----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 1:34
PM
Subject: [Market-farming] Fwd: CSA
worker payment
Having no money to hire labor, and wanting to offer a
way folks could get organic even though they might not, otherwise,
we offered a work share program these past two seasons. The concept is
wonderful and challenging, as well. Don't use one if what you most
want/need is the labor. You will get much more accomplished, and more
easily, reliably and consistently, if you hire and train one or two
able-bodied, honest to goodness, minimum wage or piecemeal employees for
your season. Or create and provide a good internship program-
that is the direction we were headed for 2010, if we hadn't lost our
location (good news, maybe, on that front; I just got a call from a
friend with a friend with land and a well and an interest in organic
farming- please keep your fingers crossed for me).
Work share programs are tremendously valuable in
terms of building relationships between farmers and members and amongst work
share members themselves. As I said, it might, also, be the only
way organic produce seems accessible to some. And, as we all
know, in spite of how hard farming is (or perhaps because of that), working
in and with the soil, etc., is good for the soul. Many of our work
share members recognized this fact before they signed up. Most,
certainly, did by the time the season was in full
swing. For me, those are the higher benefits of offering a
work share program.
A word re scheduling. I suggest being a little
more demanding than you might be inclined toward- bigger blocks of
time, done in consistent intervals, alongside other work share members and
farmers and/or knowledgeable interns or other farm help. You get
more done in groups and you limit training/explaining time and all get a
greater sense of accomplishment. Even if you allow flexible
scheduling, have a minimum time commitment of three or four hours. Two
is not enough- too much time is lost on either end of the "shift" and the
volunteer isn't there long enough to get a real sense of satisfaction at
seeing evidence of their valuable input. It's discouraging to
them, and that does not make for folks who want to keep coming to complete a
volunteer commitment for the entire season (which is what you need for
it to be worth offering a work share program).
It's my observation that most folks interested in
being work share members take their commitment for the season, and their
performance while on the farm, more seriously if they have committed to
a bigger, rather than smaller, burden. It sounds kinda crazy, I
know, but that's what I've seen here. In 2008, most of our work
share members were trading for a full share and had made a
commitment to four volunteer hours a week. This past season
we went to offering only a two-person share and folks could buy or work
two or three shares if they wanted more produce. Almost all the work
share members opted for the two hours weekly. We had more work share
members than in the previous season but got less done with their help.
The group, while comprised of totally wonderful people, did not get
there as regularly or consistently as the members of the previous season
that had made a bigger time commitment. The four hour folks had more
carefully factored it into the rest of their schedules. The ones with
the greater weekly burden made regular appearances because they had to
in order to fit it in, at all, while many of the two hour folks slipped it
in as it seemed convenient, thus missing some weeks, off and on,
etc. Our failure, in that regard, was not having a more formal
logging system for them. We never got around to implementing one
because we were terribly busy and the previous season's work share members
had spoiled us so completely- they self-monitored beyond our wildest
expectations! They were, truly, fabulous.
Legalities/bookkeeping/workers comp. I
think that a work share program, as great as it can be, is not worth
doing if you must burden yourselves with minimum wage equivalents, income
withholding, etc,. etc., in order to be able to offer it. We were
quite careful to emphasize the volunteer nature of the agreement, the
intangibles that come as part of being a work share volunteer, the reality
that we'd have gotten more work out of a couple regularly
scheduled minimum wage employees and that their CSA share had more
value than its price, given cost in the store vs. what anybody paid for a
membership outright. This helped explain why it was not employment
and why the hours worked did not pencil out to "minimum wage,"
etc. We did get saddled with much higher workers
compensation insurance costs per having volunteers on the farm, so
beware of that cost factor, as well.
Lastly, our volunteer work share program
entailed a refundable deposit and a signed "volunteer commitment" to
hold their spot in it and to assure that they had the ability and the will
to fulfill their pledge because the success of the operation depended
on us having enough help . . . It's more to keep track of, etc.,
but it's an incentive for them to keep their commitment, so that they
can retrieve their deposit at the end of the season. If they or
we decided they were not a good fit for work share, they could apply
their deposit toward purchase of their share. A few
did. Also, a couple simply stopped coming and forfeited their deposits
to pay for the produce they had received before
dropping out. Lots of ways it can go, as you can see.
I favor a higher refundable deposit, bigger blocks of time together with
others knowledgeable re the bigger farm plan, etc., and good tracking of
work share performance.
I hope this is helpful insight, rather than
burdensome reading.
Best regards to the list,
Doreen
Sisters of the Soil, in Southwestern
Idaho
_______________________________________________
Market-farming
mailing
list
Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming