Preview

TERNATIONAL LABOUR
OFFICE

Studies and Reports
Series K
No. 6.

GENEVA
April 1921.

The Regulation of Labour in Agriculture
in France
In a previous study the text, was given of a Bill to apply
the 8-hour day to agriculture, introduced by the Socialist group
in the Chamber of Deputies, together with the repart by Mr.
Mercier ^proposing the rejection of the Bill. The Socialists''
Bill was inspired by the discussions on a Commission appointed
at the Ministry of Agriculture by Decree of June 10, 1919.
For this reason the publication of the minutes of the Commission
appears likely to be of value.

COMMISSION
Appointedat the Ministry of Agriculture by Decree of June 10, 1919,
to consider the question of the limitation and regulation
of Labour in Agriculture.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION

The Director of Agriculture; the Director-General of
Forests and Water; the Head of the Department of Agricultural
Labour; the Director of Labour.
Messrs. Mauger, Jean Durand, Fernand David, Jobert,
Compere-Morel, Lavoinne, Gaston Treignier, Le Bouzic,
Pierre Eameil, Camuzet, Emile Dumas, Justin Godart,
Théveny, de Gailhard-Bancel, Dariac—Deputies;
Messrs. Lhôpiteau, Auguste Potie, Courrelongue, Benaudat,
Touron, Albert Peyronnet, Goy, Gomot—Senators;
Messrs. Henry Sagnier, Henry Hitier, Monmirel, de
Marcillac, Boulleau de la Boussière, ÍTomblot, MacarezFauville, Bene Berge, Biverain, Coste, Bouart, Louis Michel,
Brillaud de Laujardiere, representing employers' associations
in agriculture, vine growing, horticulture and forestry ;

Messrs. Hodéc, Gacoing, Fabre, Bouillière, Maillet, Chaussy,
Sourbe, Durand, Bernard, Bornet, Guyot,
Canaudin,
Lapierre, representing workers' associations in agriculture and
forestry.
SESSION OF TUESDAY, J U L Y 31, 1919,

MORNING.

The following were present :—
M. Félix Laurent, representing the Director-General of
Forests and Water; Messrs. Brancher, Piquenard, Sub-Director
of Labour, Mauger, Gaston Treignier, Lavoinne, Camuzet,
Emile Dumas, Théveny, de .. Gailhard-Bancel, Lhôpiteau,
Courrelongue, Renaudat, Henry Sagnier, Henry Hitier, Monmirel, Laplaud, de Marcillac, de Layre, replacing Mr. Eoulleau
de la Eoussière, Eené Berge, Riverain, Coste, Brillaud de
Laujardière, Hodée, Gacoing, Fabre, Rouillière, Maillet,
Chaussy, Sourbe, Durand, Bornet, Canaudin, Lapierre.
Absent :
The Minister of. Agriculture, Messrs. Go mot, Rouart, '
Auguste Potie. •
• ¡_j ' •
°
Resigned : Mr. Touron.
r

The Session commenced at 10 o'clock, with' Mr. Félix
Director of Agriculture, in the chair, in the absence
of the Minister of Agriculture, who was unable to be present.
Mr. Félix LAURENT, Chairman, having presented the
apologies of the Minister of Agriculture, said that he had been
instructed by him to propound to the Commission, to whom
he accorded a cordial welcome, a number of • questions of
principle, which he proposed to read.
These questions were occasioned by the vote on the Act,
providing for the 8-hour day in industry, of April 23,
1919. In the circumstances, Parliament had asked if the Act
should not be extended to agriculture, but it had decided
to adjourn decision in view of the peculiar nature of
agricultural work and the special circumstances in which
it was carried on.
Mr. Victor Bornet, then Minister of Agriculture, had on
this occasion undertaken to obtain the necessary information
in order, after due. consideration, to lay a Bill before ' the
Chamber of Deputies. It was with this object that he had
decided to appoint the "Commission which met to-day. His
successor wished to ask its advice, and would be glad of an
opinion on the following points :—
LAURENT,

1. Is it urgently necessary to limit immediately the hours
of labour in agriculture ?
.
•"!. Should this limitation and the consequent regulations
be introduced in France before similar measures
have been taken abroad? '

— 3 —

3. In view of the essentially vailed character of agricultural
work, is it possible to institute, precise regulation,
or should recourse be had to general measures, which
administrative regulations would adapt to particular
cases ?
4. Should regulation apply to actual work or to the
presence of the workers on the farm (or other
undertaking) ?
Discussion commenced on the first question.
Mr. MAUGER, Deputy, addressed the meeting. He recalled that
during the discussion on the Act of April 22,1919, he had proposed an addition to the text, putting agricultural, vine-growing,
and forestry undertakings on the same footing as those of
industry. His amendment had been rejected because it
involved the consideration of most important questions, which
had to be. examined in all their bearings and aspects. The
Government had promised to proceed to this consideration,
and it was on these conditions that he acquiesced in the
rejection. The problem which was then postponed had
now arisen afresh, and it was a satisfaction to the speaker
to see that for its solution the Minister of Agriculture had
appealed to the working class at the same time as to the
employing class. The collaboration of the two parties should
produce a result which would' give a legitimate satisfaction
to desires which had awaited it now for 30 years. Since 1890
or 1891, in fact, the agricultural workers had sought means
by which they might obtain the benefit of legislative regulation
of their labour similar to that enjoyed by town workers. It
was no longer possible to ignore the wishes of the agricultural
wage-earners, who could not continue to be excluded from
the operation of the law, the principle of which is : eight
hours' work, eight hours spent in family life, and eight hours'
rest. The 8-hour working day should appear in the
forefront of agricultural as well as industrial reforms.
Agriculture and industry could not be distinguished at first
glance; an unreal line of demarcation should not be drawn
between them.
Mr. Mauger recognized, nevertheless, that consideration
should be given to methods of application, which should
be the subject of examination by the present Commission, on
the basis of the information which Mr. Justin Godart had
succeeded in collecting, in the report which he had j.ust made
on the general situation in foreign countries as regards the
limitation of hours of agricultural labour.
Mr. BENATJDAT, Senator for the Aube, rejoiced equally
with Mr. Mauger, that a number of agricultural workers had
been summond to to-day's meeting. Nevertheless, he wished
to know if these were really land-workers opposite him—from
which Department they came,.and what were their occupations.
They wished to hear the opinion of agriculturists, strictly

