{"id":330,"date":"2012-05-17T08:47:43","date_gmt":"2012-05-17T08:47:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2012\/05\/17\/organizing-labour-in-the-informal-economy-chris-bonner-dave-spooner-2011\/"},"modified":"2012-05-17T08:47:43","modified_gmt":"2012-05-17T08:47:43","slug":"organizing-labour-in-the-informal-economy-chris-bonner-dave-spooner-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2012\/05\/17\/organizing-labour-in-the-informal-economy-chris-bonner-dave-spooner-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Organizing Labour in the Informal Economy – Chris Bonner, Dave Spooner (2011)"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nLABOUR, Capital and Society 44:1 (2011)
\nOrganizing Labour in the Informal Economy:
\nInstitutional Forms & Relationships
\nChristine Bonner (1) and Dave Spooner (2)
\nAbstract
\nA multitude of grassroots organizational forms and
\napproaches have emerged in response to challenges and limitations
\nfaced by informal workers and their organizations, reflecting
\ncontextual and sector specific factors. This article examines the
\nrelationships between informal workers\u2019 organizations, trade unions
\nand NGOs, thereby demonstrating the importance of relationship
\nbuilding to increase visibility, influence and institutional power.
\nTrade unions are particularly important and the article points
\nto signs of a shift within the international trade union movement
\ntowards more supportive policy and practice. Also evident are
\nnational and international structures indicating a need to scale up
\ninto larger organizations to engage governments and to make an
\nimpact on global developments affecting informal workers\u2019 lives.
\nIn looking at these organizational forms the article concludes that
\nthere is no one organizational form or strategy that fits all, but that
\na flexible, multi faceted approach to organizing is required.
\nIntroduction
\nOver the past twenty years informal workers, especially
\nin the South, have become more organized, visible and vocal in
\ndemanding rights, better conditions and livelihoods. Alongside this
\nthe international trade union movement, NGOs and development
\nagencies have been paying more attention to the needs of informal
\nworkers. In particular the \u201cResolution Concerning Decent Work
\non the Informal Economy\u201d adopted at the International Labour
\nConference (ILC) in 2002 (ILO, 2002a) has increased awareness of
\nthe need to organize informal workers and spurred policy changes
\nin the international trade union movement. However, whilst most
\nwould agree that organization is necessary there is not yet consensus
\namongst trade unionists nor amongst researchers and commentators
\non the feasibility or desirability of organizing informal workers into
\ntrade unions, or indeed what other possible organizational forms,
\nstrategies and relationships would best enable informal workers
\nto achieve voice and visibility and the power to change their lives
\n(Lindell, 2010).
\nThis article examines some of the diverse forms of organization in the informal economy and the relationships being
\nbuilt amongst informal worker organizations themselves, and with
\ntrade unions, other worker and non-governmental organizations
\n(NGO). From this it suggests that there is no single appropriate
\norganizational form, approach or strategy, but rather that a range
\nof organizational forms and a multi-faceted approach is required.
\nIt further suggests that given the challenges and limitations faced
\nby informal workers and their organizations, it is important that
\nthey gain the support of, and form strategic and tactical alliances
\nwith, a range of organizations in order to increase their visibility
\nand voice. Trade unions are key actors in this, together with NGOs
\nof various kinds. Within this framework it is crucial that informal
\nworkers are agents rather than subjects; to move from dependency
\nto independence and to speak for themselves through their elected
\nrepresentatives. This requires the development of membershipbased
\norganizations (MBO) which are \u201cthose in which the members
\nelect their leaders and which operate on democratic principles that
\nhold their elected officers accountable to the general membership\u201d.
\n(Chen et al, 2007: 4).
\nThe challenges and limitations informal workers\u2019
\norganizations face are very real. Some are common across sector
\nand country whilst others are more sector-specific. Some challenges
\nresult from the gender composition and segmentation of the informal
\nworkforce where women form the bulk of those employed in sectors
\nwith the least income, security and status (ILO, 2002b). Others relate
\nto exclusion from the legal frameworks protecting formal workersde
\njure or de facto-around which they can organize, or, conversely,
\nover-regulation and consequent harassment by authorities. Selfemployed
\nworkers in particular are excluded from protection by
\nvirtue of their lack of an employment relationship, and the perception
\nthat they are not workers. Workplaces are usually unconventional,
\nbeing scattered and individualised and lacking a central point or
\ncollective employer, around which organization can coalesce, or
\nthey are difficult to reach being far flung or mobile. Many informal
\nworkers have multiple or seasonal jobs whilst others are migrant
\nworkers working under the radar. A majority are poor and focused
\non survival. Their organizations struggle to collect membership dues
\nand they lack the financial resources to sustain effective organization.
\nIt is not surprising that many trade unions are reluctant to become
\ninvolved in directly organizing informal workers having neither the
\nexperience nor resources required to do so.
\nThis article is based on the experiences and writings of
\nthe authors resulting from their work with the Women in Informal
\nEmployment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO) network.
\nThis includes extensive interaction with organizations of informal
\nworkers at grassroots meetings, conferences and workshops, and
\nreading of reports, documents, correspondence of, and about, such
\norganizations, especially those of street and market vendors, homebased
\nworkers, domestic workers and waste pickers, i.e. workers
\nwho extract and sell recyclable materials from waste and who are
\ncalled by many different names, such as rag\u2013pickers, reclaimers,
\nrecyclers etc. A debate about naming is ongoing amongst the workers
\nthemselves (Samson, 2009). These direct sources are supplemented
\nby information and reports from the International Labour
\nOrganization (ILO), the International Trade Union Confederation
\n(ITUC) and global union federations, as well as academic writers
\nand commentators in the field.
\nThe article firstly gives an overview of different organizational
\nforms in the informal economy from local through to international,
\nfocusing on two illustrative examples-domestic workers and
\nwaste pickers. It then analyses the relationships between informal
\nworker organizations and other worker and non-governmental
\norganizations, drawing out the importance of alliance-building and
\nsupport. Despite misgivings by some, many within the international
\ntrade union movement feel strongly that the trade union movement
\nshould and can promote and practically support organizing informal
\nworkers. We examine this more closely, looking at the background,
\nand recent developments in support of informal workers within the
\ninternational trade union movement, drawing on our interaction with,
\nand recent documents of, trade unions and global union federations
\norganizing, supporting or discussing organizing informal workers.
\nInstitutional Forms in the Informal Economy
\nInformal workers organize in varied forms and in ways
\nappropriate to their circumstances. Their organizations are growing
\nin number and scale despite the limitations they face. Drawing
\nespecially on the authors\u2019 personal engagements with informal
\neconomy worker organizations and their recording of organizational
\nforms, as well as writings of others active in the field, we provide
\nan overview of the different organizational forms within the
\ninformal economy, with a closer look at the situation in two sectors:
\ndomestic workers and waste pickers. This provides a background
\nfor developing an understanding of the organizational forms and
\nrelationships that are most likely to lead to effective and sustained
\norganizations of informal workers.
