Casual Workers’ Conditions in Private University’s Commercial Farms, North-Central Nigeria

Casual Workers’ Conditions in Private University’s Commercial Farms, North-Central Nigeria

Modupe Ake¹, *Henry Nweke-Love², Joseph Iseolorunkanmi³, Joy Oladapo⁴ and Bamidele Rasak⁵

^{1, 2, 3 & 4} Department of Political Science, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State  

⁵Department of Sociology, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7012139

Received: 22 November 2023; Revised: 10 December 2023; Accepted: 14 December 2023; Published: 15 January 2024

ABSTRACT

Casual work has consistently been a component of work in agriculture and previous studies have consistently regarded the working conditions of casual workers as an ordinary issue; thus, less consideration is paid on the workers quality of life particularly private own establishments. This study, therefore, examines casual workers working conditions in private university’s commercial farms in north-central, Nigeria using the Rational Choice Theory as its theoretical framework. Employing both survey and exploratory designs, the study combined primary and secondary research methods, selecting 103 respondents purposively through simple random sampling. The data collected were analysed using a triangulation of quantitative methods with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 used for the analysis of quantitative data. The study revealed that the working conditions of casual workers in these commercial farms significantly impact their perceptions, particularly concerning wages and job security. The study recommended an increased focus on improving the working conditions of casual workers in higher institution commercial farms, highlighting the need for enhanced provisions and attention to these workers’ well-being.

Keywords: Casual Workers, Working Conditions, Work Challenges, Private University, Commercial Farm

INTRODUCTION

The utilization of casual workers has been on the expansion (Rasak, Arisukwu, and Asamu, 2017). It has spread across ventures from assembling to administrations and other occupations, including agrarian workers. The number of organizations utilizing casual workers is on the expansion as worldwide rivalry expanded and the desire to eliminate expenses of undertaking organizations to stay serious ascents. The overall pattern towards casualization of work, welcomed on in huge measure by deregulation, globalization and serious strain to decrease work and creation costs, is changing the idea of horticultural work in numerous pieces of the world. Worldwide exchange and monetary weights are disintegrating the effectively low degrees of assurance of agrarian workers as far as pay levels, business security, wellbeing, wellbeing and natural guidelines and social insurance (IUF, 2003).

Casualization implies there is a pattern away from lasting business agreements and workers are progressively being utilized as transitory or casual work on the present moment, day by day or occasional agreements with less fortunate compensation and working conditions. There is likewise a creating pattern by horticultural managers towards re-appropriating of work-that is, the way toward moving outside the venture the creation forms recently completed in-house (Van Eyck, 2003). The most difficult issue is that of workers recruited through or by contractual workers. Businesses, progressively approach the administrations of work temporary workers had practical experience in the enlistment of horticultural casual workers. This procedure including go-betweens sabotages the entire work relationship, making a hazy area around the business’ obligations and prompting a dismissal for work enactment. Conditions of business are commonly unreliable and the work contractual workers now and again misuse their position over the workers by requesting commissions, keeping down wages and forcing obligation bondage (Peter, Paola, and Marilee, 2005).

Most farming worker’s organizations see the present worldwide rebuilding of the economy as a continuation of the commercialization of agriculture that has been occurring since the 1960s. (Diminish, Paola, and Marilee, 2005). They see the most critical effect of globalization on rural workers as their relocation from work and occupation. This has occurred because of the reception of work dislodging automation and other new advances and changes in crop designs, with less work concentrated yields. The rural work power despite everything speaks to the biggest single word related gathering with more than 40 per cent of the world’s workforce, notwithstanding the declining portion of agriculture in the all-out workforce in essentially all nations in recent decades (ILO, 1998).

The agricultural labour force includes agricultural casual workers, self-employed farmers and self-employed workers. Agricultural casual workers are the women and men who labour in the crop fields, orchards, glasshouses, livestock units and primary processing facilities to produce the world’s food and fibres.  They are utilized on everything from little and medium-sized farms to huge industrialized farms and estates. Furthermore, in numerous nations, casual and transitory horticultural workers have for quite some time been unequivocally barred from government disability plans, consequently the low paces of inclusion detailed in progressive ILO studies and reports (ILO, 1998). Given the expanding casualization among agrarian pay workers, it is likely that these low rates are declining much further. Injurious frameworks of work contracting likewise add to the disintegration of rights and assurance. The arrangement of work contracting in the entirety of its structures (both national and transnational) presently has all the earmarks of being a focal segment in labour showcase establishments in all pieces of the world. It underlies the fair work shortfalls recognized in many examinations on rural casual work workers. This, therefore, requires nitty gritty investigation, further research and better understanding as a reason for creating methodologies.

