The Representation of Workers in The Digital Era Raquel Rego Full Chapter PDF

The Representation of Workers in the
Digital Era Raquel Rego

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-representation-of-workers-in-the-digital-era-raquel
-rego/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in

the Digital Era Seung Ho Park
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-corporate-
sustainability-in-the-digital-era-seung-ho-park/
Extremism in the Digital Era: The Media Discourse of

Terrorist Groups in the Middle East 1st Edition Adib
Abdulmajid
https://ebookmass.com/product/extremism-in-the-digital-era-the-
media-discourse-of-terrorist-groups-in-the-middle-east-1st-
edition-adib-abdulmajid/
The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in

the Digital Era 1st ed. Edition Seung Ho Park
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-corporate-
sustainability-in-the-digital-era-1st-ed-edition-seung-ho-park/
Water Conservation in the Era of Global Climate Change

Binota Thokchom
https://ebookmass.com/product/water-conservation-in-the-era-of-
global-climate-change-binota-thokchom/
Risk and Resilience in the Era of Climate Change Vinod
Thomas
https://ebookmass.com/product/risk-and-resilience-in-the-era-of-
climate-change-vinod-thomas/
Salman’s Legacy: The Dilemmas of a New Era in Saudi

Arabia Madawi Al-Rasheed
https://ebookmass.com/product/salmans-legacy-the-dilemmas-of-a-
new-era-in-saudi-arabia-madawi-al-rasheed/
Employee-Centric IT: Advancing the Digital Era Through

Extraordinary IT Experience 1st Edition Mark Ghibril
https://ebookmass.com/product/employee-centric-it-advancing-the-
digital-era-through-extraordinary-it-experience-1st-edition-mark-
ghibril/
Oedipus Rex in the Genomic Era Yulia Kovas
https://ebookmass.com/product/oedipus-rex-in-the-genomic-era-
yulia-kovas/
The Collaborative Era in Science: Governing the Network

1st ed. Edition Caroline S. Wagner
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-collaborative-era-in-science-
governing-the-network-1st-ed-edition-caroline-s-wagner/
The Representation of
Workers in the Digital Era
Organizing a
Heterogeneous Workforce
Edited by
Raquel Rego
Hermes Augusto Costa
Dynamics of Virtual Work
Series Editors
Ursula Huws
Analytica Social and Economic Research
London, UK
Rosalind Gill
Department of Sociology
City, University of London
London, UK
Technological change has transformed where people work, when and
how. Digitisation of information has altered labour processes out of all
recognition whilst telecommunications have enabled jobs to be relocated
globally. ICTs have also enabled the creation of entirely new types of
‘digital’ or ‘virtual’ labour, both paid and unpaid, shifting the borderline
between ‘play’ and ‘work’ and creating new types of unpaid labour con-
nected with the consumption and co-creation of goods and services. This
affects private life as well as transforming the nature of work and people
experience the impacts differently depending on their gender, their age,
where they live and what work they do. Aspects of these changes have
been studied separately by many different academic experts however up
till now a cohesive overarching analytical framework has been lacking.
Drawing on a major, high-profile COST Action (European Cooperation
in Science and Technology) Dynamics of Virtual Work, this series will
bring together leading international experts from a wide range of disci-
plines including political economy, labour sociology, economic geogra-
phy, communications studies, technology, gender studies, social
psychology, organisation studies, industrial relations and development
studies to explore the transformation of work and labour in the Internet
Age. The series will allow researchers to speak across disciplinary bound-
aries, national borders, theoretical and political vocabularies, and differ-
ent languages to understand and make sense of contemporary
transformations in work and social life more broadly. The book series will
build on and extend this, offering a new, important and intellectually
exciting intervention into debates about work and labour, social theory,
digital culture, gender, class, globalisation and economic, social and
political change.
Raquel Rego • Hermes Augusto Costa
Editors
The Representation
of Workers in the
Digital Era
Organizing a Heterogeneous
Workforce
Editors
Raquel Rego Hermes Augusto Costa
Instituto de Ciências Sociais Universidade de Coimbra
Universidade de Lisboa Faculdade de Economia
Lisbon, Portugal Centro de Estudos Sociais
Coimbra, Portugal
ISSN 2947-9290 ISSN 2947-9304 (electronic)