— 4 —

so called, and not of persons employed in industries connected
with agriculture.
Mr. BRANCHER replied to Mr. Renaudat's question by giving
the names of the workers' delegates, their status and
occupations.
The delegates themselves then declared that they were _
actually workers, and represented agricultural interests. It
was true that they were members of trade unions, but they
were duly instructed by their colleagues to represent them, .
and they could not see, moreover, how isolated- and
unauthorized workers could have been summoned to the
present meeting.
Mr.. RENAUDAT replied that highly agriculturalized
Departments like the Aube were not represented, and that it
was desirable that they should be, even by unorganized
agricultural workers.
•
Several members of the Commission supported this view,
and pointed out that representatives of cereal-growing
districts, strictly so called, were not present, or at least, were
present in insufficient numbers. The delegates of the workers
present, according to the list which had just been read of
their status and occupations, were rather representative of
agricultural trades than of agriculturists, strictly speaking.
Mr. LHÔPITEAU Senator, returned to discussion of the
questions propounded. He said that they were dominated
by one vital point, the nature of agricultural labour. Given
the nature of this work, was limitation of its hours possible?
If so, there was room for discussion and examination of the
problem; if not, the obstacles before them were insurmountable, discussion was valueless, and he saw no use in engaging
in fruitless debate. His own opinion was that the 8-hour
day in agriculture could not be thought of, even if applied
on an average of 48 hours per week, or on a monthly or even
a yearly average; even compensation between different
seasons seemed to him impossible.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the consideration advanced by Mr Lhôpiteau referred rather to the third question propounded by the Minister of Agriculture than to the
first.
' " • • ' .
Mr. LHÔPITEAU replied that if this were so, he demanded
an inversion of the order, and continued his remarks, saying
that though he considered the regulation of agricultural
labour impossible, he was nevertheless of opinion that a
number of subsidiary questions remained to be studied for
the improvement of the. condition of the agricultural labourer,
both from the moral and physical point of view — such as
questions of health, housing, wages, etc.

The CHAIRMAN maintained that these different questions
were in direct relation with modifications to be introduced
into the conditions of agricultural labour, and that as these
should be preceded by the consideration of the main principle
of regulation, it was preferable not to modify the order adopted
by the Minister.
Mr. THÉVENY supported Mr Lhôpiteau's arguments, and
declared that the principle of regulation should be rejected.
How was labour to be regulated which was dependent on
weather, climate, and season, which changed under some
circumstances almost hourly, and which might be suddenly
interrupted by an accident just when every effort should
be made to carry it to a successful conclusion? If the
regulation of agricultural labour was impossible, there was
no room for discussion.
Mr. BORNET, General Secretary of the Federation of
Woodmen, said that his opinion was diametrically opposed
to those of the preceding speakers, and that he spoke on behalf
of the workers. He would allow no one to contest his
competence. He was a worker himself, and was not simply
someone interposed between workers and employers.
The CHAIRMAN, in reply to Mr. Bornet, said that his status
as a worker was not contested, but a number of the members
of the Commission wished to know whether these were
agricultural workers, properly so called. They wished to
see agriciilture represented otherwise than by woodmen or
Tesin-cuppers, who were only engaged in the work of cultivation during periods of unemployment in their own profession.
Mr. CAMUZET asked that the discussion should he carried
on in the order proposed by Mr. Lhôpiteau, and in this
connection asked the workers' representatives the following
question:—
"Do the workers' representatives think that at the present
time the. vine-dressers' labourers and even the agricultural
labourers complete a daily average of work of more than eight
hours, and have they an exact idea of the length of day in
agriculture! "
This question provoked the intervention of Mr. Coste.
Mr. COSTE declared that he owned vineyards in the Midi,
and that formerly the working day lasted from one sun to
the other, i.e., from sunrise to sunset. Latterly the working
day had been shortened as the result of direct agreements
between those concerned. In Hérault it was now only 6 y2
hours in winter and 8-9 in summer, including the vintages,
which were, moreover, one of the busiest periods of work
in the vineyards. This fact sufficed to show that, even
without the intervention of the legislator, conditions of work

