4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R.

Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

Organizing the unorganized

K . R . S H YA M S U N D A R

TRADE unions essentially derive their power from their membership

or more correctly their numbers relative to the workforce levels at a
point of time in a given space. The recent decades have witnessed a
decline in both indices, though this is not universal (see ILO 1997;
Calmfors et al. 2001). The union, a classic collective organization, has
to modify its structures, orientations, values, organizing methods,
industrial actions and attitudes towards other social agents, in order to
reinvent itself to be relevant and continue to contribute to social and
economic development. Other social agencies in civil society, such as
NGOs, could also organize and provide a voice to vulnerable sections
of the working class.

The ethical and social case against unions, that they work for a minority
often at the cost of the majority and ignore vulnerable sections who in
fact need more protection, strengthened the search for alternative
‘voice’ organizations. While stressing the need for alternative forms of
labour organizations, these accounts even proclaimed ‘the death of the
union’. A moderate perspective is that unions are relevant, more now,
when workers’ rights and welfare benefits are more threatened than in
the past.

Nevertheless, other social organizations could also work along with

unions given the space for other entities representing the interests of
labour. The dynamics of the movement can however both create
conflict between various social organizations as well as promote
coalitions and cooperation between them. A softer version implies
complementarity between them. Various social experiments in India
and abroad, in particular the entry of NGOs in the arena of labour, have
thrown up interesting possibilities of organization.

The sea-change in the economic sphere, especially in the organization

of industrial production prompted by globalization, challenges
traditional forms of unionism. Specifically, the tremendous advances in
transportation and communication technologies have enabled
transnational corporations (TNCs) to restructure their production
processes to create a ‘new geography of production’ and a new
international division of labour. ‘Footloose’ capital seeks low cost areas
and organizes a production chain that stretches to even home-based
workers in far corners of the globe. The globalization drive resulting in
intensification of competition has prompted firms to adopt a ‘low road’
strategy of cost-cutting exercises via seeking numerical flexibility,
downsizing, sub-contracting and outsourcing of production, and so on.
Thus, informalization is a process of sub-contracting either to
subsidiaries or locally independent firms, often by local contractors or
middlemen to small units or home-based workers (Cheru 2001).

These tendencies towards informalization are evident even within the

formal sector thanks to numerous flexibility strategies; consequently
https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 1/12
4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

temporary, casual and contract workers suffer from job attributes

usually associated with the informal sector. Apart from these
interdependencies between formal and informal sectors, the rigidities
inherent in the former are said to spawn the growth of the informal
sector.

Another facet of globalization is the privatization of public sector firms

(Standing 1999:73-4). The drive for privatization, at least in the short
run, is associated with loss of jobs. Arguably, these tendencies force not
only men but also women and children into poor quality employment in
the informal sector. The link between globalization and informalization
has been noted by several scholars (e.g. Beneria 2001; Cheru 2001;
Hensman 2001). These developments pose a serious challenge to
traditional unionism which must redefine its goals and strategies in
order to play a socially productive role of providing voice to the
disadvantaged and promote equity. This paper attempts to locate the
problems of unions and examine their prospects for renewal.

Traditional unionism based its organizing drive on two criteria: the

existence of employment relationship and wage-earner status of
workers. Labour law, by adopting a similar criteria to define workers,
helped union organization. Trade unions performed an important
function of aggregating and filtering worker preferences and presenting
a set of demands and grievances to employers and the state. While
performing this onerous task, unions assumed homogeneity of its
constituents and focused on the mass element related to the dominant
segment of the workforce. Thus, the policies and interests of unions are
based on the existing distribution of power within the working class
(Hyman 1998: 97). There has always existed a core (dominant)
segment of the working class which the unions sought to represent,
consequently excluding the periphery (minority) – to wit, unions after
all were the forerunner of the core/periphery distinction!

