Upload
asanij
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
1/14
1Notallworkercenterswereincludedinthesampleforthestudy.See____formoredetailsonthemethodforthestudy.2Wefocusthediscussiononweeklywagesandnotannualwages. Toimprovetheaccuracyofthereportedweeklyearn
ingsby
workers,
we
asked
the
interviewees
to
report
on
earnings
and
job
performed
every
day
of
the
week,
and
then
addedthosereportedearningstoderiveanaverage.
Overthelastthreedecades,theUnitedStates
economyhasexperiencedagrowingsegmentation
ofthelabormarketandanincreaseinthegrowth
ofinformalandcontingentwork.Aresultofthe
broadereconomicrestructuringoftheUnited
Stateslabor
market,
the
demand
for
day
labor
has
increased,leadingtoagrowingconcernoverthe
insecurityandabusesassociatedwiththistypeof
employment(Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez,and
Gonzalez,2006). However,studiesindicatethat
daylaborcenters,whichhavegrownthroughout
theUnitedStates,mayofferasolutiontoemploy
mentabusesandinsecurity,bysuccessfullyimpact
ingdaylabormarketoutcomesincluding:employee
wages,workplaceabuse,andworkerhealthand
safety(seeValenzuela,Theodore,Melendez2007:
Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez,Gonzalez2006;
GonzalezandValenzuela2007;Fine2005;Milkman
2007).
Currentlythere
are
over
60
day
labor
worker
cen
tersoperatinginatleast15statesthroughoutthe
nation(Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez2008).Day
laborcentersarelooselyregulatedhiringsites
whereworkersmayseekemploymentunderrela
tivelystructuredconditions(Valenzuela2003:4)
andwheredaylaborersareencouragedtocongre
gateandemployersareencouragedtofindwork
ers(Theodore,Valenzuela,Melendez2007:2).
Studieshaveindicatedthatworkercentersplayan
importantroleinrespondingtotheemployment
andworkplaceabusesoftenfoundinthedaylabor
market(Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez2007;
Fine2005).AsValenzuelaetal.(2007)note,worker
centersoffer
aresponse
on
the
demand
side
by
offer[ing]awaytomonitorthepracticesofem
ployersandtocurtailabusessuchaswagetheft
andexposuretounsafeconditions(page4).Atthe
sametime,Theyalsorepresenta
responseonthesupplysidebyorgani[zing]and
normaliz[ing]thehiringofdaylaborers,
monitorworkerquality,andprovideopportunities
forworkerincorporationintothemainstream
economythroughemploymentassistanceandin
somecases,skillstraining(Valenzuela,Theodore,
Melendez2007:4).
Inthisstudyweexaminetheimpactofworker
centersondaylaborearningsandworkingcondi
tions.After
abrief
review
of
the
characteristics
of
thedaylaborjobmarket,weassesstheevidence
ofcentersimpactonthethreevariablesorcom
ponentsofweeklyearnings(wagesperhour,
hoursworkedduringtheday,andnumberofdays
workedduringtheweek)andvarious workplace
abuses.Forthisassessment,weusetheNational
DayLaborSurveyconductedin2004aunique
datasetwhere2,660daylaborerswereinter
viewedin284sitesthroughoutthenation.The
siteswereselectedrandomlyfromfourregional
clustersencompassingallSMSAs,andallsites
withinthoseselectedSMSAswerevisitedforin
terviews. Ofthe284totalsites,210werestreet
corners,34
were
connected
sites
(such
as
dedi
catedfacilitiesinHomeDepot),and41were
workercenters.1
Thecorefindingofthisstudyisthatdaylaborers
earn,underthemostoptimisticassumptions,
barelyabovethepovertythresholdsestablished
bytheCensusBureauandtheDepartmentof
HealthandHumanServiceswhethertheypartici
pateinworkercentersornot.Theaverageearn
ingofadaylaborerin2004isestimatedtobe
$248aweek.2Undertheassumptionthatworkers
canmaintainthatlevelofearningyearround,the
estimatedearningsof$12,896isslightlyabovethe
nationalaveragepovertythresholdof$9,645fora
householdof
one
individual
in
2005.
In
actuality,
inmostpartsofthecountrythedemandforday
laborworkisseasonalsinceasubstantialportion
ofemployersarecontractorsorheadofhouse
holdsworkingonrenovationsormaintenance
projects,andthesetypeofprojectsaremore
likelytooccurduringthesummermonthsbecause
oftheweatherorworkschedules.Assumingthat
I N S I D E T H I S
R E P O R T :
Characteristics of
the Day Labor
Market
2
The Impact of Day
Labor Worker
Centers on Labor
Market
3
Worker Centers
and Earnings
4
Worker Centers
and Workplace
Abuses
7
Conclusions 9
About Us 10
Bibliography 11
Worker Centers and Labor
Market Outcomes
Center For the Study
of Urban Poverty
University of
California, Los
Angeles
Center for Puerto
Rican Studies, HunterCollege, The City
University of New
York
Center for Urban
Economic
Development,
University of Illinois,
Chicago
Edwin Melendez, New School University
Abel Valenzuela Jr., University of California, Los Angeles
Nik Theodore, University of Illinois, Chicago
Anne Visser, New School University and
Ana Luz Gonzalez, University of California, Los Angeles
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
2/14
Page 2
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
thegoodseasonextendshalftheyear,theestimatedyearly
earningsis$9,672,afigureaboutthesameasthepoverty
thresholdforanindividual.3 Furthermore,sinceeconomic
conditionshavedeterioratedsincethesurveywasconducted;itislikelythatearningshaveerodedsignificantlyfora
prototypicalcontingentlaborforcesuchasdaylaborers.
Theanalysisofthesurveydatadisaggregatedbytypeofsite
showthatobservedoutcomesforworkerswhoparticipateinworkercenterscomparefavorablytothoseofworkersseeking
employmentinstreetandconnectedsites.4 Theaverage
hourlywageforworkersparticipatingincenterswas$10.53,
or28centsabovethe$10.25averageforallsites.Theaverage
hourlywagesforconnectedsitesandstreetcornerswere
$10.04and$10.83respectively.However,workers
interviewedincentersalsoreportedlowerhoursworkedper
day(7.2)whencomparedtotheaverageforallsites(7.4),and
lowerdaysworkedperweek(1.9v.2.3).Thesefindings
suggestthat
the
centers
induce
atradeoff
of
higher
observed
wagesperhourandloweroveralltimeworkedduringthe
week.Thistradeoffofcentersontheoverallearningsof
workersisconsistentwithamoreactiveenforcementof
workersrights,suchasprovidingsupporttoworkersforwage
claimsagainstabusiveemployers,andamorerestricted
employersdemandfordaylaborers.Overall,workersweekly
earningsaresimilaratcenters($213)thanatother sites($238
cornersand$251connected),indicatingthatthereisno
significantpenaltyintermsofoverallearningsforamore
intenseenforcementofworkersrights.