— 6 —

had been oharigëd 'for vine-growers' labourers. In these
conditions, was legislation of value?
The vintage lasted at present from 15 to 20 days,-and towards
the end of t h a t period some loss was experienced owing to
grapes being'over-ripe or even rotten. What would happen
if, under the influence of new legislative arrangements, the
vintage were prolonged, if only for three or four days ? Would
not the loss be so much greater that production would be
considerably diminished? From another point of view one
must consider that man makes Use of animals in cultivation,
even in the vineyard. In order to get eight hours of work
from these animals, especially the horses, they must be fed
before leaving for the fields in the morning, before recommencing work, and-on returning from work in the evening.
This feeding, which was not heavy work, kept the carter on
the farm for more than eight hours. A stableman might,
it would be said, be entrusted with the care of draught horses,
which the carter would take from him ready for work in the
fields. This might perhaps be possible on large farms, but
in Hérault there would not be more than three or four farms
large enough to consider the question. Almost everywhere
the vine-grower worked alone, or with a single carter. When he
had horses, he had only one or two. Under these conditions,
the plan suggested could not be put into practice, or, if so,
the entire system of cultivation would have to be modified
so as to employ a greater, number, of animals and consequently
a special mari to take charge .of them. In this ease, however,
Adnes would have to be replaced by other forms of cultivation;
production would no longer be. the
same, and, taking
everything into account, there was considerable risk that it
would be diminished just when it was essential that it should
increase. All these reasons ran counter to regulation of
agricultural labour.
Mr. de COTJBKELONGUE spoke to the same effect.
Mr. de MAKCILLAC strongly supported the two preceding
speakers.
,
>
For 31 years he had been a vine-grower in Périgord.
Around him he saw growers cultivating the soil with one or
two horses only, and when he thought of the manner in which
cultivation had to be carried on under these conditions he
was absolutely terrified at the measures to which reference
had been made. This feeling of terror was shared by the
small agricultural employers of his district, and by the great
majority of the mixed agricultural unions of employers and
workers. His impression was that it was general throughout
France in those assemblies which form the best element and
the strongest force in modern democracy. How could there
be a question of the limitation of the hours of labour when on
every hand one heard (and there was only too palpable proof
of it) that there,was a shortage of meat, com,and milk, and

7 —

that in consequence production must be increased? Such
limitation was impossible if we were not to plunge into a crisis
of famine. There might be reforms in detail, but no general
measure that could be undertaken.
If, on the other hand, the welfare of the rural worker
was the subject of concern (and everyone gave their attention
to this) it was not to the question of diminution of such
specialized work as that of agriculture that consideration
should be given. Mention had just been made of questions
o£ health, housing, etc. Diminution of. production would
affect the field worker himself. It would first affect the
factory worker by making the cost of living even higher for
him than it was at present. In this way the interests of the
working class, which it was hoped to protect, would be
injured. The rural worker knew this himself. ÍTo limitation
was possible, whether in the fortnight, the month, or even
the year, so far as agriculture, properly so called, was
concerned.
For the vine grower, the osier grower and the woodman,
conditions might perhaps be a little different, since it was a
question of specialized work, which was not always hampered by
the rain, as was the hay harvest or the carrying of the wheatcrops, but even there action should be circumspect.
No doubt it would be said that it is hardly probable that
an agricultural worker would let the crop of ripe corn be ruined
by the threat of a storm simply because his legal hours of
work had been completed. I t was certainly improbable,
and' account must be taken of the circumstances, but-those
charged with the administration of laws would not be able to
appreciate small details. Would they not arouse useless
controversy1? The most simple reasoning showed the dangers
and impossibilities. A first vote could be taken on the
question thus presented. If this vote supported the opinion
of the speaker, the discussion would be at an end on, the
particular point of agricultural labour. But suppose t h a t
there remained a doubt in the minds of certain members of
the Commission and that they persisted in spite of everything
in considering limitation possible: was this limitation
necessary? Did it not already exist naturally? Was more
than 2,400 hours actually worked during the year? If this
total was not reached, the question again did not arise.
Mr. de Marcillac was very attentively listened to,
and many members of the Commission showed that
they shared his feelings. Others, among them the workers'
members of the Commission, were evidently of a different
opinion ; but they reserved their remarks until they should
have heard all the arguments opposed to their point of view.
The CHAIRMAN summarized the debate. The Minister
had propounded certain questions. Some of the arguments
produced by the members who had taken part in. the general

discussion appeared to show that the reply should be in the
negative. These were as follows : There was a shortage of
manual labour, which prevented the easy and plentiful
production which was necessary. limitation of the hours
of agricultural labour would accentuate this evil, and it
would be equally undesirable if the shortage of labour were
less than it was, since under no circumstances would there
be a sufficient supply to maintain the shifts necessitated
by the 8-hour day. These considerations suggested that
before introducing changes in rural labour legislation it might
be well to wait until the shortage in the supply of labour
could be made up. For this purpose a large volume. of
immigration was necessary ; but this was at present checked
by prohibitive measures taken by a large number of countries
which would otherwise be able to send us workers ; and
immigration could not be resumed until the agreements at
present under consideration could be put into practice.
At the moment, in view of the gaps caused by the war in
the ranks of French rural workers, it was by no means certain
that immigration could supply the shortage as was expected.
If attention were paid to these remarks, regulation^ and
especially limitation, should be postponed. What was the
opinion of the Commission ? What conclusion did it draw
from these arguments 1 There were sufficient grounds for »
decision, after an exchange of further opinions, if necessary,
so as tó clear up points- which had not appeared sufficiently
well defined.
Messrs. LHÔPITEATJ and de MAB.CI.LLAC then replied that
in their opinion limitation should not be postponed but
rejected ; for the two reasons that it was not known when
the agreements to which the Director of Agriculture had
referred, concerning the resumption of foreign immigration,
would take effect, and that, in the second place, even with
the immigrant workers there would not be a large enough
supply of labour to maintain the double or treble shifts which
would be necessary at times of heavy work under the 8Hour Act.
A workers' delegate did not agree with the foregoing.
He thought that there was a supply of rural labour, but that
it did not remain in agriculture because it was not paid
sufficiently well for the work which was asked of it. If
employers wished to have it at their disposal, they must
first undertake the regulation rejected by Messrs. L'Hópiteau
and de Marcillac, in order to ensure better wages ; so that it
should no longer be possible, as had been seen, for example,
in Seine-et-Oise, that a woman in a factory working eight
hours a day could earn more than a man in the fields for
thirteen or fourteen hours' work at harvest time, the period
of the year when he was best paid. Mention had been made
of bringing foreign labour in to make up the shortage of