The logic of cost effectiveness led unions to focus on workers who are
in large numbers – male, full time, regular, native, blue collar workers
employed in large scale factories. They paid little or no attention to
women, contingent, young, immigrants, workers in small
establishments and in the informal sector. The former set was deemed
socially important and politically relevant, hence a fertile ground for
operation. The market legitimacy of the union lay in securing
‘differential terms of employment’ (i.e., union gain) for its members,
gains that were denied to non-members (DeMartino 1999). These
factors, resulted in their obsession with the formal sector at the cost of
ill-organized minority workgroups in the informal sector. In the case of
the latter, indifference and antipathy was mutual. Unions, employers
and the state were bound by a social contract whereby unions received
a pay-off for institutionalizing collective relations and managing
discontent, keeping at bay the radical, social movement based unions.

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 2/12

4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

This form of unionism, classified variously as pure and simple

unionism, commodity unionism, or business unionism, suffers from
many limitations and contradictions, ultimately limiting its
effectiveness and eroding its representativeness. Members become
instrumental, constantly pressing for material benefits. Ironically, if the
same benefits were provided by the employer (via HRM) or the state
(through legislation), they would not ‘buy’ union identity! Second,
unions earned a bad name in society for securing a union differential
for its customers. This competitive organizing resulted in unproductive
conflicts driving capital to non-unionized sectors, eroding the union
base while widening the unorganized one. The historic neglect of
women, contingent employees and informal sector workers, coupled
with erosion of its traditional base, considerably affected the viability
of unions.

Finally, traditional unionism’s focal organizing point was the work-

place (firm/industry). But flexible labour market strategies have created
footloose workers called contingent or atypical workers. These workers
do not have any long term association with specific firms and are
disinclined to invest heavily in union activity (Blank 2001: 734), which
is neither flexible nor universal. They prefer ‘exit’ options and change
jobs to maximize benefits to ‘voice’ options. As is well known, unions
can provide services to its customers (members) only when the risks are
shared by them (see DeMartino 1999).

It is likely that the very nature of the traditional union movement is

responsible for its crisis; exogenous factors like globalization at best
intensify it. Two reasons are ascribed. One, the decline in unionism
started well before the advent of the globalization process (see
DeMartino 1999); second, the decline in union membership is not
universal (see Calmfors et al. 2001; Hyman 1998; ILO 1997). Belgium
and the Nordic countries continue to enjoy relative union stability (the
latter owing to centralized union movements). Similarly placed IR
systems like the US and Canada show differing records: relatively
stable and higher union density in Canada compared to the US. If
globalization is the factor, why these differences?

Traditional unionism had to confront three types of challenges that

underlie its crisis. An increasing differentiation of workers
(heterogeneity) has created a crisis of interest aggregation; the
abstraction of mass workers under an assumption of worker
homogeneity no longer suffices. Second, decentralization of
employment regulation to enterprise levels has resulted in a crisis of
worker loyalty. Third, unions have failed to organize the new and
dynamic high technology oriented service sector, causing a crisis of
union representation (Miller-Jentson 1988-89 cited in Hyman 1998: 98;
Munck 1999: 18). The crisis in the union movement coincided with the
revival of civil society organizations. The social non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) are important constituents of a democratic

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 3/12

4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

system. They give people a voice in the affairs of their life, defend
human rights, fight to establish a clean and safe environment and a just
and equitable society – in brief improve the quality of life. Therefore, it
is hardly surprising that they also seek to represent the interests of
labour.

Women, contingent workers (part timers, temporary, casual, contract

workers), immigrants, youth, workers in the informal sector constitute a
segment which trade unions, due to several reasons (numerical
insignificance, gender and racial bias, absence of permanent points of
contact, among others), historically neglected in union organization
drives. But these workers now matter because their numbers are
increasing and they constitute marginal and socially vulnerable sections
who urgently need ameliorative action from social agents. It may,
however, be useful to bear in mind the constraints inherent in
organizing these types of employment categories. Flexi-categories are
created precisely because they are both non-unionized and non-
unionizable, thus easily manipulable and least costly to organize; two,
they do not enjoy long term employment in a particular firm and are
difficult to contact; three, they often have dual employers, principal
employer and contractor, which create legal issues such as who is
responsible for the welfare of these workers; four, absence of
contractual rights puts them out of the bargaining segment (Bonney);
five, women perform multiple roles and often prefer flexible work,
neither amenable to unionization.