Animportantfindingofthisstudyisthatcentersreduce
employersnonpaymentofwagesandworkplaceabuses.
Consideringallformsofemployersworkplaceabuses,workers
interviewedat
centers
reported
an
incidence
of
2.97
abuses
overthepriortwomonths,alowerthanthosereportedby
workersinterviewedatcornersof(3.23)oratconnectedsites
(3.21). Centerscontributetothereductionofabuseincidents
invariousways.Centerseducateworkersandemployers
aboutworkersrightsandprotectworkingconditions
mandatedbylaw.Centersalsoserveasadeterrence
mechanismtotheextentthattheirpresenceinthecommunity
isindicativeofcivicandadvocacycapacityonbehalfoftheday
laborers.
Insummary,basedonthesefindings,weconcludethatworker
centershavebeenaneffectivepolicythatcontributestothe
regularizationofthedaylaborjobmarketinsomepartsofthe
country. Fromtheworkersperspective,centersincrease
hourlywages
and
reduce
workplace
abuses.
From
the
communityandpublicsectorperspective,centersimprovethe
enforcementofwagepaymentandworkplaceprotectionlaws
andregulations.However,centersarelimitedtojustaportion
ofalltheareaswheredaylaborsiteswereidentified.Core
findingsofthisstudysupportamoreproactiveroleforlocal
authoritiesintheuseofcentersasatooltomitigate
communityconflict,promotelocaleconomicdevelopment,
andtopromotesocialjusticeforahighlyvulnerablesegment
oftheworkingclass.
CharacteristicsoftheDayLaborMarketDay
laborers
typically
range
in
age
from
15
to
89
years
old,
withanaverageageof35(Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez,
Gonzalez2006;UnitedStatesGeneralAccountabilityOffice
2002).Theseindividualsusuallyhavelimitededucationskills
andlimitedEnglishproficiency(UnitedStatesGeneral
AccountabilityOffice2002).Moreover,alargemajorityofday
laborershavebeeninthecountryforonlyashortamountof
timeandgenerallyholdlessthanahighschooleducation
(ValenzuelaandGonzalez2006). Suchcharacteristicsmake
theseindividualsmorelikelytobecomevictimtoscrupulous
employmentpractices,workplaceabuses,andexploitation,
aspectsinherentintheinformaleconomy.
Manyqualitativeandquantitativestudieshavehelped
elucidatetheworkconditionsofthedaylabormarket. In
2006,
utilizing
information
from
the
National
Day
Labor
Survey,ValenzuelaandGonzalezfoundthatdaylaborersare
usuallyemployedabout2to3daysaweek,althoughthey
seekworkdaily,andtendtocontinu[e]indaylaborbecause
theyperceivetheirundocumentedstatusandlackofEnglish
skillsasbarrierstogainingformalemployment(pageIV).
Incomegeneratedfromdaylaborhasbeenidentifiedasboth
unpredictableandinconsistent,andstudiesnote,itismost
affectedbythenumberofdaysaworkercansecureworkas
wellaswagewithholdingbyemployers(Valenzuelaand
Gonzalez2006,Valenzuela2006;Valenzuela,Theodore,
Melendez,Gonzalez2006).
Thedaylabormarketisdangerous,symptomatictoworkplace
abuses,andlaborintensive.Astudyofdaylaborersinthe
greaterWashingtonD.C.regionfoundthatabout79%ofday
laborsconsidertheworktheydotobedangerous,with81%of
theworkersindicatingthattheydidnotreceiveanytypeofjob
safetytrainingandabout51%reportingnotreceivingsafety
equipment(Valenzuela,Gonzalez,Theodore,andMelendez
2006). Moreoverinthesamestudy,onequarterwere
reportedtohavesufferedaninjuryorillnessresultingfrom
theiremploymentthatwarrantedmedicalattentionand
treatment(Valenzuelaet.al,2006).Suchfindingsare
increasinglyimportantgiventhatmostofthedaylabormarket
isconcentratedinlaborintensiveindustriesposingsignificant
implicationstotheworkplacehealthandsafetyofday
laborers.
Suchimplicationshavebeenhighlightedinanumberof
qualitativestudiesundertakenontheconstructionindustry.In
aqualitativecasestudyofdaylaborconstructionworkersin
SouthFlorida,Nissen(2003)foundthatdaylaborerslacked
formalsafetyandhealthtrainingasaresultofeithernot
receivingtrainingorreceivingtraininginEnglishwithout
translation.Inaddition,Nissenfoundthattheselaborershave
aseriousinjuryratemorethanthreetimestheaveragefor
constructionworkersinthestate(2003:54). Moreover,ina
studyofsafetypracticesintheChicagoconstructionindustry,
MehtaandTheodore(2006)foundthatdaylaborerswere
3Forthisestimate,weusedtheratioofreportedearningsof$517forabadmonthto$1473foragoodmonthof.35.4Amorecomprehen
siveanalysis
of
centers
impact
would
control
for
workers
characteristics,
selection
bias
among
those
reporting
earnings,
and
endogeneity
of
thechoiceofsitebyworkers.Suchcontrolsarebeyondthescopeofthisstudy.
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
3/14
Page 3
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
routinelyplacedinhazardousworkingconditions,which
resultedinhighratesofjobinjuriesamongstthedaylaborers
andfoundsignificantevidencethatmanyhadnotreceivedthe
necessarysafetyequipmentattheirlastconstructionjob(MehtaandTheodore2006).
Inaddition,studieshavealsofoundthatdaylaborersare
subjecttoavarietyofworkplaceabusesincludingnonpayment
ofwagesandpaymentofwagesinamountsthatwerelower
thanoriginallyagreedupon(Valenzuela,Theodore,and
Melendez2006).AreportundertakenbytheUnitedStates
GeneralAccountabilityOffice(2002)foundthatdaylaborers
indicatethattheyarevictimsofnonpaymentorwithholdingof
wagesatleastonceaweekandadditionalstudiesalsoindicate
thatdaylaborersendureotherworkplaceabusesincluding
receivingnofoodorbreaks,andbeingabandonedatworksites
(Valenzuela,Gonzalez,Theodore,andMelendez2006).
Furthermore,daylaborershavereportedincidencesof
harassmentand
threats
from
the
security
guards
and/or
being
reportedtothepoliceorimmigrationauthorities(Valenzuela,
Theodore,andMelendez2007).