.— 9 —
national labour ; but Poles, in particular, would not come
to France, because they considered the wages at present
offered them absurd, and because they found the accommodation in French farms too bad. They would continue to
do what they did before the war—viz., go to other countries
than our own.
Mr Eené BERGE replied that everyone was agreed as to
the necessity for improvement in accommodation. The general
opinion was also that the condition of the agricultural worker
must be improved, but not by the limitation of his hours.
Attention should rather be given to higher wages. It had
already been given to this question; and in Seine-Inferieure
very good wages—up to 50 francs a day—offered for flax-pulling
might be quoted. When at this price no workers were to be
had, it was because other considerations were involved, to
which agriculture could give no attention, since they were
incompatible with the mere possibility- of any agricultural
undertaking. In this connection the speaker described the
position in the dairy industry, and the difficulties met with
in obtaining cowmen.
I t must nevertheless be recognized that, however willingly
attempts were made to obtain better conditions for the rural
worker, there were always exigencies of the care of animals,
their feeding, etc., which could not be avoided. These needs
must be met, certainly; but compensation for this must not
involve a reduction of production. Production was necessary
and should be increased; this was so true, that the Socialists
themselves realized it, and recognized it in declarations
on the subject made by the General Confederation of Labour.
Having advanced these reasons against the limitation of
hours, the speaker nevertheless declared (to show that ho
introduced no prejudiced element into the discussion) that
it might be possible to find a ground for agreement by
considering the entire year and a maximum of hours to be
completed during this period.
L_
Mr. CHATJSSY took up the opposite position to the foregoing.
According to him, agricultural employers take advantage
of their workers, even in winter, when they make them leave
before day-break, because the hour has struck at which they
have decreed that the day's work shall begin; and similarly
on their return. These events (against which the employers
present protested) occurred in Seine-et-Marne. If they were
avoided—if employment were better organized and understood
—such a thing would not occur. The rural exodus could be
checked; but, apart from the suppression of certain abuses,
limitation and regulation of labour were essential for this
purpose. It must no longer be possible to work fourteen
hours for Frs. 7:50. When it was said that work in the
fields could not be subject to the same regime as industrial

— 10 —
work,, the development of machinery in agriculture must not
be forgotten. The more machinery was used in agriculture,
the more nearly the latter would approach industrial conditions.
Mr. SAVOINNE replied that it was useless to make much
of the use of machinery in agriculture in order to prove that
rural Avork could be regulated. Agricultural' machinery was
essentially different from industrial machinery, if only in the
conditions under which it was used, and the circumstances
which sometimes made its use impossible.
Moreover,' even on the most optimistic estimate, there
were many branches of agricultural work which could not
be done by machinery, the. configuration of the ground and
the distribution of holdings frequently preventing the use
of machinery to a large extent, if not completely.
From another point of view, it seemed certain that dairy
production, already so much reduced, would be still further
diminished if limitation .were enforced.
The CHAIRMAN asked that the figures quoted for Seine-etMarne, at which the employers had protested so strongly,
should be elaborated. In default of names, he would like
to have the districts where the facts and figures mentioned
could be verified.
Mr. B O E N E T , President of the Woodmen's Federation,
defended limitation. I t was possible, because it already
existed in forestry work and in certain other trades connected
with agriculture, which are not so different that similar
treatment cannot be granted to one as to the others. The
argument which invoked the shortage of labour to oppose
the regulation of hours in agriculture was false. This was
proved by the enquiries made by the Woodmen's Trade Union
of the Cher, which showed that in 1912 and 1913, from May
to August, an average of 1 1 % of the rural workers were
unemployed. Several members of the Commission pointed
out that since then agriculture had lost two million workers,
so that what was. possibly true in 1913 (although this was
strongly contested) could not possibly be so in 1919.
The speaker, however, insisted. He maintained that
there Avas no lack of labour, and that if the agriculturists had
no labour it AAras because they would not -.pay for . it. He
added that work carried on for too long hours is absolutely
useless, and read resolutions passed at different Congresses—
La Guerche (1905) and Dun-sur-Auron— where the workers
had declared in favour of the 8-hour day, desiring that
field Avorkers should be treated on the same footing as town
workers, and that the principle of equality should be applied
to both. According to the speaker, to refuse to embark on
this reform was to increase the_ rural exodus, and no argument
could justify such conduct, which Avould hasten the ruin of
agriculture by those who said they wished to protect it."

— 11 —
The example of Germany was quoted. According to
information to hand, it was possible in agriculture to work
eight hours a day for four months, ten hours a day for four
months, and eleven hours a day for the remaining four months.
These figures, which were already being applied, were
interpreted in different ways. Supporters of the regulation
claimed that it demonstrated its possibility; its adversaries
saw in these figures an argument against the average of eight
hours a day in the course of a year, since this average Avas
exceeded; they saw in them especially an argument against
enforcement of the 8-hour day regardless of the season
or time of year.
Mr. de MARCILLAC wished to take up the arguments adduced
by Mr. Bornet and refute them. He drew attention to the
fact that the figures laid before the Commission referred to
1912 and 1913, and that since then the war had changed many
things. Moreover, they referred to the woodmen of the
Cher, and not to agricultural workers strictly so called. It
was said that the woodmen were forest workers for part of
the year, and that for the rest of the year they became field
workers, so that the reasoning they had just heard could be
applied to agriculture. This, however, was not correct.
On the one hand it was a question of highly specialized work,
and on the other of work of a general nature. For specialized
work — and wood cutting was of this kind — a certain
amount of regulation was possible, as had been agreed; on
the other hand, periods of unemployment were due to the fact
that during these periods the work in question was rendered
quite impossible, for example, owing to the state of vegetation
of the trees.
I t was to this unemployment that the statistics referred.
The figures did not necessarily mean that the worker who was
unemployed as far as his usual trade was concerned, was not
occupied on similar work. If he were not occupied, steps
should bç taken to see that he was ; and agricultural employers
were so concerned on this point that they tried to introduce
certain rural industries on their estates in order to ensure regular
work for their employees. This was the first point : the
second was that the wood cutter, as well as the basket maker,
for example, in the pursuit' of his principal trade had only
to take into relative account the inclemencies of the weather.
If he hired himself out for one part of the year as an agricultural worker, he nevrtheless remained a specialist up to a
certain point; logically it therefore folio wed that in this .
agricultural specialization certain regulations could be applied
to him. Conditions were very different for the field worker,
properly so called, owing to the variety of the work which
he had to do. He was not only never unemployed, but
could never be subject to any fixed rule.
At this point Mr. de Marcillac resumed the arguments referring to the seasons, care of animals, etc. He referred to the

