You are on page 1of 14

CenterFortheStudy ofUrbanPoverty Universityof California,Los Angeles CenterforPuerto RicanStudies,Hunter College,TheCity UniversityofNew York CenterforUrban Economic Development, UniversityofIllinois, Chicago

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


EdwinMelendez,NewSchoolUniversity AbelValenzuelaJr.,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles NikTheodore,UniversityofIllinois,Chicago AnneVisser,NewSchoolUniversityand AnaLuzGonzalez,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles
Overthelastthreedecades,theUnitedStates economyhasexperiencedagrowingsegmentation ofthelabormarketandanincreaseinthegrowth ofinformalandcontingentwork.Aresultofthe broadereconomicrestructuringoftheUnited Stateslabormarket,thedemandfordaylaborhas 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). Currentlythereareover60daylaborworkercen 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 centersofferaresponseonthedemandsideby 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.Afterabriefreviewofthecharacteristicsof thedaylaborjobmarket,weassesstheevidence ofcentersimpactonthethreevariablesorcom ponentsofweeklyearnings(wagesperhour, hoursworkedduringtheday,andnumberofdays workedduringtheweek)andvariousworkplace abuses.Forthisassessment,weusetheNational DayLaborSurveyconductedin2004aunique datasetwhere2,660daylaborerswereinter viewedin284sitesthroughoutthenation.The siteswereselectedrandomlyfromfourregional clustersencompassingallSMSAs,andallsites withinthoseselectedSMSAswerevisitedforin terviews.Ofthe284totalsites,210werestreet corners,34wereconnectedsites(suchasdedi catedfacilitiesinHomeDepot),and41were workercenters.1 Thecorefindingofthisstudyisthatdaylaborers earn,underthemostoptimisticassumptions, barelyabovethepovertythresholdsestablished bytheCensusBureauandtheDepartmentof HealthandHumanServiceswhethertheypartici pateinworkercentersornot.Theaverageearn ingofadaylaborerin2004isestimatedtobe $248aweek.2Undertheassumptionthatworkers canmaintainthatlevelofearningyearround,the estimatedearningsof$12,896isslightlyabovethe nationalaveragepovertythresholdof$9,645fora householdofoneindividualin2005.Inactuality, inmostpartsofthecountrythedemandforday laborworkisseasonalsinceasubstantialportion ofemployersarecontractorsorheadofhouse holdsworkingonrenovationsormaintenance projects,andthesetypeofprojectsaremore likelytooccurduringthesummermonthsbecause oftheweatherorworkschedules.Assumingthat

INSIDE THIS REPORT:


Characteristics of the Day Labor Market 2

The Impact of Day Labor Worker Centers on Labor Market

Worker Centers and Earnings

Worker Centers and Workplace Abuses

Conclusions

About Us

10

Bibliography

11

1 2

Notallworkercenterswereincludedinthesampleforthestudy.See____formoredetailsonthemethodforthestudy. Wefocusthediscussiononweeklywagesandnotannualwages.Toimprovetheaccuracyofthereportedweeklyearn ingsbyworkers,weaskedtheintervieweestoreportonearningsandjobperformedeverydayoftheweek,andthen addedthosereportedearningstoderiveanaverage.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 2
thegoodseasonextendshalftheyear,theestimatedyearly earningsis$9,672,afigureaboutthesameasthepoverty thresholdforanindividual.3Furthermore,sinceeconomic conditionshavedeterioratedsincethesurveywasconducted; itislikelythatearningshaveerodedsignificantlyfora prototypicalcontingentlaborforcesuchasdaylaborers. Theanalysisofthesurveydatadisaggregatedbytypeofsite showthatobservedoutcomesforworkerswhoparticipatein workercenterscomparefavorablytothoseofworkersseeking employmentinstreetandconnectedsites.4Theaverage 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 suggestthatthecentersinduceatradeoffofhigherobserved wagesperhourandloweroveralltimeworkedduringthe week.Thistradeoffofcentersontheoverallearningsof workersisconsistentwithamoreactiveenforcementof workersrights,suchasprovidingsupporttoworkersforwage claimsagainstabusiveemployers,andamorerestricted employersdemandfordaylaborers.Overall,workersweekly earningsaresimilaratcenters($213)thanatothersites($238 cornersand$251connected),indicatingthatthereisno significantpenaltyintermsofoverallearningsforamore intenseenforcementofworkersrights. Animportantfindingofthisstudyisthatcentersreduce employersnonpaymentofwagesandworkplaceabuses. Consideringallformsofemployersworkplaceabuses,workers interviewedatcentersreportedanincidenceof2.97abuses 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 hourlywagesandreduceworkplaceabuses.Fromthe communityandpublicsectorperspective,centersimprovethe enforcementofwagepaymentandworkplaceprotectionlaws andregulations.However,centersarelimitedtojustaportion ofalltheareaswheredaylaborsiteswereidentified.Core findingsofthisstudysupportamoreproactiveroleforlocal authoritiesintheuseofcentersasatooltomitigate communityconflict,promotelocaleconomicdevelopment, andtopromotesocialjusticeforahighlyvulnerablesegment oftheworkingclass.