Suchcharacteristicsofthedaylabormarkethavebeen
identifiedashavingprofoundimpactonthehealthandwell
beingofdaylaborers.Anethnographicstudyundertakenin
SanFrancisco,foundthatdaylaborersinadditiontowork
relatedinjuriesalsoexperiencesubstanceabuseandsuffer
fromanxiety(Walter,Bourgois,Loinaz,Schillinger2002).
Moreover,inapilotstudyofdaylaborerssolicitingworkon
corners,OrganistaandKubo(2005),foundthatdaylaborers
sufferfromemotionalandpsychologicalstress(stemming
fromconcernsoveremployment,money,andracism)social
isolation,aswellasengagedinbingedrinking.Suchactivities,
theyargue,
are
associated
with
higher
risks
of
contracting
HIV,
andposeriskstothementalandgeneralhealthstatusofday
laborers(OrganistaandKubo2005).
TheImpactofDayLaborWorkerCentersonLaborMarketInastudyundertakenon60daylaborworkercenters
throughouttheUnitedStates,Valenzuela,Theodore,and
Melendez,notethatworkercentersmediateemploymentof
daylaborersinthreeprimaryways.First,theyprovidea
minimumwageratewhichestablishesafloorunderthewages
paidwithinthesector.Second,theyarecapableofprovidinga
distributionprocess
for
job
opportunities
which
is
both
equitableandefficient,andthird,theymaintainwage
standardsthroughtheirassistancetoworkerswhohave
sufferedwagewithholdingfromemployers.Suchefforts,the
researchersargueseektocreateagreatersenseof
transparencyinthehiringprocessbyplacingaccountability
backintotheemploymentcontractingrelationship
(Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez2007).
Studiesfurthersuggestthatworkercentersplayakeyrolein
establishingminimumwagethresholdsandengaginginwage
claimsforunpaidworkbydaylaborers.Byestablishinga
minimumwage,workercentershelptocurtailworkplaceabusesandimprovelabormarketoutcomesbyallowing
negotiationsbetweenemployeesandemployerstonot
revolvearoundthedesperationofworkersforadailyincome,
butinsteadaroundtherequirementsofthejobandthe
qualificationsoftheworker(Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez
2007: 9).Moreover,thesecentersserveasunique
intermediariesintheeventofwagewithholdingsbyan
employer.In2001,accordingtotheUnitedStatesGeneral
AccountabilityOffice(2002),thesecentersrecoveredover
$750,000inowedwagesthatdaylaborershadnotreceived.
Wageresolutionandwageclaimingisundertakenthrougha
varietyofactivitiesincluding:workereducation,collective
actioninconjunctionwithcenterstaff,oracombinationof
directaction,
negotiation
and
legal
remedies
(Valenzuela,
Theodore,Melendez2006). AlthoughtheWorkerCenter
establishedminimumwagesmayvary,theymustcluster
aroundthegoingratefordaylaborersnationally(between
$8.00and$10.00perhour)withmostcentersalsoestablishing
aminimumnumberofhourstobeworkedforajob
(Valenzuela,Theodore,andMelendez2007).Suchactivities
aredoneundertherationalethatnonpaymentofwages
placesadragonpayandconditionsacrossthedaylabor
marketasawhole,therebysettinginmotiontheforcesthat
underminetheabilityofworkercenterstoraisestandardsin
thelabormarket(ValenzuelaTheodoreMelendez2006:20).
Anothercentralactivityofdaylaborcentersisthecreation
andmaintenanceofaroutinejobdistributionsystem.Through
thissystem,
worker
centers
are
able
to
remove
the
direct
competitionwhichexistsbetweenworkers(Camou2005).
Suchreductionofcompetitionisneededgiventhatwhen
centerscoexistwithotherinformalhiringsites(suchas
connectedandunconnected),notonlydoesthispotentially
minimizethenumberofpeopleintegratedintothe
center,butratherreducesthecapacityofcenterstoattract
employmentbyincreasingcompetition(Camou2005).
Valenzuelaandassociates(2007)identifiedtwotypesof
allocationsystemsusedinworkercenters:lotteriesandlists,
butpositthatthemajorityofthecentersusesometypeof
hybridsystem.Suchallocationsystems,theyadvance,are
designedtoperformadualpurpose onetoprovide
employmentthroughanefficientequitableandtransparent
fashionas
well
as
to
provide
workers
with
an
incentive
to
forgoseekingworkatinformalhiringsites(Valenzuela,
Melendez,Theodore2007).
Furthermore,scholarsadvancethatdaylaborworkercenters
havethecapacitytocurtail workplaceabuseswithintheday
labormarketbyreinstatingaccountabilitybackintothe
employeremployeecontractualrelationship.Through
professionalstaffsandrecordsofemployment,centersare
capableofprovidingthepapertrailneededtoaddress
employerabusesincludingwagetheftandunsafeworking
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
4/14
Page 4
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
conditions.Moreover,RuthMilkman(2006)arguesthat
centersarecapableofputtingdirectpressureonemployers
andgovernmentalagencies,helpingtocreateasafety
mechanismforthoseengagedinthesector.InadditionMargaretHobbins,advancesthatcentersareimportantin
ensuringworkersafetyandtreatmentbecauseoftheir
capacitytodocumentabusesprovidingevidenceofan
employmentrelationshipandcreatingasituationinwhich
workersarelesslikelytoendureabuseandlifethreatening
conditionsoutofafearthatunaccountableemployerswillfire
themorwithholdpayforcomplaining(Hobbins2006:65).
WorkerCentersandEarningsInthissectionofthereportweexaminetheevidencefromthe
NationalDayLaborSurveyconductedin2004onworker
centers
and
earnings.
Weekly
earnings
are
a
composite
of
variousdefiningelements:wagesperhour,hoursworked
everyday,andthetotalnumberofdaysworkedonaweek.
Variationsinanyofthesedefiningelementswouldinduce
variationsonearningsamongworkers.Thus,regional
disparitiesinwagesperhour,orlocaldemandforworkerswill
inducevariationsinearnings.Tocontrolthesefactors,we
organizethediscussionbasedontablesthatdepictwagesby
thetypeofsitesandtheSMSAofthesite,alsowepresent
subsequenttablesforeachofthelengthofworkelementsdefiningweeklyearnings.
5However,conventionaleconomic
theoryproposesthatinacompetitivemarketwagesare
reflectionsofthelevelofworkersskills. Thereported
earningsdonotcontroltheskilllevelsofworkers,andthese
areanimportantdeterminantofearnings.Thedifficultyin
controllingskilllevelsinthisjobmarketisthatworkersengage
invarioustypesofoccupations(suchaspaintersorgeneral
constructionlaborers)oftentimeswithinthesameweek,and
workforemployerswithdifferentwagestructures(suchas
contractorsorindividualhouseholds)whichinturninduce
variationsevenforthesameworkerinsimilartypesof
occupations.