— .12 —
shortage of labour,' and said that the lack of agricultural
workers increased the already grave complications of the
question, and made regulation impossible. Industrial workers,
whose employers had treated them well, should not forget
that they must have food in order to live. In their interests
the production of food should not be encumbered by disproportionate costs exceeding the amount which may justly
be allotted as the reward of labour. Above all, food must
be produced; foreign purchases must not increase out of all
proportion, and the exchange must not become more and
more unfavourable.
Why, then, should France be the first to enforce regulation
of agricultural labour, which, as proposed in Germany, was
on a much broader basis than that which was under consideration here. They should avoid defeat in the economic
sphere after having so hardly won the victory in the sphere
of law. They, should wait. They should at least ask for
international agreements on this- delicate question—so delicate
that one might say that it should not be touched.
Mr. DUMAS, Deputy for the Cher,'was of a different opinion.
To his mind, when it was a question of justice, France should
set the example and should not let herself be out-distanced
by neighbouring nations when the welfare of the workers
was at stake. She ought to embark all the more boldly
on these social reforms, since already exact indications which
would lead to their successful conclusion had been submitted
by the workers, whom he had the honour to represent.
The workers' delegation had produced a scheme which,
disregarding vague generalities, laid down a number of clearly
defined principles which were worthy of consideration and
might form the basis of a Bill. The Commission ought to
hear it read, and ought not to regard it as emanating from
workers foreign to agriculture. The woodmen who were
concerned were industrial Avorkers when they were employed
in the forests, but from May 15 to November 15, they
were real agricultural workers, able like anyone else to understand the aspirations and needs of their comrades. But when
they offered their services as agriculturists, these services were
not accepted,, because owners would rather not employ them
than pay them a reasonable wage. Employers thus preferred
not to engage them and to continue to employ women, who
were cheaper ; it seemed quite natural to them to see women
. continuing the heavy work which they undertook when their
husbands were mobilized. The economy of employers was
such that the Poor Law children themselves were no longer
used, though there was a time when they were all asked for
and employed.
These habits must be changed ; it must not be forgotten
that, though a million agriculturists had been killed, industry
had also paid a heavy tribute ; and that in any case the fact

— 13 —
that the country had suffered more than the towns was no
reason for failing to attempt to check the rural exodus ;.
on the contrary, the attraction of the towns must be opposed,,
especially by better hygiene, more comfort, more regularity
and consistency in wages.
They must take the trouble to show that already there
was a certain equivalence between rural and urban salaries ;,
the agricultural worker must be protected ; but at present
he was not protected ; nothing had been done for him from.
the legislative point of view ; the Labour Code Avas silent on
the subject ; the law on accident, of which Mr. Manger was.
the author, was buried in the Senate ; no one know when
it would emerge. Agricultural credit benefited the small
employer ; it remained a dead letter for the labourer ; the
machinery which he used was not provided with protective
appliances, and statistics showed the frequent occurence of
accidents due to this state of things ; lastly, there was the
sleeping accomodation, which was absolutely repellant, toremedy which he had himself demanded measures, as it was.
intolerable in its present form.
Even if protective measures were taken on behalf of the
field-worker, even if he were given the 8-hour day, it
was not certain that the agriculturist was saved. • The speaker
wished to utter a cry of warning in the hope that it would
be heard.
Many of Mr. Dumas's arguments were strongly opposed.
Mr. THÉVENY spoke of the control exerted over agricultural
establishments by the inspectors of labour, in order to ensure
that the machinery employed is adequately provided with
protective appliances. Some of these appliances, though
legally sufficient, might, it was true, be improved ; the fact
that they had been considered showed that the rural worker
was not as forsaken as had been suggested.
Mr. de MARCILLAC spoke to the same effect.
Mr. THÉVENY added that when he had heard the demands
formulated by the agricultural workers, their demandshad never touched on the hours of labour. The principal
reason for this was that though the hours were sometimes.
long, they were broken by many rest-periods ; work was
not only varied, but not continuous. On the other hand, it
was easy in parts ; in connection with the harvest, for example,
the increasing use of machines was apparent ; the driver of
the machines was seated ; his work was not, therefore, very
trying. The work which was still probably the heaviest
was the carrying of the sheaves, which were often heavy
and must be loaded on to the waggons. But even this work was
intermittent ; the time spent on the road must be deducted,
also that on the return from the farm empty, when the men
rode in the waggons, etc. Bad weather was the cause of the