It is important to note that while the new labour market and production
processes have caused the removal and distancing of a number of
workers from unions, the insecurity created by these very processes has
intensified a desire for protection in these workers. Second, the
fragmentation and heterogenization of the working class doubtlessly
created a crisis in the union movement by depleting union strength. The
crisis has been a real wake up call to stagnant and slumbering union
organization and leadership to take measures to revive unionism.
Fortunately, unions have now started organizing these workers. One,
numbers are what unions basically want. Two, the social dimension
attached to taking care of women and contingent workers. Unions have
begun to address these problems and concerns (see Moody 1998;
Wever 1997; Munck 1999 cites ICFTU’s document ‘The Trade Union
Vision’, 1995). More importantly, union interest in these hitherto
neglected workers owes to the significant presence and important work
done by NGOs (especially the union-cum-NGO like organization,
SEWA). This has rudely awakened the unions to their own
inadequacies.

II

Trade unions have neglected informal sector workers over a long time.
The informal sector was generally perceived as a transitory
phenomenon that would, through development, be eventually absorbed
into the formal sector (Gallin 2001a; ILO). As such, it was not

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 4/12

4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

considered prudent to invest resources in it. Second, the informal sector

is small in size, widely scattered, unstable, heterogeneous, complex and
invisible – factors not conducive to organization. Third, unions face
heat in the formal sector and given the organizational constraints it was
neither possible nor advisable to embrace the informal sector. Fourth,
all the identities that serve as a basis for organizing, viz., employment
relationship, contract, wage earner tag – do not generally obtain in the
informal sector; they possess little organizational basis. Fifth, the self-
employed constitute a significant portion of the informal sector and are
seen more as entrepreneurs than workers (see WIEGO; ILO). Trade
unions expected and even advocated state intervention, but this strategy
has been either ineffective or counter productive.

Also, the issues, problems and concerns of the informal sector workers
are unique and different from those of formal sector workers. They
constitute a mixed bag. Their issues/ concerns include land security,
permanent space for operation, easy access to cheaper credit, lack of
training to upgrade skills, absence of income security, and so on. As is
evident, they do not emanate from the workplace and involve multiple
agents: employer, community, government agencies, financial
institutions and so on. But the presence and growth of the informal
sector threatens ‘to undermine the acquired rights and conditions of
workers in regular employment’ (ICFTU 1992 cited in ILO).

It is not only the threat aspect that should prompt and compel trade
unions to organize informal sector workers both at national and
international levels (see ILO, for international union federations
thinking on this issue). There are other reasons also. One, the informal
sector is not a transitory phenomenon as was assumed; it is here to stay.
Its share vis-à-vis the formal sector is increasing. Though the informal
sector is considered atypical in a moral sense, in numerical terms it is
the formal sector that is atypical – for example, the proportion of the
informal sector in India (including agriculture) was 92% in 1998
(Gallin 2001a: 228).

Two, the organizing potential of the formal sector is decreasing. Three,

universality of representation, which the union movement should aim
for, means coverage of all sectors, including the informal sector. This
would ultimately lend stability to formal sector unions. On both
grounds of organizational growth and social legitimacy, the trade
unions cannot afford to ignore the informal sector any longer; also
NGOs’ entry into this sector adds muscle to their organizational efforts.

Four types of organizing informal sector workers have taken place: (1)
All the major central union organizations (CTUOs) in India (like
AITUC, BMS, HMS, INTUC) have attempted to organize workers in
the informal sector. We review briefly here the attempts and strategies
of CTUOs and the problems faced by them. The CTUOs, used as they
are to easy ways of organizing workers in the formal sector, find similar
efforts in the informal sector a tough terrain. The differences in the
effectiveness of organizing workers in the two sectors were summed up
by a union leader: ‘In the organized sector, 20% work gets 90% result.
In the informal sector 90% work gives 10% result’ (quoted in Venkata
Ratnam 2000b: 70).
https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 5/12
4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