Tosimplifythepresentationofaveragewagesbyoccupations,
wegrouped
the
various
jobs
reported
by
workers
into
groups
ofcloseproximityintermsofbothskillslevelsandreported
earnings.Theoccupationsthatintegratethecategoriesare
reportedinTable1andtheaveragewagesforthecategories
inTable2.Themostprevalentoccupationsamongday
laborersareconstructionlaborersandgardening. Asreported
Category Occupations Week Total Category Occupations Week Total
Loading, Installer & Other Hi 93 Painting 837
locksmith 1 painting 837
unpacking 7 Construction Laborer 1,926
loading/loading wood 56 construction 1,926childcare 1 Gardening and House Cleaning 1,398
carpet/carpet installer 28 cleaning houses 136
Drywall 142 gardening 1,262
drywall 142 Miscellaneous Low 154
Plumbing, Heating & AC 127 installation/installing floors 14cooling/heating/airconditioning 12 drove machine 4
plumbing 112 mechanic 3
refrigerat ion 3 welder 15
Moving 629furniture/arrangingfurniture 7
container 9 factory worker 5
moving 620 warehouse 24
Construction Craft 659 retail (selling food/beds) 3
bricklayer/masonry 59 washing dishes/restaurant 5
carpentry 222 garment worker 14
roofing 338 farm worker 50electrician 27 newspaper delivery 4
handywork/house repair 13 cleaning horses/ranch 3
Fencing, Digging, and Other Mid 155 ship dock 3
audience member 1 cook
leafleting 7 Total 6,120
fencing/gate 22
janitor 8
driver 11
car wash worker 19
digging 82
golf course 5
FrequencyofJobsperWeekbyOccupationalCategories
5OnlySMSAswithmorethan80interviewswereselectedforlistingonthetables.Allotherinterviewsaregroupedunderthe
AllOther
SMSAs
category.
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
5/14
Page 5
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
inTable1,ofthe6,120dayjobcontractsreportedbyworkers
duringthepriorweekoftheinterview,1,926(31.5%)werefor
constructionlaborers,
1,262
(20.6%)
were
for
gardening,
and
837(13.7%)forpainting.Inotherwords,twothirdsofthe
dailyjobcontractswereawardedtothreeoccupationswith
relativelylittledifferencesinwages.AsreportedinTable2,
constructionlaborersearnedonaverage$10.38anhour,
gardeningandhousecleaningjobspaid$9.89anhour,while
paintersearned$10.15anhour.Otherimportantjobs
contractedduringthepriorweektotheinterviewincluded:
moving(620),andthegroupingofconstructioncraft
occupations(659);thesetwojobcategorieswerepaid$11.09,
slightlyabovetheaveragefortheotherprevalentoccupations.
Insum,theaveragewagesforworkersfluctuatefroman
averagelow
of
$8.49
an
hour
for
Miscellaneous
Low
occupationsto$11.19forthosejobsintheLoading,Installer&
OtherHicategory.However,thesevariationsaremitigatedby
thefactthatmostjobsperformedduringthepriorweekwere
performedinahandfulofoccupationsclosetotheoverall
observedhourlywageaverageof$10.58.
SMSAsaregenerallyconsideredastherelevantregionalunit
ofanalysisforlabormarkets. Foreconomistandothersocial
scientists,alabormarketisdefinedasaspatialunitwhereitis
conventionalforworkerstocommutetowork.Thoughthis
OccupationalCategory
Type
of
Site Total
Street Connected Centers
Loading, Installer & Other Hi 11.22 10.46 11.48 11.19
Drywall 11.98 10.84 9.98 11.57
Plumbing, Heating & AC 11.06 10.09 10.66 10.84
Moving 11.02 10.85 11.66 11.09
Construction Craft 11.02 10.85 11.66 11.09
Fencing, Digging, and Other Mid 10.06 8.89 11.59 10.15
Painting 10.06 8.89 11.59 10.15
Construction Laborer 10.41 10.28 10.29 10.38
Gardening and House Cleaning 9.77 9.99 10.36 9.89
Miscellaneous Low 8.31 9.38 8.86 8.49
RegionTypeofSite
TotalStreet Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 11.10 11.10
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 11.63 N/A 11.67 11.66
NM: New Jersey 9.94 9.94
NM: New York, NY 11.10 N/A N/A 11.09
NM: Other 10.83 10.83
So: Atlanta, GA 9.85 10.76 9.65 10.05
So: Houston, TX 8.97 11.25 9.19
So: Texas, Other 8.30 8.84 8.32
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 8.37 10.00 10.36 9.04
So: Washington, DC 10.77 12.66 11.15
So: Other 9.33 N/A 8.71 9.20
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 9.12
11.45
10.94
10.78W: Oakland, CA 10.67 10.58 11.19 10.73
W: Orange County, CA 11.01 10.01 9.70 10.57
W: San Diego, CA 11.15 11.95 N/A 11.28
W: San Francisco, CA 10.95 10.10 11.33 10.90
W: San Jose, CA 10.44 10.67 10.70 10.55
W: Other 9.81 N/A 9.30 9.66
Total 10.04 10.83 10.53 10.25
* Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
HourlyWagesbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
HourlyWagesbyOccupationsandTypeofSites
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
6/14
Page 6
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
assumptionisquestionablefordaylaborersinareaswith
inadequatepublictransportationservicingtheneedsofthe
workingpoor,weassumethatwageswillbefairlycomparable
withinSMSAsbytypeofsite,andalsominimizedisparitiesinducedbyregionaldifferencesthroughoutthecountrywhen
comparingthesites. Regionaldisparitiesinhourlywagesare
evidentinTable3.Forinstance,averagehourlywagesby
SMSAfluctuatefromahighof$11.66anhourinNassau
Suffolk,LongIslandtoalowof$9.04inPhoenixMesa.SMSAs
sitesintheSouthwest(e.g.,Houston$9.19,Phoenix$9.04)
typicallyhaveloweraveragehourlywagesthanthoseinthe
Northeast(e.g.,NewYork$11.13,Washington,DC$11.29,
Chicago$11.38).
Overall,workercentershaveahigherhourlywage($10.53)
thanthoseofcorners($10.04)butnotforthoseofconnected
sites($10.83).Thoughthevastmajorityofcentersconformto
thispattern,asshowninTable3,notallcentershaveaverage
hourlywages
that
are
greater
than
those
of
other
sites
within
theSMSA.HourlywagesatcentersinHouston,LosAngeles,
Phoenix,SanJose,WashingtonDC,Oakland,andSanFrancisco
exceedthoseofothersiteswithintheSMSA.Incontrast,
centersinAtlanta,NewYork,OrangeCo.,andSanDiegohave
lowerhourlyearningsthanthoseofothersites.Hourlywages
inLongIslandandOtherSMSAaresimilar.Futurestudiescan
assesswhycentersoutperformothersitesinsomeSMSAsin
termsofhigherobservedhourlywagesandwhynotinothers.
