Differences in Types of Operations

7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations

1/18

Daylaborers,standingoncornerswaitingforem

ployerstopickthemup,areagrowingphenome

noninAmericancitiesacrossthecountry

(Valenzuela

1999,

2002,

2003;

Valenzuela

and

Melndez2003;Valenzuelaetal2006).Thede

mandfordaylaborcanbeunderstoodasamani

festationofabroaderpatternofstructuralchanges

intheeconomyfosteringthedemandforcontin

gentworkersandtheexpansionoftheinformal

economy(Marcelli2004;PeckandTheodore2001;

PortesandSassenKoob1987;Sassen1997). These

changesinthestructureoflabormarketshave

inducedbeneficialtrendsinlaborparticipationby

bothshapingjobcontentandworkflexibility,and

openingnewcareerpathsandemploymentoppor

tunities(Kalleberg2000;Bernhardtetal2005).

However,structuraleconomicchangeshavealso

induced

a

growing

divide

between

bad

jobs

and

goodjobs,anincreaseinincomeinequality,agrow

inglabormarketsegmentation,andsignificantly

expandedunstableandtemporarywork(Carre

2000;Benner2002;Smith2002;Beneria2001).The

presenceofagrowingsegmentoftheLatinoimmi

grantpopulationconcentratedininformalwork

relationsislinkedtothechangingstructuralfactors

intheU.S.economywhichhaveincreasedthede

mandforcontingentworkers,unstableemploy

mentcontracts,andtherestructuringofindustries,

firms,andoccupations(Theodore,2003,2006;

TheodoreandMartin2007). Thestructuralfactors

inducingincreasedimmigrationasasourceofflexi

blelaborforcearepowerful,embeddedwithinthe

structureandoperationofthelabormarket,and

likelytopersistovertime(Espenshade1995).

Giventhesestructuralforces,itislikelythattheday

laborphenomenonwillcontinueforyearstocome,

andperhapsexpandrapidly.

Althoughscholarsdebateitsmeaning,theterm

daylaborisoftenthoughttorefertoatypeof

employmentarrangementnotcoveredorregulated

byformallaborlaws.GonzalezandValenzuela

(2007)note,thattheseworkingarrangementsare

generallyunwrittenandunenforceableandoften

includelargedisadvantagessuchassafetyhazards

andtheabsenceofothertypicalworkplacebenefits

[including]fringebenefitslikehealthinsurance

andretirementplans(GonzalezandValenzuela

2007:45).Valenzuela,Melendez,andGonzalez

(2006)

note

that

this

type

of

work

arrangement

is

aresultofthecharacteristicsofthebroaderfor

maleconomywhereincompetitiveadvantagecan

begainedbyreducingoperatingcostsandincreas

ingprofits.Asaresult,daylaborisseenasaway

toreducelaborcostsbyhiringinformallaborand

payingwagesincash.Valenzuela(2006)notes

thatitistheverynatureoftheinformalityofthe

daylabormarketwhichmakesemploymentactivi

tiesconducivetoworkingarrangementsthatare

exploitativeandabusive.Hallmarkedbytransac

tionswhichoccuroutsideoftheinfluenceoftax

regulations,formalworkerscompensationsys

tems,andwithoutadherencetoformallaborlaw

including

regulations

over

overtime

pay,

and

safetyandhealthrequirements(Valenzuela

2006:2);creatingalabormarketsector,wherein

systemicviolationsoflaboremploymentlawsare

thenorm(Theodoreetal2006:509).

Asaproductofthebroadereconomicrestructur

ingandgrowingsegmentation,thedaylabormar

ketconsistsofthreeprimaryactors:theemploy

ers,theemployees,andlabormarketintermediar

ies describedasthoseorganizationsandindividu

alspositionedbetweenemployersandjobseekers

(TheodoreandMehta2006).Theseintermediaries

includeworkercentersworkforcedevelopment

agencies,communitybasedorganizations,educa

tionalinstitutions,employmentcontractorsand

tempagencies(TheodoreandMehta2006).These

organizationsarepositionedbetweentheem

ployerandtheemployeesandalthoughvaryin

serviceprovisiontypicallyoperateinrecruitment,

screening,jobmatching,placement,andadvocacy

functions.Morerecently,someorganizations,

mostspecificallydaylaborworkercenters,have

beguntoundertakeavarietyofsocialservice

provisionsincluding:developingworkerskills,

providinghealthservices,offeringlanguage

courses,andservingasadvocatesfordaylabors.

Ininterveningbetweenthesupplyanddemandof

thislabormarket,daylabormarketintermediaries

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

I N S I D E T H I S

R E P O R T :

Operational Differ-

ences Among Cen-

ters

2

Worker Centers

Typology

3

Center Type and

Workers Outcomes

5

Center Type and

Community Out-

comes

8

Discussion and Con-

clusions

9

About Us 12

Bibliography 13

Differences in the Types of Operations,

Capacities and Approaches of Day

Labor Worker Centers

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


2/18

Page 2

Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers

oftenhelptorestructuretheemploymentrelationship,

presentingwhatTheodoreandMehtaargueisatriangular

employmentrelationship(2006:1)and holdthecapacityto

interveneandregulatethescrupulouspracticesinherentwithinthelabormarket(Theodoreetal.2007).

Valenzuela(2003)hasestablishedthattherearethreetypesof

sitesorchoicesopentodaylaborers:corners,industry

connectedsites,andworkercenters(orvariationsofregulated

sites).

Althoughboththecornersandtheconnectedsitesare

sometimesregulatedbylocalnonprofitorpublicagencies,

theyaredifferentintermsoftheconnectiontolocallabor

markets.Workersinconnectedsitestendtohaveestablished

employmentnetworkswithspecificindustrysectorssuchas

landscapingnurseries,smallcontractorsinconstructionor

painting,orHomeDepotstores.Fromanormative

perspective,workercentershavebecomethepolicyofchoice

formany

local

authorities

or

the

strategy

of

choice

for

advocacyandsupportservicesorganizations(Theodore,

ValenzuelaandMelndez,2007;Valenzuela,Theodore,

Melndez,andGonzalez,2007).However,workercentersare

notalwaysthepreferredchoiceofdaylaborers.Inafew

instanceswherethecentersareimposedontheworkersasan

efforttoremovethemfromcorners,organizingresistanceis

perceivedasthebeststrategyfortheworkers(Camou,2002).

Themaingoalofthisstudyistoexaminetheimpactofday

laborworkercentersonworkerswhobenefitdirectlyfrom

theseprogramsandoncommunitieswhosupportthe

operationsofthecenters.Theseimpactsareassessedby

examiningdataoneconomicoutcomesandtheregularization

oftheinformaleconomy.Todate,despitethesignificant

expansionof

the

literature

on

undocumented

immigrants

in

generalandondaylaborersmorespecifically,the

measurementofsuchimpactshasbeenelusive.Theanalysisis

basedonauniquedataset,theNationalDayLaborSurvey,

whichallowsresearcherstolinkindividualworkersmicrodata

fromaworkerssurveytoorganizationaldatafromacenters

survey.Bothofthesecomponentsofthedatasetforthestudy

aredescribedinsubsequentsectionsofthereport.

Thesecondgoalofthestudyistoestablishwhichsetof

strategiesismoreeffectiveinachievingthemultipleobjectives

ofthecenters. Ascommunityorganizationsoftensupported

bypublicfunding,centersrunintocompetingprioritiesona

dailybases.Firstandforemost,centersneedtoimprovethe

workingconditionsofworkerstobeabletoattractandretain

theparticipation

of

day

laborers

in

the

centers.

For

this

purpose,centersmustengageinactivities,suchassupporting

wageclaimsagainstemployers,whichidentifythecentersas

anadvocateofworkersrights.However,centersmustalso

engageinorganizingactivitiestopromoteemployment(such

asjobdevelopmentactivities),reduceemployerand

workplaceabuses,improverelationswiththepoliceandthe

community,etc.Thesemultipledemandsforcenters

resourcesresultinasetofprioritiesandactivitiestowhichwe

willrefertoasstrategies.Todate,thereisverylittleanalysis

ofwhattypeofstrategiesmightbeassociatedwithdifferent

typesofoutcomesforworkersandthecenters.