The reason is that in the organized sector the bulk of the employees
are at one place and conflicts between management and workers are
resolved here, whereas workers and the self-employed in the
unorganized sector are scattered. (See the interview given by O.P. Aghi
of BMS on unorganized sector in Vishwakarma Sanket, September
2002.) The CTUOs concede that they only began to show interest in
unorganized sector workers sometime in the 1980s. The Bangalore
session of the AITUC in 1983 recognized the need to organize the
unorganized as a priority. It was admitted that their achievements in this
regard were ‘too little compared with the magnitude of the task’
(AITUC 1997 quoted in Venkata Ratnam 2000b: 71). O.P. Aghi also
admitted that special attention on these workers by BMS was only
shown in the 1980s. However, a beginning has been made. The AITUC
organized workers in the beedi, cigar, construction industries; the BMS
has formed eight federations, organizing workers in beedi, construction,
handloom industry, fishermen, and anganwadi workers (Aghi, ibid.);
HMS has organized forest workers, workers in brick kiln units and
rickshaw pullers in Punjab, fishermen in Tamil Nadu (see Venkata
Ratnam 2000b, for more details).

The CTUOs have drafted various strategies and programmes for

organizing workers in the unorganized sector and to take up issues and
concerns relevant to these workers for policy resolutions. The main
components of the strategy are: (a) to create organizing units in the
union federation for informal sector workers and provide fresh
guidelines to existing unions; (b) extension of legal aid to informal
sector workers; (c) demand that a commission for informal sector
workers be instituted and a comprehensive bill for this sector enacted –
the BMS claims that as a result of its demand, the government added
unorganized sector workers to the terms of reference of the Second
National Labour Commission (SNCL) headed by Ravindra Verma (see
the interview by Aghi, ibid.). (d) organize various forms of public
demonstrations to sensitize the societal agencies about the problems of
unorganized sector workers. Finally, the legal battles relating to
contract labour abolition and regularization, action at various levels
(social, policy-making bodies, international fora) to deal with the
problems of child labour and other issues by the union federations
constitute their interest around the unorganized sector.

It is important to flag two recent developments which should greatly

help unorganized sector workers. First, the ILO Convention on Home
Workers (1996). This convention requires the national policy to
promote equality of treatment between home workers and other wage
earners in relation, among other things, to the former’s ‘right to
establish or join organizations of their own choosing and to participate
in the activities of such organizations’ (Article 4). Second, the SNCL
has recommended easing of eligibility conditions for forming workers’
unions in the unorganized sector: workers in the unorganized sector can
form unions even in instances where the employer-employee

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 6/12

4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

relationship does not exist or is difficult to establish; second, the

eligibility condition of a minimum membership of 100 workers or 10%
of the workforce need not apply in their case (see SNCL Report, Vol. II,
6.50). Also, the amendments to the Trade Union Act passed in 2001
allow greater number of outside leaders (half of the total number of
office-bearers) than allowed for unions in the formal sector (one-third
of the total). These developments should provide impetus for greater
organizing efforts by trade unions.

(2) New trade unions have been created specifically to organize

informal sector workers, e.g., Self Employed Women Association
(SEWA) in India established in 1972 as a trade union is the old and
classic instance. It organizes, among others, home workers, street
vendors and refuse collectors and has more than 200,000 members
covering four states in India. Though registered as a trade union, it
offers a number of services like micro credit, vocational and training
programmes, pensions (see Kurane 2002, Venkata Ratnam 2000a;
Ramaswamy 2000 and their own websites for information and analysis
of the work done). Self Employed Women’s Union (SEWU), an
affiliate of COSATU in South Africa, is another example.

(3) Parallel to efforts of workers in multinational corporations to form

global alliances and organizations, unions and associations associated
with informal sector workers have also established international
networks and coalition organizations such as HomeNet, StreetNet,
Women in Informal Employment Globalizing and Organizing, WIEGO.
Various groups and associations organizing informal sector workers in
many countries, both in the North and the South, came together in 1994
to establish an international network called HomeNet. Its aims are (i) to
create an international network combining various forms of
organizations connected with home workers, (ii) to coordinate
international campaigns aimed to improve conditions of work for
home-based workers at various foras and levels, (iii) to build a data
base and disseminate information to members of the network and other
related organizations, and (iv) to provide technical assistance to
members of the network (see http://www. homenetww.org.uk).