PROBLEM

Today, the agricultural workforce keeps on enrolling probably the most elevated rates of neediness and has minimal access to viable types of social assurance. These shortfalls are in enormous part because of the way that agricultural casual workers are still among the least composed and least spoke to in terms of professional career associations and workers’ associations. The potential for significant social exchange between the social accomplices at both the national and undertaking levels is therefore seriously compelled, and important social discourse will in general be the special case, rather than the standard. Better than average work shortages exist at various levels. Imperatives on opportunity of affiliation and aggregate haggling influence the real structures for workers’ portrayal just as the capacity of workers’ delegates to advance the interests of agricultural casual workers. These interests are reflected principally at the endeavor level, where not too bad work deficiencies are generally obvious and legitimately experienced (ILO, 2011).

Likewise, as pursued work in agriculture turns out to be progressively “casualized”, these differentiations become less obvious. What is basic, be that as it may, is the type of the working relationship, and here the differentiations stay extremely obvious as far as privileges, conditions, advantages and insurance (UNCSD, 1992). Identified with the previous is how these procedures have thus tackled, used, adjusted and affected on existing work markets, work relations and business rehearses. Although there are as of now clear signs that the nature and degree of these effects are adding to a scope of shortfalls, which are getting progressively obvious in the developing disparities at both worldwide and neighbourhood levels. As it were, it is the idea of these deficiencies that are characterizing both the extension for and requirements on worker’s guild activity all-inclusive in the agricultural area (ILO, 2002).

Most studies on casual workers in the agricultural sector have always treated their working conditions with levity; no much attention is paid on the wellbeing of the workers quality of life. This is gap in knowledge which this study tried to fill, by examining casual workers’ working conditions in private university’s farms, north-central Nigeria. Using primary and secondary data collection techniques to generate information as well as a theoretical evaluation technique, this research study provides answers to the following questions: How do casual workers perceive their working conditions in the farm? What are the challenges faced by the casual workers in the farm and what are their reaction towards such challenges? To realize the objectives of this study, a primary and secondary methods of data collection was used. Empirical applications of the rational choice theory clearly shows that an individual has preferences among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer.

BRIEF REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The ILO has been worried about the powerlessness of workers in casual work courses of action just as issues identifying with the camouflaged business by and large (ILO, 2006). Despite hardened rivalry for a specialty in worldwide markets, expanding “adaptability” and the casualization of a much larger piece of the agricultural casual workforce are being knowledgeable about most states. Studies are starting to mirror that this push for adaptability is reflected in a concurrent development in the job of work contractual workers or delegates, which is adding to the fast change of types of work in agricultural undertakings all through the world. As a rule, such changes are offering to ascend to maltreatment in labour rehearses which add to the scope of shortages in better than average work.

In Nigeria, organizations are supplanting their all-day workforce with brief, casual, re-appropriated and provisional labourers at an alarming rate (Rasak, 2017). Managers currently hole up behind what they call the ‘guiding principle’ of their business to casualise their workers. Low earnings, work weakness, postponed instalments of pay rates and annuities, extended periods of work without extra time instalment, refusal of wiped out leave and instalment for wiped out leave, disavowal of yearly and maternity leaves, absence of excess advantages, unexpected weakness and wellbeing conditions and non-instalment of remuneration for wounds continued at work, poor working conditions, poor inspiration and absence of social security are perplexing representatives. The associations grimaced at what they depicted as “infringement” with “exemption” by managers especially in the private segment as workers are often denied the option to compose challenges unwholesome practices by their bosses (Ogunmola and Oche, 2014).