— 14 —
most marked stoppages ; when rain interrupted work in the
middle of the day, it was rarely possible to turn to other
tasks. The workers dried themselves and took the opportunity
t o overhaul their tools ; in fact, spent the time at least relatively
in resting, thus compensating for the preceding exceptional
•effort.
This was an advantage for the worker, which was
•counterbalanced by the retarding of production consequent
upon it. All this must be taken into consideration, and
•everyone knew that although during the winter season the
rural worker was rather at the mercy of his employer, who
kept him when he had no real need of him, he could very well
«scape and stand on his rights during the urgent work of
t h e summer, when he knew he was indispensable. A further
series of questions to which attention should be directed was
t h a t affecting housing and food. Accommodation was much
cheaper in the country than in the town, and the food grown
in the garden or allotment of the field worker was of much
more value to him than the food he had to buy, whether in
the town or country.
Mr. RIVERAIN supported Mr. Théveny's view; he emphatically declared that all, comparison was impossible between
t h e varied work of the fields and the regular work of the
factory.
Mr. CAMUZET said that if the workers were more precise
in their demands it might be more possible to come to an
agreement. The 8-hour day produced 2,496 hours' work
in the year ; but when the matter was more closely looked
into, it appeared that at present this total of 2,496 hours was
hardly reached, and it was not very difficult to show the
Turai workers t h a t they had no real reason for irritation that
t h e 8-hour day had not been applied to them in the form
adopted in industry.
Mr. RIVERAIN reverted to the impossibility of regulating
agricultural labour. . If it was necessary to stop at harvesttime when it rained, it was also necessary to work without
regard to time when the sun shone. Otherwise the crops
rwould be lost, or else-their nature must bé so modified that
a smaller number of workers, employed for a shorter length of
time, would be sufficient. But it was to be feared that, if these
modifications became necessary, they would have a disastrous
reaction on production and in consequence on the general
welfare.
Mr. FABRE, who represented the vine-growing trade unions
of - the Midi, opposed Mr. • Riverain's arguments. The
sulphate dressing of the vines had to be applied at a given
point under special weather conditions. Up till now, however,
i t had been possible to arrange this satisfactorily, although

the vine-dressers of the Aube rarely exceeded seven hours'
effective work per day.
Mr. TREIGNIER addressed the Commission. He spoke
as the reporter of the Commission on Agriculture of the
Chamber of Deputies. He said that in this capacity he was
most anxious to procure for the Commission of Agriculture
precise information which would enable it to complete its
data, with a view to measures to be introduced. In view
of the discussion which had taken place, and the varying
arguments advanced, the Commission on the limitation of
agricultural labour seemed now to have all the elements
necessary for the taking of a vote and the giving of an
affirmative or negative reply to the questions propounded
by the Minister of Agriculture. If he had correctly followed
the discussion, the conclusion had been reached that the
application of the 8-hour day to agriculture was not
possible, whether on the basis of 8 hours in a single day in
isolation, 48 hours in a week, or on a monthly basis. On
the other hand, discussion might be possible on the seasonal
basis; and if even that were discarded, there remained the
year, during which 2,496 hours might be worked. The
adoption ot this figure of 2,496 hours would embody the
acceptance of the principle of limitation. There was also
to be considered the basis on which action might be taken,
thus approaching the second question on which the Minister
had asked for an opinion. What reasons were there against
voting on this ? Some speakers had said that at the present
moment the 2,496 hours of work were not reached in the
course of the year. If that were so, the discussion was purely
academic, and all the more easy to bring to an end.
Conclusions would be more complicated if beyond the question
of principle it were necessary to draft a text.
The CHAIRMAN pointed
principle was put forward by
to judge, by the indications
Commission, in what form
Parliament.

out that only the question of
the Minister, who would be able
given him by the votes of the
a Bill should be presented to

Mr. Henry SAGNIER re-opened the discussion, in order to
say that it seemed to him that the debate had been carried
far enough for a vote to be taken. A discussion then arose
as to whether the order of the questions propounded by the
Minister was that which should have been adopted. Several
members of the Commission took part in it, among them
Messrs. DUMAS, MATJGER , and LAPIERRE. The workers'
representatives asked that in view of the lateness of the hour
the session might be adjourned until the afternoon, so that
the report prepared by the agricultural workers might be
read. It was of a kind to illuminate discussion and guide

— 16 —
the voting, - allowing everyone to act with a full sense of
responsibility in a matter of such grave importance.
This was agreed to, and the meeting rose at 12.15, to
resume at 3p.m.
Signed by the SECRETARY and the PRESIDENT.
SESSION OF THURSDAY, J U L Y 31, 1919,

AFTERNOON.

The session opened at 3.20 p.m., Mr. LAURENT , Director
of Agriculture, in the Chair.
Twenty-two members were present :—<Mr. Félix Laurent, Chairman; The Director-General of
Forests; the Head of the Department of Agricultural Labour;
the Director of Labour; Messrs. Renaudat, Mauger, Gaston
Treignier, Emile Dumas, Théveny, Henry Hitier, Montmirel,
Laplaud, de Marcillac, îïomblot, Éené ( Berge, Biverain, Coste,
Brillaud de Laujardière, Hodée, Gacoing, Fabre, Bouillère,
Maillet, Chaussy, Sourbe, Durand, Bornet, Canaudin, Lapierre.
The CHAIRMAN again read the questions propounded by
the Minister of Agriculture, the text of which is given
subsequently.
Messrs. DUMAS and LAPIERRE addressed the Commission.
They recalled that the delegates showed that, in spite of the
opinion expressed that, morning by the employers,—which
belonged to the realm of general ideas—limitation of the
hours of labour in agriculture was possible. I t existed
already, in fact, in vine growing,where the hours of labour
were sometimes as low as 2,200 in the year; but it was willingly
admitted t h a t for agriculture, properly so called, regulation
was a particularly delicate matter:
There were difficulties
to be surmounted under this head, and attempts had been
made to overcome them.
The proposal drawn up by the workers' delegates was
then read in full.
( 8 e e Appendix).
Messrs. Lapierre and Dumas pointed out that the proposal
which had just been read could be defended and could serve
as a useful basis for serious consideration, leading to practical
conclusions. The case of cowmen and carters in particular
was therein provided for ; these rural workers ought obviously
to do more than eight hours' work per . day, but special
regulations would take account of those days of more than
eight hours. In setting up administrative regulations, all
representatives of "the agricultural trade unions, whether
federated or not,' would be invited to give an opinion ;
isolated units ought obviously to link up, so that they could
be consulted.
The proposal was handed to the Chairman, who asked
if anyone wished to speak. Apparently the members of