StreetNet is an international alliance of street vendors and includes

organizations or support groups in 11 countries. It is a network
consisting of street vendors, activists, researchers, and institutions
associated with street vendors to ‘increase the visibility, voice and
bargaining power of street vendors throughout the world.’ The network
aims to promote exchange of ideas and information relating to various
issues concerning street vendors to organize and work out advocacy
strategies. Its longer term objective is to build a strong case and
mobilize international support for establishing a convention on the
rights of street vendors similar to the existing convention for home-
based workers (see http://www.streetnet.org.za). The National Alliance
of Street Vendors is an Indian affiliate of StreetNet; it was established
at the initiative of SEWA in September 1998 to work for the
formulation of National Policy for Street Vendors (see
http://www.nasvi.net/aboutus.php); see also their Bangalore
Declaration which demands recognition of their role and existence and

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 7/12

4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

a place in the decision-making bodies affecting them

(http://www.nasvi.net/factors.php).

Women Working Worldwide (WWW) is a small voluntary organization

in the United Kingdom working with the global network of women
worker organizations. It was formed by a group of researchers and
activists in 1983. It supports the rights of women workers through
networking with women organizations to exchange information and
influence international policy-making bodies (see
http://www.poptel.org.uk). WIEGO is a worldwide coalition of
institutions and individuals formed to improve the status of women in
the informal sector. Its founding members include grassroots
organizations, research and academic institutions, and international
development organizations; the principal players are SEWA, Harvard
University, and UNIFEM.

WIEGO represents two concerns: informal sector women workers are a

part of the globalizing economy, and there exists a need to organize
these workers both at local and international levels. It is concerned that
the important contribution by women workers (largely stemming from
low-income households) to economic growth and poverty alleviation is
not reflected in official statistics and policies. It aims to improve the
status of women in the informal sector, contribute to compilation of
better statistics and research, and develop programmes and policies (see
http://wiego.org/main/about.shtml). In fact, WIEGO, works closely
with international trade secretariats (ITS) like International Textile
Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF), International
Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions
(ICEM), International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant,
Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), and with
other NGOs like European Home-working Group secured the adoption
of Home Workers’ Convention No.177 (see ILO; WIEGO).

(4) Social movement unionism is another strategy to bring the concerns

of informal sector workers to the negotiating table. It emerged from the
recognition that unions of industrial workers constitute a minority in
the new working class (Moody 1998: 207). Alliances with
organizations of workers/employees in other sectors of the economy –
public sector unions, women’s organizations – are needed in order to
build a broad based movement. It includes alliances with working class
fractions such as ‘movements of other non-unionized or non-
unionizable working classes or categories such as petty commodity
sector, home workers, peasants, housewives, etc.’ (Waterman 1993
quoted in Akca 2001). It is socially inclusive unlike the traditional
unionism and distinct from old economic unionism or political
unionism (see Munck 1999; Ramaswamy 2000).

An important aspect of organizing in the informal sector is the

relationship between trade unions and NGOs. The dynamics of such a
relationship is of interest and concern. Some trade unions advocate a
separate but cordial relationship with NGOs so as to not mix labour
issues with other agendas and dilute the former. Others welcome NGO
assistance but want unions to lead the coalition. However, the NGOs
prefer to work with unions on an equal footing for two reasons: NGOs
https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 8/12
4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

are an increasingly important and relevant constituent of civil society;

they also organize categories and sectors of workers neglected by
unions. Unions are wary of NGOs as they draw middle and upper class
intellectuals and professionals. They question the locus standi of NGOs
in the labour movement, as they lack experience in organizing workers
as unions do, nor have they crossed picket lines. Also, there are other
vital differences between the two (see Compa 2001; Gallin 2001b;
Hernandez 1998).

Trade unions are member based organizations; the leaders, elected by

due process, are accountable to their members. There exists a hierarchy
and a system of operation. But NGOs, though voluntary, need not be
member based. The leadership is self-appointed or coopted. Their
accountability systems too differ: leaders are at best accountable to the
funding agency and in a larger sense to public opinion – no ‘popular’
validation as in unions. All these create doubts regarding their
legitimacy, transparency and accountability. But the very structural
processes that distinguish unions from NGOs reportedly make the
former rigid, bureaucratic, oligarchic (ironically), and the latter
democratic and flexible.