Overall,theanalysispresentedinthisstudyaddsanimportant

dimensiontotheknowledgebaseinthefield.Todate,theliteratureonimmigrantordaylaborworkercentersis

generallydescriptiveofgeneralcharacteristicsandactivities,

primarilybasedonqualitativeanalyses(Fine2006;Martinetal

2007;Valenzuelaetal2007),limitedtospecificareas

(TheodoreandMartin2007;Valenzuela2003),orlimitedtoa

specifictypeofcenterandpopulation(BartleyandRoberts

2006).Thisisthefirstassessmentofworkercenters

contributionthatisbasedonanempiricalanalysisofworkers

andcommunityoutcomes.Thisstudywouldnothavebeen

possibleintheabsenceoftheNSDLandrecentlyavailable

microdatalinkingworkersandcenters.

Therestofthereportisdividedintothreesections. Inthe

nextsectionweusethecenterssurveydatatoexaminethe

operationaldifferences

among

centers.

Then,

we

use

differencesinkeycapacityindicatorstocreateatypology

wherecentersaredividedintohighcapacityandlowcapacity

groups.Thecenterstypologyisthenusedthroughtherestof

theanalysisasanorganizingdeviceforthedata.Inthe

followingsectionweexaminewhethercentersaffectthe

observedlabormarketoutcomesfordaylaborersusingthe

workerssurveydata.Specifically,weanalyzewhetherworker

centersimproveobservedlabormarketoutcomesforday

laborers,reduceemployerabuses,contributetothe

improvementofworkersafety,ormitigateinjuryriskinthe

workplace.Thefinalsectionisdevotedtoananalysisof

centersonobservedcommunityoutcomesfordaylaborers.

OperationalDifferencesAmongCentersSince2000,daylaborworkercentershaveemergedasthe

primarypolicyresponsetothequestionofhowtoregularize

thedaylabormarket.Overthelastthreedecades,theUnited

Stateseconomyhasexperiencedagrowingsegmentationof

thelabormarketandanincreaseinthegrowthofinformal

andcontingentwork,creatingadaylabormarket

characterizedbyviolationsinemploymentlaws,andhealth

andsafetyregulations(Theodoreetal2006;Valenzuela2003;

TheodoreandMehta2006).Inresponsetotheserampant

violations,morethan60daylaborworkercentershave

emergedinover15statesinattempttoregularizetheday

labormarket

by

serving

as

athird

party

intermediary

(Valenzuelaetal 2006). Suchcentershavebecome

recognizedasthemostimmediateandeffectiveresponsein

regularizingtheinformaldaylabormarketandimpacting

workeroutcomes,becauseoftheirabilitytoperform

importantfunctionstoensurethatdaylabormarketsoperate

fairlyforallparties(Theodore,Valenzuela,Melendez,

Gonzalez2008;Theodoreetal2006;GonzalezandValenzuela

2007).


3/18

Page 3


DayLaborWorkerCentersfitintoabroadertypologyofhiring

siteswithinthedaylabormarket.Alongsideformaldaylabor

hiringsites,Valenzuela(2003)identifiestheseorganizations

withinthecategoryofinformalhiringsiteswhichalsoincludeconnectedsitesandunconnectedsites. Connectedsiteshe

arguesarethosethatarecreatedorlocatedinhome

improvementandrelatedstores(e.g.HomeDepot),whereas

unconnectedinformaldaylaborsitesareoftendaylabor

cornersorbusyintersectionswhereinemployerscandriveup

andgatherindividualsavailabletoworkfortheday

(Valenzuela2003).DayLaborCentershavebeendefinedas

looselyregulatedhiringsiteswhereworkersmayseek

employmentunderrelativelystructured

conditions(Valenzuela2003:4).However,asGonzalez(2006)

iscarefultopointout,workercentersarenotemployers,but

ratheranimportantintermediaryorganizationandregulating

authoritybetweenthetwoprimaryactorsinthedaylabor

market:employers

and

employees.

Inareport,basedondatagatheredfromthe2006National

DayLaborSurvey(asurveyofover2660daylaborersacross

264hiringsites),daylaborworkercentersareusuallylocated

neartypicalinformaldaylaborhiringsites,suchasconnected

sitesandcornerswhereworkersandemployershaveready

accesstothecenter(Theodoreetal2007). Thesamereport

foundthatdaylaborworkercentersareoftencreatedthrough

partnershipsbetweenlocalstakeholders,including:

communityorganizations,localgovernments,churches,law

enforcementagencies,localbusinessesandlaborunions,

althoughtheyaretypicallyrunbycommunityorganizations,

citygovernmentagenciesandchurchgroups(Theodore, etal

2008).Althoughworkercentershavememberstheyaresmall

organizations(often

less

than

50

members)

and

are

typically

fundedbyfoundationsratherthantheirownmembership

[whichallows]workercenterstodefinetheirboundariesin

termsofgeography(Milkman2007:108).

JaniceFines(2005)largesurveyof135workercenters

throughoutthenationnotedthatthesecentersoftenserveas

gatewayorganizationsprovidinginformationandtrainingin

workerrights,employment,laborimmigrationlaw,legal

service,andEnglishlanguageprograms.Althoughthetypeand

sizeofworkercentercanvary,fromsimpleopenairvenuesto

theirmostdevelopedformsasfullservicecommunity

organizations(operatinghiringhalls,providinglanguage

coursesandskillstraining),almostallseektocoordinate

workersrightsactivitiesandfostertheincorporationofday

laborersinto

the

formal

economy

(Gonzalez

2006;

Theodore

etal2007).Moreover,studiesnotethatregardlessof

variationsinsizeandtypesofwork,workercentersusually

centeronthreeprimaryactivitiesincluding:raisingwagesand

workingconditions,respondingtocommunityconcerns,

helpingtoaddressissuesofciviccapacitythroughpolitical

incorporation,education,housing,healthcare,andaddressing

thediscriminationissuesfacingdaylaborers(Fine2006;

Theodoreetal2007).

DayLaborWorkerCenters havebeenfoundtoimprovethe

employmentoutcomesofthedaylabormarketinthreeways:

establishingminimumwagerates,providingequitableand

efficientdistributionofjobs,andassistingworkerswhohavesufferednonpayment ofwagesbyemployers.Suchefforts

increasethetransparencyofthehiringprocess,byholding

employersaccountableforworkplaceabusesandmonitoring

workerquality(Theodoreetal2007).Althoughthemajorityof

theeffortsofworkerscenters focusonimprovingtheworking

conditionsandwagesofdaylabors,Milkman(2007) notes

thatcentersplacedirectpressureonemployersandor

governmentalagenciesresponsibleforenforcingwageand

hourlawsandotherlegalprotectionsforworkers(page108).

Asaresult,somecentersareactivelyconnectedtoorganized

laborgroupsbuteventhosethatarenotsharesimilargoalsof

organizedlabor. Theyalsoserveaskeystakeholdersinthe

resolutionofneighborhoodconflicts,andduetotheirlocation

withinlocal

communities,

become

key

community

partners

whichaidinhumanizingdaylaborworkanddemystifyingday

laborersandthefamiliestheysupport(Theodoreetal2007).

WorkerCentersTypologyTheabovecitedliteraturesuggeststhatacenterscapacityis

relatedtofinancialandhumanresourcesandtheir

deploymentofsuchresourcestointerveneinthelabormarket

onbehalfofcentermembers. Toconstructthecenters

typologyweusetheNationalWorkerCenterSurveydata.This

studyidentifiedcentersthroughoutthenationdevoted

primarilytoservethedaylaborpopulation.Sixtytwocenters

wereidentifiedandinterviewedindepthtocompilethe

surveydata.Ageneraldescriptionofthesurveyanddata

collectionmethodispresentedingreatdetailinthereport

DayLaborWorkerCenters:NewApproachestoProtecting

LaborStandardsintheInformalEconomy(Theodore,

Valenzuela,andMelndez,2008).

Table1depictsthevariablesselectedtooperationalize

centerscapacity.Theselectionofthesevariablesisbasedon

theabovediscusseddimensionsofcapacityidentifiedbythe

literatureonworkercenters.Weselectedthenumberofpaid

staffandthenumberofcentersmanagedasindicatorsof

resourcecapacity.Wealsoselectedactivitiespertainingwage

claimsonbehalfoftheworkersandjobdevelopmentactivities

asindicatorsofcapacitytoaffectlabormarketoutcomes.

