported higher average entry-level workers from ad hoc disciplinary measures and discrimi-
wages, differences in top wages were negligible. Larger nation in the workplace, have been shown to be highly
farmsweremorelikelytoreportofferingnonwagebenefits, valued to farmworkers and other workers, and are associ-
including health insurance, paid time off, and paid retire- ated with lower levels of gender segregation (Reskin and
ment plan. McBrier 2000; Strochlic and Hamerschlag 2006; Strochlic
Large farms are significantly more likely to report that et al. 2009).
they use farm labor contractors (FLCs) than are smaller Whenaskedtoidentifythestrategiestheyusetoreduce
farms (see Table 1). This indicates a greater likelihood of accidents and injuries, smaller-scale growers were more
abusive and exploitative worker treatment on large farms, likelytoclaimthattheymakeeffortstolimithandweeding
given the evidence that FLCs are more likely than farmers orstooplabortoasetnumberofhourseachdayandpayby
to exploit workers (Verduzco 2010). Many farmworker the hour to avoid speed-related accidents associated with
advocates note the significant increase in the use of FLCs piece work (see Table 1).
Table1 Jobqualityonsmall Jobqualitymetric Smallfarms N Largefarms N Sig(pvalue)
farms(\$250,000annualsales)
versuslargefarms([$250,000 Meanentryhourlywage $8.39 121 $7.70 54 .001***
annualsales)(Californiastudy)
Meantophourlywage $10.50 129 $10.67 60 .689
Healthinsurance 26% 148 57% 67 .000***
Paidtimeoff 51% 148 72% 67 .004**
Retirement 13% 146 27% 67 .013*
Usefarmlaborcontractors 32% 149 60% 67 .000***
Employeemanual 35% 144 68% 65 .000***
Disciplineandterminationpolicies 31% 144 63% 65 .000***
Advancementandpromotionpolicies 14% 144 17% 65 .583
Formalgrievanceprocedures 26% 144 49% 65 .001***
Formaljobdescriptions 22% 144 38% 65 .015*
Employmentcontracts 15% 144 29% 65 .013*
PoliciesinSpanish 32% 149 60% 67 .001***
Respectfultreatmenttraining(formal) 29% 115 52% 56 .003**
Informalcommunication 69% 149 31% 67 .000***
*p\.05;**p\.01; Limithandweeding 39% 142 25% 65 .038*
***p\.001;ttestusedtotest Reducerepetitivemotion 56% 142 49% 65 .396
forstatisticallysignificant
Payhourlywagestoreduceinjuries 42% 142 23% 65 .008**
differenceofmeans
123
Author's personal copy
624 J.L.Harrison,C.Getz
Table2 Jobqualityonsmall Jobqualitymetric Smallfarms Mediumfarms Largefarms Sig(pvalue)
(0–300cows),medium
(301–600cows),andlarge Meanentryhourlywage $8.32 $8.21 $8.46 .618
(601?cows)dairyfarms
Healthinsurance 28% 41% 58% .089
(Wisconsinstudy)
Intrinsicrewardsofentry-leveljobs Low Low Low
Opportunitiesforpromotion Low Medium High
Flexibilityinscheduling Low Medium High
*p\.05;**p\.01;
***p\.001;one-way %workersnotinsplitorrotatingshifts 49% 71% 85% .000***
ANOVAusedtotestfor Ergonomicallyimprovedworkspaces Low Medium High
statisticallysignificant
N 18 29 36
differenceofmeans
Wisconsin dairy farms on the farm: negotiating with milk processors and input
suppliers; monitoring feed rations, breeding, and calf care
WesummarizethedescriptivefindingsfromtheWisconsin for the herd; and managing cropland, feed purchases, and
studyinTable 2,whichshows,foreachjobqualitymetric, employees. The non-milking positions involve a greater
the averages for small farms, medium farms, and large variety of tasks, higher pay, more decision-making
farms. It also lists, where appropriate, the results of sta- authority, and more autonomy than the milking positions,
tistical significance tests. Employer-reported entry-level as well as shifts that coincide with those of the traditional
hourlywageswerehighestonlargedairyfarmsandlowest workday. Workers clearly value this opportunity for pro-
on medium-size farms, although the differences are not motion; in our survey, nearly every worker reported that
statisticallysignificant.Largefarmswerethemostlikelyto theywanttolearnnewskillsandadvanceintheworkplace.
report offering health insurance, while small farms were Our data suggest that this opportunity for promotion is
the least likely to do so. disproportionately available to U.S.-born, white workers,
Farmsizehasnoeffectonthe‘‘intrinsically’’rewarding as most white, U.S.-born workers are in the advanced
nature of entry-level jobs on dairy farms—the degree to positions. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of the
which the entry-level jobs are interesting and allow immigrant workers we surveyed are located in entry-level
workers to exercise autonomy and creativity (see Wallace milkingpositions(seeFig. 1).Thispatternofoccupational
and Kay 2009). When dairy farmers need to hire workers, segregation by nativity and race has been widely docu-
they hire one or more employees (‘‘milkers’’) to milk the mented throughout U.S. agriculture (Tomaskovic-Devey
cows so the owners can do the other farm tasks.2 Workers et al. 2006).
lamented that milking tends to be monotonous, dirty, and Workers on larger dairy farms also tend to have more
physically arduous, and entails significant risks of ergo- flexibilityinadjustingtheirworkschedulethandoworkers
nomic strainandinjuryfromlargeanimals.Irrespectiveof on small dairy farms. Because medium and large opera-
farm size,the farmers we interviewed acknowledged these tions have multiple employees who do the same task
drawbacks and explained that they actively select for (especially in the entry-level milking positions), those
workers who will comply with those terms. As one small- individualshavetheopportunitytotradeshiftsorotherwise
scale farmer said, ‘‘You have to be like robot milkers.’’ substitutefor eachotherincasesofillnessorotherevents.
Workers’opportunitiesforpromotionappeartoincrease This measure of job quality increases with farm size, as
with farm size. Data from our survey, interviews, and larger farms have larger milking crews and thus more
observations at industry events indicate that small dairy people who can fill in for each other when needed.
farms tend to hire only milkers, as dairy farm owners and Shiftstructuresalsoimprovewithfarmsize.Oursurvey
their kin do the non-milking tasks themselves (see also data indicate that the percentage of workers not consigned
Barham et al. 2005, p. 5). In contrast, owners and kin to the less-desired ‘‘split or rotating shifts’’ increases with
cannot complete all of the non-milking tasks on medium farm size (see Table 2). Split shift arrangements are most
and large dairy farms on their own. In addition to hiring likely on small dairy farms, which are more likely than
milkers, these larger operations hire workers to help their larger-scale counterparts to follow the traditional
completethe complexarray ofspecialized,advancedtasks practiceofmilkingtheircowstwiceperdayandscheduling
the milkings 12 h apart to maximize each animal’s pro-
2 On large farms,thiscategory includes ‘‘milkers,’’ ‘‘lead milkers,’’ ductivity (Barham et al. 2005, p. 4). Under this schedule,
and ‘‘pushers,’’ who work together as a team to bring cows to the
milkers work for approximately 5 h in the morning and
parlor,getthemmilked,andcleanthemanurefromtheparlor.Forthe
then again in the evening. For example, one worker we
sake of brevity, we have combined these jobs, calling them
‘‘milkers.’’. interviewed works daily from 4:00 to 9:00 am and 4:00 to
123