\nHow workers choose to organize, the detailed organizational
\nform, structure and characteristics results from a complex mixture
\nof contextual factors: political, economic, legal, organizational and
\nsector, as well as inside and outside agency. Pat Horn, International
\nCoordinator of StreetNet International, suggests that the political
\nenvironment is key to an understanding of the way in which the
\nstructure, perspectives, characteristics and organizational forms are
\ndetermined in particular countries:
\nWhere there have been national liberation struggles,
\nthe organisation of informal workers will often adopt
\nperspectives and characteristics arising from those
\nstruggles (e.g. the Gandhian perspective of SEWA; the
\nsocialist perspective of many informal economy workers\u2019
\nassociations in post-colonial African countries; the social
\nmovement perspective of waste pickers\u2019 cooperative
\nmovements in Latin American countries with active
\nanti-neo-liberal popular struggles) and corresponding
\norganisational forms. (Horn, 2008:45)
\nWith informal employment making up more than 60 per cent
\nof women\u2019s employment (ILO, 2002a), and women\u2019s location in the
\nmost precarious segments of the informal economy, gender is another
\nimportant determinant. A significant number of informal workers\u2019
\norganizations are led by women. Some women workers have chosen
\nto organize as women only. They may begin by organizing around
\ntheir interests as women and then as workers, or may consciously
\nfocus on women as workers from the start, as is the case of the
\nSelf Employed Women\u2019s Association (SEWA) in India (Gallin and
\nHorn, 2005) or the waste pickers cooperative, Coopcarmo, in Brazil
\n(Samson, 2009). In mixed organizations patriarchy is the norm and
\nwomen struggle to assert their right to equality as members and
\nleaders. The predominance of men in the most powerful leadership
\npositions in the mainstream trade union movement at all levels is
\npersistent, despite positive action taken to promote gender equality
\nand improve representation of women in leadership positions and
\nnegotiating teams. This is attributed to a number of interlocking
\nfactors such as prejudice, lack of confidence on the part of women,
\nthe burden of domestic chores, the subordinate position of women in
\nthe labour force as well as the masculine culture and rigid practices
\nof trade unions (ILO and ITUC 2000; ITUC 2009; ETUC 2011).
\nThis contributes to male centred agendas giving lower priority to
\nissues and perspectives of particular importance to women.
\nLocal and national organizations
\nInformal workers\u2019 organizations are diverse. Many are
\nMBOs such as unions, associations, cooperatives and self-help
\ngroups. Others are hybrid or mixed formations that lie somewhere
\nbetween an MBO and an NGO. They are diverse in terms of both
\nsize and coverage, ranging from small, fragile local organizations,
\nto national federations and alliances, to regional and international
\nnetworks and federations \u2013 both inside and outside the formal trade
\nunion movement.
\nInside the union movement there are unions whose
\nmembers consist only of informal workers as well as unions that
\nhave membership of both formal and informal workers. Some were
\ncreated by informal workers themselves and others by formal unions
\nreaching out to organize informal workers. Some were conceived
\nand supported by external actors such as women\u2019s organizations,
\nmigrant workers\u2019 organizations and NGOs. There are also many
\nforms of association, outside of the union movement by choice, lack
\nof information or opportunity, or because of legal restrictions. Many
\ngroups of self-employed workers form cooperatives to collectively
\nbuy, sell or produce their goods or to provide a service to their
\nmembers. Some are registered but many operate informally or
\nmay have the legal status of an association or society but operate
\nas cooperatives. There are many other forms of membership-based
\norganization, sometimes independent and sometimes interlinked
\nwith NGOs, community based organizations (CBO) or faith based
\norganizations, which often combine the features and strategies of
\nboth MBOs and NGOs in different mixes. Some are short lived,
\nemerging or reviving in response to an immediate problem, but
\nfading away when the issue is resolved or subsides while others
\nhave sustained themselves against all odds.
\nIncreasingly we see informal workers\u2019 organizations uniting
\nat city or national levels to engage with authorities on policy,
\nregulatory change, and to campaign more effectively, achieving
\nsuccessful outcomes from time to time. These are generally sector
\nspecific national alliances such as the Kenyan National Alliance
\nof Street Vendors and Informal Traders (KENASVIT) (primarily
\nassociations and city alliances) or the city wide alliance Asociaci\u00f3n
\nde Recicladores de Bogot\u00e1 (ARB). Pune India provides a less
\ncommon example of cross sector organizing. Trade unions of street
\nvendors, waste pickers, domestic workers, head-loaders, construction
\nworkers, and drivers of auto-rickshaws and motor tricycle vehicles
\nhave formed a city-wide Manual Labourers\u2019 Association that is
\nde facto recognised by the municipal authorities as the bargaining
\ncounterpart for issues related to the informal economy.
\nAside from organizing challenges common to informal
\nworkers\u2019 organizations, the different sectors of the informal
\neconomy face sector-specific problems and organizational histories.
\nThese have given rise to a tendency towards different forms of
\norganization and differing strategies emerging most strongly. Here
\nwe examine the situation within two sectors: domestic workers and
\nwaste pickers.
\nDomestic workers\u2019 organizing challenges centre on the
\nlack of recognition of and respect for domestic workers as valuable
\nworkers. This is compounded by gender discrimination, low wages,
\nlong hours, isolation and control by employers. These challenges
\nhave been well documented (ILO, 2010a; IRENE and IUF, 2008;
\nITUC, 2010a). Where there is coverage under labour law, it is either
\ninferior to that of other workers or in most cases largely ignored and
\nunenforced (ILO, 2010 a).
\nIn response, a range of organizational forms have emerged,
\nprimarily focused on the struggle of domestic workers for worker
\nand human rights. Domestic workers have a long history of
\norganizing into trade unions in many countries but these have often
\nfailed to sustain themselves or to grow substantially, whether as selforganized
\ndomestic workers\u2019 unions or as a sector within a formal
\nservice sector union. Migration has also become an increasingly
\nimportant factor.
\nIn recent years there has been an upsurge in organizing,
\npropelled by labour market changes such as the increased numbers of
\nmigrant domestic workers filling gaps in care provision (ITUC, 2010a;
\nETUC, 2005); public awareness of the situation of domestic workers
\nthrough NGO effort and through new mobilizing opportunities such as
\nthe tripartite negotiations for an ILO Convention on Domestic Work
\nin 2010 and 2011. Migrant women domestic workers are one of the
\nnewest groups to engage in organizing activities. This organisation
\nusually begins on the basis of their shared status as migrant women
\nand later progresses to encompass their status as workers, through
\nNGOs or into varying community based groups. Another common
\nbase for organizing is through the formation of faith based groups,
\nwhich in the initial stages can provide cover for domestic workers
\nto meet with the approval of their employer. These different groups
\ndevelop a form of organization which may be membership-based,
\nbut without a formal membership mechanism and dues collection
\nsystem, or they may be more akin to a community based, multipurpose
\norganization or a non-worker controlled NGO. They provide
\na safe place where domestic workers can share experiences, develop
\nconfidence and leadership skills and act as a launching-pad for
\ntransitioning to a fully-fledged union or MBO and to the formation of
\nwider alliances or federations. Cooperatives do not feature strongly
\namongst domestic workers but with the increasing presence of
\nexploitative recruitment and placement agencies, domestic workers\u2019
\ncooperatives are beginning to emerge as placement services with a
\ndifference, having democratic structures and a political and social
\npurpose (Bonner, 2010).
\nThere are differences between regions and countries. Latin
\nAmerica probably has the most well established unions, especially
\nin Brazil with thirty-five unions forming the National Federation
\nof Domestic Workers (FENATRAD), with supportive NGOs in
\nmany countries. In Africa, domestic workers are more likely to
\nbe organized into mixed sector unions. Membership has tended to
\nbe very small, unstable, financially unviable and neglected by the
\npredominantly male union leadership. The recent upsurge in interest
\nin organizing domestic workers has been somewhat succesful.