CharacteristicsoftheDayLaborMarket
Daylaborerstypicallyrangeinagefrom15to89yearsold, 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,utilizinginformationfromtheNationalDayLabor 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

Forthisestimate,weusedtheratioofreportedearningsof$517forabadmonthto$1473foragoodmonthof.35.4Amorecomprehen siveanalysisofcentersimpactwouldcontrolforworkerscharacteristics,selectionbiasamongthosereportingearnings,andendogeneityof thechoiceofsitebyworkers.Suchcontrolsarebeyondthescopeofthisstudy.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 3
Studiesfurthersuggestthatworkercentersplayakeyrolein establishingminimumwagethresholdsandengaginginwage claimsforunpaidworkbydaylaborers.Byestablishinga minimumwage,workercentershelptocurtailworkplace abusesandimprovelabormarketoutcomesbyallowing 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,negotiationandlegalremedies(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,workercentersareabletoremovethedirect competitionwhichexistsbetweenworkers(Camou2005). Suchreductionofcompetitionisneededgiventhatwhen centerscoexistwithotherinformalhiringsites(suchas TheImpactofDayLaborWorkerCentersonLabor connectedandunconnected),notonlydoesthispotentially minimizethenumberofpeopleintegratedintothe Market center,butratherreducesthecapacityofcenterstoattract employmentbyincreasingcompetition(Camou2005). Inastudyundertakenon60daylaborworkercenters Valenzuelaandassociates(2007)identifiedtwotypesof throughouttheUnitedStates,Valenzuela,Theodore,and allocationsystemsusedinworkercenters:lotteriesandlists, Melendez,notethatworkercentersmediateemploymentof butpositthatthemajorityofthecentersusesometypeof daylaborersinthreeprimaryways.First,theyprovidea hybridsystem.Suchallocationsystems,theyadvance,are minimumwageratewhichestablishesafloorunderthewages designedtoperformadualpurposeonetoprovide paidwithinthesector.Second,theyarecapableofprovidinga employmentthroughanefficientequitableandtransparent distributionprocessforjobopportunitieswhichisboth fashionaswellastoprovideworkerswithanincentiveto equitableandefficient,andthird,theymaintainwage forgoseekingworkatinformalhiringsites(Valenzuela, standardsthroughtheirassistancetoworkerswhohave Melendez,Theodore2007). sufferedwagewithholdingfromemployers.Suchefforts,the Furthermore,scholarsadvancethatdaylaborworkercenters researchersargueseektocreateagreatersenseof havethecapacitytocurtailworkplaceabuseswithintheday transparencyinthehiringprocessbyplacingaccountability labormarketbyreinstatingaccountabilitybackintothe backintotheemploymentcontractingrelationship employeremployeecontractualrelationship.Through (Valenzuela,Theodore,Melendez2007). professionalstaffsandrecordsofemployment,centersare capableofprovidingthepapertrailneededtoaddress employerabusesincludingwagetheftandunsafeworking 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 harassmentandthreatsfromthesecurityguardsand/orbeing 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,areassociatedwithhigherrisksofcontractingHIV, andposeriskstothementalandgeneralhealthstatusofday laborers(OrganistaandKubo2005).

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 4
conditions.Moreover,RuthMilkman(2006)arguesthat centersarecapableofputtingdirectpressureonemployers andgovernmentalagencies,helpingtocreateasafety mechanismforthoseengagedinthesector.Inaddition MargaretHobbins,advancesthatcentersareimportantin ensuringworkersafetyandtreatmentbecauseoftheir capacitytodocumentabusesprovidingevidenceofan employmentrelationshipandcreatingasituationinwhich workersarelesslikelytoendureabuseandlifethreatening conditionsoutofafearthatunaccountableemployerswillfire themorwithholdpayforcomplaining(Hobbins2006:65). inducevariationsinearnings.Tocontrolthesefactors,we organizethediscussionbasedontablesthatdepictwagesby thetypeofsitesandtheSMSAofthesite,alsowepresent subsequenttablesforeachofthelengthofworkelements definingweeklyearnings.5However,conventionaleconomic theoryproposesthatinacompetitivemarketwagesare reflectionsofthelevelofworkersskills.Thereported earningsdonotcontroltheskilllevelsofworkers,andthese areanimportantdeterminantofearnings.Thedifficultyin controllingskilllevelsinthisjobmarketisthatworkersengage invarioustypesofoccupations(suchaspaintersorgeneral constructionlaborers)oftentimeswithinthesameweek,and workforemployerswithdifferentwagestructures(suchas WorkerCentersandEarnings contractorsorindividualhouseholds)whichinturninduce Inthissectionofthereportweexaminetheevidencefromthe variationsevenforthesameworkerinsimilartypesof occupations. NationalDayLaborSurveyconductedin2004onworker Tosimplifythepresentationofaveragewagesbyoccupations, centersandearnings.Weeklyearningsareacompositeof wegroupedthevariousjobsreportedbyworkersintogroups variousdefiningelements:wagesperhour,hoursworked ofcloseproximityintermsofbothskillslevelsandreported everyday,andthetotalnumberofdaysworkedonaweek. earnings.Theoccupationsthatintegratethecategoriesare Variationsinanyofthesedefiningelementswouldinduce reportedinTable1andtheaveragewagesforthecategories variationsonearningsamongworkers.Thus,regional disparitiesinwagesperhour,orlocaldemandforworkerswill inTable2.Themostprevalentoccupationsamongday laborersareconstructionlaborersandgardening.Asreported