Dynamics of Virtual Work
ISBN 978-3-031-04651-3 ISBN 978-3-031-04652-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04652-0
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Pattern © Harvey Loake
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
This book is financed by Portuguese funds through the Foundation for

Science and Technology I.P. (FCT), within the scope of the project
Representativeness of Social Partners and the Impact in Economic
Governance (REP) (PTDC/SOC-SOC/29207/2017). The Editors wish
to thank the collaboration of Dr. Cristina Nunes, from the REP project
team, with the preparation of the manuscript.
v
Contents
1 I ntroduction 1
Raquel Rego and Hermes Augusto Costa
2 Precarious
Work and Possibilities of Union Resistance in
Brazil 15
Andréia Galvão, José Dari Krein, Marilane Teixeira, and
Patrícia Rocha Lemos
3 How
to Represent the Unrepresented? Renewing the
Collective Action Repertoires of Autonomous Workers in
Three Countries 37
Laura Beuker and François Pichault
4 Digitization
and Collective Representation Strategies in
Spain 63
Antonio Martin-Artiles and Alberto Pastor Martínez
5 The
Representation of Precarious Workers: Two Case
Studies from Portugal 89
José Soeiro
vii
viii Contents
6 Work
Platforms, Informality and Forms of Resistance: The
Case of On-Demand Workers in the City of São Paulo113
Ruy Braga and Douglas Silva
7 Gender
Representation in the High-Tech Sector in Italy:
The Required Alliance Between Trade Unions and Women’s
Associations137
Luisa De Vita
8 The
Representation of Platform Workers Through
Facebook Groups in Bulgaria: A Partially-Filled Void161
Vassil Kirov and Gabriela Yordanova
9 C
onclusion183
Hermes Augusto Costa and Raquel Rego
Notes on Contributors
Laura Beuker has a PhD in Political and Social Sciences. She is a

researcher at the HEC-Management School from the University of Liège,
in Belgium, and a project manager at the ‘The House of Human Sciences’,
which is affiliated to the University of Liège. Her current research inter-
ests include new forms of employment, labour market intermediaries, the
traditional organisations of representation and new forms of social dia-
logue. In the past, she has also studied active labour market policies, new
forms of dialogue for the autonomous workers and comparison between
European countries.
Ruy Braga is a Full Professor at the Department of Sociology of the
Universidade de São Paulo (USP), in Brazil, and currently head of the
Department, vice-director of the Centre for the Study of Citizenship
Rights (Cenedic) and researcher at the Centre for Research Society, Work
and Politics (SWOP) of the University of the Witwatersrand, in South
Africa. Ruy has published in numerous scientific journals such as Work
and Occupations, Social Forces, Globalizations and Latin American
Perspectives.
Hermes Augusto Costa has a PhD in Sociology. He is Vice-Dean and
Professor at the Faculdade de Economia from the Universidade de
Coimbra, in Portugal, where he co-coordinates the PhD Program in
ix
x Notes on Contributors
Sociology. His interests focus on trade unionism, sociological theories,

among others. Some of his publications include the book Trade Union
Powers: Implosion or Reinvention? (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020)
and the chapter ‘Trade unions and social movements at the crossroads: A
Portuguese view’, in the book Social Movements and Organized Labour:
Passions and Interests, edited by Grote & Wagemann and published in
2019 by Routledge.
Luisa De Vita is Associate Professor in Economic Sociology at Sapienza
Università di Roma in Rome. She is the Coordinator of a PhD course in
Applied Social Sciences. Her main research interests include inequalities,
gender policies, labour market and working conditions. She also works
on employment in the STEM field and on digitalisation and platform
economy, with a specific focus on the care sector. She has been involved
in several research projects at both national and international levels. She
directs the observatory Collective Bargaining, Technological Innovation
and Quality of Work with INAPP (the National Institute for the Analysis
of Public Policies).
Andréia Galvão is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Instituto
de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas of UNICAMP, in Brazil. She works on
labour relations, trade unionism, social movements and collective action
in Brazil, and has published several articles on these topics.
Vassil Kirov is Associate Professor in the Institute of Philosophy and
Sociology, in Bulgaria, and Visiting Professor at Sciences Po, in France.
His research interests are in the sociology of work and organisations,
employment relations and digitalisation. Vassil has been a researcher in
large EU-funded research projects and has worked as an external expert
for the European Commission, the International Labour Organization
and EUROFOUND. He was a member of the European Commission
High-Level Expert Group on the Impact of the Digital Transformation
on EU Labour Markets (2018–2019) and has published books and arti-
cles in international scientific journals.
José Dari Krein has a PhD in Social and Labor Economics from the
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), in Brazil. He is a researcher
at the Brazilian Centre for Studies in Trade Unionism and Labour
Notes on Contributors xi
Economics (CESIT) and Professor at the Institute of Economics of the