\nFor example, the Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotel, Education
\nInstitutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers\u2019 Union (KUDHEIHA),
\norganized over 10,500 domestic workers in the space of a year
\nwith the support of the International Union of Food, Agricultural,
\nHotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers (IUF) and
\nthe Solidarity Center, a non-profit organization, linked to the AFL-CIO
\n(United States National Centre), that assists workers around
\nthe world to build democratic and independent unions. Another
\nimportant factor in this success was the strong support given by
\nthe union general secretary (IDWN, 2009). In Asia, the organizing
\nefforts of domestic workers has developed rapidly over the past few
\nyears, into unions or through NGOs and faith based movements.
\nIncreasing migration between Asian countries has seen the growth
\nof unions of domestic workers organizing according to nationality,
\nespecially in Hong Kong. In Europe there are established unions of
\ndomestic workers or unions with a domestic workers\u2019 sector, which
\nhave formal collective bargaining agreements, as well as a growing
\nnumber of migrant workers\u2019 groups. In the United States the upsurge
\nhas been amongst migrant domestic workers organizing as migrant
\nwomen and workers. One limitation on unionization is that the
\nNational Labor Relations Act does not apply to domestic workers,
\neffectively preventing them from forming or making the transition
\nto a trade union (ITUC, 2010c).
\nAn example from the USA of a \u201cnew\u201d organizational
\nform and strategy is provided by the Mujeres Unidas Y Activas
\n(MUA) or Women United and Active, in California. Arising out
\nof community organizing, it was formed by immigrant women to
\nprovide a support group where they could share experiences and
\nbecome empowered to collectively fight for immigrant, women and
\nworkers\u2019 rights. Women who approach the organization for support
\nare encouraged to become members and attend weekly meetings.
\nLater they are invited to attend MUA training programmes. MUA\u2019s
\nstrategies combine solidarity activities, mobilization, advocacy,
\nlegal assistance, training and leadership development. MUA was
\na founder member of the National Domestic Workers\u2019 Alliance
\n(NDWA), formed in 2007. The aim in forming the Alliance was to
\ncollectively bring public attention to the plight of domestic workers;
\nto bring respect and recognition; improve workplace conditions and
\nconsolidate the voice and power of domestic workers as a workforce.
\nThe benefits of national organizing are summarised by organizers of
\nalliance members:
\n\u201cThe coming together of these organizations has
\nexponentially increased the capacity, visibility and
\ninfluence of domestic workers as a sector in the social
\njustice movement\u2026\u2026… In addition, other sectors,
\nincluding the labour movement, are beginning to recognize
\nthe strategic role this workforce plays in rebuilding the
\nlabour movement.\u201d (Mercado and Poo, 2009: 4).
\nSimilarly, the organizing efforts of waste pickers have
\nbecome progressively noteworthy. Significant membership-based
\norganizations of waste pickers are concentrated in Latin America
\nand in India. Waste pickers have different challenges from those
\nof domestic workers, although the issues of recognition, respect
\nand valuing of their work are similar. Being self-employed means
\nthey fall entirely outside of labour protection and face unfriendly
\nspatial, environmental, health and other city regulations, with
\nconsequent harassment. They also face increasing competition
\nfrom big business through privatization, and displacement by
\nnew technologies such as incineration. Their immediate concerns
\nand strategic focus is on the struggle for the right to a livelihood
\nthrough access to recyclable materials. Additionally, they seek to
\nincrease income through collective selling and avoiding the use of
\nmiddlemen. However, they are also involved in the bigger struggles
\nagainst privatization, incineration and for integration into municipal
\nsolid waste management systems. Therefore cooperatives, especially
\nin Latin America are the dominant form of organization at the base,
\nwhere they have had some success in gaining recognition by their
\nrespective municipalities, and have agreements regarding access to
\nrecyclables, rent free sorting, compressing and baling facilities. In
\nIndia there is greater variety of organizational forms such as unions
\nof waste pickers, waste pickers as a sector within an informal union,
\ncooperatives as part of an integrated union-cooperative strategy,
\nself\u2013help groups, groups formed by welfare or environmental justice
\nNGOs and even worker controlled companies (Samson, 2009). In
\nthe cities of Asia and Africa waste pickers can be found on dumps
\nand streets but little is documented about the state of organizing.
\nInitial research commissioned by WIEGO to identify organizations
\nof waste pickers in four Kenyan cities located 350 waste picker
\ngroups. However these were mainly small, self-help community
\nbased groups and projects rather than well-established, independent
\nMBOs (Kuria and Muasya, 2010). Despite this there are nascent
\nnational networks being formed in both South Africa and Kenya
\nwhich may aid in the development of more grounded MBOs and
\n136
\nsupport for engagement with municipalities.
\nLike domestic workers waste pickers have seen the need to
\nscale up through federating and forming national associations, and
\ninternational alliances or networks. Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile,
\nBolivia and Ecuador all have national alliances or associations
\nthat focus on struggles for policy and legislative change but also
\nhave a social and political role. For example, Brazil has a national
\nmovement, the Movimento Nacional do Catadores de Materiais
\nRecicl\u00e1veis (MNCR) or National Movement of Collectors of
\nRecyclable Materials, that has been particularly successful in
\nobtaining policy and legislative changes assisted by the support of
\nthe Workers\u2019 Party and of (ex) President Lula. The Movement is
\ncomposed of MBOs only and is fiercely committed to leadership by
\nwaste pickers and non-hierarchical forms of organization. It does
\nhowever, work with, and have the support of NGOs. India too has
\na national alliance, Alliance of Indian Waste pickers (AIW), made
\nup of thirty five organizations, both membership-based and NGOs,
\nand although still informally organized it has already made its
\npresence felt through putting demands forward to ministries, with
\nsome success, and backing this up with collective demonstrations
\nand publicity.
\nThese examples illustrate how a range of factors differentially
\naffect the organizational form and strategy within sectors; that no
\none type of organization fits all circumstances and can best address
\nlocal issues and goals of increased visibility, voice and power to
\neffect change. Gender is an important factor in the organizational
\nform chosen by domestic workers (migrant and religious groups) as
\nis their legal status in most cases as employees (trade unions). For
\nwaste pickers their status as self-employed inclines them towards
\ncooperatives, and in Brazil the formation of a federated structure
\nexplicitly named \u201cMovement\u201d reflects their social movement
\npolitical and organizational history and their identity as political as
\nwell as economic actors. Both groups find a need to scale up, to
\nincrease their visibility and tackle issues at a national as well as
\nlocal level. The organizing activities of domestic workers and waste
\npickers have extended to include significant developments at the
\ninternational level.
\nInternational organizing
\nInternational organizing is playing an increasingly important
\n137
\nrole for both waste pickers and domestic workers. In November 2006,
\nNGOs initiated and supported an international conference called
\n\u201cRespect and Rights: Protection for domestic workers!\u201d, which
\nwas held in the Netherlands under the auspices of the Netherlands
\nNational Trade Union Federation (FNV). This led to the formation
\nof the International Domestic Worker Network (IDWN) with its
\norganizational base in the IUF, and with WIEGO providing technical,
\nfund raising and personnel support. It has an active international
\nsteering committee composed of women representatives from
\ndomestic workers\u2019 unions and networks from Asia, Africa, Latin
\nAmerica, USA and the Caribbean. This developing Network has
\nfocused on mobilizing around the campaign for the ILO Domestic
\nWorkers Convention (C189), which was adopted at the International
\nLabour Conference (ILC) in June 2011. The ILO Convention
\ncampaign has provided an opportunity to garner funds and support
\nfrom a range of people and organizations. The ILO Convention also
\nserves to raise the visibility of domestic workers globally, as well as
\ndeveloping women leaders who can speak and negotiate effectively
\nin international forums. Following the adoption of the Convention,
\nthe Network is turning its attention to formalizing its constitution
\nand structures as a membership-based global organization.