A. Casual, Temporary and Seasonal Workers

Most of the pursued agricultural workers in most creating nations and some created nations are utilized on an occasional and often a casual or brief premise. Casual work alludes to those utilized and paid toward the finish of every day worked or on an assignment premise. Impermanent work alludes to those utilized for a particular however constrained timeframe. Generally, occasional, casual or brief workers don’t get any type of standardized savings or joblessness advantage, occasions with pay, or ailment or maternity leave. Furthermore, occupations are often classed as casual or transitory regardless of whether there is in actuality constant business. The act of pivoting singular workers to prevent them the advantage from securing lasting business status is likewise very common (Fashoyin, 1997).

B. Conditions of Employment at Work

With a rising portion of casual work in agriculture and an expanding level of all-out yield showcased locally or universally, worry for better conditions of work at work ought to at any rate coordinate worry for item quality measures. Upgrades in conditions of work at work are essential to modernization and the opening of business sectors and they can invigorate monetary effectiveness by raising work efficiency. Such upgrades ought to be considered as a venture rather than a social expense.

C. Factors affecting the agricultural casual workers

The different elements which have generally restricted the degree of association among agricultural workers, (for example, the remoteness of agricultural endeavours, challenges of correspondence, and so on.), are presently exacerbated by the clearly boundless act of shedding lasting workers through rebuilding and other methods, combined with the undeniably visit plan of action by businesses to work temporary workers, just as the expanding dependence on out-cultivators for the creation of certain harvests. It is expected that globalization has considerably affected the degree of portrayal among agricultural casual workers. The portrayal has been troublesome and even where it happens, it is commonly low, with the exception of huge estate segments in Asia and a few nations in Africa where work relations are increasingly standardized, however even in these specific circumstances, there are reports of declining enrollments (Fashoyin, 1997).

D. Wages and income levels for agricultural casual workers

In spite of the significant commitment of agriculture to national economies, through fares and as a wellspring of business, with solid forward and in reverse linkages with the assembling area, wage levels of casual workers are reliably lower in this division than in some other. The ILO (1996) report on wage workers in agriculture spelt out five significant determinants of compensation levels. They are agricultural development; work power gracefully; non-farm business; least wages (when they exist); and food costs. It proposed that albeit continued increments in genuine wages rely upon supported development in yield, a number of variables, for example, expansion, work uprooting specialized change and quick work power development can debilitate this connection.

Then again, a few other components remembering fast development for non-farm exercises, essential and auxiliary instruction and the boundless utilization of land-enlarging innovation can strengthen the relationship. Numerous businesses are under pressure between low market costs for their products and significant expenses for imported sources of info, for example, manures, pesticides and seeds. This circumstance is a significant contributing variable to the expanding pressure on the casualization of once in the past “permanent” employment (ILO, 1996).

E. Contracts of employment

Composed agreements of business will, in general, be uncommon inside the casuals in the agricultural segment, where verbal understandings are regularly utilized. Such understandings will, in general, be rather broad and adjust themselves to market or “normal” conditions. Agreements of work winning in agriculture show an extraordinary assorted variety, both inside and between nations. Occasional, day by day and perpetual agreements of business can be found close by undertaking or piece-rate work. Lasting agreements are the least regular type of agreement and their offer altogether agricultural work has been declining in many nations (Egger, 1995). The idea of agreements of business can be connected to the expertise necessities of the creation procedure. Casual and occasional vagrant work is often utilized in low-altitude reaping and handling tasks in which work costs comparative with abilities are an essential concern. The challenge is to find ways to balance the need for flexibility in hiring labour to meet production and marketing requirements with the basic standards and protection that should be inherent in any contract of employment. In the case of most casual and temporary forms of employment, this challenge has yet to be addressed (Egger, 1995).

F. Transport of workers

In numerous nations, agricultural casual workers are moved over significant distances on every day or occasional premise from their living quarters to work environments. Very often, huge numbers of workers are pressed in open trucks and vehicles never proposed for the vehicle of human travelers. Weight confinements are dismissed and security conditions disregarded. There are numerous instances of genuine street mishaps including such vehicle (Peter, et al., 2005).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK- RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY (RCT)

Rational choice theory, otherwise called a choice theory or rational activity theory is a framework for comprehension and often officially demonstrating social and monetary conduct. The fundamental reason for rational choice theory is that total social conduct results from the conduct of individual on-screen characters, every one of whom is settling on their individual choices. The theory, therefore, centres on the determinants of the individual choices (Friedman, 1988). Rational choice theory is worried about the way that activity is embraced to accomplish goals that are reliable with an on-screen characters’ inclination chain of importance (Ritzer, 2008).

