Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes

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


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.


3/14

Page 3


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


4/14

Page 4


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.


5/14

Page 5


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


6/14

Page 6


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





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: 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: San Diego, CA 7.6 6.6 N/A 7.3


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




AverageHoursWorkedinaDaybyRegionsandTypeofSites*


7/14

Page 7


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






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: Other 1.9 N/A 2.5 2.0


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 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




AverageDaysWorkedinaWeekbyRegionsandTypeofSites*


8/14

Page 8


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


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




AverageWeeklyWagesbyRegionsand TypeofSites*

SMSATypeofSite






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: Other 1.23 N/A 1.61 1.34


W: Oakland, CA 1.72 1.72 1.60 1.70


W: San Diego, CA 1.67 1.76 N/A 1.71


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



IncidenceofEmployersNonpaymentofWages*DuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegionsandTypesofSites**


9/14

Page 9


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






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: 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: San Diego, CA 1.16 1.24 N/A 1.19


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.



Source: NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.

IncidenceofEmployers'WorkingConditionsAbuses*DuringtheLastTwoMonths

byRegions

and

Type

of

Sites**


10/14

Page 10


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






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: Other 0.43

N/A 0.79

0.51


W: Oakland, CA 0.62 0.64 0.73 0.64


W: San Diego, CA 0.65 0.84 N/A 0.71


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




IncidenceofViolenceintheWorkplaceDuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegionsand

Typeof

Sites*


11/14

Page 11


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






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: Other 2.47 N/A 3.30 2.71


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 1.30 2.49

W: Other 2.28 N/A 5.03 2.93

Total 3.23 3.21 2.97 3.18

*Includesallformsofemploymentrelatedabuses.



Source: NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.

IncidenceofEmployerorWorkplaceAbuses*DuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegions

andTypeofSites**


12/14

Page 12


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.


13/14

Page 13


AboutUsAbel

Valenzuela

Jr.

[email protected]

AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand

UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los

AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof

UrbanPoverty.

EdwinMelendez

[email protected]

EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand

PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe

CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.

NikTheodore

[email protected]

NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment

ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityof

Illinois,ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterfor

UrbanEconomicDevelopment.

AnneVisser

[email protected]

M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew

SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe

CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.

AnaLuzGonzalez

[email protected]

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


14/14

Page 14


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.

Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes

Documents

Transcript of Worker Center and Labor Market Outcomes