FrequencyofJobsperWeekbyOccupationalCategories

Category Occupations Loading, Installer & Other Hi locksmith unpacking loading/loading wood childcare carpet/carpet installer Drywall drywall Plumbing, Heating & AC cooling/heating/air conditioning plumbing refrigeration Moving container moving Construction Craft bricklayer/masonry carpentry roofing electrician handywork/house repair Fencing, Digging, and Other Mid audience member leafleting fencing/gate janitor driver car wash worker digging golf course

Week 1 7 56 1 28

Total 93

Category Painting

Occupations

Week 837

Total 837 1,926

142 142 127 12 112 3 629 9 620 659 59 222 338 27 13 155 1 7 22 8 11 19 82 5

painting Construction Laborer construction Gardening and House Cleaning cleaning houses gardening Miscellaneous Low installation/installing floors drove machine mechanic welder furniture/arranging furniture factory worker warehouse retail (selling food/beds) washing dishes/restaurant garment worker farm worker newspaper delivery cleaning horses/ranch ship dock cook Total

1,926 1,398 136 1,262 154 14 4 3 15 7 5 24 3 5 14 50 4 3 3 6,120

OnlySMSAswithmorethan80interviewswereselectedforlistingonthetables.Allotherinterviewsaregroupedunderthe AllOtherSMSAscategory.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 5
HourlyWagesbyOccupationsandTypeofSites TypeofSite OccupationalCategory Total Street Connected Centers 11.22 10.46 11.48 11.19 Loading, Installer & Other Hi 11.98 10.84 9.98 11.57 Drywall 10.09 10.66 10.84 Plumbing, Heating & AC 11.06 11.02 10.85 11.66 11.09 Moving 10.85 11.66 11.09 Construction Craft 11.02 8.89 11.59 10.15 Fencing, Digging, and Other Mid 10.06 10.06 8.89 11.59 10.15 Painting 10.28 10.29 10.38 Construction Laborer 10.41 9.99 10.36 9.89 Gardening and House Cleaning 9.77 9.38 8.86 8.49 Miscellaneous Low 8.31 HourlyWagesbyRegionsandTypeofSites* TypeofSite Region Total Street Connected Centers 11.10 11.10 NM: Chicago, IL 11.67 11.66 11.63 N/A NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 9.94 9.94 NM: New Jersey 11.10 N/A N/A 11.09 NM: New York, NY 10.83 10.83 NM: Other 10.76 9.65 10.05 9.85 So: Atlanta, GA 11.25 9.19 8.97 So: Houston, TX 8.30 8.84 8.32 So: Texas, Other 10.36 9.04 8.37 10.00 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ So: Washington, DC 10.77 12.66 11.15 9.33 N/A 8.71 9.20 So: Other 11.45 10.94 10.78 9.12 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA W: Oakland, CA 10.67 10.58 11.19 10.73 11.01 10.01 9.70 10.57 W: Orange County, CA 11.15 11.95 N/A 11.28 W: San Diego, CA 11.33 10.90 10.95 10.10 W: San Francisco, CA 10.70 10.55 10.44 10.67 W: San Jose, CA 9.81 N/A 9.30 9.66 W: Other 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. inTable1,ofthe6,120dayjobcontractsreportedbyworkers slightlyabovetheaveragefortheotherprevalentoccupations. duringthepriorweekoftheinterview,1,926(31.5%)werefor Insum,theaveragewagesforworkersfluctuatefroman constructionlaborers,1,262(20.6%)wereforgardening,and averagelowof$8.49anhourforMiscellaneousLow 837(13.7%)forpainting.Inotherwords,twothirdsofthe occupationsto$11.19forthosejobsintheLoading,Installer& OtherHicategory.However,thesevariationsaremitigatedby dailyjobcontractswereawardedtothreeoccupationswith relativelylittledifferencesinwages.AsreportedinTable2, thefactthatmostjobsperformedduringthepriorweekwere constructionlaborersearnedonaverage$10.38anhour, performedinahandfulofoccupationsclosetotheoverall gardeningandhousecleaningjobspaid$9.89anhour,while observedhourlywageaverageof$10.58. paintersearned$10.15anhour.Otherimportantjobs SMSAsaregenerallyconsideredastherelevantregionalunit ofanalysisforlabormarkets.Foreconomistandothersocial contractedduringthepriorweektotheinterviewincluded: scientists,alabormarketisdefinedasaspatialunitwhereitis moving(620),andthegroupingofconstructioncraft occupations(659);thesetwojobcategorieswerepaid$11.09, conventionalforworkerstocommutetowork.Thoughthis