Wageclaimsareidentifiedinthesurveyasfilingcomplaints

withlocallaborauthoritiesorcontactingemployersdirectly,

offeringlegaladvice,orotheractivities. Jobdevelopment

activitiesareidentifiedasthosethatpertaintomarketing,and

thosethatpromoteoutreachdirectlytoemployers. Weused

factoranalysis(principalcomponentfactor)toidentifythe

associationsofthedifferentvariablesdefiningeachofthese

dimensions.Thesevariablesaredividedeachintotwo

components.Theresultingassociationsrevealedbythefactor

analysisindicatedthatthetotalpaidstaffandthetotalwage


4/18

Page 4


claimvariableswereabletocapturetwocoredimensionsof

centercapacity.Thesevariableswerethenusedincluster

analysistodividethecasesintotwogroups,resultinginan

allocationruleforthegroups:caseswithtwoormorestaff

andtwoormorewageclaimactivitieswereassignedtothe

highcapacitygroupdesignatedasCenter2,andallother

caseswereassignedtothelowcapacitygroup,Center1.

Themethodforthegroupingassignedfourteencenterstothe

highcapacity

group

and

forty

eight

to

the

low

capacity

group.

Thetypologyconstructedfromcoreworkforcedevelopment

activitiesareintendedtohighlightworkercentersstrategies

toaffectthedaylaborjobmarket.Bothofthevariablesused

forthetypologyandthevariableforthenumberofworker

centersshowsharpdifferencesinthemeansforthetwo

groupsofcenters.Themeansforwageclaimsandpaidstaff

variablesforCenter2are3.21and2.29respectively,whilethe

meansforCenter1are1.81and1.21respectively(Table2).A

similardifferenceisobservedforthemeansofthenumberof

workercenters.Jobdevelopmentactivities,however,are

inverselyrelatedtocapacity.Centerswithlowercapacity

engageinmoreoutreachtoemployersandmarketing

activities.Thesetwolastvariableswerenotincludedinthe

rulestoassigncenterstocapacitygroups.Thedataforthetwo

variablesusedtodefinethecenterstypologyisdepictedin

Graphic1.

The

graph

shows

the

positive

correlation

between

thesetwovariables:organizationswithmorepaidstaffare

abletoengageinahigherlevelofwageclaimsactivities.

However,itisimportanttokeepinmindthatthistypology

focusesondifferenttypesofactivitiesundertakenbythe

centerstoaffecttheearningsandworkingconditionsofday

laborers,andclearlynotintendedtosuggestthatonetypeof

centerissuperiortoanother.Inthiscontext,anexamination

Variables Description

* totpaidstaff Total paid part and full time staff.

numberwc2 Number of centers managed y the organization (one, two or more)

* wageclaimstot Sum of wageadvice and wagecomplaints.

wageadvice Center assists in wage claims by offering legal advice or other

activities.

wagecomplaints Center assists in wage claims by filing complaints with Labor

Commission or contacting employers.

JDA Sum of employer outreach and marketing.

employeroutreach The center increase employment opportunities for day laborer at the

site by sending letters to employers or calling businesses.

marketing The center increase employment opportunities for day laborer at the

site by distributing flyers, advertise in local newspapers, going door-to-

door, attending community fairs, or other activities.

* Used to define center's workforce development capacity.

VariablesDefiningCenterswithHighCapacity

DescriptionofCenterCapacityandStrategiesVariables


5/18

Page 5


VariablesConsideredandUsedtoDefineCenterCapacityandStrategy

*Usedtodefinecenter'sworkforcedevelopmentcapacity.

Obs Mean Std.D. Min Max Obs Me an Std.D. Min Max

*totpaidstaff 48 1.21 0.71 0 4 14 2.29 0.73 2 4numberwc2 48 0.10 0.31 0 1 14 0.50 0.52 0 1

*wageclaimstot 48 1.81 0.76 0 3 14 3.21 0.43 3 4wageadvice 48 0.56 0.50 0 1 14 1.00 0.00 1 1

wagecomplaints 48 0.85 0.36 0 1 14 1.00 0.00 1 1

JDA 48 2.40 1.35 0 6 14 2.00 0.78 1 3

employeroutreach 48 0.46 0.58 0 2 14 0.29 0.47 0 1

marketing 48 1.94 1.08 0 5 14 1.71 0.73 1 3

Center1 Center2Variables

DescriptionofCenters'CharacteristicsVariables

yearsoperation

budget

ordinances

organizedl

payfee

dladvisebofd

dlrepbofd

rules_workersonly

rules_directorsonly

rules_workers&directors

rules_cityothers

joballo cation_emppref

subcontractor

prvcompany

daylaborers

founder_n

founder_cbocoa

founder_churchcoa

communityrelations

policeexgd

merchantsexgd

residentsexgd

councilmembexgd

businessesexgd

unionsexgd

collaborations

collab_workotherorgs

collab_membercoalition

collab_HTA

collab_Mexgovt Doesyourorganizationcollaboratewithalocal/state/federal

governmentfromMexicoorfrom

RelationshipisExcellentorGoodwith:Residents.

RelationshipisExcellentorGoodwith:Council Members.

RelationshipisExcellentorGoodwith:Businesses.

RelationshipisExcellentorGoodwith:Unions.

Sumof collab_workotherorgs ,collab_membercoalition, collab_HTA,

andcollab_Mexgovt.Doyouworkwithotherorganizations thatdealwithdaylaborer

issuesinyourarea?(yes,no)

Whowasinvolvedinstartingthecenter?Church,Citycouncil

members,UnionsorOthers.

Howwouldyoudescribe yourrelationshipwiththefollowingpeople

andorganizations? All organizations (09).

RelationshipisExcellentorGoodwith:Police

RelationshipisExcellentorGoodwith:Merchants.

Isyourworkercenteramemberofanycoalition,association, or

formalnetworkof agencies?(yes,no)

HasyourorganizationeverworkedwithHomeTownAssociations?

(yes,no)

Howarejobs allocated? Employerpreference.

Whatkindofemployersmostfrequentthecenter?Contractors.

Whatkindofemployersmostfrequentthecenter?Private Company

(i.e.,restaurants&factories).

Whatkindofemployersmostfrequentthecenter?OtherDay

Laborers.

Sumoffounder_churchcoaandfounder_cbocoa,andLocal

businesses andPolice.

Whowasinvolvedinstartingthecenter?CBOs,Cityand/orLocal

GovernmentDepartments,orCivicBoard/Groupofcommunity

WhohiresDL

more

often?

Whofounded

thecenter?

Community

relationsare

goodor

excellent

Collaborations

Description

Yearsince

the

organization

started

to

operate

the

center.

Operatingbudgeforthecenter(2004).

Havethereeverbeenanycityorcountyordinancespertainingtoday

laborersinyourarea?(yes,no)

Activelyorganizedaylaborers.

Thereisafee forusingthecenter.

Arethereanycommittees thatarecomprisedonlyofdaylaborers

thatadvisetheBoardorstaff?(yes,no)

Aredaylaborersrepresentedasboardmembers?(yes,no)

Whoestablishestherulesattheworkercenter?Workers.

Whoestablishestherulesattheworkercenter?Director.Whoestablishestherulesattheworkercenter?Workersand

Director.

Whoestablishestherulesattheworkercenter?Cityorothers.

Variables

General

Participation

Rules


6/18

Page 6


oflabormarketoutcomesforworkersisonlysuggestiveofthe

relativepayoffofaparticularsetcapacityandofstrategies

associatedwiththecenters.Moredetailedstatisticalanalyses

wouldbenecessarytocontrolfortherelativeimpactof

centerscontrollingforotherfactors,suchasworkers

characteristics,thelocalpoliticalclimate,andsoforth.

Thecentertypologycanbeusedtodescribethecenters

characteristics.Table3summarizesthedescriptionofthe

variables.Table4exhibitsthedata(Mean,StandardDeviation,

Minimum,andMaximum)usedtoanalyzedifferencesand

similaritiesbetweenthetwogroupsofcenters. Centerswith

morecapacityexhibitahigherbudget($349,000v.$189,000

fortype

1centers),

ahigher

propensity

to

organize

(79%

v.