\nWaste pickers on the other hand, coming from different
\norganizing traditions, are grappling with deciding what kind of
\nglobal organization they want and how to implement it. At the
\nregional level, waste picker organizations from four countries took
\nthe first steps towards forming a Latin American Waste Picker
\nNetwork (Red Latinoamericana de Reciclardores (REDLACRE)
\nin 2005. The Network now has representation from 12 countries
\nincluding recently from the Caribbean. Although there is variety in
\nthe composition of national organizations within the Network, all
\nare MBOs, with NGOs strictly playing a technical support role. The
\nfocus is on sharing of information and experiences to learn from each
\nother on organizational and technical issues, and solidarity actions.
\nOn the global level, the first World Congress in 2008, \u201cWaste pickers
\nwithout Frontiers\u201d (WIEGO: 2008), strengthened their worldwide
\nconnections, extending into Africa and Asia, and producing several
\ninternational meetings to plan collective activity and discuss
\nglobal institutional structure. One important global activity is the
\nparticipation by waste pickers (and their allies) in the United Nations
\nClimate Change Conference (UNFCCC) negotiations. This forum
\n138
\nhas allowed waste pickers to elevate their international visibility
\nand advocate for alternative funding mechanisms in support of just
\nsolutions to climate change (Inclusive Cities, n.d.).
\nHome-based workers as well as street and market vendors
\nare also organizing internationally. Home-based workers have
\nformed two sub-regional networks, HomeNet South Asia, and
\nHomeNet South East Asia, with the possibility of moving towards
\na global network over the next few years. National HomeNets are
\na mix of MBOs and NGOs. Street and market vendors have the
\nbest established international alliance, StreetNet International, with
\nmembership restricted to MBOs, active democratic governance
\nstructures and with a quota system to ensure gender equality in its
\nleadership. The model adopted is akin to an international union
\nfederation (StreetNet International, n.d).
\nIn a WIEGO workshop held in Bangkok on March 2011,
\nMBO representatives from different sectors of the informal
\neconomy expressed common views on the role and advantages of
\ninternational organizing: it provides recognition, increases visibility,
\nallows informal workers through their representatives to influence
\ninternational policy and thus national policy, promotes information
\nexchange, learning and solidarity across the sector globally and
\ncan provide practical support to national organizations by assisting
\nwith fund raising, access to international supportive groups such as
\nWIEGO, and education and capacity building (Mitullah, 2010).
\nThis range of institutional forms in the given sector examples
\ndemonstrates that informal workers are adopting multi-faceted and
\nmulti-scale approaches to organizing based on their circumstances and
\nneeds. At the base key strategic issues influencing form are whether
\ntheir priority is livelihood development, where cooperatives are a
\nlikely choice, or a struggle for rights with unions and associations
\nbeing the dominant forms. In reality many organizations of informal
\nworkers integrate both forms. How, where and when organizations
\ndevelop is deeply influenced by legal, political, social factors
\nas well as sector specific issues. At an international level there is
\ncommonality of purpose but differences of form and development
\npace, influenced by international opportunities, cultural, social and
\ngender influences. There is a commonly shared strong sense that
\ninformal workers should represent themselves and thus that MBOs
\nare the desired institutional form. Finally, the type of supportive
\nrelationships and alliances they build are important in determining
\n139
\norganizational form and in particular organizational success and
\nsustainability. In the next section we look at this more closely.
\nRelationships between Institutional Forms
\nMany organizations of informal workers are small and
\nfragile, still developing or newly constituted. Falling outside of the
\nmainstream industrial relations systems or policy setting forums they
\nhave limited credibility with, and access to, those in power. MBOs
\nhave found a need to form relationships between themselves such as
\nbetween cooperatives and unions as well as differing relationships
\nor alliances with other organizations to access resources, increase
\ntheir visibility, run successful campaigns and gain representative
\nvoice and influence.
\nTrade Unions and Informal Worker Cooperatives
\nWith the growth of the informal economy, organizations are
\nincreasingly experiencing the need to straddle the realms of both
\nunion and cooperative. SEWA for example uses a twin strategy of
\n\u201cstruggle\u201d and \u201cdevelopment\u201d. It is a trade union (struggle for rights)
\nyet has over 100 cooperatives run by its members combined into
\na federation of cooperatives (livelihood development). Similarly,
\nKKPKP (Trade Union of Waste pickers, India), with 6,000 mainly
\nwomen members, formed a savings and credit cooperative, scrap
\nshop cooperatives to sell recyclable materials at a better price and a
\nsolid waste doorstep collection cooperative to integrate waste pickers
\ninto the local solid waste management system (Samson, 2009).
\nDomestic workers\u2019 unions are beginning to set up cooperatives
\nto act as a collective rather than commercial placement agency,
\nprovide training and negotiate better wages. In Trinidad and Tobago
\nthe National Union of Domestic Employees (NUDE) has recently
\nformed a service workers\u2019 cooperative and has negotiated higher
\npay. This has helped increase the membership of the union.
\nThe view that trade unions and cooperatives need to work
\ntogether to provide for the dual needs of informal, self-employed
\nworkers \u2013livelihoods and rights- is recognised at an international
\nlevel. The ILO initiated a programme, SYNDICOOP, jointly
\ndesigned and implemented by the ILO, International Confederation
\nof Free Trade unions (ICFTU) (now ITUC) and the International
\nCooperative Alliance (ICA). They ran pilots in East and South
\nAfrica, 2004-2006. The aim was to improve the working and
\n140
\nliving conditions of unprotected informal economy workers in
\nselected African countries, through pilot projects aimed at creating
\ndecent employment and income. This was to be achieved through
\nstrengthening the capacity of national and local level trade unions
\nand cooperative organizations to work together constructively in
\nthe informal economy. The project was hailed as a success, but has
\nnot been widely replicated as was the plan (ILO, 2005). There is,
\nhowever a growing interest by those organizing in the informal
\neconomy to promote coops as a democratic organizational form that
\ncan meet the economic needs of self-employed informal workers,
\nwhilst at the same time linking with, or being part of the union
\nmovement, to provide a vehicle to achieve rights and protections.
\nInformal Worker Organizations and Trade Unions
\nIn a growing number of countries, national trade union centres
\n(also known as federations) play an important role in organizing and
\nrepresenting informal economy workers both directly and indirectly.
\nAll across the African continent there are numerous examples of
\nthis. National centres have established new unions or associations
\n(Angola, Mozambique), supported and encouraged affiliated unions
\nto organize informal workers (Ghana, Nigeria), built alliances with
\nnon-union associations of informal workers (Swaziland, Zambia,
\nZimbabwe). In the case of Zambia and Zimbabwe national associations
\nof informal worker have associate membership of the trade union
\nnational centres, or have a memorandum of understanding, which
\nentitles them to representatives at union meetings, and to participate
\nin discussions, but with limited constitutional democratic rights.
