owner admitted that he was not paying the minimum wage increase because he had to stop producing cotton as he could not compete with cheap Chinese imports. He said he gave his permanent workers the option of retrenchment or pay per hour, with reduced hours in the off-season.144 A Zimbabwean permanent worker on another farm in Weipe, who did get paid the minimum wage, claimed that only 20 of the approximately 75 permanent workers were being paid the minimum (although Human Rights Watch did not interview any permanent worker at this farm who was not receiving minimum wage). He and other Zimbabweans on the farm who earned the minimum wage expressed concern about their seasonal worker colleagues who were only earning R500 (US$71), despite working the same number of hours: “I know it because we are friends. We show each other the pay slips. Some of the seasonals have been here before me and they are getting that money [less than the minimum].”145 The explanation, according to both the owner and his workers, was that seasonal workers at this farm were paid on certain days of the week according to the piece rate system. A piece rate method of calculating remuneration is based on an industry standard of the amount a worker should be able to produce in an hour. The minister of labor is empowered by section 55(g) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997, to prohibit piece work in a Sectoral Determination, and section 4 of the Sectoral Determination for farm workers duly provides for the wage or remuneration of a farm worker to be calculated only by reference to the farm worker’s ordinary hours of work. Moreover, when a piece rate system results in workers not receiving the minimum wage (because their production does not meet the industry standard), it violates the constitutional provision for “fair labor practices.” The TAU official for the Soutpansberg region said, “Piece rate is not allowed by law. But farmers use it. I don’t tell the Department of Labor. I just cook the book.”146 “Cooking the books” is an offense under section 92(b) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, but a Zimbabwean permanent worker at the Weipe farm mentioned above highlighted the absence of scrutiny: “I have a problem on my mind. Why doesn’t labor [inspection] come at the end of the year and check our pay slips. Labor comes to boss. He shows them his books. They drink tea together. He can give them a sheep. You’ll never know. Some people are working for kgs [kilograms]. If you make so many boxes of spanspek and watermelons you can go beyond the minimum. Some are 144 Human Rights Watch interview with a white commercial farmer, Weipe, April 26, 2006. Human Rights Watch interviews with Zimbabwean farm workers, Weipe, April 27, 2006. 146 Human Rights Watch interview with a white commercial farmer who is a TAU official for the Soutpansberg region, April 29, 2006. 145 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOLUME 18, NO. 6(A) 40