Differencescouldbeattributedtoapproachesandstrategies,
tolocationofthecenters,tounfavorablelocalenvironments
(e.g.,antisolicitationordinances),andotherfactors.
Asecondsetoffactoraffectingweeklyearningsisrelatedto
lengthofworkduringtheweek.Table4showstheaveragenumberofhoursworkedduringthedaybytypeofsitesand
SMSAs.Overall,workercentersexhibitlowerhoursperday
thancorners:centersaverageis7.2hoursaday,connected
sites7.1,andcorners7.6.Thoughmanyworkerswork
regularlyovertime,onlyintheNassauregiondoestheaverage
hoursperdayexceedeighthours. Therangeofaveragedaily
hoursextendsfrom8.6intheNassauSMSAregion,to6.9
hoursadayintheSanFranciscoandOrangeCountySMSAs.
OfthegroupofSMSAswherehourlywagesincentersexceed
thoseofothersiteswithintheSMSA,Houston,LosAngeles,
Phoenix,andWashingtonDC,thenumberofhoursworked
duringthedaywerelowerthanforothersites.Amongthis
groupofcentersitislikelythatcentersactivismprotecting
workersrights
and
actively
engaged
in
wage
claims
resulted
in
moreadherencetoaregulareighthoursday.Intwoofthese
SMSAwherehourlywageswerehigherforworkers
interviewedincentersinOakland,andcenterinSanFrancisco
alsoreportedhigherhoursworked.However,thesecenters
alsoreportedsignificantlyhigherwagesthancornersand
connectedsites,suggestingthepossibilitythathigherwages
reflectovertimecompensationforadditionalhoursworked.
WorkersinSanJosecentersreportedhigherhourlywagesand
aboutthesamenumberofhoursworkedperdayasthose
Region
Typeof
Site
Total
Street Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 8.0 8.0
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 8.6 N/A 8.1 8.6
NM: New Jersey 8.1 8.1
NM: New York, NY 7.8 N/A 7.8
NM: Other 8.2 8.2
So: Atlanta, GA 7.1 7.1 7.5 7.1
So: Houston, TX 7.9 6.9 7.9
So: Texas, Other 7.5 8.3 7.5
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 7.4 6.7 6.2 7.1
So: Washington, DC 7.8 7.7 7.8
So: Other 7.6 N/A 7.0 7.6
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 7.8 7.1 6.8 7.1
W: Oakland, CA 6.8 7.0 7.7 7.0
W: Orange County, CA 6.9 6.8 7.3 6.9
W: San Diego, CA 7.6 6.6 N/A 7.3
W: San Francisco, CA 6.8 7.6 7.2 6.9
W: San Jose, CA 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.2
W: Other 7.0 N/A 8.1 7.3
Total 7.6 7.1 7.2 7.4
* Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
AverageHoursWorkedinaDaybyRegionsandTypeofSites*
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
7/14
Page 7
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
interviewedincornersites.Ofthecenterswithlowerhourly
earningsthanothersiteswithintheSMSA,inAtlantaand
OrangeCo.
workers
reported
working
more
hours
at
the
centersthanthosereportedbyworkersinterviewedinother
sites.Thus,whileamongthefirstgroupofSMSAsitispossible
toassociatethepatternofhigherwagesandfewerhourstoa
positiveimpactofcenters,amongthelattergroupofSMSAs
centersdonotdepicttheexpectedpatternofoutcomes.
Thenumberofdaysperweekworkedasadaylaborerismore
directlyrelatedtothedemandforcontingentworkersina
givenSMSA.Inthiscontext,centersgenerateonaverage
fewerjobcontractsthanothersites,asmeasuredbythe
numberofdaysworkedperweek.OnlyinOaklanddidworkers
reportsignificantlyhigherdaysworkedperweekthanother
sites.Theoverallrateof1.9daysforcentersislowerthanthe
2.5rateforconnectedsites(mostlylocatedinHomeDepot
facilities)or
the
2.3
rate
for
street
corners
(Table
5).
As
the
priorcomponentsofweeklyearnings,daysworkedperweek
exhibitarangebetweenalowrateof1.9daysinSanJosetoa
highof2.9daysworkedperweekinChicago.Theevidence
fromthistablesuggeststhat,despitethepositiveeffectof
centersonhourlywagesandonreducingtheaverageamount
ofhoursworkedperday,centersareassociatedwithadecline
indemandfordaylaborers.Therearemultiplepotential
explanationsforthisfinding.Forone,employersmightbeless
reluctanttocontractworkersthattheyperceiveashaving
moreprotectionsandrecourses.Or,centersarenot
locatedwhere
employers
can
easily
connect
with
workers,
especiallyincomparisontoothersites.Obviously,thisisa
questionthatdeservesfurtherstudy.
Weeklyearningsareasummativemeasureoftherelative
importanceofeachoftheoutcomesdiscussedtothispoint.
Weeklyearningsaredefinedas:
weeklyearnings =hourlywages x hoursperdayxdaysper
week.Table6showsweeklyearningsbysiteandSMSAs. The
rangeofweeklyearningsreportedbyworkersfluctuatesfrom
alowof$193inPhoenixMesa,toahighof$339inother
areasoftheNorth.Thenationalaveragespersitesarefairly
similar:connectedsitesexhibitthehigheraverageof$251,
streetcornersaverage$238, andcentershaveaslightlylower
averageof$213.However,infourSMSAs,Washington,DC,
Oakland,and
San
Francisco
workers
reported
higher
weekly
earningsatcentersthanatothersites.Thus,totheextentthat
centershaveincreasedweeklywagesandreducedweekly
hoursbycurtailingemployersabuses,andtotheextentthat
somecentershavemaintainedhighdemandforworkersatthe
centers,centersareclearlyaneffectivepolicyfromthe
workersandthecommunityperspectives.Regularizationhas
improvedmarketoutcomeswithrelativelylittleadverseeffect
onoverallearningsforworkers.
