From the editor - Spring '07
We rarely see the labour that puts dinner on our plates. When 23 Chinese cockle-pickers died in Morecambe Bay three years ago, many of us in the UK got a first glimpse of how deeply exploitative such work can be. The tragedy sparked a flurry of exposés and regulation but, as the articles in this magazine attest, our curtains twitched shut again all too soon.
Conditions remain dire for many people working in food and farming. They are worse paid than in other sectors and more likely to be killed at work. They have poor job security, with astounding rates of temporary employment and low union membership. Migrant workers, in particular, continue to suffer a torrent of mistreatment including poor housing, harassment, overpriced healthcare and underpayment. There are success stories too, of course, but human rights aren’t fungible – good conditions at the best employers don’t make up for abuses by the worst.
Why is this happening? Are harsh conditions just a fact of farming life? To a point, perhaps – some features of agriculture and food production certainly leave workers especially vulnerable. Seasonal production and fickle demand encourage temporary employment, while a dispersed workforce makes collective bargaining difficult. But these are reasons to put more effort into improving conditions in the sector, not excuses to turn a blind eye.
Is it ‘gangmasters’ who are to blame? Unscrupulous temporary labour providers played a pivotal part in the deaths in Morecambe Bay and, despite new legislation, tales of serious exploitation still abound. Contributors to this issue report that the Gangmaster Licensing Authority has made a difference, but its enforcement team is thin on the ground.
Even where gangmasters are implicated, however, is that where the buck should stop? What about the companies who hire their workforce – could and should they be held to account too? How about the retailers selling their products? And what about us, the people who buy the food?
In this issue we hear how pressure from the ‘big four’ UK supermarkets fuels a race to the bottom on labour standards: the supermarkets squeeze their suppliers, the suppliers squeeze their workers. While research commissioned by Defra backs up this analysis, government has proved reluctant to rein in the big retailers. An ongoing investigation by the Competition Commission may finally see measures that weaken, if only slightly, the pressure from supermarkets. In the meantime, though, how else can working conditions be improved?
Company codes, such as those based on the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), can play a part, and consumer action on labour issues could increase their force. However, a recent review of the ETI shows such codes can only achieve so much. In the end, the articles here tell us, government action is essential.
The task facing government is tough but achievable. It is tough because simply adding to the squeeze suppliers already face, pushing them out of business or off-shore, won’t address the problem – workers’ rights are global and it matters wherever someone is harmed making our food. Likewise, further restricting labour migration will add to the problems migrant workers face, not reduce them. Instead, government needs to ensure equal protection for all farm and food workers, permanent or temporary. Doing this in practice, as well as in law, will depend on building a closer, still critical but more supportive relationship with both unions and employers.
This issue’s focus on workers’ rights marks a new direction for the magazine – all future issues will have equally strong themes, with the next one exploring recent supermarket pledges to go green, healthy and fair. We have introduced new formats like ‘the big question’ on page 10, the business section on page 18 and a back-page eating out review, which this month samples school food in Rome. We have kept some of our old columns and added new ones.
Many of these changes came from you, our readers. Please tell us what you think!
Tom MacMillan
Back to contents
Conditions remain dire for many people working in food and farming. They are worse paid than in other sectors and more likely to be killed at work. They have poor job security, with astounding rates of temporary employment and low union membership. Migrant workers, in particular, continue to suffer a torrent of mistreatment including poor housing, harassment, overpriced healthcare and underpayment. There are success stories too, of course, but human rights aren’t fungible – good conditions at the best employers don’t make up for abuses by the worst.
Why is this happening? Are harsh conditions just a fact of farming life? To a point, perhaps – some features of agriculture and food production certainly leave workers especially vulnerable. Seasonal production and fickle demand encourage temporary employment, while a dispersed workforce makes collective bargaining difficult. But these are reasons to put more effort into improving conditions in the sector, not excuses to turn a blind eye.
Is it ‘gangmasters’ who are to blame? Unscrupulous temporary labour providers played a pivotal part in the deaths in Morecambe Bay and, despite new legislation, tales of serious exploitation still abound. Contributors to this issue report that the Gangmaster Licensing Authority has made a difference, but its enforcement team is thin on the ground.
Even where gangmasters are implicated, however, is that where the buck should stop? What about the companies who hire their workforce – could and should they be held to account too? How about the retailers selling their products? And what about us, the people who buy the food?
In this issue we hear how pressure from the ‘big four’ UK supermarkets fuels a race to the bottom on labour standards: the supermarkets squeeze their suppliers, the suppliers squeeze their workers. While research commissioned by Defra backs up this analysis, government has proved reluctant to rein in the big retailers. An ongoing investigation by the Competition Commission may finally see measures that weaken, if only slightly, the pressure from supermarkets. In the meantime, though, how else can working conditions be improved?
Company codes, such as those based on the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), can play a part, and consumer action on labour issues could increase their force. However, a recent review of the ETI shows such codes can only achieve so much. In the end, the articles here tell us, government action is essential.
The task facing government is tough but achievable. It is tough because simply adding to the squeeze suppliers already face, pushing them out of business or off-shore, won’t address the problem – workers’ rights are global and it matters wherever someone is harmed making our food. Likewise, further restricting labour migration will add to the problems migrant workers face, not reduce them. Instead, government needs to ensure equal protection for all farm and food workers, permanent or temporary. Doing this in practice, as well as in law, will depend on building a closer, still critical but more supportive relationship with both unions and employers.
This issue’s focus on workers’ rights marks a new direction for the magazine – all future issues will have equally strong themes, with the next one exploring recent supermarket pledges to go green, healthy and fair. We have introduced new formats like ‘the big question’ on page 10, the business section on page 18 and a back-page eating out review, which this month samples school food in Rome. We have kept some of our old columns and added new ones.
Many of these changes came from you, our readers. Please tell us what you think!
Tom MacMillan
Back to contents
Work in food or farming? Join our Business Forum.
Think critically. Keep informed. Read our magazine.
Print this page