‘Abolishing AWB would undermine farming’s viability’
The Conservative Party manifesto contained a pledge to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board and, while the provision did not appear in the Queen’s Speech, rumours abound that the coalition government will press ahead with abolition in England and Wales.
The NFU would also like to see the AWB disappear, arguing that it imposes unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy on farmers and that it is redundant given the existence of the National Minimum Wage.
But farmers would be worse off without it and the viability of agriculture could be undermined if it disappeared.
The argument for abolition has focused on the difference between the National Minimum Wage (£5.93 an hour) and the rate for Grade 1 (which is 2p more an hour from October), but this ignores the fact that 80% of the agricultural workforce is on grades 2-6, a grading structure which would be wiped out by abolition.
Many farmers are good employers. But, as in any industry, some are unscrupulous. Abolition would give bad bosses the opportunity to undercut the good, reducing prices at the expense of workers’ wages and conditions and driving a race to the bottom as wages for 80% of the workforce sank closer to the National Minimum Wage.
This would exacerbate the recruitment crisis – the combination of low pay, long hours and dangerous conditions will accelerate recruitment and retention problems, leading to a crippling shortage of skilled labour.
People with appropriate skills to operate and maintain machinery, apply expertise in husbandry or crop management or run complicated enterprises will simply not work for £5.93 or £5.95 an hour.
Farmers who employ people would also have to become pay negotiators overnight. They will spend hours trying to reach agreements so, far from freedom from bureaucracy, will have to become employment law experts to avoid falling foul of employment tribunals as workers resort to the courts to protect their contractual and legal rights.
Farmers who find the Agricultural Wages Order difficult to understand could find themselves faced with keeping on top of myriad employment acts, case law judgments and European Union Directives.
Perhaps the biggest danger of all is that the century-long harmonious industrial relations framework will be wiped out at a stroke.
To maintain terms and conditions, Unite would apply strategic bargaining, targeting businesses or sectors where workers were strong and farmers were weak, to drive up wages and improve working conditions. In many cases, this could result in industrial action, just as it does in other sectors of the economy. And disputes and strikes will once again become commonplace in the rural landscape.
The Agricultural Wages Board in England and Wales now sets much more than the minimum wage. A quick glance at the latest Agricultural Wages Order shows a grading structure setting grades for entrants to the industry right through to farm managers; recognition of qualifications, competences and skills; apprenticeships; provisions for holidays; overtime payments; night work; sick pay; and bereavement leave. In short, a wide variety of terms and conditions, underpinning a modern employment relationship.
Modernisation, not abolition, is the key to making the AWB work better for farmers and for workers.
Unite’s proposals include streamlining the board, ensuring worker and employer representatives work in partnership to advance the industry and reward workers fairly.
A joint, industry-wide approach works well in other areas of the economy where skilled labour is critical, such as in construction, so why not agriculture.
I urge farmers to think carefully about the consequences before calling for the AWB to be abolished.
Ian Waddell is Unite’s national officer for rural, agricultural and allied workers.