Region
Typeof
Site
Total
Street Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 2.9 2.9
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 2.6 N/A 2.1 2.4
NM: New Jersey 2.7 2.7
NM: New York, NY 2.4 N/A 2.4
NM: Other 2.3 2.3
So: Atlanta, GA 2.0 2.4 1.9 2.1
So: Houston, TX 2.3 1.6 2.2
So: Texas, Other 2.1 3.7 2.2
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.5
So: Washington, DC 2.1 1.8 2.0
So: Other 1.9 N/A 2.5 2.0
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 2.2 2.9 2.0 2.3
W: Oakland, CA 1.9 2.0 3.2 2.1
W: Orange County, CA 2.8
2.3
2.4
2.6
W: San Diego, CA 3.0 2.3 N/A 2.8
W: San Francisco, CA 2.5 2.2 1.7 2.2
W: San Jose, CA 2.0 2.2 0.8 1.9
W: Other 2.3 N/A 1.5 2.1
Total 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.3
* Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
AverageDaysWorkedinaWeekbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
8/14
Page 8
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
WorkerCentersandWorkplaceAbusesFor
the
most
part,
provided
that
employers
match
the
minimumwage expectedbyworkers(oftencalleda
reservationwage),daylaborersarewillingtoworkforaslong
astheemployerswouldlikethemtowork.Presumably,
overtimewagesarepartoftheinitialnegotiationforwork,
andemployersregularlyrequestworkerstostaylongerthan
eighthoursadayasguidedbythelaw. However,paymentfor
overtimeworkisoftencontentious,especiallywhentheterms
oftheverbalcontractareambiguous(forinstance,bynot
establishinganhourlyratewhenworkexceedseighthours)
andmanyemployersperceivedaylaborersashavinglittle
recourseincaseofdisputes.Othertypesofabusesinvolve
abandoningworkersinremotesiteswithnotransportation,
workplacesthathavenoaccesstofoodorwater,physical
violenceorverbalabuse.
Priorstudiesusingqualitativedatasuggestthatworker
centersmitigateconflictbyclarifyingtheexpectedtermsfor
theworkcontractandbyservingasamediationresource
whenconflictarises
(Theodore,Valenzuela,
andMelendez.2007).
Centersalsopromotefair
workingconditions
by
educatingworkersabout
theirrightsandemployers
abouttheirobligations.
Themerepresenceofa
centerinacommunityis
anindicationthatworkers
mayhaveaccessto
Region
TypeofSite
TotalStreet Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 297 297
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 296 N/A 285 293
NM: New Jersey 283 283
NM: New York, NY 270 N/A 272
NM: Other 339 339
So: Atlanta, GA 211 285 218 229
So: Houston, TX 211 203 210
So: Texas, Other 209 273 213
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 194 193 183 193
So: Washington, DC 262 293 268
So: Other 206 N/A 303 224
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 231 266 202 229
W: Oakland, CA 218 205 315 229
W: Orange County, CA 253 247 212 244
W: San Diego, CA 276 236 N/A 263
W: San Francisco, CA 258 269 274 262
W: San Jose, CA 223
246
191
230
W: Other 192 N/A 119 171
Total 238 251 213 235
* Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
AverageWeeklyWagesbyRegionsand TypeofSites*
SMSATypeofSite
TotalStreet Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 2.19 2.19
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 2.18 N/A 1.11 1.93
NM: New Jersey 1.62 1.62
NM: New York, NY 1.86 N/A 1.89
NM: Other 1.06 1.06
So: Atlanta, GA 1.64 1.93 1.41 1.69
So: Houston, TX 2.44
3.21
2.53
So: Texas, Other 1.53 1.85 1.54
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 1.51 1.35 0.85 1.38
So: Washington, DC 1.91 1.97 1.93
So: Other 1.23 N/A 1.61 1.34
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 1.54 1.81 1.17 1.44
W: Oakland, CA 1.72 1.72 1.60 1.70
W: Orange County, CA 1.72 1.58 1.17 1.58
W: San Diego, CA 1.67 1.76 N/A 1.71
W: San Francisco, CA 1.56 1.91 0.95 1.47
W: San Jose, CA 1.56 1.06 0.70 1.26
W: Other 1.34 N/A 2.06 1.50
Total 1.65 1.59 1.38 1.59
*Includes nonpayment,payinglessthanagreed,orpaidforfewerhoursthanagreed.
** Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
IncidenceofEmployersNonpaymentofWages*DuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegionsandTypesofSites**
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
9/14
Page 9
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
locallegalandadvocacyresources,andthatpresencebyitself
couldserveasdeterrencetoabuses.Inthissectionwe
examinetheevidenceonhowcentersmaycontributeto
lessenvarioustypesofemployerabuses.
Nonpaymentofwagesisthemostprevalenttypeofabuse
reportedbydaylaborers.Table7depictsanindexofthe
incidenceofemployersnonpaymentofwagestodaylaborers
overthepriortwomonths.Overall,daylaborersinterviewed
incenters
reportedan
averageof1.38
incidents,or17%lowerthanthe
1.65incidence
ratereportedby
workers
interviewedin
corners,and8%
lowerthanthe
1.59rate
reportedby
workersin
connectedsites.
However,asit
wasthecasewith
earnings,rates
of
abusesvary
noticeably
throughthe
SMSAs.Lower
incidencerates
arereportedby
workersinmost
oftheSMSAs(Los
Angeles,Atlanta,
Nassauregion,
OrangeCounty,
Phoenix,Oakland,
SanFrancisco).OnlyinHoustondidworkersincentersreport
higherincidence
rates
than
those
interviewed
in
other
cities.
SMSATypeofSite
TotalStreet Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 1.60 1.60
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 1.24 N/A 0.57 1.09
NM: New Jersey 0.91 0.91
NM: New York, NY 1.32 N/A 1.33
NM: Other 0.89 0.89
So: Atlanta, GA 0.90 1.07 1.00 0.95
So: Houston, TX 1.16 1.50 1.20
So: Texas, Other 0.62 1.00 0.63
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.80 0.74 0.40 0.73
So: Washington, DC 1.06 1.34 1.12
So: Other 0.82 N/A 0.90 0.86
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA1.27 1.20 0.80 1.02
W: Oakland, CA 1.16 1.16 0.93 1.13
W: Orange County, CA 1.30 1.13 0.93 1.19
W: San Diego, CA 1.16 1.24 N/A 1.19
W: San Francisco, CA 1.22 1.18 0.85 1.13
W: San Jose, CA 0.94 0.96 0.50 0.89
W: Other 0.70 N/A 2.07 1.03
Total 1.00 1.08 0.97 1.01
*Includesabandonmentinremotesites,noaccesstofood orwater,andothers.
** Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source: NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
IncidenceofEmployers'WorkingConditionsAbuses*DuringtheLastTwoMonths
byRegions
and
Type
of
Sites**
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
10/14
Page 10
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
Violenceintheworkplaceistheleastfrequenttypeofabuse,
withan
overall
incidence
rate
of
0.61
per
worker
over
the
two
priormonths(Table9).Violenceisbroadlydefinedand
includesbothphysicalandverbalabuses.Asinothertypesof
abuses,incidenceofviolenceislowerforworkersinterviewed
atcentersthanforthoseinterviewedatstreetcornersites,
howeverworkersinterviewedinconnectedsitesreportedthe
lowestincidenceoverall. AsshowninTable9,onlyworkers
interviewedincentersinfiveoftheSMSAreportedlower
incidencethaninallothersiteswithintheSMSA,while
workersinthreeotherSMSAsreportedaboutthesame
incidenceratesasthesiteswiththelowestincidences.Table
10presentsthesummaryresultsforemployerorworkplace
abuses.Theincidenceofallformsofemployerandworkplace
abusesoverthepriortwomonthsissimple,thesumofthe
threetypes
of
abuses
already
discussed:
non
payment,
workingconditions,andviolence.Overall,workersincenters
reportedalower
incidence
of
abuses
than
workers
interviewedinothertypeofsites.Theoverallincidencerateof
2.97forworkersinterviewedincentersis11%lowerthanthe
reportedincidencerateforstreetcornersof3.23,and4%
lowerthantheincidenceratereportedforconnectedsitesof
3.21.ThispatternisobservedforcentersinLosAngeles,
Atlanta,OrangeCounty,Phoenix,SanJose,Oakland,andSan
Francisco.Mostoftheareaswiththehighestincidencesarein
Washington,D.C.,HoustonandotherSMSAsintheWest.Two
areaswithincidentratesforcentersthatdivergefromthe
generalpatternareHoustonandotherSMSAsinthewest,
withextremelyhighincidenceratesof5.43and5.03,
respectively. Asreportedabove,allthreecomponentsofthe
indexcontributetotheseobservedpatternsof averageabuse
incidentrates
in
the
Houston
and
New
York
areas.
SMSATypeofSite
TotalStreet Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 0.70 0.70
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.98 N/A 0.89 0.94
NM: New Jersey 0.41 0.41
NM: New York, NY 0.89 N/A 0.92
NM: Other 0.40 0.40
So: Atlanta, GA 0.60 0.45 0.59 0.56
So: Houston, TX 0.60 0.71 0.62
So: Texas, Other 0.46 0.77 0.47
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.38 0.44 0.40 0.40
So: Washington, DC 0.70 0.71 0.70
So: Other 0.43
N/A 0.79
0.51
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 0.65 0.57 0.53 0.57
W: Oakland, CA 0.62 0.64 0.73 0.64
W: Orange County, CA 0.69 0.68 0.45 0.64
W: San Diego, CA 0.65 0.84 N/A 0.71
W: San Francisco, CA 0.56 0.36 0.30 0.48
W: San Jose, CA 0.38 0.40 0.10 0.35
W: Other 0.24 N/A 0.90 0.40
Total 0.58 0.54 0.61 0.58
* Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
IncidenceofViolenceintheWorkplaceDuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegionsand
Typeof
Sites*
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
11/14
Page 11
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
ConclusionsPrevious
studies
have
argued
that
worker
centers,
the
primary
policyimplementedinmultiplelocalitiesaroundthecountry
toregularizethedaylaborjobmarket,provideimportant
benefitstoworkers.Amongthesebenefitsinclude:helpingto
establishminimumwagefloors,helpingtoinstituteequitable
andefficientdistributionalprocessesforjobs,andhelpingto
maintainwagestandardsthroughassistancetoworkerswho
havesufferedworkplaceabusesandexperiencedwage
withholdings(Theodoreetal2007). Inthisstudywewere
concernedwiththeimpactofworkercentersondaylabor
earningsandworkingconditions.
Theevidencepresentedindicatesthatworkercentersdooffer
concretebenefitstoworkers,mostsignificantlybyimproving
wagesperhourandmitigatingworkplaceabuses.Howeverthe
impactsof
centers
are
lessened
by
numerous
factors.
For
instance,theobservedhourlywagepremiumof($0.49)
enjoyedbyworkersinterviewedatcentersoverworkers
interviewedatstreetcornersisminimalbyanystandardand
lowerthantheobservedhourlywageearnedbyworkers
participatinginconnectedsites($10.83). Insomeregions,any
advantagesgainedintermsofhigherwagesareerodedby
fewerdaysofworkovertheweek.
Workersaffiliated
with
centers
generally
reported
fewer
abusesfromemployersthandaylaborersinterviewedinother
sites.Consideringallformsofabuse,workersinterviewedat
centersreportedalowerrateaverageofabuses(3.10)over
thepriortwomonths,aratelowerthanthosereportedby
workersinterviewedatbothcorners(3.44)andconnected
sites(3.22).However,therearesomeworkercenters
reportingsignificantlyhighratesofemployerandworkplace
abuse.Thesemixedresultsshouldnotobscurethemain
conclusionofthisstudythat,intheend,centerscontributeto
thereductionofabusethrougheducatingworkersand
employersaboutworkersrightsandprotectingworking
conditionsasmandatedbylaw.
Fromapublicpolicyperspectiveourfindingsindicatethat
workercenters
have
been
an
effective
policy
that
contribute
totheregularizationofthedaylaborjobmarketinsomeparts
ofthecountry. Fromtheworkersperspective,centers
increasehourlywagesandreduceworkplaceabuses.Fromthe
communityandpublicsectorperspective,centersimprovethe
enforcementofwagepaymentandworkplaceprotectionlaws
andregulations. Yetdespitecentersbenefitstoworkers,
employersandthecommunity,theoverallimpactontheday
SMSATypeofSite
TotalStreet Connected Centers
NM: Chicago, IL 4.49 4.49
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 4.40 N/A 2.57 3.96
NM: New Jersey 2.94 2.94
NM: New York, NY 4.07 N/A 4.13
NM: Other 2.36 2.36
So: Atlanta, GA 3.14 3.45 3.00 3.20
So: Houston, TX 4.21 5.43 4.35
So: Texas, Other 2.60 3.62 2.64
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 2.70 2.53 1.65 2.50
So: Washington, DC 3.67 4.02 3.75
So: Other 2.47 N/A 3.30 2.71
W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 3.46 3.59 2.49 3.02
W: Oakland, CA 3.50
3.52
3.27
3.47
W: Orange County, CA 3.71 3.39 2.55 3.41
W: San Diego, CA 3.49 3.84 N/A 3.60
W: San Francisco, CA 3.35 3.45 2.10 3.07
W: San Jose, CA 2.89 2.42 1.30 2.49
W: Other 2.28 N/A 5.03 2.93
Total 3.23 3.21 2.97 3.18
*Includesallformsofemploymentrelatedabuses.
** Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that
no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey.
Source: NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.