— 17 —
t h e Commission wished simply to note t h e deposit of t h e
proposal, with a view t o further consideration being given
by t h e Ministry.
The questions p u t forward b y t h e Minister of Agriculture •
were r e a d once more, a n d this t i m e a v o t e was t a k e n .
Q U E S T I O N I. — Is it urgently necessary to limit
of labour in agriculture at the present time Ì
V O T E :—11 against, 18 abstentions.
Q U E S T I O N I I . — In view of the differences
and agricultural
work,

between

(a) Is

it possible to arrive at a precise and
regulation for agriculture,
similar to that
for industry ?
V O T E :—Against, unanimously.

the

hours

industrial
universal
adopted

(b) Or would it not be better to provide a flexible
regulation
for district application,
adapted to the
requirements
of each agricultural district, each form of
cultivation,
and each category of agricultural workers %
V O T E :—19 for, 4 against, 6 abstentions.
The t e x t of p a r a g r a p h (b) originally read : " d i s t r i c t
a n d local application " .
The words " and local " were
suppressed by general agreement, in view of t h e very elastic
character of " district application ", which is practically
defined as t h e ' districts with t h e same climate, customs,
needs, etc.
The workers-' delegates were promised t h a t the proposal
Avhich they h a d presented should be s u b m i t t e d to the
Minister of Agriculture for his careful consideration.
The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m. and t h e Commission was
adjourned.
Signed by t h e S E C R E T A R Y a n d t h e P R E S I D E N T .

APPENDIX

Bill
for the Regulation

of the Hours of Labour in

Agriculture

I.
I n agricultural, horticultural a n d vinegrowing u n d e r t a k i n g s ,
or in their subsidiary branches, of whatever kind, w h e t h e r
public or private, secular or ecclesiastical, even if they are
of a n educational or philanthropic n a t u r e , t h e effective hours
of work for manual a n d n o n - m a n u a l workers of either sex a n d .

— 18 —
all ages shall not exceed eight hours per day, forty-eight hours
per week, or an equivalent limit calculated on an annual basis
of 2496 hours, always provided, that the working day shall
never exceed ten effective hours, whatever the season.
II.
The period within which and the conditions under which
the foregoing paragraph is to become operative shall be fixed
by administrative regulations, according to district and form
of cultivation, these districts to be established on the publication of the Act.
These regulations shall be made either officially, or at the
request of one or more of the employers' or workers'
organizations concerned, whether national or regional. In
either caise, the employers' and workers' organizations shall
be consulted.
These regulations shall refer to agreements made between
the employers' or workers' organizations concerned, whether
national or regional, where such exist.
The revision of a regulation shall be compulsory, if the
time limits for action and the conditions laid down therein
are contrary to the stipulations of international conventions
on the subject.
III.
Administrative regulations shall further determine :
1. The distribution of the hours of work, so as to allow
a rest of one day in seven, as well as on Saturday afternoon,
or some other equivalent arrangement.
2. The time-limits within which the length of day at present
in force in agriculture or the industrial category under
consideration shall be reduced by one or more stages to the
limits fixed in § I.
3. Temporary exemptions which may be granted in order
to deal with exceptional press of'work, national emergencies,
or accidents, actual or impending.
4. The conditions in which, for certain classes of workers
whose work only requires that they should be on watch (e. g.
shepherds, cowherds), permanent exemptions may be allowed.
5. Methods of regulating hours of work and rest periods,
and the duration of actual work, as well the procedure by
which exemptions shall be granted or utilized.
IV.
The reduction of the hours of labour shall in no case be
a valid ground for the reduction of wages.
, .. '

— 19 —
V.
Collective agreements actually in force shall be abrogated
in every district and for every industrial category as from
the application of administrative regulations to the said
industry or industrial category in the district concerned.
VI.
This Act shall apply to Algeria and the Colonies.

— 20 —

STUDIES AND REPORTS
already

issued.

Where the English or French text oí" a Report has not yet been published it
will be issued at a later date.

Series A.
1.

T H E A G R E E M E N T B E T W E E N T H E S P A N I S H W O R K E R S ' ORGANIS A T I O N S , issued September 25th 1920. French and
English.

T H E D I S P U T E I N T H E METAL I N D U S T R Y IN ITALY.
TRADE
UNION
CONTROL OF I N D U S T R Y , (First part) issued September 25th 1920. French and
English.

A N N U A L MEETING OF T H E TRADES UNION CONGRESS
issued October 4th 1920. French and
English.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L CONGRESS O F WORKERS I N T H E FOOD AND
D R I N K TRADES, issued October 11th 1920. French and English.

T H E B R I T I S H GOVERNMENT AND T H E M I N E R S ' FEDERATION OF
GREAT B R I T A I N . CONFERENCE B E T W E E N S I R ROBERT HORN E
AND THE MINERS' FEDERATION, issued O c t o b e r 1 1 t h 1920.
French and
English.

T H E CONGRESS OF THE LABOUR AND SOCIALIST I N T E R N A T I O N A L ,
issued October 14th 1920. French and
English.

T H E M I N E R S ' INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS, issued
1920. French and
English.

T H E INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION. A COMPARISON,
issued October 21st 1920.
French
and'English.

T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L CONGRESS O F METAL . W O R K E R S ,
October 22nd- 1920. French and
English.

10.

T H E B R I T I S H GOVERNMENT
GREAT

BRITAIN.