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 6
assumptionisquestionablefordaylaborersinareaswith tolocationofthecenters,tounfavorablelocalenvironments inadequatepublictransportationservicingtheneedsofthe (e.g.,antisolicitationordinances),andotherfactors. workingpoor,weassumethatwageswillbefairlycomparable Asecondsetoffactoraffectingweeklyearningsisrelatedto withinSMSAsbytypeofsite,andalsominimizedisparities lengthofworkduringtheweek.Table4showstheaverage inducedbyregionaldifferencesthroughoutthecountrywhen numberofhoursworkedduringthedaybytypeofsitesand comparingthesites.Regionaldisparitiesinhourlywagesare SMSAs.Overall,workercentersexhibitlowerhoursperday evidentinTable3.Forinstance,averagehourlywagesby thancorners:centersaverageis7.2hoursaday,connected SMSAfluctuatefromahighof$11.66anhourinNassau sites7.1,andcorners7.6.Thoughmanyworkerswork Suffolk,LongIslandtoalowof$9.04inPhoenixMesa.SMSAs regularlyovertime,onlyintheNassauregiondoestheaverage sitesintheSouthwest(e.g.,Houston$9.19,Phoenix$9.04) hoursperdayexceedeighthours.Therangeofaveragedaily hoursextendsfrom8.6intheNassauSMSAregion,to6.9 typicallyhaveloweraveragehourlywagesthanthoseinthe Northeast(e.g.,NewYork$11.13,Washington,DC$11.29, hoursadayintheSanFranciscoandOrangeCountySMSAs. Chicago$11.38). OfthegroupofSMSAswherehourlywagesincentersexceed Overall,workercentershaveahigherhourlywage($10.53) thoseofothersiteswithintheSMSA,Houston,LosAngeles, thanthoseofcorners($10.04)butnotforthoseofconnected Phoenix,andWashingtonDC,thenumberofhoursworked sites($10.83).Thoughthevastmajorityofcentersconformto duringthedaywerelowerthanforothersites.Amongthis thispattern,asshowninTable3,notallcentershaveaverage groupofcentersitislikelythatcentersactivismprotecting hourlywagesthataregreaterthanthoseofothersiteswithin workersrightsandactivelyengagedinwageclaimsresultedin moreadherencetoaregulareighthoursday.Intwoofthese theSMSA.HourlywagesatcentersinHouston,LosAngeles, Phoenix,SanJose,WashingtonDC,Oakland,andSanFrancisco SMSAwherehourlywageswerehigherforworkers interviewedincentersinOakland,andcenterinSanFrancisco exceedthoseofothersiteswithintheSMSA.Incontrast, centersinAtlanta,NewYork,OrangeCo.,andSanDiegohave alsoreportedhigherhoursworked.However,thesecenters lowerhourlyearningsthanthoseofothersites.Hourlywages alsoreportedsignificantlyhigherwagesthancornersand inLongIslandandOtherSMSAaresimilar.Futurestudiescan connectedsites,suggestingthepossibilitythathigherwages assesswhycentersoutperformothersitesinsomeSMSAsin reflectovertimecompensationforadditionalhoursworked. termsofhigherobservedhourlywagesandwhynotinothers. WorkersinSanJosecentersreportedhigherhourlywagesand Differencescouldbeattributedtoapproachesandstrategies, aboutthesamenumberofhoursworkedperdayasthose AverageHoursWorkedinaDaybyRegionsandTypeofSites* TypeofSite Region Total Street Connected Centers 8.0 8.0 NM: Chicago, IL 8.6 N/A 8.1 8.6 NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 8.1 8.1 NM: New Jersey 7.8 N/A 7.8 NM: New York, NY 8.2 8.2 NM: Other 7.1 7.1 7.5 7.1 So: Atlanta, GA 7.9 6.9 7.9 So: Houston, TX 7.5 8.3 7.5 So: Texas, Other 7.4 6.7 6.2 7.1 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 7.8 7.7 7.8 So: Washington, DC 7.6 N/A 7.0 7.6 So: Other 7.8 7.1 6.8 7.1 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 6.8 7.0 7.7 7.0 W: Oakland, CA 6.9 6.8 7.3 6.9 W: Orange County, CA 7.6 6.6 N/A 7.3 W: San Diego, CA 6.8 7.6 7.2 6.9 W: San Francisco, CA 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.1 W: San Jose, CA 7.0 N/A 8.1 7.3 W: Other Total 7.6 7.1 7.2 7.4 * Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey. Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 7
AverageDaysWorkedinaWeekbyRegionsandTypeofSites* TypeofSite Region Total Street Connected Centers 2.9 2.9 NM: Chicago, IL 2.6 N/A 2.1 2.4 NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 2.7 2.7 NM: New Jersey 2.4 N/A 2.4 NM: New York, NY 2.3 2.3 NM: Other 2.0 2.4 1.9 2.1 So: Atlanta, GA 2.3 1.6 2.2 So: Houston, TX 2.1 3.7 2.2 So: Texas, Other 2.6 1.8 2.5 2.6 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 2.1 1.8 2.0 So: Washington, DC 1.9 N/A 2.5 2.0 So: Other 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.2 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 1.9 2.0 3.2 2.1 W: Oakland, CA 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.6 W: Orange County, CA 3.0 2.3 N/A 2.8 W: San Diego, CA 2.5 2.2 1.7 2.2 W: San Francisco, CA 2.0 2.2 0.8 1.9 W: San Jose, CA 2.3 N/A 1.5 2.1 W: Other Total 2.3 2.5 1.9 2.3 * Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey. Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004. interviewedincornersites.Ofthecenterswithlowerhourly reluctanttocontractworkersthattheyperceiveashaving earningsthanothersiteswithintheSMSA,inAtlantaand moreprotectionsandrecourses.Or,centersarenot OrangeCo.workersreportedworkingmorehoursatthe locatedwhereemployerscaneasilyconnectwithworkers, centersthanthosereportedbyworkersinterviewedinother especiallyincomparisontoothersites.Obviously,thisisa sites.Thus,whileamongthefirstgroupofSMSAsitispossible questionthatdeservesfurtherstudy. toassociatethepatternofhigherwagesandfewerhourstoa Weeklyearningsareasummativemeasureoftherelative positiveimpactofcenters,amongthelattergroupofSMSAs importanceofeachoftheoutcomesdiscussedtothispoint. centersdonotdepicttheexpectedpatternofoutcomes. Weeklyearningsaredefinedas: Thenumberofdaysperweekworkedasadaylaborerismore weeklyearnings=hourlywagesxhoursperdayxdaysper directlyrelatedtothedemandforcontingentworkersina week.Table6showsweeklyearningsbysiteandSMSAs.The givenSMSA.Inthiscontext,centersgenerateonaverage rangeofweeklyearningsreportedbyworkersfluctuatesfrom fewerjobcontractsthanothersites,asmeasuredbythe alowof$193inPhoenixMesa,toahighof$339inother numberofdaysworkedperweek.OnlyinOaklanddidworkers areasoftheNorth.Thenationalaveragespersitesarefairly reportsignificantlyhigherdaysworkedperweekthanother similar:connectedsitesexhibitthehigheraverageof$251, sites.Theoverallrateof1.9daysforcentersislowerthanthe streetcornersaverage$238,andcentershaveaslightlylower 2.5rateforconnectedsites(mostlylocatedinHomeDepot averageof$213.However,infourSMSAs,Washington,DC, facilities)orthe2.3rateforstreetcorners(Table5).Asthe Oakland,andSanFranciscoworkersreportedhigherweekly priorcomponentsofweeklyearnings,daysworkedperweek earningsatcentersthanatothersites.Thus,totheextentthat exhibitarangebetweenalowrateof1.9daysinSanJosetoa centershaveincreasedweeklywagesandreducedweekly highof2.9daysworkedperweekinChicago.Theevidence hoursbycurtailingemployersabuses,andtotheextentthat somecentershavemaintainedhighdemandforworkersatthe fromthistablesuggeststhat,despitethepositiveeffectof centersonhourlywagesandonreducingtheaverageamount centers,centersareclearlyaneffectivepolicyfromthe ofhoursworkedperday,centersareassociatedwithadecline workersandthecommunityperspectives.Regularizationhas improvedmarketoutcomeswithrelativelylittleadverseeffect indemandfordaylaborers.Therearemultiplepotential explanationsforthisfinding.Forone,employersmightbeless onoverallearningsforworkers.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 8