There are several factors that generate tensions in the relationship

between the two. We briefly discuss one here: Corporate Codes of
Conduct (CCC). Trade unions regard NGOs as ‘accomplices in the
company’s attempts to use the code as a means to avoid unionization’
(Gallin 2001b). It is no mere coincidence that companies which
enthusiastically adopt codes are also opposed to unions. Unions feel
that codes not only undermine or preclude their presence, they affect
labour law enforcement (Compa 2001). Suspicion also prevails over the
code monitoring mechanism. Monitoring systems lack credibility and
NGOs’ compliance could lend legitimacy to companies otherwise seen
as dubious. The unions may ask: what better monitoring agency could
there be other than themselves? But NGOs point out that their
intervention via codes implies a ‘third way’, supplementing the role of
classic methods, viz., government regulation through law and union
regulation by collective bargaining (Compa 2001).

But surely there are bases for cooperation between the two? Both desire
to check the exploitative, abusive practices of TNCs, establish and
protect basic human rights and trade union rights, and think of larger
social issues like sustainable development and education. Both have
more in common with each other than with government, international
organizations or business corporations (Compa 2001). Therefore, the
interface between the two needs to be strengthened.

An increasing differentiation of workers, the rise of a new working

class, and a rise in the numbers of flexible and informal sector workers
has created a crisis of union representation. Clearly, traditional
unionism in trouble. The current model of organizing labour markets,
namely liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG) has created
https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 9/12
4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

multiple insecurities, viz. job, employment, income and interest

representation insecurity (see Standing 1999). As Standing (1999:388-
92) rightly points out, effective voice regulation must take into account
the concerns and needs of the workers on the margins of the labour
market: they too must become ‘a part of the shadow of the future.’ The
need for representation is greater now than in the past. The vulnerable,
the weak, even the high paid workers need voice institutions and
mechanisms.

A crisis in the union movement and the rise of new social movements
has helped to create new experiments, innovations in organizing
workers and society. Union renewal is visible: they are now more
relevant to workers and society than ever in the past. The renewal is a
result of introspection, changes in its organizing strategies, focus,
positions and so on. Unions have begun to work with the unorganized
and unorganizable either on their own or with the help of other social
organizations. They have created new models of representation like
occupational unionism model, community unionism model, social
movement unionism model, and so on.

We argue here that unions are well placed to play a bigger role in the
new social processes that have emerged to organize labour and allied
classes. They are still a dominant form of social organization (Munck
1999). Employers spend considerable resources to preempt, prevent
and uproot unions (Rothestein 1997). Unions enjoy core competencies
in leading the movement of and for labour – they have a long history of
organizing workers and vesting them with rich organizational
experience; they are financially sound and independent, have an
ideological base and an extensive network of organizations across
borders. The most important reason is that they have begun to change,
modifying the old mould, constantly innovating and redefining their
orientations. They can supply tools for struggle. They are ideologically
poised to oppose injustices and discrimination in the system: their fight
against arbitrariness provides legitimacy (‘sword of justice’ role of
unions).

The union is a powerful voice institution. It can and should play a

pivotal role in building a larger social movement. Various social
organizations like NGOs are important players in the labour arena,
whose contributions in organizing informal sector workers cannot be
ignored. We emphasize complementarity, a sense of social partnership
between the social and labour organizations working in the labour
sector. All these constitute a search – experiments for constructing new
social identities for labour. Indeed, the process for designing a new
strategy for labour is underway.

 
* Revised version of the paper presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the ISLE in
Amritsar, 15-17 December 2002.

References:

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 10/12

4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

I. Akca, (2001), ‘"Globalization", state and labour: towards a social movement

unionism,’ Paper prepared for the 2001 Annual Convention of the International Studies
Association, Chicago, 21-24 February, http://www.isanet. org/archieve/akca.html.

L. Beneria, (2001), Changing employment patterns and the informalization of jobs:

general trends and gender dimensions, ILO, Geneva.