\nThis close cooperation between national union centres and
\ninformal workers\u2019 organizations significantly enhances informal
\nworkers\u2019 effectiveness in representation, defence of workers\u2019 rights,
\nand international visibility and support including recognition by
\nlocal and national governments; a means for informal workers to
\nexercise their rights in respect of ILO Convention 87 (Freedom
\nof Association) and Convention 98 (the right to organize and
\nbargain collectively); and a means for informal workers to affiliate
\ninternationally and enjoy international solidarity, amongst others
\n(Horn, 2008). With the support of national and international trade
\nunion organizations informal workers have been able to influence
\nnegotiations on international standards at the ILO and where informal
\nworkers\u2019 organizations and unions work together on campaigns
\n141
\nand solidarity activities their effectiveness is enhanced, such as in
\nStreetNet International\u2019s \u2018World Class Cities for All Campaign\u2019. In
\nSouth Africa prior to the FIFA World Cup, a multi- sector campaign
\ncommittee was formed, including municipal, building and transport
\nworkers\u2019 unions, the Congress of South African Trade Unions
\n(COSATU) and NGOs.
\nTurning to the sector cases we see very differing relationships
\nbetween organizations and trade unions. As noted above, trade
\nunionism amongst domestic workers is not uncommon. Although
\ngovernments and employers have not always recognized domestic
\nworkers as workers, unions have accepted their (majority) status
\nas employees and workers. However, as domestic workers are
\nmainly women, there are often underlying tensions within mixed
\nsector unions where invariably the leadership is composed largely
\nof men who fail to prioritize organizing domestic workers or adopt
\na patronizing attitude towards them. Similar attitudes are present
\nwithin the leadership of national centres to which domestic workers\u2019
\nunions may be associated hampering the development of domestic
\nworkers\u2019 unions and women\u2019s leadership. However, as a result of the
\ncampaign for an ILO Convention domestic workers have garnered
\nmore support for organization building from unions and national
\nunion centres as well as from ITUC, particularly promoted by the
\nITUC Women\u2019s Committee. The Hong Kong Confederation of
\nTrade Union (HKCTU) has been proactive in helping build domestic
\nworkers\u2019 unions led by women officers. However, because of the
\nmultiplicity of migrant domestic workers from different countries,
\nand NGOs supporting the different groups, they have organized
\ninto separate nationality based unions. Taking up the issues of a
\ncommon minimum wage and the campaign for an ILO Convention,
\nthe HKCTU was able to bring local and migrant domestic workers\u2019
\nunions together into one federation, the Federation of Asian Domestic
\nWorkers Unions (FADWU).
\nThere is little evidence of national centres assisting waste
\npickers to organize, apart from SEWA, which now has the status of
\na national centre in India, and isolated examples in Latin America
\nsuch as the Union de Clasificadores de Residuos Urbanos Solidos
\n(Urban Solid Waste Recyclers\u2019 Union) in Uruguay. This union is
\nalso affiliated with the national centre and has mounted a collective
\nstruggle with a union of municipal workers against privatization of
\nthe dump (Samson, 2009). Waste pickers are self -employed and do
\n142
\nnot historically have a close relationship with trade unions. In Brazil,
\nas in many Latin American countries, trade unions are regarded as
\nbeing bureaucratic and having political affiliations. Therefore, waste
\npickers have generally chosen to remain independent of the union
\nmovements (Horn, 2008).
\nInternational networks of informal worker organizations
\nand nascent networks have differing relationships with the trade
\nunion movement, according to country and sector but closely linked
\nto the relationships at national level. So the International Domestic
\nWorkers\u2019 Network has a close relationship and is partly integrated
\ninto the trade union movement through its organizational base in the
\nIUF. This strong link and backing from a global union federation has
\nopened doors within ITUC and the ILO, enhanced IDWN\u2019s status as
\nthe legitimate representative of domestic workers globally within the
\nunions, with NGOs and with governments thus positively impacting
\non their lobbying and advocacy efforts for government support for
\na convention.
\nThe developing global network of waste pickers has not
\nyet built a relationship or garnered support from the trade union
\nmovement. But they have a growing interest in working with the
\nlabour movement following an exploratory meeting with ILOACTRAV
\n(Workers\u2019 Bureau), and discussions held at the UNFCCC
\nnegotiations in Copenhagen with ITUC concerning common interests
\non climate change and green jobs. However, as discussed below,
\nwaste pickers in Latin America and now globally have garnered
\nsignificant support from relationships and alliances with NGOs.
\nOther sector networks also have differing relationships with
\ntrade unions. Originally, home-based workers had some international
\nsuccess with the adoption of the ILO Convention on Homework (C
\n177) in 1996. This was achieved through a collaborative effort led
\nby SEWA, with other organizations of home-based workers who
\nformed HomeNet International (which subsequently collapsed),
\nglobal union federations such as the IUF , and were supported by
\nresearchers. Relationships between the HomeNets in Asia and the
\nunion movement are now limited, although they include some trade
\nunions (e.g. SEWA in India, Nepal Home Based Workers Union
\n(NHBWU)) in their networks. StreetNet International, on the other
\nhand works with trade union national centres in many countries, has
\nconducted joint organizing projects with the global union federations,
\nUnion Network International (UNI) and Public Services International
\n143
\n(PSI), and is recognized by ITUC and the ILO as an important player
\nin the organization of informal workers. It has been given status at
\nthe ILC and has been invited to the last two ITUC Congresses. This
\nmay be partially explained by the linkages of StreetNet founders
\nto the trade union movement, but also by the growing number of
\nunions of vendors, particularly in West Africa and to some extent in
\nLatin America. This has raised the profile and provided increasing
\nacceptance of their status as workers amongst trade unionists, which
\nhas translated in Africa in particular to a broader recognition of
\nvendors and their problems, concrete organizing activities, access to
\ntri-partite and other negotiating forums.
\nMembership-Based Organizations and NGOs
\nNGOs are often important agents and catalysts in the
\ndevelopment of MBOs. In areas where MBOs have little influence,
\nprofile or organizational strength, NGOs may attempt to fill the
\nvacuum \u2013 either by advocating or campaigning on the workers\u2019
\nbehalf, providing support and advice, and\/or establishing a workers\u2019
\ngroup or association.
\nAt first glance, the differences between the MBOs
\norganizing informal workers and NGOs are obvious. An MBO with
\na defined membership and leaders elected by, and accountable to
\nmembers, can legitimately claim to represent, and negotiate on
\nbehalf of, informal workers. An NGO, on the other hand, has no such
\ndemocratic mandate. In reality, however, the distinction is less clear,
\nparticularly in some sectors where workers may depend on external
\ngroups to provide the necessary organizational skills, experience
\nand financial resources. This ambiguity is especially evident where
\nthe NGO begins to organize groups of workers resulting in a hybrid
\norganizational form.
\nThere are many examples of MBOs being initiated and
\nsupported by NGOs in their early development, which go on to
\nbecome self-sustaining independent MBOs under the democratic
\ncontrol and policies of their members. In Brazil the initiatives and
\nsupport of NGOs was a critical factor in catalyzing the formation,
\ndevelopment, and sustaining of organizations of catadores (Dias
\nand Alves, 2008). At a continental level the REDLACRE has
\ndeveloped with the support of the AVINA Foundation amongst
\nothers. More recently WIEGO is providing support for global and
\nregional networking. This support includes assistance with funds
\n144
\nthrough joint projects, capacity building, the opportunity to share
\ninformation, experiences and knowledge through cross-sector
\nmeetings and media, and support for global engagement such as at
\nthe UNFCCC negotiations. Here a strong alliance has been forged
\nwith environmental justice groups campaigning against incineration
\nand promoting recycling (Global Alliance of Waste pickers and
\nAllies), the key partner being the Global Anti Incineration Alliance
\n(GAIA).