WorkerCentersandWorkplaceAbuses

Forthemostpart,providedthatemployersmatchthe minimumwageexpectedbyworkers(oftencalleda reservationwage),daylaborersarewillingtoworkforaslong andmanyemployersperceivedaylaborersashavinglittle astheemployerswouldlikethemtowork.Presumably, recourseincaseofdisputes.Othertypesofabusesinvolve overtimewagesarepartoftheinitialnegotiationforwork, abandoningworkersinremotesiteswithnotransportation, andemployersregularlyrequestworkerstostaylongerthan eighthoursadayasguidedbythelaw.However,paymentfor workplacesthathavenoaccesstofoodorwater,physical overtimeworkisoftencontentious,especiallywhentheterms violenceorverbalabuse. Priorstudiesusingqualitativedatasuggestthatworker oftheverbalcontractareambiguous(forinstance,bynot centersmitigateconflictbyclarifyingtheexpectedtermsfor establishinganhourlyratewhenworkexceedseighthours) theworkcontractandbyservingasamediationresource whenconflictarises (Theodore,Valenzuela, AverageWeeklyWagesbyRegionsandTypeofSites* andMelendez.2007). Centersalsopromotefair TypeofSite Region Total Street Connected Centers workingconditionsby 297 297 NM: Chicago, IL educatingworkersabout 296 N/A 285 293 NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY theirrightsandemployers 283 283 NM: New Jersey abouttheirobligations. 270 N/A 272 NM: New York, NY 339 339 NM: Other Themerepresenceofa 285 218 229 211 So: Atlanta, GA centerinacommunityis 211 203 210 So: Houston, TX anindicationthatworkers 209 273 213 So: Texas, Other 194 193 183 193 mayhaveaccessto So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 293 268 262 So: Washington, DC 303 224 206 N/A So: Other 266 202 229 231 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 315 229 218 205 W: Oakland, CA 253 247 212 244 W: Orange County, CA 276 236 N/A 263 W: San Diego, CA 274 262 258 269 W: San Francisco, CA 246 191 230 223 W: San Jose, CA 192 N/A 119 171 W: Other Total 238 251 213 235 * Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey. Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.