UNICAMP. He works on labour economics, labour relations, and trade
unionism.
Antonio Martin-Artiles is Full Professor of Sociology and Industrial
Relations at the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology, and a
Researcher at the Institut Estudis del Treball from the Universitat
Autònoma Barcelona, in Spain. He was Director of the Institute of
Labour Studies (2012–2019), and Director of the Department of
Sociology (2005–2008) from the same university, in addition to being a
member of the Advisory Board of the European Trade Union Institute
(1997–2005). Antonio focuses his research on labour market and social
actors. He has published many articles in national and international jour-
nals with blind peer review.
Alberto Pastor Martínez has a PhD in Law. He is Associate Professor of
Labour Law at the Faculty of Law, Universitat Autònoma Barcelona, in
Spain. A member of the Research Group Drelates from the Institute of
Labour Studies, he is also the author of numerous publications. Albert
has focused his studies on the field of labour law in general and also, more
specifically, on collective labour law and occupational health and safety.
He is an arbitrator of the Council for Labour Relations of Catalonia
(Spain).
François Pichault has a PhD in Sociology. He is a Full Professor at the
HEC-Management School, from the University of Liège, in Belgium,
Professor in HR management (Paris-Dauphine University, France), and
the scientific director at “E&P” (a think-tank dedicated to HRM future).
He is the author or co-author of numerous publications in organisational
theory and human resources management (15 books and 100 book chap-
ters and articles published in scientific journals). His current research
topics are the organisational aspects of digital transformation, the emer-
gence of new forms of employment and management change.
Raquel Rego has a PhD in Sociology. She is a Research Fellow at the
Instituto de Ciências Sociais from the Universidade de Lisboa, in Portugal,
where she also teaches on the PhD Programme both in Comparative
Politics and International Relations and in Sociology (OpenSoc). Her
xii Notes on Contributors
main interests focus on associations of different types, having published

several articles, such as ‘Can electronic vote bring workers closer to trade
unions?’, published in Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal (2020),
and ‘The use of new ICTs in trade union protests’, in Transfer—European
Review of Labour and Research (2016).
Patrícia Rocha Lemos holds a PhD in Social Sciences. A researcher at
the Center for Union Studies and Labor Economics at the Institute of
Economics Science, UNICAMP, in Brazil, Patrícia’s research interests
cover employment and the labour movement, as well as the role of the
Global South in Global Production Networks.
Douglas Silva is a sociologist graduated from the Universidade de São
Paulo (USP), in Brazil, a member of the National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development (CNPq), and a junior researcher at the
Centre for the Study of Citizenship Rights (Cenedic) at USP. He is cur-
rently working on the research project entitled “New subjectivities, youth
and precarious work in the city of São Paulo”. In 2019, Douglas carried
out research on the area of platform work.
José Soeiro has a PhD in Sociology: Labour Relations, Social Inequalities
and Trade Unionism, obtained at the University of Coimbra in Portugal.
He is currently a Member of Parliament in Portugal, with responsibilities
for labour issues, and a Researcher at the Instituto de Sociologia from the
Universidade do Porto. Among other publications, he edited The Routledge
Companion to Theatre of the Oppressed, with Julian Boal and Kelly Howe
(2019) and Protest, Youth and Precariousness (2020).
Marilane Teixeira is an economist, who holds a PhD in Economic
Development by IE-UNICAMP, in Brazil, and a researcher at the Center
for Union Studies and Labor Economics at IE-UNICAMP, in addition to
being a Professor at FLACSO in Brazil. Marilane also works as a union
adviser.
Gabriela Yordanova has a PhD in Sociology and is an Associate Professor
at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology in Bulgaria. Her research
interests are the knowledge society, industrial relations, corporate social
responsibility, lifelong learning, time management and teleworking, plat-
Notes on Contributors xiii
form work, and the work–life balance. She has been a researcher in
EU-funded research projects and is the author of more than 30 articles
and books. She won an award for Young Scientist in the field of sociology
of IPS-BAS for her last book, published in 2020: The Virtual Office: New
Opportunity for Work-Family Balance in the ICT Sector in Bulgaria.
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Union membership data, selected years 20

