Download - 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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
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).
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
3/18
Page 3
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
4/18
Page 4
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
5/18
Page 5
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
6/18
Page 6
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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?
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
7/18
Page 7
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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.
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
8/18
Page 8
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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*
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
9/18
Page 9
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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
Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Center1 Center2
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
* 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.
WeeklyEarningsbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
5Wehaveomitteddataforsitesandcentersduetolackofinterviewsinsitesorinsufficientsamplesizetoestimatereliablefigures.Datainall
tablesareweighted.
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
10/18
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
11/18
Page 11
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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: Chicago, IL 4.49 4.49
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 4.40 N/A 2.92 2.27 3.96
NM: New Jersey 2.94 2.94
NM: New York, NY 4.07 N/A 4.13
NM: Other 2.36 2.36
So: Atlanta, GA 3.14 3.45 3.00 3.20
So: Houston, TX 4.21 N/A N/A 4.35
So: Texas, Other 2.60 3.62 2.64
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 2.70 2.53 1.65 2.50
So: Washington, DC 3.67 4.38 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: Orange County, CA 3.71 3.39 N/A 2.67 3.41
W: San Diego, CA 3.49 3.84 N/A 3.60
W: San Francisco, CA 3.35 3.45 N/A 2.43 3.07
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
* 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.
EmployerAbusesbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
12/18
Page 12
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Center1 Center2
NM: Chicago, IL 1.58 1.58
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 1.30 N/A 0.54 0.93 1.13
NM: New Jersey 0.74 0.74
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: Houston, TX 2.09 N/A N/A 1.98
So: Texas, Other 1.76 1.62 1.75
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 1.45 1.97 0.40 1.43
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: Orange County, CA 1.39 2.10 N/A 0.83 1.40
W: San Diego, CA 1.51 1.92 0.83 N/A 1.58
W: San Francisco, CA 0.87 2.36 N/A 0.79 1.02
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
* 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.
PoliceIncidentsbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Center1 Center 2
NM: Chicago, IL 3.31 3.31
NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 2.58 N/A 1.62 1.13 2.23
NM: New Jersey 1.05 3.86 1.05
NM: New York, NY 1.80 N/A 1.85
NM: Other 0.88 0.88
So: Atlanta, GA 2.10 3.57 1.76 2.41
So: Houston, TX 4.76 N/A N/A 4.43
So: Texas, Other 1.97 4.38 2.05
So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 2.76 4.59 0.50 2.88
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: Orange County, CA 2.78 3.74 N/A 1.04 2.61
W: San Diego, CA 2.20 2.36 N/A 2.23
W: San Francisco, CA 1.11 4.82 N/A 1.07 1.59
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
* 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.
CommunityAbusesbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
13/18
Page 13
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
14/18
Page 14
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
15/18
Page 15
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
toorganizeworkersinstreetcornersandconnectedsites.
Sincecentersserveapproximately20%ofthedaylabor
population,shiftingresponsibilityforregularizationof
contingentworkerstolocalgovernmentsmayallowcenterstotargettheother80%ofdaylaborersmoreforcefully.There
aremanyimpedimentstosuchstrategy,particularly
ordinancespurposelyfullydesignedtoprecludedaylaborersto
operateasindependentcontractors.Yetperceivinglocal
governmentsashavingtheresponsibilitytoprotecttherights
ofworkerswithlittlerecoursetoaffectwageandworking
conditionslawsisastepintherightdirection.
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
16/18
Page 16
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand
UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los
AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof
UrbanPoverty.
EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand
PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe
CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.
NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment
ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityof
Illinois,ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterfor
UrbanEconomicDevelopment.
M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew
SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe
CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.
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
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
17/18
Page 17
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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.
-
7/30/2019 Differences in Types of Operations
18/18
Page 18
Differences in the Types of Operations, Capacities and Approaches of Day Labor Worker Centers
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.