IncidenceofEmployersNonpaymentofWages*DuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegionsandTypesofSites**

TypeofSite Total Street Connected Centers 2.19 2.19 NM: Chicago, IL 1.11 1.93 2.18 N/A NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 1.62 1.62 NM: New Jersey 1.86 1.89 N/A NM: New York, NY 1.06 1.06 NM: Other 1.41 1.69 1.64 1.93 So: Atlanta, GA 2.44 3.21 2.53 So: Houston, TX 1.53 1.85 1.54 So: Texas, Other 0.85 1.38 1.51 1.35 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 1.91 1.97 1.93 So: Washington, DC 1.23 1.61 1.34 N/A So: Other 1.17 1.44 1.54 1.81 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 1.60 1.70 1.72 1.72 W: Oakland, CA 1.17 1.58 1.72 1.58 W: Orange County, CA 1.67 1.76 1.71 N/A W: San Diego, CA 1.56 1.91 0.95 1.47 W: San Francisco, CA 0.70 1.26 1.56 1.06 W: San Jose, CA 1.34 2.06 1.50 N/A W: Other 1.65 1.59 1.38 1.59 Total *Includesnonpayment,payinglessthanagreed,orpaidforfewerhoursthanagreed. SMSA ** 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.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 9
incenters IncidenceofEmployers'WorkingConditionsAbuses*DuringtheLastTwoMonths reportedan averageof1.38 byRegionsandTypeofSites** incidents,or17% lowerthanthe TypeofSite SMSA Total 1.65incidence Street Connected Centers ratereportedby 1.60 1.60 NM: Chicago, IL workers 0.57 1.09 1.24 N/A NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.91 0.91 NM: New Jersey interviewedin 1.32 N/A 1.33 NM: New York, NY corners,and8% 0.89 0.89 NM: Other lowerthanthe 0.90 1.07 1.00 0.95 So: Atlanta, GA 1.59rate 1.16 1.50 1.20 So: Houston, TX reportedby 0.62 1.00 0.63 So: Texas, Other workersin 0.40 0.73 0.80 0.74 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ connectedsites. 1.06 1.34 1.12 So: Washington, DC However,asit 0.82 N/A 0.90 0.86 So: Other wasthecasewith 0.80 1.02 1.27 1.20 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA earnings,ratesof 1.16 1.16 0.93 1.13 W: Oakland, CA 0.93 1.19 1.30 1.13 W: Orange County, CA abusesvary 1.16 1.24 N/A 1.19 W: San Diego, CA noticeably 0.85 1.13 1.22 1.18 W: San Francisco, CA throughthe 0.50 0.89 0.94 0.96 W: San Jose, CA SMSAs.Lower 0.70 N/A 2.07 1.03 W: Other incidencerates Total 1.00 1.08 0.97 1.01 arereportedby *Includesabandonmentinremotesites,noaccesstofoodorwater,andothers. workersinmost ** Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that oftheSMSAs(Los no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey. Angeles,Atlanta, Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004. Nassauregion, OrangeCounty, Phoenix,Oakland, SanFrancisco).OnlyinHoustondidworkersincentersreport higherincidenceratesthanthoseinterviewedinothercities. locallegalandadvocacyresources,andthatpresencebyitself couldserveasdeterrencetoabuses.Inthissectionwe examinetheevidenceonhowcentersmaycontributeto lessenvarioustypesofemployerabuses. Nonpaymentofwagesisthemostprevalenttypeofabuse reportedbydaylaborers.Table7depictsanindexofthe incidenceofemployersnonpaymentofwagestodaylaborers overthepriortwomonths.Overall,daylaborersinterviewed