50%),andhavefeweryearsofoperations(5.57v.7.67)than

centerswithlowercapacity.Fewcenters,regardlessofwhat

typeofcapacitytheyhave,requireworkerstopaymember

fees,orengagetheworkersindeliberationsorparticipation

withtheboardofdirectorsoftheorganization.However,

Center2typesstandoutwithrespecttosettingrulesby

workersanddirectors(64%v.27%)atahigherproportion

thananyotheralternativerule(byworkersordirectorsonly,

orthecityorotherorganizations).Thesecentersalsohavea

higherpropensity(64%v.50%forcenters1)forletting

employersselectworkersforjobs.Interestingly,Center2are

morelikelytohavebeenfoundedbyacoalitionofCBOsand

communityleaders(1.29of2.57averagenumberoffounders),

whileCenter1aremorelikelytohavebeenfoundedbya

coalitionledbychurchgroups(1.33of2.52averagenumberof

founders).Thoughbothtypesofcentersseemtohavefairly

similarcollaborations,

Center

2types

report

to

have

ahigher

proportionofgoodorexcellentrelationswiththepolice,

merchants,councilmembers,residents,businessesand

residentsthanCenter1types.

CentersCharacteristicsbyTypeObs Mean Std.D. Min Max Obs Mean Std .D. M in Max

yearsoperation 48 7.67 12.34 0 84 14 5.57 3.78 1 14

budget(000) 48 189 536 0 3,600 14 349 938 0 3,600

ordinances 48 1.67 0.48 1 2 14 1.71 0.47 1 2

organizedl 48 0.50 0.51 0 1 14 0.79 0.43 0 1

payfee 48 0.15 0.36 0 1 14 0.07 0.27 0 1

dladvisebofd 48 0.29 0.46 0 1 14 0.36 0.50 0 1

dlrepbofd 46 0.30 0.47 0 1 14 0.21 0.43 0 1

rules_workersonly 48 0.25 0.44 0 1 14 0.14 0.36 0 1

rules_directorsonly 48 0.19 0.39 0 1 14 0.14 0.36 0 1

rules_workers&directors 48 0.27 0.45 0 1 14 0.64 0.50 0 1

rules_cityothers 48 0.29 0.46 0 1 14 0.07 0.27 0 1

joball ocation_emppref 48 0.50 0.51 0 1 14 0.64 0.50 0 1

subcontractor 48 0.96 0.20 0 1 14 1.00 0.00 1 1

prvcompany 48 0.29 0.46 0 1 14 0.29 0.47 0 1

daylaborers 48 0.04 0.20 0 1 14 0.07 0.27 0 1

founder_n 48 2.52 1.57 0 8 14 2.57 1.16 1 4

founder_cbocoa 48 0.98 0.91 0 3 14 1.29 1.27 0 3

founder_churchcoa 48 1.33 1.17 0 4 14 1.00 0.96 0 3

communityrelations 48 3.50 1.37 0 6 14 3.79 1.93 0 6

policeexgd 48 0.88 0.33 0 1 14 1.00 0.00 1 1

merchantsexgd 48 0.60 0.49 0 1 13 0.77 0.44 0 1

residentsexgd 48 0.56 0.50 0 1 14 0.64 0.50 0 1

councilmembexgd 47 0.74 0.44 0 1 14 0.93 0.27 0 1

businessesexgd 48 0.60 0.49 0 1 13 0.77 0.44 0 1

unionsexgd 48 0.21 0.41 0 1 13 0.23 0.44 0 1

collaborations 48 2.27 1.07 0 4 14 2.21 0.97 0 4

collab_workotherorgs 48 0.31 0.47 0 1 14 0.29 0.47 0 1

collab_membercoalition 48 0.46 0.50 0 1 14 0.29 0.47 0 1

collab_HTA 48 0.94 0.24 0 1 14 0.93 0.27 0 1

collab_Mexgovt 48 0.56 0.50 0 1 14 0.71 0.47 0 1

Community

relationsare

goodor

excellent

Collaborations

WhohiresDL

moreoften?

Rules

VariablesCenter1 Center2

Participation

General

Whofounded

thecenter?


7/18

Page 7


CenterTypeandWorkersOutcomesThepriorsectionofthestudyfocusedonunderstanding

differencesinthetypesofoperations,capacities,and

approachesoftheworkercenters.Weknowfromqualitative

researchandthediscussionofthesurveydatapresented

earlier,thattherearesignificantdifferencesintheoperations

ofcenters,andthatthesedifferencesarerelatedtothe

evolutionofciviccapacityinlocalareas.Daylaborworker

centersareembeddedwithinamuchbroaderecologyof

immigrantorganizations,withinpublicandprivateinstitutions

affectingthedailylifeofdaylaborers,andwithinthesocial

networksthat

facilitate

both

the

workers

and

the

centers

insertioninlocallabormarkets.Thisecologyshapestoalarge

extentwhatworkercentersdoandhowtheydoit.Inthis

sectionweanalyzehowthesedifferencesincenterscapacity

areimportantfordefiningtheimpactofcentersonworkers

andcommunity.

Thedaylabordatausedforthisstudyisbasedonanational

surveyof2,660daylaborersintheUnitedStatesconductedin

2004.Theseworkerswererandomlyselectedat264hiring

sitesin139municipalitiesin20statesandtheDistrictof

Columbia. ThereportOntheCorner:DayLaborintheUnited

States(Valenzuelaetal2006)explainthedatacollection

methodsandamorethoroughdescriptionofthedataset.

Table5showsthenumberofcasesbytypeofcenterand

regionin

the

sample,

and

the

number

of

workers

represented

nationallybythe(weighted)sample.About40%ofthe2,660

casesareintheWestregion,37%intheSouthand23%inthe

Northeast/Midwest. Estimatesfromthesurveysample

indicatethattherewere114,714daylaborersin2004.Forthe

followingtables,wecomparethedatafrom426workerswho

wereinterviewedatthecenters,representing23,631workers,

tothoseoftheworkersinterviewedwhileseeking

employmentinstreetcornersorconnectedsites(suchas

HomeDepotstores,nurseriesandotherspecializedby

industrysites). Thedatashowsthatabout21%ofdaylaborers

inthecountryreceiveservicesatthecenters.

Withanoperationaltypologyinhand,asafirststeptowards

understandingtheroleofcentersinthedaylaborjobmarket,

weturnnowtoexaminethequestionofwhetherthecenter

typemakesadifferenceintheimpactthatthecentershaveon

workersandthecommunity.Outcomesforcenterswillbe

comparedtothoseofothersites,suchasinformalcornersand

connectedsites. Tomakethefindingsofthereportasuseful

aspossible,wedisaggregatedthedatabythesmallestregion

possiblebased

on

whether

the

area

(either

an

SMSA1

or

combinationofmetropolitanareasinastate)hadaminimum

of80cases.Whenthedataisdisaggregatedbytypeofsites,

weonlyreportcellswithaminimumof10cases2(blankspaces

indicatethatnointerviewswereconductedinthattypeofsite

intheparticularregion).

Thedescriptionsofoutcomestobeexaminedarepresentedin

Table6.Wehaveselectedthefollowingindicatorstoassess

thepotentialimpactofcentersontheregularizationofday

laborjobmarketsinlocalareas: weeklyearnings,workplace

abuses,policeincidents,communityabuses,workrelated

injuries,andhealth.3Tables7to11showaggregated

indicatorsofcentersimpactonworkersoutcomes.4Thefirst

twooutcomevariablesareusedasindicatorsofimpacton

labormarket

outcomes,

the

second

set

of

variables

address

potentialimpactsoncommunityrelations,andthelasttwo

variablesareindicatorsofworkershealthandsafety.Though

workercentersarelessabletoaffecthealthandsafety

outcomesdirectly,centersrepresentorganizationsthatcan

assistintheoutreachandimplementationoflocalgovernment

andcommunityinitiativestoimprovehealthandsafety

conditionsfordaylaborers. Overall,theseindicatorsareoften

SamplebyRegionsandTypeofSitesRegion TypeofSite Total

Street Connected Center1 Center2Sample

NE&MW 582 6 20 15 623South 779 59 62 94 994West 568 240 173 62 1,043Total 1,929 305 255 171 2,660

WeightedSampleNE&MW 18,161 279 831 698 19,969South 29,694 1,250 3,143 1,722 35,810West 27,651 14,047 10,701 6,536 58,935Total 75,506 15,577 14,675 8,956 114,714

DistributionNE&MW 15.8% 0.2% 0.7% 0.6% 17.4%South 25.9% 1.1% 0.7% 3.5% 31.2%West 24.4% 12.3% 6.8% 7.9% 51.4%Total 66.1% 13.6% 8.2% 12.1% 100.0%Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.