Table 3.1 Industrial relations of the three countries vis-à-vis the
self-employed workers 48
Table 3.2 Presentation of the Belgian case studies 49
Table 3.3 Presentation of the French case studies 51
Table 3.4 Presentation of the Netherlands case studies 52
Table 4.1 Classification and distribution 68
Table 4.2 Digitization and reorganization of collective action 74
Table 6.1 General profile of on-demand workers in our field
research (2020) 123
xv
1
Introduction
Raquel Rego and Hermes Augusto Costa
Abstract This introduction contains four sections: The genesis of this book
sets out the book’s objective of reaching beyond the narrow horizons of
workers’ representation encountered when approaching only the paths
taken by trade unions. The Theoretical frameworks contextualizes the main
concepts and phenomena covered throughout this book, including: The
crisis in trade unionism and the consequent need to rethink unions’
representativeness, a subsection which frames the latest findings on the
crisis in trade unionism, which may have reached a sensitive point with
the self-organization of precarious workers; and The complexification of
precarious work in the digital era, a subsection that convenes a debate on
usage of the Internet, ranging from the perspective of a tool for union
R. Rego (*)
Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: raquel.rego@ics.ulisboa.pt
H. A. Costa
Universidade de Coimbra, Faculdade de Economia,
Centro de Estudos Sociais, Coimbra, Portugal
e-mail: hermes@fe.uc.pt
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

R. Rego, H. A. Costa (eds.), The Representation of Workers in the Digital Era,
Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04652-0_1
2 R. Rego and H. A. Costa
democratization through to the means for worker exploitation. The aim

of the book stresses the diversity of contributions, extending beyond the
Global North focus in order to provide a clearer view of the complexity
of experiences. Finally, The book structure presents the outlined table of
contents which covers both traditional and new strategies for worker
representation, underlining the need for a collective voice.
Keywords Unions’ representativeness • Unionism crisis • Self-

organization • Internet • Precarious workers • Non-Anglo-Saxon
countries
The Genesis of This Book

With probably the very few exceptions of occupations who, due to their
rare skills, are positioned to individually determine their contractual
terms (usually temporarily), workers’ organizations reflect the need to
influence working conditions and thereby improve production goals and
performance. For many decades, studies on employment and industrial
relations have focused on the representation processes of these centenary
organizations, the trade unions. Acting as a ‘sword of justice’ to defend
the weak and disadvantaged (Gumbrell-McCormick & Hyman, 2013),
trade unions were called upon to fight the tendencies towards
individualising industrial relations, to resist the weakening of workers’
rights and to stand for collective bargaining. However, the literature on
workers’ voices and their representation gained new developments
following the emergence of competing voices (Saward, 2010; Meardi
et al., 2019) and other scientific disciplines now seem to converge in their
interests around the topic, such as social movements and political science
research.
In the current context, in which the Internet constitutes an essential
element in our daily lives, workers’ participation seems easier even if this
does not always make any substantive difference. While the Industrial
Revolution led to the emergence of trade unions that went onto attain an
institutionalised role in liberal democracies over the course of the
twentieth century, the Fourth Industrial Revolution appears not only to
1 Introduction 3
challenge these traditional forms of workers’ representation but also to