\nDomestic workers are often supported in the initial stages
\nof development by NGOs who start off advocating on behalf of
\ndomestic workers, leading to the formation of organized groups
\nwhich ideally become independent, self-sustaining MBOs. Due to
\nresource constraints, skills and capacity limitations and the often
\ninability to collect regular and sufficient membership dues or to
\nraise funds without assistance or a mediating organization, one finds
\nthat sometimes the transformation to an independent MBO never
\ntakes place or is incomplete and a situation of dependency on, or
\ndominance of, the NGO persists. This often leads to resentment on
\nthe part of domestic workers who repeatedly raise the importance of
\nself- representation and independence.
\nWe are a women\u2019s organization, organized by women
\nhousehold workers, and not managed by an NGO. They
\ngive us solidarity and we grew through their help, which
\nwe very much appreciate. But we manage ourselves. Our
\nweak point is our financial situation; our resources are
\nalways very limited. However, everyone always does
\nwhat she can, and it is this solidarity by many individuals
\nwhich makes our organization strong. (Basilia Catari
\nTorres, National Federation of Household Workers of
\nBolivia, IRENE and IUF: 43)
\nNGOs are often a very important source of support for
\ninformal workers and fill important gaps in organizational skills,
\naccess to resources and institutional influence. In many cases,
\nwithout their initial or on-going support some MBOs would certainly
\ncease to exist. Elizabeth Tang of the HKCTU noted that, \u201cour
\nclose collaboration with NGOs in building the Federation of Asian
\nDomestic Workers Unions has been key, especially NGOs that work
\nclosely with migrant workers in Hong Kong.\u201d (WIEGO Workshop,
\nBangkok, March 2011).
\n145
\nFor high profile international campaigns various organizations
\ncombine as in the case of the domestic workers\u2019 campaign for an
\nILO convention. In this case the IDWN joined hands with, and had
\nthe support of, the international union movement and local and
\nhigh profile NGOs dealing with child labour, slavery, human rights,
\nmigration as well as faith based organizations.
\nNGOs play a critical role bringing their advocacy, media,
\nfund raising skills as well as an ability to facilitate engagement
\nacross a wide range of organizations. A willingness and ability
\nof informal workers organizations to join hands with other
\nsupportive organizations, whilst retaining or gaining organizational
\nindependence and leadership, democratic decision making processes
\nand setting their own agenda, appears to offer the best opportunity
\nfor success and sustainability. In particular, the support of the trade
\nunion movement at different levels can provide legitimacy and
\ninfluence and access to institutional power.
\nInternational Trade Union Developments
\nTrade unions remain the most important representatives
\nof workers worldwide. As we have seen, many informal workers\u2019
\norganizations have opted to organize as, transform into or align with,
\ntrade unions. Internationally this has not been without a struggle. In
\nrecent years international union bodies have adopted more supportive
\npolicies, but uncertainty as to the importance or feasibility of
\nimplementation remains. Many unions and MBOs already organizing
\ninformal workers have been actively pressing ITUC and affiliates to
\ntake a more active role in supporting informal workers\u2019 organizing
\nefforts. Given its importance for such unions\/MBOs, this section
\ntakes a closer look at the development of international policies and
\nstrategies on organizing informal workers.
\nThe struggle of informal workers for recognition by the
\ninternational trade union movement is a long standing one. SEWA
\nhas been an important force in this. When SEWA was founded in the
\nearly 1970s one of its first battles was for recognition as a trade union
\nin Gujarat State, but it took three decades for it to be recognised in
\nIndia as a national centre. Internationally, a breakthrough took place
\nin 1983 when the IUF accepted SEWA into affiliation, giving SEWA
\nrecognition as a legitimate trade union centre and its self-employed
\nmembers recognition as workers with a rightful place in the trade
\nunion movement. Over twenty years later, in 2006, SEWA became
\n146
\nan affiliate of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
\n(ICFTU), which merged to become ITUC in the same year. This
\ngives SEWA a voice in the highest trade union body, with SEWA
\nGeneral Secretary being elected as one of ITUC\u2019s Vice Presidents at
\nITUC\u2019s 2010 Congress.
\nSEWA has over the years combined with other national
\nunion centres and networks organizing informal workers, to influence
\nthe policies and practical organizing activities of the international
\ntrade union movement. In 2003 SEWA co-organized and hosted an
\ninternational conference \u201cCombining our Efforts\u201d bringing together
\n60 participants from 35 trade unions and other informal economy
\nworkers\u2019 organizations already organizing workers in the informal
\neconomy. This led to the formation of the International Coordinating
\nCommittee (ICC) on Organizing Workers in the Informal Economy.
\nRepresented on the Committee were SEWA, Ghana Trades Union
\nCongress, Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), Confederaci\u00f3n
\nRevolucionaria de Obreros y Campesinos (CROC), ORIT (the
\nformer Inter-American regional organization of ICFTU), along with
\nStreetNet International and HomeNet South-East Asia. This was
\nfollowed three years later by a second international \u201cCombining our
\nEfforts\u201d conference in Accra, Ghana; side meetings at the annual ILC
\nin Geneva and commissioning of education materials for organizers.
\nWhilst the ICC is no longer functional the trade union centres
\ninvolved continue to put pressure on ITUC to be more pro-active
\nin their support for informal workers\u2019 organizing. In 2010 SEWA,
\nthe Ghana Trades Union Congress and CROC jointly submitted a
\nresolution to the ITUC Congress calling for a programme of action
\nand a platform for organizing informal workers within ITUC. The
\nresolution did not reach the floor. Instead a general clause was
\nincluded in the composite resolution on organizing, calling upon
\ntrade unions to \u201cmeet the challenge of organizing all workers within
\ntheir respective jurisdictions without distinction as to employment
\nstatus\u201d (ITUC, 2010 b). Although this did not meet the expectations
\nof the group, it further raised the profile and provided an impetus
\nfor the development of more active programmes in the regions and
\ninternationally, something that ITUC committed to at its founding
\nCongress when adopting its constitution which states: \u201c\u2026 shall
\ninitiate and support action to increase the representativeness of trade
\nunions through the recruitment of women and men working in the
\ninformal as well as the formal economy, through extension of full
\n147
\nrights and protection to those performing precarious and unprotected
\nwork, and through lending assistance to organizing strategies and
\ncampaigns\u201d (ITUC, 2006).
\nITUC policy was developed in more detail at its General
\nCouncil meeting in February 2011, when it adopted a resolution
\ncalling for a range of actions to \u201crespond to the urgency and the
\ngravity of the situation faced by the hundreds of millions of workers
\nin precarious and informal work worldwide\u201d (ITUC, 2011). These
\ninclude demands for social protection, higher minimum wages,
\nlabour inspection, property rights, training opportunities, and the
\nregulation of temporary work and labour migration agencies. It
\nproposes a meeting of affiliates, regional organizations and global
\nunion federations to discuss the transformation of precarious
\nand informal work into secure, decent work and implementation
\nactivities, including setting up an informal network of affiliates and
\nglobal union federations to promote this.