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 10
IncidenceofViolenceintheWorkplaceDuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegionsand TypeofSites* TypeofSite SMSA Total Street Connected Centers 0.70 0.70 NM: Chicago, IL 0.98 0.89 0.94 N/A NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.41 0.41 NM: New Jersey 0.89 0.92 N/A NM: New York, NY 0.40 0.40 NM: Other 0.45 0.59 0.56 0.60 So: Atlanta, GA 0.60 0.71 0.62 So: Houston, TX 0.46 0.77 0.47 So: Texas, Other 0.38 0.44 0.40 0.40 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.70 0.71 0.70 So: Washington, DC 0.43 0.79 0.51 N/A So: Other 0.53 0.57 0.65 0.57 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 0.62 0.64 0.73 0.64 W: Oakland, CA 0.45 0.64 0.69 0.68 W: Orange County, CA 0.65 0.84 0.71 N/A W: San Diego, CA 0.56 0.36 0.30 0.48 W: San Francisco, CA 0.10 0.35 0.38 0.40 W: San Jose, CA 0.24 0.90 0.40 N/A W: Other 0.58 0.54 0.61 0.58 Total * 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. Violenceintheworkplaceistheleastfrequenttypeofabuse, workingconditions,andviolence.Overall,workersincenters withanoverallincidencerateof0.61perworkeroverthetwo reportedalowerincidenceofabusesthanworkers priormonths(Table9).Violenceisbroadlydefinedand interviewedinothertypeofsites.Theoverallincidencerateof includesbothphysicalandverbalabuses.Asinothertypesof 2.97forworkersinterviewedincentersis11%lowerthanthe abuses,incidenceofviolenceislowerforworkersinterviewed reportedincidencerateforstreetcornersof3.23,and4% atcentersthanforthoseinterviewedatstreetcornersites, lowerthantheincidenceratereportedforconnectedsitesof howeverworkersinterviewedinconnectedsitesreportedthe 3.21.ThispatternisobservedforcentersinLosAngeles, lowestincidenceoverall.AsshowninTable9,onlyworkers Atlanta,OrangeCounty,Phoenix,SanJose,Oakland,andSan interviewedincentersinfiveoftheSMSAreportedlower Francisco.Mostoftheareaswiththehighestincidencesarein incidencethaninallothersiteswithintheSMSA,while Washington,D.C.,HoustonandotherSMSAsintheWest.Two workersinthreeotherSMSAsreportedaboutthesame areaswithincidentratesforcentersthatdivergefromthe incidenceratesasthesiteswiththelowestincidences.Table generalpatternareHoustonandotherSMSAsinthewest, 10presentsthesummaryresultsforemployerorworkplace withextremelyhighincidenceratesof5.43and5.03, abuses.Theincidenceofallformsofemployerandworkplace respectively.Asreportedabove,allthreecomponentsofthe abusesoverthepriortwomonthsissimple,thesumofthe indexcontributetotheseobservedpatternsofaverageabuse threetypesofabusesalreadydiscussed:nonpayment, incidentratesintheHoustonandNewYorkareas.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 11

IncidenceofEmployerorWorkplaceAbuses*DuringtheLastTwoMonthsbyRegions andTypeofSites** TypeofSite SMSA Total Street Connected Centers 4.49 4.49 NM: Chicago, IL 4.40 2.57 3.96 N/A NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 2.94 2.94 NM: New Jersey 4.07 4.13 N/A NM: New York, NY 2.36 2.36 NM: Other 3.00 3.20 3.14 3.45 So: Atlanta, GA 4.21 5.43 4.35 So: Houston, TX 2.60 3.62 2.64 So: Texas, Other 1.65 2.50 2.70 2.53 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 3.67 4.02 3.75 So: Washington, DC 2.47 3.30 2.71 N/A So: Other 3.46 3.59 2.49 3.02 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 3.50 3.52 3.27 3.47 W: Oakland, CA 2.55 3.41 3.71 3.39 W: Orange County, CA 3.49 3.84 3.60 N/A W: San Diego, CA 3.35 3.45 2.10 3.07 W: San Francisco, CA 2.89 2.42 1.30 2.49 W: San Jose, CA 2.28 5.03 2.93 N/A W: Other 2.97 3.18 3.23 3.21 Total *Includesallformsofemploymentrelatedabuses. ** Data reported for sites with n>10, N/A otherwise. Blank spaces indicate that no sites of that type were identified in the SMSA at the time of the survey. Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004. Conclusions

Previousstudieshavearguedthatworkercenters,theprimary policyimplementedinmultiplelocalitiesaroundthecountry toregularizethedaylaborjobmarket,provideimportant benefitstoworkers.Amongthesebenefitsinclude:helpingto establishminimumwagefloors,helpingtoinstituteequitable andefficientdistributionalprocessesforjobs,andhelpingto maintainwagestandardsthroughassistancetoworkerswho havesufferedworkplaceabusesandexperiencedwage withholdings(Theodoreetal2007).Inthisstudywewere concernedwiththeimpactofworkercentersondaylabor earningsandworkingconditions. Theevidencepresentedindicatesthatworkercentersdooffer concretebenefitstoworkers,mostsignificantlybyimproving wagesperhourandmitigatingworkplaceabuses.Howeverthe impactsofcentersarelessenedbynumerousfactors.For instance,theobservedhourlywagepremiumof($0.49) enjoyedbyworkersinterviewedatcentersoverworkers interviewedatstreetcornersisminimalbyanystandardand lowerthantheobservedhourlywageearnedbyworkers participatinginconnectedsites($10.83).Insomeregions,any advantagesgainedintermsofhigherwagesareerodedby fewerdaysofworkovertheweek.