1920,

October

19th

issued

AND T H E M I N E R S ' F E D E R A T I O N O F

CONFÉRENCE

MENT AND THE TRIPLE
October 26th 1920. French

BETWEEN

THE

GOVERN-

INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE,
and
English.

issued

11.

THE DISPUTE IN THE METAL INDUSTRY IN ITALY. TRADE UNION
CONTROL O F INDUSTRY. (Second p a r t ) issued November
4th 1920. French and English.

12.

T H E F O U R T H INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF B O O K B I N D E R S , issued
November 26th 1920; French and, English.

13.

T H E MINERS' STRIKE IN GREAT BRITAIN, issued
1920,
French and English.

14.

T H E X V t h CONGRESS OF THE GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOUR
(CONFÉDÉRATION GÉNÉRALE DU TRAVAIL) FRANCE, HELD AT
ORLÉANS, 27th SEPTEMBER TO 2nd OCTOBER 1920, issued
December 23rd 1920. French and
English.

15.

T H E INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF GENERAL FACTORY
issued on January 24th 1921. French and English.

December

21st

WORKERS,

— 21 —
N° 16.

TENDENCIES OP EUROPEAN LABOUR LEGISLATION SINCE TEE WAR,
issued February 11th. 1921. French and English.

" 17.

T H E GROWTH OF TRADE UNIONISM DURING THE TEN YEARS 19101919, issued February 16th 1921. French and English.

" 18.

F I R S T SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONGRESS, London,
November 22-27, 1920, issued March 15th 1921. French and
English.

" ,19.

T H E MINIMUM PROGRAMME OF THE GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF
LABOUR OF FRANCE, issued March 18th 1921. French and English.

" 20.

INTERNATIONAL RAILWAYMEN'S CONGRESS LONDON, November 29-30,
1920, issued April l i s t 1921. French and English.
Series B.

N° 1. COAL PRODUCTION I N T H E RUIIR D I S T R I C T .
Enquiry by the
International Labour Office, end of May 1920, issued September 1st 1920. French and
English.
"

2. P A P E R S RELATING TO SCHEMES O F INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR T H E DISTRIBUTION OF RAW MATERIALS AND FOOD
S T U F F S , issued October 5th 1920. French and
English.

T H E CONDITIONS OF LABOUR AND PRODUCTION IN THE UPPER SILESIAN
COALFIELD, issued December 10th 1920. French and English.

T H E SOCIALISATION OF COAL MINES I N GERMANT, issued
25th 1921. French and English.

T H E ESSEN MEMORANDUM ON THE SOCIALISATION OF THE COAL
MINES IN GERMANY (6 Nov. 20), issued 28th January 1921.
French and English.

W O R K S COUNCILS IN GERMANT, issued J a n u a r y 29th 1921.
and English.

T H E BILL TO.ESTABLISH WORKERS' CONTROL IN ITALY, issued February
28th 1921, French and- English.

A DEMAND FOR WORKERS' CONTROL IN INDUSTRY IN FRANCE. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE FEDERATION OF METAL WORKERS
AND THE ASSOCIATION OF METALLURGICAL AND MINING INDUSTRIES, issued M a r c h 3 1 s t 1921. French and
English.

LA REFORME DU'CONSEIL SUPERIEUR DU TRAVAIL EN ITALIE. VERS
UN PARLEMENT TECHNIQUE DU TRAVAIL, i s s u e d A p r i l 1 4 t h 1 9 2 1 .
French only.

January

French

Series C.
N° 1.

B R I T I S H LEGISLATION
October 26th 1920.

ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE,
French and
English.

issued

.GOVERNMENT ACTION IN DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT IN ITALY,
issued October 27th 1920. French and
English.

T H E BULGARIAN LAW ON COMPULSORY LABOUR,
ber 4th 1920. French and
English.

issued

Novem-

" 4.

T H E ACTION O F THE SWISS GOVERNMENT I N DEALING WITH
UNEMPLOYMENT, issued November 13th 1920.
French and
English.

" 5.

T H E ORGANISATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT
EXCHANGES IN FRANCE, issued February 21st. 1921. French
and English.

— 22 —
Series D.
N° 1.

S T A F F REGULATIONS

ON T H E F R E N C H

RAILWAYS,

issued ' Sep-

tember 4th 1920. French and English,
Series E.
N° 1.

COMPENSATION FOR WAR DISABLEMENT IN FRANCE.

A C T OF MARCH

31st, 1919. Issued February 28th 1921. French and English.
Series F.
N° 1.

CANCER OF THE BLADDER AMONG WORKERS IN ANILINE

FACTORIES,

issued February 23rd 1921. French and English.
Series H.
N° 1.

CONSUMERS'

CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES

I N 1919 (Denmark

Sweden), issued September 8th 1920.
"

SEVENTH

CONGRESS

O P T H E BELGIAN

issued September 25th 1920.

and

French and English.
CO-OPERATIVE

French and

OFFICE,

English.

Series K.
N° 1.

F I R S T INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS O F L A N D W O R K E R S ' UNIONS
A F F I L I A T E D TO T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L F E D E R A T I O N OF TRADE

UNIONS, issued November, 1920. French and English.
"

AGRARIAN

CONDITIONS IN S P A I N , issued November 10th 1920.

French and
"

French and
" 4.

English.

SMALL HOLDINGS

I N SCOTLAND, issued November

12th 1920.

English.

T H E EIGHT-HOUR DAY IN ITALIAN AGRICULTURE,

issued

Decem-

ber 17th 1920. French and English.
" 5.

T H E EIGHT-HOUR

DAY IN AGRICULTURE,

BEFORE

THE FRENCH

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, issued Februajy 10th 1921. French and
English.
'