The theory thinks about the shortage of assets. On-screen characters have various assets just as differential access to other assets. For those with bunches of assets, the accomplishment of finishes might be generally simple. Be that as it may, for those with scarcely any, assets, the fulfilment of finishes might be troublesome or inconceivable. The rational choice theory then accepts that an individual has inclinations among the accessible choice options that permit them to state which alternative they like.

The rational operator is accepted to assess accessible data, probabilities of occasions, and potential expenses and advantages in deciding inclinations, and to act reliably in picking oneself decided the best choice of activity. It is a financial rule that expresses that people consistently settle on judicious and legitimate choices. These choices furnish individuals with the best advantage or fulfilment given the choices accessible and are likewise in their most elevated personal responsibility. The theory depends on the possibility that all people base their choices on rational counts, act with rationality when picking, and intend to increment either joy or profit. The theory, therefore, specifies that all mind-boggling social marvels are driven by singular human activities.

Identified with the shortage of assets is the possibility of chance cost (Friedman, 1988). In seeking after a given end, casual workers in the farm must watch out for the expenses of swearing off their next-most-appealing activity. A casual worker may decide not to seek after the most profoundly esteemed end if his/her assets are insignificant if subsequently, the odds of accomplishing that end are thin, and if in endeavouring to accomplish that end he/she endangers his/her odds of accomplishing his/her next-most-esteemed end. Casual workers in the farm are viewed as attempting to boost their advantages, and that objective may include surveying the connection between the odds of accomplishing an essential end and what that accomplishment accomplishes for the odds of achieving the second-most-important target. For this situation, their activities can be communicated from the setting of whether they will want to work as casuals or to stay jobless. For some Casual workers, casual work might be the methods for entering the workforce, a venturing stone to progressively stable work in the farm.

Likewise, since it is expected that singular inclinations are egotistical, casual workers on the farm are well on the way to adjust their expenses against benefits to boost individual advantage. In this sense a casual worker might be frightened to place in the entirety of his best into his/her activity because of occupation weakness, they might not have any desire to report any demonstration of wrongdoing at the workplace, since their activity plan is unsure. Compare to the permanent workers whose job schedule are certain. Every action taken by the casual workers in line with their job schedule is calculated based on cost-benefit analysis.

METHODOLOGY

The designs were both survey and exploratory and the study was descriptive in nature, combining both primary and secondary techniques. The study organization is a commercial farm of a private higher agriculture base institution, in north-central, Nigeria. A total of 103 respondents who were casual workers were purposively selected using a simple random sampling and the primary data was collected through administration of a questionnaire. The questionnaire were divided into various sections to adequately cover the objectives of the study. It further consisted of open-ended, structured and unstructured questions. A pilot study was carried out to enhance the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The data collected from the field were analysed using a triangulation of quantitative methods. In analysing the data, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used. This involved the use of descriptive statistical tools, such as frequency counts, percentages and chi-square test. In other words, the analysis involved univariate and bivariate analysis. While the former is mainly descriptive, the latter involves cross-tabulation to establish association between variables.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Table 1 below indicates that respondents 10.7%, falls between the ages 15 to 20 years, 21 to 30years were 45.6% while 31years and above were 43.7%. This shows that a larger percentage 45.6% of the workers are adults who are still at their productive age and old enough to rationally make choices as well take decisions on the type of employment pattern they prefer and are ready to be engaged in, the study also reveals that 57.3% of the respondents are males while 42.7% are females. This may be because men are expected to be breadwinners in the family, also the type of work done on the farm require working with heavy equipment, hence the preference for male over female casuals by the management of the farm. This finding supports the existing literature and statistics on male dominance in most firms where casuals are employed (Okafor, 2010; Okafor and Rasak, 2014; Rasak, Ake, Asamu, and Ganiyu, 2019).