\nThe global union federations are increasingly paying attention
\nto the organization of informal workers as their affiliates report on
\nshrinking formal workforces and increased casual and precarious
\nwork arrangements in the north as well as the south. The IUF, with
\nits early recognition, its practical support for organizing domestic
\nworkers and its open minded approach provides the best example of
\nthe positive role that can be played by global union federations. The
\nInternational Transport Workers\u2019 Federation (ITF) began showing
\nan interest in informal transport workers when it commissioned case
\nstudies on organizing informal transport workers in 2006. The ITF
\n2010 Congress declared \u201c\u2026there is a need to recognise and work
\nwith other forms of worker organization which precarious workers
\nhave developed among themselves, and to link them to the trade
\nunion movement. The ITF will develop a 2011-14 strategic plan to
\ndevelop networks of organizations, which could include both unions
\nand associations, which act on behalf of workers whose livelihoods
\ncome from precarious or informal work in the transport sector\u201d (ITF,
\n2010: 4). The Building Workers\u2019 International (BWI) too supports
\norganizing projects among informal forest products workers and
\nconstruction workers. In India for example, the BWI\u2019s Global Wood
\nand Forestry Programme supports a project organizing among Kendu
\nand Sal leaf-pickers (Kendu for wrapping bidi cigarettes; Sal used
\nfor making plates, bowls etc), led by state-wide affiliated unions of
\ninformal leaf workers. And the role of the PSI and UNI in working
\n148
\nwith StreetNet International has been mentioned above.
\nThese global union federations are increasingly recognizing
\nthe importance of building links and cooperation with associations
\nof informal workers, but do not necessarily have the capacity to
\nprovide direct support to a myriad of small, under-resourced and
\noften precarious organizations. For them to provide meaningful
\nsupport and assistance, it is becoming necessary to encourage the
\ndevelopment of national, regional and international networks and
\nalliances of informal workers with whom they (and their national
\naffiliated trade unions) can engage more effectively.
\nConclusion
\nThe growth and intensification of informal work and
\nnew informal work arrangements has stimulated new organizing
\napproaches. Informal workers have adapted traditional worker
\norganizations such as unions, and strategies such as collective
\nbargaining, to suit their circumstances. They have developed different
\nand more flexible organizational forms, led by informal workers
\nthemselves, and are forging new alliances and relationships. As
\nthe world\u2019s labour force faces increasingly informal and precarious
\nemployment, the trade union movement has to confront questions
\nabout its future. How can the labour movement be reorganized to
\ninclude and represent the majority of the world\u2019s workers- those in
\ninformal work? Will the organizational forms being developed by
\ninformal workers become predominant? Are we seeing the emerging
\ncharacteristics of an international trade union movement appropriate
\nfor a twenty-first century global economy?
\nA labour movement fully inclusive of workers in the
\ninformal economy might look very different. Firstly, the leadership
\nprofile would be transformed. Informal workers\u2019 organizations
\nwould surely demand full membership of trade unions and of
\nnational trade union centres (or other national worker bodies), rather
\nthan a form of associate membership, leading to representatives of
\ninformal workers gaining the majority voice on many executive
\ncommittees, and assuming positions of leadership not only in their
\nown organizations but in federations nationally and internationally.
\nAnd, given the gender composition of the informal workforce,
\nunions would have to ensure gender equality and active promotion of
\nwomen leadership. Whenever women workers organize, the issues
\nof autonomy and leadership are crucial, requiring the development of
\n149
\npolitical space where independent and creative initiatives recognize
\nthe specific problems of women workers and focus on their needs
\nand sensitivities (Gallin and Horn, 2005).
\nThere would be no single organizational form or approach,
\nbut a flexible and multi-faceted, multi-scale set of interlocking
\norganizational forms, built on successful models and activities,
\nand capable of identifying and seizing openings and opportunities.
\nRelationships and tactical (short term) or strategic (longer term)
\nalliances would be important and constructed with a wide range
\nof organizations, helping to leverage resources, provide support
\nand maximize influence and impact on local authorities, national
\ngovernments, international institutions, employer bodies.
\nThe functions of unions would have to adapt to the
\nconstantly changing needs of the membership. For many informal
\nworkers, employment is transient: today\u2019s street vendor may become
\ntomorrow\u2019s home-based worker or transport operator. Successful
\norganizations are likely to be those with a broad base and flexible
\nresponse to changing employment conditions: a \u2018union for life\u2019
\nwhere membership is retained through changes in occupations and
\nworking environments, and where they provide for a wide range of
\nfunctions. These may include mutual social protection, cooperative
\nand livelihood development, self-help welfare provision, access to
\nfinancial and legal services, skills training and so on.
\nCollective bargaining will inevitably change as well.
\nBargaining counterparts and the negotiating agenda will have to
\nreflect the priority needs and demands of both formal and informal
\nworkers. New forums, new bargaining approaches, new pressure
\ntactics and new methods to resolve disputes will be needed, and are
\nalready in the making through informal workers\u2019 organizations.
\nFinally, effective organization of informal workers may
\nprovide the opportunity to change the relationship between unions
\nand governments, having the potential to reverse the loss of power
\nand influence felt by unions in many countries over the past few
\ndecades. It is important that the international trade union movement
\nseize this opportunity.
\nEndnotes
\n1. Director, Organization and Representation Programme of Women
\nin Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing, Email: chris.
\nbonner@wiego.org.
\n150
\n2. Membership-based organization consultant, Organization and
\nRepresentation Programme of Women in Informal Employment:
\nGlobalizing and Organizing, Email: dave.spooner@wiego.org
\nBibliography
\nBonner, Christine. 2010. \u201cDomestic Workers Around the World:
\nOrganizing for Empowerment\u201d. Paper presented at conference,
\nExploited, Undervalued \u2013 and Essential: The Plight of Domestic
\nWorkers, Social Law Project, Cape Town, 7-8 May, 2010.
\nRetrieved 14 March 2011. http:\/\/www.dwrp.org.za\/images\/stories\/
\nDWRP_Research\/chris_bonner.pdf
\nChen, Martha, R. Jhabvala, R. Kanbur & C. Richards (eds.). 2007.
\nMembership-Based Organizations of the Poor. Routledge Studies
\nin Development Economics. New York. Routledge.
\nDias, S. and F. Alvez. 2008. Integration of the Informal Recycling Sector
\nin Solid Waste Management in Brazil. Echborn, Germany: Federal
\nMinistry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved,
\n4 April 2011. http:\/\/www.gtz.de\/de\/dokumente\/gtz2008-informalrecycling-
\nbrazil.pdf
\nEuropean Trades Union Confederation. 2011. Resolution on
\nRecommendations for improving gender balance in trade unions
\nAdopted at the Executive Committee on 9 March 2011. Retrieved
\n5 February 2012. http:\/\/www.etuc.org\/IMG\/pdf\/EC191_Gender_
\nEquality_Resolution_FINAL_EN.pdf
\nEuropean Trades Union Confederation. 2005. \u201cOut of the Shadows:
\nOrganizing and Protecting Domestic Workers in Europe: The
\nRole of Trade Unions.\u201d Report of a conference organized by the
\nEuropean Trades Union Confederation, International Restructuring
\nEducation Network Europe and Platform for International
\nCooperation on Undocumented Migrants, Brussels, 14-15 April.
