|
||||
|
|
The most common causes of conflict By far the greatest cause for grievance amongst the hop-pickers arose from the method of payment. This was also an area where the most overt forms of conflict were recorded. (25)Of all the substantive issues, it was the setting and regulation of the piece-work rate, commonly referred to as the "tally", that led to the ceasement of picking as a means of resolving the grievance.
The tally referred to the amount of bushels that had to be picked to the shilling. The rate of bushels to the shilling appears to vary considerably depending, it would seem, upon the fluctuations of the hop market. In 1920 the price per hundred-weight of dried hops stood at twenty pounds, but by 1930 the price paid to the farmers had fallen to four pounds. This was reflected by a commensurate decrease in the piece-work rate paid to the pickers which fell from two bushels to the shilling in 1920 to seven bushels to the shilling by 1930. (26) By the height of the thirties depression the tally had fallen to around seven or eight bushels to the shilling which was worse than the rate pickers had securing at the end of the previous century. (27) Setting the tally and the strike at Hodsell's farm Loose, Maidstone There was no formalised procedure for setting the tally which meant that the system for determining the rate was by means of autonomous regulation. This type of system has been referred to as one of uni-lateral imposition whereby one party imposes rules upon the other. As Richard Price has suggested in his study of the development of collective bargaining in the building trade, a system without procedures "will only avoid conflict if one side accepts the "bargain" offered by the other" . (28) However, as we have already seen, the pickers did not unreservedly accept the regulation of the grower. Whether this meant challenging the legitimacy of the measurer or working a "go slow", enabling the gang to partially determine which set they would pick next, none of these grievances usually manifested themselves directly in the form of strike action. What has been established is that the regulation of the piece-work rate was one area where it was not uncommon for the pickers to cease work as a means of asserting their own authority. To what extent dissatisfaction with other areas of work-place regulation were eventually transposed into the form of a tally dispute is difficult to verify without evidence. However, one can suspect that continuous heavy measuring on the part of the tallyman might be reflected by a demand for a change in the rate from the pickers. A point Clegg makes is that "it is not easy to determine the principal cause of a dispute since the overt cause may be less important than other grievances among the strikers." (29) There were two types of tally dispute that occurred. These can be classified as disputes relating to the rate as determined by the grower and those disputes that related to the pickers' assertion of the right to have the tally predetermined before they engaged their labour. The first example of a piece-work dispute that we shall examine concerns one of several strikes that occurred in the Maidstone area in the same week. This falls into the first category of dispute as it concerns the rate that had already been set by the grower. The dispute also suggests that the pickers were aware of rates and conflict in other gardens as it was reported to be one out of a number of strikes occurring at the same time. In this particular dispute at Mr Hodsell's farm at Loose, it was the home-pickers that first expressed dissatisfaction over the tally being set at six bushels to the shilling. However, it was the migrant labourers that were reported as having resolved to strike. It was also stated that they used poles and other weapons to dissuade the other pickers from working. They then supposedly threatened to burn down the grower's house unless he conceded to their demands, upon which the Kent constabulary were asked to intervene. A deputation was requested by the Superintendent and six pickers were sent to negotiate with the grower. The pickers requested that the rate should be set at four bushels to the shilling and, after negotiation, the tally was reduced to a rate of five bushels to the shilling and work then recommenced.
It is worth noting that, in the course of the Maidstone disputes,one of the complaints levelled at the indigenous pickers by themigrant pickers was that they "worked for anything they can get". They criticised the local workers for picking for pleasureand that they had husbands in full-time employment. They argued that they worked "to the detriment of those who could procure increased remuneration for their labours." 30 The tendency for the migrant pickers to adopt a more militant stance in pursuit of the piece-work rate than the "home-dwellers" was frequently reported by the local press. 31 One picker whose father was a measurer could remember how the home-dwellers had to support the strikes of the London pickers: "When the Londoners came out, of course we home dwellers had to come out on strike as well." 32 Other local pickers could recall that it was the London "dockies" and their families that would stir up trouble over the piece-rate. 33 An article in the Sunday Magazine stated "it is seldom that the home-pickers actively join in these strikes or take part in agitation for an increase in pay". 34 Evidence suggests that the London pickers displayed a far less deferential attitude towards the hop-growers than was shown by the indigenous work-force. Reasons as to why the local workers were generally less inclined to resort to collective rank and file action to determine the piece-rate will be examined later. The strike at East Lodge Farm A strike at East Lodge Farm in 1909 over the piece-rate being set at eight bushels to the shilling involved two thousand pickers of whom the malcontents were reported to be Londoners. The pickers approached the owner and requested that the rate be adjusted to six bushels to the shilling. Although the pickers were reported to have been well behaved, the local Inn was closed and the Kent Constabulary arrived. Negotiations took place between the pickers and the owner and a settlement of seven bushels to the shilling was agreed by the two parties to the dispute.35 The two disputes that we have looked at occurred on farms which were large employers. Other reports of strikes refer to large numbers of casual labourers being employed, or state that the grower was the largest in the district. This may suggest a tendency towards strike action when the work-force was of a scale that made replacement difficult. This is also probable when one remembers that casual workers were drafted to the area to meet the excess labour demand. A report in 1899 talked about the scarcity of pickers that year and also mentioned that strikes were common. 36The other category which piece-work disputes fell into were those resulting from the growers refusal to set the rate. The 5-day strike at China farm, Upper Harbledown The strike that we shall look most closely at arose on the Poldhurst and China farms at Upper Harbledown. The farms employed one thousand pickers between them and one third of these were Londoners. The previous year there had been trouble because the rate had only been set at the close of picking at an amount that had displeased many of the London pickers. The following year, on the second day of picking, the pickers asked for the rate to be set in advance and struck when the manager of the farm refused. The management then offered a rate of one shilling to the heaped basket plus one bushel. It was reported that many local pickers recommenced picking despite strike leaders urging them to remain out on strike to secure a better rate. By the end of the day all pickers had been persuaded to join the strike. One youth who continued to pick was beaten and women who continued to pick had their baskets overturned. On the second day of the strike the manager left the farm apparently as threats had been made against him. A collection was taken in the streets of Canterbury which raised towards the strikers' welfare, but by the fourth day of the strike some families were reported to be suffering. On the fourth afternoon the managers offered the pickers 10d for a heaped basket, which they again refused. On the fifth day the management of the farms made another offer of one shilling a basket and this was accepted by the strike leaders. 37A point to note concerning the Harbeldown strike is that, as with the other strikes, the size of the work-force was large. Again, the strike was successful in as much as the pickers' objectives were partially achieved. The report demonstrates the inability of the grower to replace the work-force and also highlights the organisational ability of the Londoners to "picket out" the indigenous pickers. |
|||
HOP-PICKING
HOP-PICKING | Rural Conflict and Strikes | The Hop-pickers Work | Who were the Migrant Pickers | Work Place Regulation | The Payment System | The Dynamics of Conflict | Conclusion | References | Hop Production in the UK | Reading
Derek Bright e-mail at DBright@tesco.net
Date Last Modified: 14/07/00