1TheNationalSurveyofDayLaborsusedtheSMSA,aproxyforlocallabormarkets,astheunitofanalysis.2Thecorefindingsforeachofthe

tablesarenotaffectedbythesuppressionofthisdata.3Ahealthindexisbasedonwhethertheworkersreportedtohaveadoctorsdiagnosis

of:diabetes,hypertension,arthritis,heartdisease,asthma,cancer,ulcer,hernia,kidney,liver,tuberculosis,orstds.4Wedecidedtouseta

blesdepictingobservedoutcomesforthediscussionofimpactinsteadoftableswherecontrolsforhumancapital,sitescharacteristicsand

othervariablesthataffectoutcomesaretakenintoconsideration.Amorecomplexstatisticalexerciseisbeyondthescopeofthisreport.

However,thefindingsofthereportareintendedtoidentifytopicswherefurtherstudiesmightbeundertakenbyresearchersconcernsabout

theinformal

economy

and

immigrant

labor

market

regularization.


8/18

Page 8


DescriptionofOutcomesandCharacteristicsVariables

Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Center1 Center2

NM: Chicago, IL 11.10 11.10

NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 11.63 N/A 10.68 12.45 11.66

NM: New Jersey 9.94 9.94

NM: New York, NY 11.10 N/A 11.09

NM: Other 10.83 10.83

So: Atlanta, GA 9.85 10.76 9.65 10.05

So: Houston, TX8.97 N/A N/A 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 10.91 13.26 11.15

So: Other 9.33 N/A 8.71 9.20

W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 9.12 11.45 10.91 10.96 10.78

W: Oakland, CA 10.67 10.58 11.19 10.73

W: Orange County, CA 11.01 10.01 N/A 9.76 10.57

W: San Diego, CA 11.15 11.95 N/A 11.28

W: San Francisco, CA 10.95 10.10 N/A 11.55 10.90

W: San Jose, CA 10.44 10.67 10.00 10.84 10.55

W: Other 9.81 9.27 9.85 9.66

Total 10.04 10.83 10.28 10.74 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.

HourlyWagesbyRegionsandTypeofSites*


9/18

Page 9


usedasmeasuresandjustificationsforpublicpolicyand

communityengagementonissuesaffectingdaylaborersand

publicsupportforcenters.

Hourlywagesareoftenusedasanindicatorofpotentialworkersearningsinlabormarkets.Thoughthereareother

factorsthataffectworkerscontributiontoafirm,earningsper

unitoflaborisregardedanindicatoroftheircontributionto

productionandthustobusinessesrevenuesattributedto

workersproductivity. ThedatapresentedinTable7shows

compellingresultsinthisindicator.5 First,workersinterviewed

incentersreportedhigherhourlywages($10.28and$10.74

fortype1and2respectively)thanthoseforstreetcorners

($10.04),thoughworkersinconnectedsitesreportedslightly

higher($10.83)wages.Nevertheless,amoredetailedanalysis

ofthehourlywagesbyregionsshowsaverydifferentpattern.

Undoubtedly,withtheexceptionoffourregions,workers

interviewedincentersreportedhigherhourlywagesthan

thosein

other

sites.

In

seven

of

the

eleven

areas

where

centerswereinoperation,hourlywagesforworkers

interviewedincentersexceededthoseofworkersonother

sites.OnlyinfourareasOrangeCounty(streetsand

connected),Atlanta(corners),andOtherSouth(corners)

workersinothertypesofsitesreportedhigherwages.The

questionofwhetheraparticulartypeofcenterwasmore

effectiveininducingtheobservedoutcomeismorecomplex.

Ofthesevenareaswherecentersexceededthereported

averagewagesofothersites,fiveareType1centers,andtwo

areType2centers.Consideringthatbothtypesofcenters

wereinoperationsinonlyfiveareas,Type1centersinthese

fiveareasexceededthereportedhourlywagesofother

centers.Thesefindingssuggestthatastrategyofcapacity

buildingandmoreaggressivewageclaims,asembeddedin

Type1centers,couldinducebetterhourlywagesforworkers

thanalternativestrategies.

Weeklyearningsareabroaderindicatorthanhourlywagesthatincludebothhourlyearningsandthetimeworkedduring

theweek(i.e.,hoursworkedeachdaymultipliedbythedays

workedduringtheweek).Whilehourlywagesaremoreclosely

relatedtoworkerscapacities,abilities,andcontributionsto

production,weeklyearningsaremorerelatedtoworkers

desirestoworkandemployersdemandforlabor.Inthecase

ofdaylaborers,theyhaveproventobeoverlyeagertowork

andundertakejobsthatothersarenotwillingtodo,atleast

notatthewagesoffered.Thoughdaylaborershavea

reservationwagefordifferenttypesoftasks,theminimumfor

whichtheyarewillingtoacceptajobofferistypicallybelow

thelevelofnativeworkersinthearea.Thelengthofthework

dayisoftencontentiousandmightbeawayforemployersto

lowerthe

negotiated

payment

for

the

day.

The

available

evidencefromthesurveysuggeststhatthisisarelativelysmall

portionofalltransactions,a1.69averageincidenceper

workeroverthepriortwomonthsofwork,andtherefore

importantfromthepointofviewoffairnessbutnotamajor

factoraffectingtheoverallestimatesofweeklyearnings.Thus,

employersdemandfordaylaborisamoreimportantfactorin

determiningtheoverallamountoftimeworkedduringthe

week.Weeklyearningsareanimportantindicatortothe

extentthatitcapturesthecorevariablesignalingworkers(and

otherstakeholders)whetheraparticularsiteisbetterthan

othersintermsoflabormarketparticipation.Wecould

assumethat,overtime,sitesthatareperceivedtoproduce

higheraverageearningswillbepreferredbyworkers,andsites


NM: Chicago, IL 297 297

NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 296 N/A 263 303 293

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 N/A N/A 210

So: Texas, Other 209 273 213

So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 194 193 183 193

So: Washington, DC262 365 268 268

So: Other 206 N/A 303 224

W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 231 266 205 200 229

W: Oakland, CA 218 205 315 229

W: Orange County, CA 253 247 N/A 213 244

W: San Diego, CA 276 236 N/A 263

W: San Francisco, CA 258 269 N/A 329 262

W: San Jose, CA 223 246 80 213 230

W: Other 192 N/A 116 178 171

Total 238 251 190 232 235



WeeklyEarningsbyRegionsandTypeofSites*

5Wehaveomitteddataforsitesandcentersduetolackofinterviewsinsitesorinsufficientsamplesizetoestimatereliablefigures.Datainall

tablesareweighted.


10/18


11/18

Page 11


corners3.23,andType1centers3.24.However,oftheeleven

areaswhere

at

least

one

type

of

center

is

located,

in

four

areas

Type2centershavethelowestincidencereportedbyworkers,

andinthreeareasType1centershavethelowest.Onlyin

threeareas(Washington,D.C.,OtherSouth,andWestOther)

workersinnoncenterssitesreportedthelowestincidence

rates.Theseresultsaresuggestiveofthepositiveimpactthat

centershaveinmitigatingemployersabuses.Theseimpacts

couldbeattributedtothemerepresenceofcentersservingas

adeterrenceoreducationalmechanismforemployers.Taken

together,theanalysisofthelabormarketindicatorsdepicta

mixedimpactofcentersonworkersoutcomes.Amore

detailedanalysisbyareaswithinregions,andadisaggregation

ofthevarioustypesofemployersabusesandthedefining

elementsofweeklyearningswillprovideamoreaccurate

pictureof

the

relative

importance

of

the

strategies

deployed

bycentersandotherenvironmentalfactorsonthesemixed

results.

CenterTypeandCommunityOutcomesCentersseemtoreducetherateofpoliceincidentsand

communityabusesinallregionsofthecountry.Police

incidentsareonetypeofoutcomeinwhichtheliterature

suggeststhatcentersmayhaveadirectdeterrenceeffect.The

overallpoliceincidentratesof1.07and1.09duringtheprior

twomonthstotheinterviewforworkersinterviewedin

Centers1and2respectivelyaresubstantiallylowerthanthose

forworkersinterviewedinstreetcornersorconnectedsites

(Table10).Incomparisontoothersites,theseratesrepresent

asubstantialreductionofpoliceincidentsfrom80%to40%

dependingonthetypeofsitetowhichthecentersare

compared. Thisgeneralpatternisobservedinallregionsof

thecountry.