stimulate alternative forms of giving workers a voice. In contemporary
times, trade unions compete within a new and broad sense of
representative-claims, some democratic and others undemocratic
(Saward, 2010; Meardi et al., 2019). In this sense, some authors talk
about a ‘hybrid voice’, particularly when considering how that direct
voice is becoming the norm (Holland et al., 2019), namely through
digital devices.
Therefore, the genesis of this book stems from the objective of reaching
beyond the narrow horizons of workers’ representation only approaching
the path taken by trade unions. In fact, a broader concept of representation
would appear to more justly assess workers’ needs for collective
representation while also rethinking the gaps in trade unions’
representation, especially when the issue of precarious workers in the
digital age is at stake.
Theoretical Frameworks
The fundamental theoretical frameworks of this book are twofold: (i) the
assumption of the importance of collective workers’ representation
processes; (ii) the recognition of the challenges to collective representation
within a context of increasing complexity, in terms of both the
heterogeneous and precarious composition of the workforce, and the
blurring of the boundaries between private and public lives in the
digital age.
he Crisis in Trade Unionism and the Consequent Need

T
to Rethink Unions’ Representativeness
The first conceptual pillar of this book arises from workers’ needs for a
collective voice. Whatever the workers’ profile, institutional traits and
contextual challenges, we must bear in mind how workers have very little
scope of choice considering the ‘insuperable individuality’ of living labour
(Offe & Wiesenthal, 1985). Workers are atomised and can at best
associate to compensate for their inferior power position while capital,

for instance, can merge to increase its efficiency. To this end, we follow in
the wake of the original contribution by Offe and Wiesenthal (1985)
who say that while ‘… capital has its command three different forms of
collective action and defend its interests, namely the firm itself, informal
cooperation and the employers or business association’ (1985, p. 75),
workers need to organise collectively to gain a voice in order to be
influential in the shaping the working conditions that affect them.
Although research has been revealing trade unions’ good practices on
behalf of the interests of precarious workers, especially in Anglo-Saxon
and Western European countries (Doellgast et al., 2018; Holland et al.,
2019; Wilkinson et al., 2014), there is also evidence that trade unions are
increasingly losing their capacity to stand up for a cohesive collective
identity, mobilising sanctions in keeping with the increased atomisation
of workers. The increasing precarious workforce is mainly composed by
women and other vulnerable groups which trade unions seem to be leav-
ing behind (Gumbrell-McCormick & Hyman, 2013). Despite some
advancements, gender inequality persists and is strongly embedded
within trade unions (Ledwith, 2012; Kirton, 2018).
Consequently, in the first decades of the twenty-first century, we were
able to witness around the world the emergence and growth of civil
society organizations composed of urban, young, precarious workers
(Campos Lima & Artiles, 2013; Grote & Wagemann, 2019) who have
tended to succeed in developing an identity even while not yet achieving
any comparable institutional recognition. In the context of the Global
South, some organizations have even sought to acquire greater
prominence, even since the 1970s. The Self Employed Women’s
Association in Gujarat (India) is one example, based on informal work as
their only source of livelihood (Mosoetsa & Williams, 2012).
Today, trade unions have to cope inclusively with individual voices,
such as expert claims (Meardi et al., 2019). These new voices impels us to
rethink the concept of democratic representation, on the one hand,
valuing the democratic representation performed by trade unions, for
instance, in comparison with individual and undemocratic functional
claims; and, on the other hand, critically analysing the democratic repre-
sentation operationalisation.
1 Introduction 5
Trade unions base their legitimacy on their representation of workers’