\nRetrieved 5 April 2011. http:\/\/www.etuc.org\/IMG\/pdf\/Rapport_
\ndosmestic_workers.pdf
\nGallin, D. and P. Horn. 2005. \u201cOrganizing Informal Women Workers\u201d.
\nMimeograph. Retrieved 19 March 2011 http:\/\/www.globallabour.
\ninfo\/en\/2007\/11\/organizing_informal_women_work_1.html.
\nHuman Rights Watch. 2006. Swept Under the Rug: Abuses against
\nDomestic Workers Around the World. Retrieved, 14 April 2011.
\nhttp:\/\/www.hrw.org\/legacy\/campaigns\/women\/2006\/domestic_
\nworkers\/index.htm
\nHorn, Pat. 2008. \u201cRespective Roles for and Links between Unions,
\nCooperatives, and other forms of organizing informal workers\u201d.
\nMimeograph. Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and
\nOrganizing ,Cambridge, USA
\nInclusive Cities. (n.d.) Waste Pickers and Climate Change. Retrieved
\n151February 5, 2012. http:\/\/www.inclusivecities.org\/climatechange.
\nhtml
\nInternational Domestic Workers\u2019 Network. 2009. Report of Africa
\nRegional Workshop. Building Organisation and the Campaign for
\nan ILO Convention on Domestic Work. 27th-28th November 2009,
\nNairobi, Kenya. Mimeograph.
\nInternational Labour Organization. 2010. \u201cDecent Work for Domestic
\nWorkers\u201d. Report IV (1), International Labour Conference, 99th
\nSession, Geneva. Retrieved 31 March 2011, http:\/\/www.ilo.
\norg\/wcmsp5\/groups\/public\/—ed_norm\/—relconf\/documents\/
\nmeetingdocument\/wcms_104700.pdf
\n—–. 2005. \u201cEvaluation: SYNDICOOP-Poverty Reduction among
\nUnprotected Informal Economy Workers through Union-
\nCooperative Joint Action.\u201d Geneva. International Labour
\nOrganization. Retrieved 4 April 2011. http:\/\/www.ica.coop\/
\noutofpoverty\/documents\/Syndicoop_eval.pdf
\n—–. 2002a. Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical
\nPicture. Geneva. International Labour Organization Employment
\nSector.
\n—–. 2002b. \u201cResolution Concerning Decent Work and the Informal
\nEconomy\u201d, Geneva. International Labour Organization. Retrieved
\n19 March 2011. www.ilo.org\/public\/english\/standards\/relm\/ilc\/
\nilc90\/pdf\/pr-25res.pdf).
\n—–. 2000. The role of trade unions in promoting gender equality. Report
\nof the ILO-ICFTU survey; International Labour Organisation,
\nNovember 2000. Retrieved February 5, 2012 http:\/\/actrav.itcilo.org\/
\nlibrary\/english\/06_Gender\/resource_kit_for_tu\/fin_rep.pdf
\nInternational Trade Union Confederation . 2011. \u201cGeneral Council
\nResolution on Tackling Precarious and Informal Work\u201d, Brussels,
\n2-4 February 2011. Retrieved June 2011. http:\/\/www.ituc-csi.org\/
\nIMG\/pdf\/8GC_E_16_b_-_FINAL_Resolution_on_Precarious_and_
\nInformal_Work-2.pdf
\n—–. 2010a. \u201cDecent Work, decent life for domestic workers.\u201d ITUC
\nAction Guide. Retrieved, 3 April 2011. http:\/\/www.ituccsi.org\/
\nIMG\/pdf\/ITUC_dwd_AnglaisWEB.pdf
\n—–. 2010 b. \u201cResolution on Organizing\u201d. 2nd World Congress,
\nVancouver, 21 – 25 June 2010. Retrieved January 2011. http:\/\/
\nwww.ituc-csi.org\/IMG\/pdf\/2CO_06_Organizing_03-10-2.pdf
\n—–. 2010 c. \u201cSpotlight interview with Priscilla Gonz\u00e1lez (DWU –
\nUSA)\u201d. Retrieved 4 April 2011.
\nhttp:\/\/www.ituc-csi.org\/spotlight-interview-with-priscilla.html
\n—–. 2009. Decent Work for Decent Life for Women,
\nDiscussion Guide. 1st World Women\u2019s Conference,
\n19-21 October 2009. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
\n152
\nhttp:\/\/www.ituccsi.org\/IMG\/pdf\/DECENT_WORK_DECENT_
\nLIFE_FOR_WOMEN.pdf
\n—–. 2006. \u201cConstitution\u201d. Retrieved 5 January 2011. http:\/\/www.ituc-csi.
\norg\/IMG\/pdf\/Const-ENG-W.pdf.
\nInternational Transport Workers\u2019 Federation . 2010. \u201cStrong Unions \u2013
\nSustainable Transport. 2010\u201d, 42nd Congress, Mexico City, 5-12
\nAugust 2010. Retrieved 4 Jan 2011. http:\/\/www.itfcongress2010.
\norg\/files\/extranet\/-2\/24484\/Congress%20Theme%20Document%20
\n42nd%20C-8%20-1.pdf
\nInternational Restructuring Education Network Europe and International
\nUnion of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco
\nand Allied Workers\u2019 Association. 2008. \u201cRespect and Rights.
\nProtection for Domestic Workers\u201d. Report of the international
\nconference held in Amsterdam, 8-10 November 2006. Geneva.
\nRetrieved, 31 March 2011 http:\/\/domesticworkerrights.org\/sites\/
\nen.domesticworkerrights.org\/files\/RESPECT&RIGHTS
\nKuria, D. and Muasya, R. 2010. \u201cMapping of Wastepicker organisations
\nand organisations supporting wastepickers in Kenya\u201d. WIEGO.
\nMimeograph. Retrieved, 4 April 2011. http:\/\/www.inclusivecities.
\norg\/pdfs\/Kenya%20Mapping_web.pdf
\nLindell, Ilda (ed.). 2010. Africa\u2019s Informal Workers: Collective agency,
\nalliances and transnational organizing in urban Africa. London, UK.
\nZed Books
\nMitullah, Winnie. 2010. \u201cInformal workers in Kenya and transnational
\norganizing: networking and leveraging resources\u201d in Lindell, Ilda
\n(ed.). 2010. Africa\u2019s Informal Workers: Collective agency, alliances
\nand transnational organizing in urban Africa. London, UK. Zed
\nBooks, pp 184-201.
\nMercado, A. C. and A. Poo. 2009. \u201cDomestic Workers Organizing in
\nthe United States, Case Study\u201d, written for AWID, Mimeograph.
\nRetrieved 4 April 2011. http:\/\/www.comminit.com\/en\/
\nnode\/284096\/348
\nSamson, Melanie. 2009. Refusing to be Cast Aside: Waste Pickers
\nOrganizing Around the World. Cambridge, USA. WIEGO.
\nStreetNet International. (n.d.) History. Retrieved 5 February 2012
\nhttp:\/\/streetnet.org.za\/show.php?id=19
\nWomen in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing. 2008.
\n\u201cWaste pickers without Frontiers\u201d. First International and Third
\nLatin American Conference of Waste-pickers, Bogota, Colombia,
\n1- 4 March 2008. Retrieved 25 May 2011. http:\/\/www.wiego.org\/
\nreports\/WastePickers-2008.pdf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[28],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}