The finding revealed that there were no respondents from the Hausa ethnic group, majority 96.12% of the respondents were from the Yoruba ethnic group, 0.97% were Igbo, while the remaining 2.91% were from other minority ethnic group in Nigeria. This could be attributed to the fact that it is within Yoruba ethnic group territory that the farm is located. The findings also revealed that 61.2% of the respondents were single, 38.8% were married, and none of the respondents were divorced, as well as separated. This seems to suggest that most casuals on the farm may not have dependence whom they cater for, and in terms of orientation to life, work-life balance and family responsibilities, they may be indifferent or less bordered.

The study revealed that majority 94.2% of the respondents were Christian, 5.8% were Muslims, and none of the respondents practices the other religion; it can be deduced from the findings that most casuals on the farm 55.4% were earning a monthly income of N18, 000 and above, while the least 5.8% earned less than N13, 000. This shows that the salary structure in the commercial farm is poor and this may likely be as a result of the management of the farm having to cut down operational cost, especially wages and allowances of the casual workers, to remain in business.

The finding from the study also shows that 49.5% of the respondents have Secondary School Certificate (SSCE) as their educational qualification, 26.2% have Ordinary National Diploma Certificate (OND), and 20.4% have a first degree (B.Sc.), while 3.9% have no formal educational qualification. This indicates that Most of the sampled population were fairly literate and very few of them possessed university degrees. This confirms the observations of (Okougbo, 2004 Adenugba, 2006; Okafor and Rasak, 2015), that some casual workers in Nigeria had university degrees that would have enabled them to get permanent jobs. This trend in the country could be as a result of the global economic and employment crisis that has continued to threaten the future of workers all over the world, particularly in developing nations, like Nigeria. However, the presence of a large number of casuals without university degrees may have been informed by the type of jobs these workers are doing, which may be considered as menial, and do not require university degrees.

Table 1: Socio-Economic And Demographic Characteristics Of The Respondents

Source: Field survey (2020)

Perception of Casual Workers on their Working Conditions

Table 2 below captures the casual workers’ perception of their working conditions in the commercial farm. The result showed that, in terms of wages, the majority 94.2% described it as “good”, while 5.8% described it as “poor”. For job security, 18% described their condition as “good”, while the majority 82% described it as “poor”. The result showed that 14.6% of the respondents said ‘yes’ they enjoyed working on the farm, while 85.4% said ‘no’. In terms of whether or not the casual workers will prefer to continue working on the farm, 17.5 % said ‘yes’, while 82.5% said ‘no’ they would not prefer to continue working on the farm. The findings show that there was a disparity between the respondents’ opinion on wages/salary and job security. This implies that despite the poor nature of the salary structure in the commercial farm when to compare to the national minimum wage, the majority of the casual workers still sees their wages as ‘good’.

This corroborates the initial assertion that most casuals on the farm may not have dependence whom they cater for, and in terms of orientation to life, work-life balance and family responsibilities, they may be indifferent or less bordered and that the incentive to working despite not enjoying the work they do is non-monetary in this case job security. This finding corroborates the findings of Hampton, (1988), Buckley and Endewuik, (1989), Hallenbradth and Cannon (1989), Okougbo, (2004), Bhorat and Hinks (2006), Cheadle (2006) and Fapohunda, (2012). They observed that one major challenge of casual workers is job insecurity. The findings indicated that 27.2% of the respondents describe their working conditions as ‘every good’, 37.9% describes it as ‘good’, while 34.9% described it as “poor”. This implies that there is a slit different in term of the opinion of the casual workers with regards to the general evaluation of their working conditions. This result was contrary to the observations of Okafor and Rasak, (2015) that the working conditions of casual workers were generally “poor”.

Table 2: Distribution of Perception of Casual Workers on Their Working Conditions

Source: Field survey (2020)

Challenges of work

The distribution below shows that 11.65% of the casual workers are faced with the challenge of long working hours, 13.59% face the challenge of low salary/wages, 8.73% are faced with unfair treatment by supervisors and 15.53% claim that there are no sufficient farm tool and 50.5 % claim that they face all of these challenges. Generally, a larger percentage of casual workers indicated that they face all these problems in various proportions. These responses suggest that the casual workers are aware of the precarious nature of casual employment in the commercial farm of the institution and, since no special medium of employment is necessary, casual workers are constantly needed and can easily be subjected to long hours of work, discriminated against, harassed, as well as exploited by the supervisors.