Workersaffiliatedwithcentersgenerallyreportedfewer 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 workercentershavebeenaneffectivepolicythatcontribute totheregularizationofthedaylaborjobmarketinsomeparts ofthecountry.Fromtheworkersperspective,centers increasehourlywagesandreduceworkplaceabuses.Fromthe communityandpublicsectorperspective,centersimprovethe enforcementofwagepaymentandworkplaceprotectionlaws andregulations.Yetdespitecentersbenefitstoworkers, employersandthecommunity,theoverallimpactontheday

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 12
laborjobmarketislimited.Centersserveonlyanestimated 20%ofalldaylaborers,creatinganeedforarenewedeffortto createandsupportmoresites.Moreover,centersrequire greateffortfromlocaladvocacycoalitionstoinitiateandto supporttheiroperations.Insomecasespublicpoliciesare supportive,andinotherstheyserveasbarrierstothe availabilityandsustainabilityofthecenters. Ourfindingsalsosuggestthatconnectedsites,themajorityof whicharelocatedinHomeDepotfacilities,providebetter outcomesforworkersthanstreetcorners.Currently,about 14%ofworkersparticipateinconnectedsites.Promotingthe establishmentofwaitingandhiringareasinHomeDepot, nurseriesandnearotherbusinesseswithhighdemandforday laborers,shouldalsobeconsideredasadesirablepolicy intervention.Thoughmorelimitedinscopethanthecenters, itseemsthatworkersinterviewedinconnectedsiteshad lowerincidencesofabusesandbetterearningsthanworkers interviewedinstreetcorners.Inmanyareasthelabormarket 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 inordinatelyhighabuserates.Thisfindingsuggeststhatitis importanttoinvestigatetheimpactandpotentialof organizingandotherstrategiesusedandundertakenby centerswhichmaycontributetomitigateabusesagainsta vulnerableworkingpopulation.

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 13

AboutUs
AbelValenzuelaJr. abel@ucla.edu AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof UrbanPoverty. EdwinMelendez emelendez@nvbb.net EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe CenterforPuertoRicanStudies. NikTheodore theodore@uic.edu NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityof Illinois,ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterfor UrbanEconomicDevelopment. AnneVisser vissm781@newschool.edu M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe CenterforPuertoRicanStudies. AnaLuzGonzalez anagonza@ucla.edu AnaLuzGonzalezisadoctoralcandidateinUrban PlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

CenterFortheStudyofUrbanPoverty UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles InstituteforSocialResearch 1120RolfeHall Box951484 LosAngeles,CA900951484 Phone:(310)8259156Fax:(310)2064472 www.csup.ucla.edu CenterforUrbanEconomicDevelopment UniversityofIllinois,Chicago CollegeofUrbanPlanningandPublicAffairs 400SouthPeoriaStreet,Suite2100 Chicago,Illinois,606077035 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

Worker Centers and Labor Market Outcomes


Page 14
Theodore,N.,E.Melendez,A.Valenzuela,Jr.,AGonzalez. 2008.DayLaborWorkplaceAbuses intheResidentialConstructionIndustry:Conditionsin theWashington,DCRegion. ChapterforthcominginBerhardt,Boushey,Dresser,and Tilly(eds).TheGlovesOff Economy:ProblemsandPossibilitiesattheBottomof AmericasLaborMarket 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.JournalofGeneral InternalMedicine17(3)pp.221229.

Bibliography
Fine,J.(2005).WorkerCenters:OrganizingCommunitiesatthe EdgeoftheDream.EconomicPolicyInstitute. WashingtonD.C. Gonzalez,A.andA.Valenzuela.(2007)."DayLaborinthe GoldenState."CaliforniaEconomicPolicy3(3):122. Hobbins,M.2006.TheDayLaborerDebate:SmallTownUSA TakesonFederalImmigration LawRegardingUndocumentedWorkers.ExpressOPreprint Series.Washington,D.C.,AmericanUniversitySchoolof Law. Mehta,C.andN.Theodore.2006.WorkplaceSafetyin AtlantasConstructionIndustry: InstitutionalFailureinTemporaryStaffing Arrangements.WorkingUSA,9,pp.5977. MilkmanR.2007,LaborOrganizingamongMexicanBorn WorkersintheUnitedStates: RecentTrendsandFutureProspects32pp.96112. Nissen,Bruce.2004.ConstructionSafetyPracticesand ImmigrantWorkers:APilotStudy.ReportfortheCenter toProtectWorkersRights.CenterforLaborResearch andStudiesFloridaInternationalUniversity. http://www.risepfiu.org/reports/Immigrant% 20Construction%20Workers%20Safety.pdf Organista,K.andA.Kubo(2005)PilotSurveyofRiskand ContextualProblemsandIssuesin Mexican/LatinoMigrantDayLaborers.Journalof ImmigrantHealth7(4)269281. Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,andE.Melendez.2007.DayLabor WorkerCenters:New ApproachesToProtectingLaborStandardsInThe InformalEconomy.DraftReport10December2007. Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,E.Melendez.(2006)."LaEsquina (TheCorner):DayLaborersOn TheMarginsofNewYork'sFormalEconomy." WorkingUSA9(4):407423. Theodore,N.2003.PoliticalEconomiesofDayLabour: RegulationandRestructuringof ChicagosContingentLabourMarkets.UrbanStudies, 40,pp.18111828.