IncidenceofEmployerorWorkplaceAbuses*DuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegions
andTypeofSites**
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
12/14
Page 12
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
laborjobmarketislimited. Centersserveonlyanestimated
20%ofalldaylaborers,creatinganeedforarenewedeffortto
createandsupportmoresites.Moreover,centersrequire
greateffortfromlocaladvocacycoalitionstoinitiateandtosupporttheiroperations.Insomecasespublicpoliciesare
supportive,andinotherstheyserveasbarrierstothe
availabilityandsustainabilityofthecenters.
Ourfindingsalsosuggestthatconnectedsites,themajorityof
whicharelocatedinHomeDepotfacilities,providebetter
outcomesforworkersthanstreetcorners.Currently,about
14%ofworkersparticipateinconnectedsites.Promotingthe
establishmentofwaitingandhiringareasinHomeDepot,
nurseriesandnearotherbusinesseswithhighdemandforday
laborers,shouldalsobeconsideredasadesirablepolicy
intervention.Thoughmorelimitedinscopethanthecenters,
itseemsthatworkersinterviewedinconnectedsiteshad
lowerincidencesofabusesandbetterearningsthanworkers
interviewedin
street
corners.
In
many
areas
the
labor
market
outcomesofworkersinterviewedinconnectedsiteswere
comparabletothoseofworkersincenters.
Inaddition,thefindingsofthisreportsuggesttwoimportant
areasinwhichfurtherresearchisimperative.First,ourcore
findingisthatdaylaborersearn,underthemostoptimistic
assumptions,barelyabovethepovertythresholdsestablished
bythecensusbureauandthedepartmentofHealthand
Humanserviceswhetherornottheyparticipateinworker
centers(earning$12,896.00annually).Asaresult,weargue
thatasapolicy,centersinmanyareasofthecountryneedto
examinewhythedemandfordaylaborisaffectedwhen
workersparticipateincenterswhencomparedtoothersites.
Secondworkersinterviewedatcentersinafewareasreported
inordinatelyhigh
abuse
rates.
This
finding
suggests
that
it
is
importanttoinvestigatetheimpactandpotentialof
organizingandotherstrategiesusedandundertakenby
centerswhichmaycontributetomitigateabusesagainsta
vulnerableworkingpopulation.
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
13/14
Page 13
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
AboutUsAbel
Valenzuela
Jr.
AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand
UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los
AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof
UrbanPoverty.
EdwinMelendez
EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand
PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe
CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.
NikTheodore
NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment
ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityof
Illinois,ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterfor
UrbanEconomicDevelopment.
AnneVisser
M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew
SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe
CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.
AnaLuzGonzalez
AnaLuzGonzalezisadoctoralcandidateinUrban
PlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.
CenterFor
the
Study
of
Urban
Poverty
UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles
InstituteforSocialResearch
1120RolfeHall
Box951484
LosAngeles,CA900951484
Phone:(310)8259156Fax:(310)2064472
www.csup.ucla.edu
CenterforUrbanEconomicDevelopment
UniversityofIllinois,Chicago
CollegeofUrbanPlanningandPublicAffairs
400SouthPeoriaStreet,Suite2100
Chicago,Illinois,
60607
7035
Phone:(312)9966336Fax:(312)9965766
www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued
CenterforPuertoRicanStudies
HunterCollege
TheCityUniversityofNewYork
695ParkAvenue,Rm.E1429
NewYork,NY10065
Phone:(212)7725688Fax:(212)6503673
www.centropr.org
7/30/2019 Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes
14/14
Page 14
Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes
BibliographyFine,
J.
(2005).
Worker
Centers:
Organizing
Communities
at
the
EdgeoftheDream.EconomicPolicyInstitute.
WashingtonD.C.
Gonzalez,A.andA.Valenzuela.(2007)."DayLaborinthe
GoldenState."CaliforniaEconomicPolicy3(3):122.Hobbins,M.2006.TheDayLaborerDebate:SmallTownUSA
TakesonFederalImmigration
LawRegardingUndocumentedWorkers.ExpressOPreprintSeries.Washington,D.C.,AmericanUniversitySchoolof
Law.
Mehta,C.
and
N.
Theodore.
2006.
Workplace
Safety
in
AtlantasConstructionIndustry:
InstitutionalFailureinTemporaryStaffing
Arrangements.WorkingUSA,9,pp.5977.MilkmanR.2007,LaborOrganizingamongMexican Born
WorkersintheUnitedStates:
RecentTrendsandFutureProspects32pp.96112.
Nissen,Bruce. 2004.ConstructionSafetyPracticesand
ImmigrantWorkers:APilotStudy.ReportfortheCenter
toProtectWorkersRights.CenterforLaborResearchandStudiesFloridaInternationalUniversity.http://www.risepfiu.org/reports/Immigrant%
20Construction%20Workers%20Safety.pdf
Organista,K.andA.Kubo(2005)PilotSurveyofRiskand
ContextualProblemsandIssuesin
Mexican/LatinoMigrantDayLaborers.JournalofImmigrantHealth7(4)269281.
Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,andE.Melendez.2007.DayLabor
WorkerCenters:New
ApproachesToProtectingLaborStandardsInThe
InformalEconomy.DraftReport10December2007.Theodore,
N.,
A.
Valenzuela,
E.
Melendez.
(2006).
"La
Esquina
(TheCorner):DayLaborersOn
TheMarginsofNewYork'sFormalEconomy."
WorkingUSA9(4):407423.
Theodore,N.2003.PoliticalEconomiesofDayLabour:
RegulationandRestructuringof
ChicagosContingentLabourMarkets.UrbanStudies,40,pp.18111828.
Theodore,N.,E.Melendez,A.Valenzuela,Jr.,AGonzalez.2008.DayLaborWorkplaceAbuses
intheResidentialConstructionIndustry:Conditionsin
theWashington,DCRegion.
ChapterforthcominginBerhardt,Boushey,Dresser,and
Tilly(eds).TheGlovesOffEconomy:ProblemsandPossibilitiesattheBottomofAmericasLaborMarket
Valenzuela,A.,L.Gonzalez,N.Theodore,E.Melendez.2006.In
PursuitoftheAmerican
Dream:DayLaborintheGreaterWashingtonD.C.
Region.LosAngeles,CenterfortheStudyofUrban
PovertyUniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LosAngeles.
ValenzuelaJr,A.(2003).DayLaborWork.AnnualReviewof
Sociology29(1):307333
Walter,N.,P.Bourgois,M.Loinaz,andD.Schillinger.2002.
SocialContextofWorkInjuryAmongundocumented
daylaborersinSanFrancisco. JournalofGeneralInternalMedicine17(3)pp.221229.