However,

it

is

interesting

to

note

that

the

type

of

centerisnotaclearpredictorofwhichcenterwillhavemore

significantdeterrenceeffectforpoliceincidents.Ofthefive

Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Center1 Cent er2





NM: Other 2.36 2.36

So: Atlanta, GA 3.14 3.45 3.00 3.20

So: Houston, TX 4.21 N/A N/A 4.35

So: Texas, Other 2.60 3.62 2.64


So: Washington, DC 3.67 4.38 3.93 3.75

So: Other 2.47

N/A

3.30

2.71

W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 3.46 3.59 2.75 2.35 3.02

W: Oakland, CA 3.50 3.52 3.27 3.47


W: San Diego, CA 3.49 3.84 N/A 3.60


W: San Jose, CA 2.89 2.42 1.20 1.40 2.49

W: Other 2.28 N/A 5.30 2.31 2.93

Total 3.23 3.21 3.24 2.78 3.18



EmployerAbusesbyRegionsandTypeofSites*


12/18

Page 12






NM: New York, NY 0.84 1.00 N/A 0.85

NM: Other 0.94 0.94

So: Atlanta, GA 1.83 2.12 2.00 1.91


So: Texas, Other 1.76 1.62 1.75


So: Washington, DC 1.69 0.10 0.89 1.47

So: Other 1.74 N/A 1.79 1.77

W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 1.08

2.46

1.22

1.05

1.51

W: Oakland, CA 0.96 1.56 0.33 1.01


W: San Diego, CA 1.51 1.92 0.83 N/A 1.58


W: San Jose, CA 1.38 0.98 0.10 0.10 1.06

W: Other 2.51 N/A 2.00 1.13 2.30

Total 1.52 1.92 1.09 1.07 1.48



PoliceIncidentsbyRegionsandTypeofSites*

Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Center1 Center 2



NM: New Jersey 1.05 3.86 1.05


NM: Other 0.88 0.88

So: Atlanta, GA 2.10 3.57 1.76 2.41


So: Texas, Other 1.97 4.38 2.05


So: Washington, DC 3.12 1.05 1.57 2.74

So: Other 1.87 N/A 3.43 2.17

W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 2.32

4.31

1.78

1.40

2.53

W: Oakland, CA 1.80 2.04 0.67 1.70


W: San Diego, CA 2.20 2.36 N/A 2.23


W: San Jose, CA 3.46 1.89 0.50 0.20 2.45

W: Other 3.82 N/A 4.13 1.69 3.76

Total 2.50 3.45 2.00 1.65 2.49



CommunityAbusesbyRegionsandTypeofSites*


13/18

Page 13


regionswithbothtypesofcenters,intwoareasintheWest

regioncentersType2havethelowestrateofpoliceincidents

andintwoareasintheSouthandNortheast/Midwestcenters

Type1havetheadvantage,whiletheratesareequalinthefifthregion.Clearlyotherfactorsthanthecenterscapacityor

strategies,mostlikelytheciviccapacitytosupportimmigrant

workersintheareas,areaffectingtherateofpoliceincidents

atthelocallevel.

Centersareeffectivereducingtheincidenceofcommunity

abuses.Theoverallrateofcommunityabusesof1.65and2.00

incidentsoverthepriortwomonthsforworkersinterviewed

incentersType1and2respectively,isconsiderablylower

thancomparableratesforothertypeofsites.Theserates

representreductionsof109%to25%whencomparedtothe

levelsofcommunityabusesreportedbyworkersinstreet

cornersandconnectedsites.WorkersinterviewedinType2

centersreportedloweroverallincidentsofcommunityabuses

thanworkers

in

Type

1centers.

Type

2centers

have

alower

incidentofcommunityabusesinfourofthefiveareaswith

bothtypesofcenters;theWashingtonD.C.areaistheonly

exceptiontothispattern.Inadditiontothecenterscapacity

orstrategies,itislikelythatcentersarelocatedinareaswhere

theciviccapacitytosupportimmigrantworkersismore

developed,andmoredensesupportnetworksarecontributing

tolowerratesofpoliceincidentsatthelocallevel.

DiscussionandConclusionsTheanalysisoftheoperationsandoutcomesassociatedwith

workercenters

presented

in

this

study

make

important

contributionstotheliteratureinseveralareas.First,these

centershavebecometheprimarypolicyimplementedin

multiplelocalitiesaroundthecountrytoregularizetheday

laborersjobmarket.Inthisstudyweareconcernedwith

understandingtherewardsassociatedwitheachtypeofsite,

primarilybecausewagedifferentialsandotherdirectbenefits

toworkersassociatedwithdifferentsitesmayinteractwith

institutionalfactorsindeterminingworkerschoices.Day

laborershavechoices,eveninthecontextoffullyfunctional

andeffectiveworkercenters andtheychoosebetweenstreet

corners,connectedsites,orworkercenters.Inotherwords,

establishingdifferencesineconomicoutcomesisimportantfor

understandingwhetherworkersparticipateinacenterornot,

andgiven

public

investments

in

the

centers,

whether

centers

areasuccessfulpolicytool.

Theevidencediscussedinthestudyindicatesthatworker

centersofferconcretebenefitstoworkersintermsof

mitigatingemployers,communityorpoliceabuses.However,

theevidenceregardingtheeffectofcentersintermsof

increasesinearningsismixed.Theevidenceindicatesthatthe

centersoperateunderatradeoffofhigherwagesatthe

expenseoffewerjoboffers.Therearenotableexceptionsto

theestablishedtradeoffbetweenincreasedfairnessatthe

expenseofmaintaininghighdemandforworkers.Clearlythe

centersgoalistoimproveworkersearningswhileimproving

workingconditions. Fromapolicystandpoint,thecenters

clearlybenefitworkersoverallandyieldpositivebenefitstothecommunitybyreducingabusesandimprovinghealthand

safety.

Second,asacommunitystrategy,relativelylittleisknown

aboutwhatthesecentersdoandtheeffectivenessoftheir

activitiesintermsofworkerandcommunityoutcomes.Ina

periodwhencentersareunderscrutiny,clarifyingwhat

centersdoisafirststepindesigningstrategiestorespondto

mountingcriticismfromthosethatopposesupportfor

workerswhoareassociatedwithundocumentedimmigration

tothecountry.TheNationalDayLaborSurveyprovides

informationaboutboththeworkersandthesiteswherethey

gather.Inparticular,aseparateworkerscentersurveywas

conductedtoprovidebaselineinformationonthe

organizationsthat

manage

the

sites,

the

resources

available

to

supporttheiroperations,thetypeofservicestheyprovide,the

rulesthatgovernthecenters,theparticipationoflaborersin

decisionmaking,andotherimportantcharacteristics.This

uniquedatasetallowsustoassociatelabormarketand

communityoutcomestobothworkersandcenters

characteristicsandmoreimportantly,totheresourcesand

strategiesdeploytopursuecompetingdemandsfacingthe

centers.

Theanalysisofthedatashowsthatcentersareassociatedwith

importantreductionsinemployersorcommunityabuses,and

policeincidents,butgiventhedatapresentedinthisreport

thereisnotsufficientevidencetoreachconclusionsinterms

ofworkersearnings.Theanalysisofthedataindicatesthat

workerswho

participate

in

centers

have

better

overall

outcomesthandaylaborersseekingemploymentinstreet

cornersorconnectedsites,thoughtherearesignificant

regionaldifferencesinthesignificanceandmagnitudeofsuch

impacts.However,centersclearlyappeartoreduceemployer

abuses,policeincidents,andcommunityabuses.Thepositive

effectsofcentersseemtobecorrelatedtothestrategiesand

capacityofthecenters. WorkersinterviewedinType2

centerswithmorecapacitytendtohavebetteroutcomesin

termsofreducingabusesandpoliceincidentsthanthosein

Type1centers.