Thus, most of these casual workers could be described as transitional workers, who are either working in the farm out of necessity or bidding their time for a better working opportunity in some other organisation as a permanent worker.  It also implies that the precarious nature of their work as casual workers could lead to economic insecurity for the workers and their families, as observed by Fapohunda (2012), Rasak (2017), Rasak, Arisukwu, and Asamu (2017). Hence, if a casual worker is responsible for the livelihood of his family, the entire family may be placed at risk. Such precariousness affects a worker’s experience at work, how he/she makes decisions about work and how much he/she relates to the broader labour market.

Distribution of Respondents on challenges faced in Commercial Farm

Reactions of the casual workers to challenges faced in the commercial farm

The distribution below presents the perceived level of reactions of the casual workers to challenges faced in the commercial farm. The result from the chart indicates that (56.3%) of the respondents stated that they endure the challenges faced in the farm, (40.8%) report challenges faced while (2.9%) claimed that they develop various coping mechanism against the challenges they faced in the commercial farm. This suggests that the reactions by the casual workers to endure the challenges faced in the farm may corroborate the assertion that due to the precarious nature of the work, the casual workers could truly be described as transitional, working in the farm out of necessity or bidding their time for a better working opportunity in some other organisation.

Distribution of Respondents on Reactions of the casual workers to challenges faced in the commercial farm

Test of Hypothesis

Hypothesis: Casual workers’ satisfaction with their pay and perception of the decency of their present working conditions

Null hypothesis (H₀)-There is no significant relationship between casual workers’ satisfaction with their pay and perception of the decency of their present working conditions.

Alternate hypothesis (H₁)-There is a significant relationship between casual workers’ satisfaction with their pay and perception of the decency of their present working conditions.

Table 3: Cross Tabulation of Casual Workers’ Satisfaction with Their Pay and Perception on Decency of Their Present Working Conditions

Source: Field survey (2020)

Number of respondent = 103

Degree of freedom (df) =1

Expected value of Chi-square = 3.84

Critical Value

= (c-1) (r-1)

= (2-1) (2-1)

=1*1

=1 (0.05)

3.84

Decision Rule

The above chi-square test is to check if there is a relationship between the working conditions of casual workers in terms of decent work and satisfaction in terms of wages or salary earned. Since the critical value is less than the calculated value, we, therefore, accept the alternative hypothesis (H₁) and reject the Null hypothesis (H₀). By implication, casual workers’ dissatisfaction with their wages or salary affects their perception, as the majority believe that their work is not decent enough.

Hypothesis 2: Casual workers’ working condition and Job Security

H₁– There is a relationship between Casual workers working condition and Job Security.

H₀– There is no relationship between Casual workers working condition and Job Security.  

Table 4: Cross Tabulation on Challenges Faced as Casual Workers’ and Job Security

Source: Field survey (2020)

Total number of respondent= 103

Expected value= 9.49

Calculated value= 29.003

Degree of freedom (df) = 4

Critical value

(c-1) (r-1)

(2-1) (5-1)

1*4

=4 (0.05)

=9.49.

Decision Rule

The above chi-square test is to check if there is a relationship between challenges faced by casual workers in the commercial farms in terms of (low salary, long working hours, unfair treatment by supervisors and their perception with regards to job security. Since the critical value is less than the calculated value, we, therefore, accept the Alternative Hypothesis (H₁) and reject the Null Hypothesis (H₀). H₁ was accepted because there is a relationship between challenges faced by casual workers in commercial farms and their jobs security. Challenges faced by casual workers affects how they perceive the security of their job.

Hypothesis 3: Casual workers’ evaluation of present working conditions and satisfaction with their pay

H₁– There is a relationship between how casual workers evaluate their present working conditions and satisfaction with their pay.

H₀– There is no relationship between how casual workers evaluate their present working conditions and satisfaction with their pay.