R.M. Blank, (2001), ‘Worker needs and government response’: Comment on the book
by P. Osterman et al, Working in America: a blueprint for the new labour market.
Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 733-6.

D. Bonney, Problems in organizing contingent workers,

http://www.kclabor.org/cont.htm.

L. Calmfors, et al. (2001), ‘The future of collective bargaining in Europe’ in T. Boeri et

al. (eds.), The Role of Unions in the 21st Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

F. Cheru, (2001), Gender equality and globalization: understanding complex dimensions

of opportunity and challenge, Background paper, Economic and Social Council, United
Nations, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/pdf

L.Compa, (2001), ‘Trade unions, NGOs and corporate codes of conduct’, International
Union Rights, http://www.citinv.it/associazioni/CNMS/archivio/strategic/
tradeunionNGO.html

M. Carr and M.A. Chen, (2001), Globalization and the informal economy: how global
trade and investment impact on the working poor, WIEGO, http://www.
wiego.org/papers/carrchenglobalization.pdf

G. DeMartino, (1999), ‘The future of the US labour movement in an era of global

economic integration’, in R. Munck and P. Waterman (eds.).

D. Gallin, (2001a), ‘Propositions on trade unions and informal employment in times of

globalization’, in P. Waterman and J. Wills (eds.).

D. Gallin, (2001b), Trade unions and NGOs in social development: a necessary

partnership for social development, http://www.uia.org/uiata/gallin.htm

S. Hernandez, (1998), The dynamics of WTO, NGOs and trade unions, and the co-
option of civil society. Edited version of the speech given at the founding convention of
the Joint Action Forum of Indian People against WTO and anti-people policies (JAFIP),
Hyderabad, 29 April – 1 May, 1998, http://www.savanne.ch/cooption.sh.

R. Hyman, (1998), ‘Imagined solidarities: can trade union resist globalization?’ in P.

Leisink (ed.), Globalization and Labour Relations, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

ILO, Trade unions and the informal sector: towards a comprehensive strategy,
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actrav/puble/infsectr.htm

ILO (1997), World Labour Report: industrial relations, democracy and social stability,
Geneva, ILO.

S. Kurane, (2002), ‘The real oasis’, Businessworld, 18 November, 48-50.

K. Moody, (1998), Workers in a Lean World: Unions in the International Economy,

London/New York, Verso.

R. Munck, (1999), ‘Labour dilemmas and labour futures’, in R. Munck and P. Waterman
(eds.).

R. Munck and P. Waterman (eds.) (1999), Labour Worldwide in the Era of

Globalization: Alternative Union Models in the New World Order, London, St. Martin’s
Press.

A.S. Oberoi, et al. (2000), Perspectives on Unorganized Labour, New Delhi, SAAT,
ILO, IIRA.

E.A. Ramaswamy, (2000), Managing Human Resources: A Contemporary Text, New

Delhi, Oxford University Press.
https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 11/12
4/9/23, 1:04 PM 531 K.R. Shyam Sundar, Organizing the unorganized

R. Rothstein, (1997), ‘Union strength in the United States: lessons from the UPS strike’,
International Labour Review 136, 466-91.

P. Sinha, (2000), ‘Organizing construction workers: a myth or reality’ in A.S. Oberoi et

al. (eds.).

G. Standing, (1999), Global Labour Flexibility: Seeking Distributive Justice, New York:
St. Martin’s Press.

C.S. Venkata Ratnam, (2000), ‘Trade Unions and the Unorganized Sector’ in A.S.
Oberoi et al. (eds.)

P. Waterman, (1999), ‘The new social unionism: a new union model for a new world
order’, in R. Munck and P. Waterman (eds.).

P. Waterman, and J. Wills (eds.) (2001), Place, Space and the New Labor
Internationalism, Oxford (Massachusetts), Blackwell.

K.S. Wever, (1997), ‘Unions adding value: addressing market and social failures in the
advanced industrialized countries’, International Labour Review, 1997, 449-67.

WIEGO, Notes on trade unions and the informal sector,

http://www.wiego.org/papers/gallin2eng.pdf

https://www.india-seminar.com/2003/531/531 k.r. shyam sundar.htm 12/12