Thefindingsofthisstudyareinconclusiveinregardstothe

centersimpactonearningsandtheroleofcapacityand

strategyindeterminingsuchimpacts.Centerswithjob

developersand

organizers

in

their

staff,

and

who

specialize

in

wageclaims,haveanoveralladvantageintermsofhigher

hourlywages,butnotintermsofweeklyearnings,especially

whencomparedtostreetcornersorconnectedsites.These

arecounterintuitiveresultsandwarrantfurtherstudy.One

explanationfortheseoutcomesisthatworkerswhoattend

thecentersareleastabletoparticipateinemploymentfor

health,trainingandskills,orotherreasons.Anotherpotential

explanationisthatthecentersstrategieshavedifferent

impactonthedemandforworkers,thehoursthattheywork


14/18

Page 14


inaweekorthehourlywagesthattheyreceive.Despitethe

plausibleexplanationsforthedifferencesinearningsamong

thevarioussites,itisclearthatcentersmustassesscurrent

strategiesdevotedtodevelopbetterconnectionstolocalindustryandcommunities.

Third,giventhecurrentdebateandexpectedchangesin

immigrationpolicyinthecountry,thecentersarewell

positionedtobecomeanintermediaryorganizationforthe

regularizationofworkersimmigrationstatus.Knowledge

abouttheiractivitiesandcapacitiesfacilitatesanassessment

thatcenterscanpotentiallyplayunderanewpolicyregime.

Theanalysisofeconomicoutcomesandcentersimpactonthe

localeconomyisofextremeimportanceatthistime.

Valenzuelaetal(2007)indicatethattheprimarymotivation

forpublicsupportofthecentersistypicallylocalconflict

aroundthepresenceofundocumentedworkers.Inthisview

daylaborers,becauseoftheirlocalvisibility,haveunfairly

becomealightning

rod

for

much

of

the

anti

immigrant

movement.Thetensionsoftenrundeepandarevocal,despite

thelegalityofsearchingforworkinthismanner,andthefact

thatupwardsof25%ofthedaylaborworkforceis

legal(Valenzuelaetal,2007:6).Theworkercenterssurvey

dataindicatesthatmostcenterswereestablishedinrecent

yearsasaresultofthisheightenedconflictonimmigration.Of

the63centersinterviewed,only12werefoundedbefore

1995,while15werecreatedbetween1995and2000and36

after2000.Moreover,anecdotaldatasuggestthatmany

centers,eveninlongtimesupportivemunicipalareaslikeLos

Angeles,arelosingpublicsupport.

Datafromthecenterssurveypointstosignificantdifferences

intheresourcesavailabletocenters,andhowtheseresources

inturn

shape

centers

strategies.

A

threshold

of

two

fulltime

orparttimestafformore,andtwoormorewageclaims

activitiesisusedtodesignatecenterswithhighcapacityor

Type2.Basedonthisoperationaldefinitionofcapacity,Type2

centershavealargerbudgetandexhibitahigherpropensityto

organizedaylaborers,aswellasreporttohavebetter

communityrelationsthancenterswithlowercapacity.Centers

withhighercapacitywerefoundedmorerecently,andare

morelikelytohavebeenfoundedbyaCBOcoalitionincluding

localleadersthanothercenters.Centerswithlowerstaff

capacityengagelessfrequentlyinwageclaimsandimplement

jobdevelopmentandmarketingactivitiesmorefrequently.

Thesesmallercapacitycentersaremorelikelytohavebeen

foundedbyachurchledcoalition.Howeverimportantthese

differencesin

capacity,

community

relations,

financial

resourcesandadvocacycoalitionssupportingthecenters

mightbe,thedatapresentedinthestudygivesanideaabout

theimpactofcentersondaylaborersworkplaceand

communityoutcomes.Itislikelythatotherenvironmental

factorsinadditiontothecentersandtheciviccapacity

supportingtheiractivitiesareimportantwhendeterminingthe

relativeeffectivenessofthestrategiesimplementedbythe

centers.

Finally,ananalysisofworkersoutcomeshelpsclarifythe

extenttowhichworkercentersplayaroleinthe

regularizationoftheinformaleconomy.Fromapublicpolicy

ornormativeperspective,thereareseveraljustificationsof

whythedaylaborsegmentoflocallabormarketsshouldberegulated.Thepresenceofdaylaborerscreatescommunity

andworkplacesafetyandfairnessconcerns.Daylaborersare

oftenexploitedduetothenatureoftheirwork.Forexample,

thesurveydatashowsthat47%ofdaylaborershave

experiencedtheftofwageatleastonce,and44%weredenied

foodorwateronthejob.Theyareusuallyassignedthemore

hazardousjobsandoftenarenotwelltrainedorequippedto

handlethosejobs.Regardlessofthetypeofcenter,thedata

presentedinthestudyindicatesthatthecentersarean

importantfactorintheregularizationofthissegmentofthe

contingentlaborforce.Forinstance,workersinterviewedin

centersreportedhavingfewerincidencesofemployer,

communityandpoliceabuses.

Theliterature

that

focuses

on

violence

in

the

workplace

or

violationsoffairworkingconditions,totheextentthatit

relatestheseriskstoimmigrantsormorespecificallytoLatino

workers,suggeststhatimmigrantworkersareroutinely

abusedbyemployers(includingbothphysicalviolenceand

violationofworkersrights),andexposedtoworkplaceinjuries

andotheradversehealthoutcomes(ToscanoandWeber

1995;U.S.GAO2002).Intheconstructionindustry,several

studiesestablishthehigherrisksthatworkersfaceandthe

growingpresenceofimmigrantsintheindustry(Tinajero

2005;Thomas2006;Nissen2004;Andersonetal2000;Doug

andPlatner2004).Amoregeneralliteraturedocumentsthe

higherrisksofoccupationalinjuriesforLatinosacross

industriesandoccupations(AcostaLeonetal2006;AFLCIO

2005;Lopez

Gonzalez

2005;

Moure

Eraso

and

Friedman

Jimenez2001;Pranskyetal.2002;AFLCIO2005;AcostaLeon

etal.2006;Quandtetal2006).Someofthepredictorsofwork

injuriesincludelanguageproficiency(Connelletal2006),

frequentovertimeandlonghoursworked(Dembeetal2005),

andlackofaccesstohealthcareservicesaparticularly

importantfactorfordaylaborers(LashuayandHarrison2006).

Workercentersclearlyhaveadeterrenceeffectforemployer

abuses.Daylaborersthatparticipateincentersreportlower

incidencesofpaymentabusesandabandonmentinremote

placesbyemployers.Workercentersalsocontributeto

improvedaylaborersconnectionstosocialinstitutionsinthe

area.

Fromapublicpolicyperspective,itisapparentthatcenters

shouldreceive

public

support.

The

centers

mitigate

oppressive

workingconditionsforworkers,whileimprovingcommunity

relations.Besidesthefinancialcontributionsthatmany

centersreceivedfromlocalauthorities,localgovernments

wouldbenefitfromcoordinatingwiththecenterscore

activitiessuchaswageclaims,theoverseeingofworking

conditions,interactionswiththepolice,andrelationswiththe

communityatlarge.Totheextentthattheseaspectsoflabor

marketregularizationareincreasinglyabsorbedbylocal

authorities,tothatextentcenterscandevotemoreresources


15/18

Page 15


toorganizeworkersinstreetcornersandconnectedsites.

Sincecentersserveapproximately20%ofthedaylabor

population,shiftingresponsibilityforregularizationof

contingentworkerstolocalgovernmentsmayallowcenterstotargettheother80%ofdaylaborersmoreforcefully.There

aremanyimpedimentstosuchstrategy,particularly

ordinancespurposelyfullydesignedtoprecludedaylaborersto

operateasindependentcontractors.Yetperceivinglocal

governmentsashavingtheresponsibilitytoprotecttherights

ofworkerswithlittlerecoursetoaffectwageandworking

conditionslawsisastepintherightdirection.


16/18

Page 16


[email protected]

AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand

UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los

AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof

UrbanPoverty.

[email protected]

EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand

PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe

CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.

[email protected]

NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment

ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityof

Illinois,ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterfor

UrbanEconomicDevelopment.

[email protected]

M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew

SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe

CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.