Table 5: Cross Tabulation on How Casual Workers Evaluate Their Present Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction

Total number of respondent= 103

Expected value= 5.99

Calculated value= 1.0967

Degree of freedom= 2

Critical value

(c-1) (r-1)

(3-1) (2-1)

2*1

=2 (0.05)

=5.99

Decision Rule

The above chi-square test is to check if there is a relationship between how casual workers evaluate their present working conditions and job satisfaction. Since the critical value is higher than the calculated value, we, therefore, accept the Null Hypothesis (H₀) and reject the Alternative Hypothesis (H₁).  The implication of this is that majority of the casual workers do not see their working conditions as poor but rather good but see their job as not being satisfactory, there is no relationship between the casual workers present working conditions and job satisfaction as casual workers. This is also the reason why the major means of vacancy awareness is the workers themselves, H₀ is being accepted because workers claim that their present working condition is good while at the same time dissatisfied with their job.

CONCLUSIONS

From the findings of this study, the following conclusions were made. The working conditions of casual workers at the higher institution commercial farm has an effect on their perception with regards to working conditions in term of wages and their job security. Despite the poor nature of the salary structure in the commercial farm when compare to the national minimum wage, majority of the casual workers still sees their wages as ‘good’, as they serve as rewards for work done, but are more concerned with job security.

Also, majority of the casual workers in the farm are single and resides closer to the institution, which may be the reasons why they decided to take up the job in the first place rather than working in any other location farther from the institution. The job opportunity also serves as a ‘foot in the door’ for them pending when they get a better opportunity. Also, the majority of the workers had secondary school education which explains why they might be working in such a position as casual.

The study goes further to show that one of the factors that affect their job satisfaction with is the lack of sufficient farm kits such as hand gloves, rain-boot, hats etc., to work with. Though the working tools are given to them according to the supervisor at the start of work, after a few weeks, those materials are seen lying around the farm environment. The workers refused using them with the excuse of not feeling comfortable in them or knowing how to use them even after getting adequate training on how to use them.

The study also reveals that there were some complaints from the workers in term of condition of work with regards to man-hours spent as well as the workload on the farm, though this was not spelt out as part of their work challenges. These workloads imply the amount of time spent on the farm. The issue of availability of a vehicle to transport them to the farm was also mention. Since the majority of the workers do not have a personal vehicle to transport themselves, they pay for their fare to get to the farm location. However, for them to get to the farm early enough will be either by the free ride or they have to walk a long distance and this may lead to fatigue even before the commencement of the day-job which will invariably affect workers productivity, job satisfaction and frustration on the farm.

The study also made some important suggestions which if put to practice will increase the casual workers’ productivity as well as help the organisation in achieving its objectives. Increase emphasis should be paid on the provision of farm kits. Sanctions should be imposed on workers who do not make used of their farm kits; by so doing workers will be more careful with the way the kits are handled. Also, management should ensure that every casual worker in the farm has access to their farm kits and must be made to put them to appropriate use.

The road to the farm location should be made motor-able. Since most motorist that would have assisted the workers to get to the farm are discouraged not just because of the distance but because the road is not motor-able. Transportation to and from the farm should be provided or subsidize to motivate the workers.

Workers should be given monetary incentives which is concomitant to the level of work done on the farm, this will go a long way in motivating them, thereby increasing their productivity. The various supervisors at all level should accord the workers some element of respect which will in a way give the workers a sense of belonging. Workers who have worked on the farm for up to a year with a measurable level of productivity should be asked to transit into permanent staff.

REFERENCES

1. Adenugba, A.A. (2006). Economic Globalization and trade unionism in Nigeria: A case study business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 150-160, of the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), A Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan.
2. Bhorat, H. and Hinks, T.J. (2006). ‘Changing patterns of employment and employer-employee relations in post-apartheid South Africa’. Research report for the Danish federation of workers’ national labour and economic development institute.
3. Buckley, P.J.and Enderwick, P., (1989), Manpower Management. In Hillwebrandth, P.M. and Cannon, J. (eds), The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of theory. London: The Macmillan Press Limited.
4. Cheadle, H. (2006). Regulated flexibility: Revisiting the LRA and BCEA concept. Paper Unpublished Mimeo: University of Cape Town.
5. Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182); 152 ratifications as of 23 March 2005.
6. Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111); 161 ratifications as of 23 March 2005.
7. Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951, (No. 100); 161 ratifications as of 23 March 2005.
8. Egger, P. (1995). Rural workers’ organizations and employment and labour conditions in agriculture. ILO, Geneva, Labour Education. Special Issue: Rural Workers, p 6.
9. Fapohunda, T. M. 2012. Employment Casualization and Degradation of Work in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 257-267.
10. Fashoyin, T. (1997). Economic liberalization and industrial relations in Uganda”, contribution to the national case studies of the effects of globalization on industrial relations (ILO Task Force on Industrial Relations) (ILO, Geneva,).
11. Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29); 164 ratifications as of 23 March 2005 and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105); 162 ratifications as of 23 March 2005
12. Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No.87); 142 ratifications as of 23 March 2005.
13. Foote, D. (2004). Short Term Workers: Managing the Problem of Unscheduled Turnover. Department of Management and Marketing, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA, pp. 964.
14. Friedman, D. (1988). The Misunderstood Miracle: Industrial Development and Political change in Japan. New York: Cornell University Press.
15. Hallenbrandth, P.M & Cannon, J. (1989).The Management of Construction Firms: Aspects of   London: Macmillan Press Limited.
16. Hampton, D.R. (1988), Inside Management: A selection of Readings from Business Week. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
17. ILO (1996). Wage workers in agriculture: Conditions of employment and work, Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on Improving the Conditions of Employment and Work of Agricultural Wage Workers in the Context of Economic Restructuring (Geneva).
18. ILO (1998). Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 86th Session, Geneva, 18 June, p. 7.
19. ILO (2002). Bitter Harvest: Child Labour in Agriculture. ILO Bureau for Workers’ Activities (ACTRAV), Geneva, p 4.
20. International Labour Organization (ILO) (2011).Global Employment Trends. Geneva: International Labour Office.
21. Land and Freedom Project Outline. IUF, Geneva, 2003.
22. OgunmolaO and Oche M. (2014). Casualisation: The Unending Woes of Nigeria’s Workforce. leadership newspaper.
23. Okafor, E.E. & Rasak, B. (2014). Labour Conditions of Casual Workers in the Construction Industry in Lagos, Nigeria. Fountain Journal of Management and Social Sciences, vol. 3(2).pp. 69-82. fountainjournal.com
24. Okafor, E.E. & Rasak, B. (2015). Casual Employment – A Nostrum to Unemployment in Nigeria. Fountain Journal of Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 4(2), 100–112. fountainjournal.com
25. Okafor, E.E. (2010). Sociological Investigation of the Use of Casual Workers in Selected Asian Firms in Lagos, Nigeria. Ibadan Journal of the Social Sciences. Vol. 8. No. 1 pp. 49-64.
26. Okougbo, E. (2004). Strategic issue on the dynamic of industrial relations: theory and practice. Lagos: Wepoapo Enterprises.
27. Peter H., Paola T. and Marilee K. (2005). Agricultural Workers and their Contribution to
28. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. FAO-ILO-IUF
29. Rasak, B. (2017) Casual Employment: its Ambiguity, Heterogeneity and Causes in Nigerian Manufacturing Sector. International Journal of Sociology and Criminology, 5:157, 1-7. https://www.omicsonline.org
30. Rasak, B., Arisukwu, O.C., & Asamu, F.F. (2017). Challenges of Work and Coping Strategies adopted by Casual Workers in some selected firms in Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of Social Sciences .Vol. 1 (1); 1-24. smrpi.com
31. Rasak B., Ake M., Asamu F. F. & Ganiyu, R. O. (2019). Casual Work Arrangements (CWAs) and Its Effect on Right to Freedom of Association in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Legal & Political Studies, Vol. 7(1):1-17, seahipaj.org
32. Report on Law and Practice on the employment relationship (white report) – in publication for ILO 2006.
33. Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98); 154 ratifications as of 23 March 2005.
34. Ritzer, G., (2008). Sociological theory.7^th edition, McGraw-Hill.
35. United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development, (UNCSD), 1992.
36. Van Eyck, K. (2003). Flexibilizing employment; an overview. ILO In focus programme on boosting employment through small enterprise development; Geneva. SEED working paper 41, p ix.