[email protected]

AnaLuzGonzalezisadoctoralcandidateinUrban

PlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

CenterFortheStudyofUrbanPovertyUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngelesInstituteforSocialResearch

1120RolfeHall

Box951484

LosAngeles,CA900951484

Phone:(310)8259156Fax:(310)2064472

www.csup.ucla.edu

CenterforUrbanEconomicDevelopmentUniversityofIllinois,Chicago

CollegeofUrbanPlanningandPublicAffairs

400SouthPeoriaStreet,Suite2100

Chicago,Illinois,

60607

7035

Phone:(312)9966336Fax:(312)9965766

www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued

CenterforPuertoRicanStudiesHunterCollege

TheCityUniversityofNewYork

695ParkAvenue,Rm.E1429

NewYork,NY10065

Phone:(212)7725688Fax:(212)6503673

www.centropr.org


17/18

Page 17


BibliographyAcosta

Leon,

A.,

B.

Grote,

S.

Salem,

and

N.

Daraiseh.

2006.RiskFactorsAssociatedwithAdverseHealthand

SafetyOutcomesintheUnitedStatesHispanic

Workforce.TheoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience7(3).Pp299310.

AFLCIO(2005).ImmigrantWorkersAtRisk:TheUrgentNeed

forImprovedWorkplaceSafetyandHealthPoliciesand

Programs.WashingtonD.C.:AFLCIO.

Anderson,D.R.,R.W.Whitmer,R.Z.Goetzel, R.J.

Ozminkowski, R.L.Dunn, J.Wasserman2000."The

RelationshipBetweenModifiableHealthRisksandGrouplevel

HealthCareExpenditures."HealthEnhancementResearch

Organization

(HERO)

Research

Committee.

AmericanJournal

of

HealthPromotion15(1),4552.Bartley,T.andW.T.Roberts.2006.Relational

Exploitation:TheInformalOrganizationofDayLabor

Agencies.WorkingUSA:TheJournalofLaborandSociety9(4):4158.

Beneria,L.2001.ShiftingtheRisk:NewEmploymentPatterns,

Informalization,andWomensWork.InternationalJournalPolitics,Culture,andSociety.15(1)pp.2753.Benner,C.2002. WorkintheNewEconomy:Flexible

LaborMarketsinSiliconValley.Malden:Blackwell.

Bernhardt,C.,N.DeCuyper,N.Berntson,andK.

Isaksson.2005.JobandcontractpreferencesinDifferent

EmploymentForms:RelationstoWellBeingand

OrganizationalAttitudes.InternationalJournalofStressManagement15(4)345363.

Camou,M.2002.CentersorStreets?:Achieving

EconomicJusticeforUndocumentedDayLaborers.Eliot

FitchSymposiumSeriesandtheInstituteforUrbanLife,.

Milwaukee,WI.

Carre,M.2002.GlobalizationandtheInformal

Economy:HowGlobalTradeandInvestmentImpacton

theWorking

Poor.

International

Labor

Office

Working

PaperontheInformalEconomy.Geneva.

Connell,J.andJ.Burgess.2005.Temporary WorkandHuman

ResourcesManagement:Issues,ChallengesandResponses.

PersonnelReview35(2).129140.

Dembe, A.,J.Erickson,R.Delbos,andS.Banks.2005.The

ImpactofOvertimeandLongWorkHoursonOccupational

InjuriesandIllnesses:NewEvidencefromtheUnitedStates.

OccupationEnvironmentMedicine.62(9).588597.Espenshade,T.Jill. (1995).Unauthorizedimmigrationtothe

UnitedStates.AnnualReviewofSociology,21,195216Fine,J.(2005).WorkerCenters:OrganizingCommunitiesatthe

EdgeoftheDream.EconomicPolicyInstitute.WashingtonD.C.

Fine,J.(2006).Workercenters:Organizingcommunitiesattheedgeofthedream.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.Gonzalez,A.andA.Valenzuela.(2007)."DayLaborinthe

GoldenState."CaliforniaEconomicPolicy3(3):122.Kalleberg,A.2000.NonstandardEmploymentRelations:Part

time,Temporary,

and

Contract

Work.AnnualReviewof

Sociology.26.341365.

Lashuay,N.andR.Harrison.2006.BarrierstoOccupational

HealthServicesforLowWageWorkersinCalifornia,prepared

forCaliforniaCommissiononHealthandSafetyandWorkers

Compensation.

Marcelli,E.(2004).UnauthorizedMexicanImmigration,Day

LabourandotherLowerwageInformalEmploymentin

California.RegionalStudies38(1):113.Mehta,C.andN.Theodore.2006.WorkplaceSafetyin

AtlantasConstructionIndustry:InstitutionalFailurein

TemporaryStaffing

Arrangements.WorkingUSA,9,pp.59

77.

MoureErasoRandG.FriedmanJimenez.2001.Occupational

healthamongLatinoworkersintheurbansetting.InAguirre

MolinaM,MolinaCW,ZambranaRE,eds.HealthIssuesintheLatinoCommunity.SanFrancisco,Calif:JosseyBass;327358MilkmanR.2007,LaborOrganizingamongMexican Born

WorkersintheUnitedStates:RecentTrendsandFuture

Prospects32pp.96112.

Nissen,Bruce.2004.ConstructionSafetyPracticesand

ImmigrantWorkers:APilotStudy.ReportfortheCenterto

ProtectWorkers

Rights.

CenterforLaborResearchandStudies

FloridaInternationalUniversity. http://www.risepfiu.org/

reports/Immigrant%20Construction%20Workers%20Safety.pdf

Peck,J.andN.Theodore.(2001).ContingentChicago:

Restructuringthespacesoftemporarylabor.InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch25:3,471496.


18/18

Page 18


PranskyG,MoshenbergD,BenjaminK,PortilloS,ThackreyJL,

CarolynHF.2002.Occupationalrisksandinjuriesinnon

agriculturalimmigrantLatinoworkers.AmericanJournalofIndustrialMedicine.42:117123.Quandt,SA,JSPreisser,TAArcury.2002.Mobilitypatternsof

migrantfarmworkersinNorthCarolina:implicationsfor

occupationalhealthresearchandpolicy.HumanOrganization.14.2129.

Sassen,S.1997.InformalizationinAdvancedMarket

Economies.IssuesinDevelopmentDiscussionPaper20.Geneva,InternationalLaborOffice.

Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,andE.Melendez.2007.Day

LaborWorkerCenters:New ApproachestoProtectingLabor

Standards

in

the

Informal

Economy.

DraftReport

10

December2007.

Theodore,N.andN.Martin(2007).MigrantCivilSociety:New

VoicesintheStruggleOver CommunityDevelopment.JournalofUrbanAffairs 29(3).pp.269287.Theodore,N.2003.PoliticalEconomiesofDayLabour:

RegulationandRestructuringof ChicagosContingentLabour

Markets.UrbanStudies,40,pp.18111828.Theodore,N.,E.Melendez,A.Valenzuela,Jr.,AGonzalez.

2008.DayLaborWorkplaceAbuses IntheResidential

ConstructionIndustry:ConditionsintheWashington,DC

Region.

Chapter

forthcoming

in

Berhardt,

Boushey,

Dresser,

andTilly(eds).TheGlovesOffEconomy:ProblemsandPossibilitiesattheBottomofAmericasLaborMarketToscanoGandW.Weber.1995ViolenceintheWorkplace.Washington,DC:BureauofLaborStatistics.

USGeneralAccountingOffice. (2002).Workerprotection:

Laborseffortstoenforceprotectionsfordaylaborerscould

benefitfrombetterdataandguidance.GAO04472.

Washington,DC:USGovernmentAccountingOffice.

Valenzuela,A.(1999)DayLabourersinSouthernCalifornia:

PreliminaryFindingsfromthe DayLaborSurvey.Working

PaperSeries,

Center

for

the

Study

of

Urban

Poverty,

Institute

forSocialScienceResearch,UCLAMay30.

Valenzuela,A.(2002).WorkingontheMarginsin

MetropolitanLosAngeles:Immigrantsin Day Labor.

MigracionsInternacionales,1(2)pp.628.Valenzuela,A.(2003).DayLaborWork.AnnualReviewof

Sociology29(1):307333

ValenzuelaJr.,A.andE.Melendez.(2003).DaylaborinNew

York:FindingsfromtheNYDLSurvey.WorkingPaper,Center

fortheStudyUrbanPoverty,InstituteforSocialScience

Research,

ValenzuelaJr.,A.,N.Theodore,E.Melendez,andA.L.

Gonzalez. (2006).OntheCorner:DayLaborintheUnitedStates,UCLACenterfortheStudyofUrbanPoverty,

LosAngeles,California.

Differences in Types of Operations

Documents

Transcript of Differences in Types of Operations