interests but their representativeness is usually assessed only from the
point of view of membership through an indicator named ‘density’
(Eurofound, 2016; Visser, 2019), hence, the ratio of union members to
the total workforce. Relying only on density raises two main problems.
Density itself represents a fragile indicator due to its source limitations
(diverse and not always reliable) and secondly, density reports very little
on the congruence in the interests represented.
Although there are distinct coexisting models of representativeness,
from the existence of legal requirements to ‘mutual recognition’, density
somehow seems present throughout every country system (Eurofound,
2016) as well as equally pervasive in the literature. Density can be
presented in figures but is more often reported through qualitative
information, such is the case of a trade union with members in a particular
economic sector, this is, without saying how many or who they are. In
fact, it is rare to receive objective and predetermined criteria of union
representativeness as is nevertheless recommended by international
agencies such as the International Labour Organization (ILO). The lack
of transparency and predictability in the trade unions’ representativeness
system not only contributes to the lack of efficiency in labour market
regulation, but also increases tensions by excluding organizations
otherwise seeking to be heard by political institutions, and alongside
leading to social dumping and other inequalities.
In addition, whenever assessing trade unions’ legitimacy only through
membership figures, we may observe a decline over decades, which is
known as the trade unionism crisis (Hyman, 2018; Visser, 2019). Even
though a scenario of loss of members may not be incompatible with an
increase of confidence in unions (Frangi et al., 2017), trade unions’
membership has been declining due to external reasons, such as the
growth in unemployment and precarious work together with neoliberal
and populist policies designed to deregulate trade unions’ power. But
union membership have also dropped due to internal reasons, such as the
prevalence of older, male and protected workers among members and
leaders, even if unionised women are becoming more numerous than
men (Visser, 2019). Apparently, external legitimacy does not accompany
decreases in internal legitimacy and there are different factors (both exter-
nal and internal) explaining this downturn (Costa, 2021).
The trade unions’ representativeness assessment system should reflect
the complex conceptualisation of representation. Representation is a
multifaceted concept (Pitkin, 1967), but it has mostly been explored in
political science. The political representation concept includes different
dimensions, two of which deserve particular attention: the social
composition of representation and the congruence of interests’
representation. In fact, for now, how representative are decisions from
union members, still remains a question to be answered.
Thus, we argue that the social composition of union membership
should be included as an additional criterion of the trade unions’
representativeness assessment system to begin with. In this sense, when a
trade union has few members but achieves a proportional number of the
heterogeneous composition of the workforce, either on gender, function
or other subgroups, it should be considered a representative organisation.
The opposite is not true.
In fact, there are two expected consequences of applying a multifac-
eted concept of representation. First, trade unions’ representativeness
may be reformed and drive new internal practices designed to revitalise
trade unions; second, alternative collective action may clarify the condi-
tions they offer to access the position of a social dialogue partner as far as
the representative democratic criteria may also be applied to them.
he Complexification of Precarious Work

T
in the Digital Era
The second conceptual pillar of this book arises from the fact that not
only the number of precarious workers is increasing, but the heterogeneous
composition of precarious workers is also shifting. And this is driving the
need to review the definition of precarious work. ‘Precarious work’ means
the opposite of decent work, hence, the characteristics of such labour run
counter to the international labour standards promoted by the ILO
(Hewison, 2016): low social protection, low income, low job opportunities
and low workers’ voice. However, while the provision of the worst forms
1 Introduction 7
of working standards is not a new thing, we more recently came to realise

that precarious work does not seem confined to non-standard work
(Huws, 2014). Jobs with low wages, together with important insecurity
over the continuation of employment, is on the rise and is actively
promoted by multinationals (ILO, 2013). Precarious work has been
defended on behalf of rendering the labour market more flexible. Its
severity is due in large part to its internationalisation through the practices
of multinationals despite their signing up to declarations of principles
based on workers’ rights. This situation leads many people to have never
known any other kind of employment with the corresponding uncertainty
as regards the future while still failing to prevent the consequences of
economic crises for companies and furthermore potentially fuelling social
conflicts (ILO, 2013).
Therefore, even standard work today seems vulnerable to precarious
working conditions. This is why the Standing (2011) idea of the ‘precariat’
as a class-in-the-making, which already incorporates different groups,
from qualified to migrant workers, requires revision and an additional
debate. In fact, differences in power and practices are only increasing in
tandem with the current diversity in employment. This conveys how
precarious work is part of a continuum which does not exclude standard
workers. The multitude of needs to organise, heterogeneous and
conflicting, have also increased: from wages to continuity of employment
passing through job satisfaction and leisure time in particular during a
period of booming telework.
Furthermore, it is important to be aware how, alongside silence
(Wilkinson et al., 2014), anger and anxiety, there is also great enthusiasm
towards this new phase in capitalism (Huws, 2014). Just as new
information and communication technologies facilitate communication,
the blurring boundaries lead to increased difficulties in mobilisation. As
Huws says, ‘The colonization of … sociability by the market has not only
generated a new source of profit-making but has also helped to drive
wedges into the fabric of their social lives, undermining the basis for
future solidarities’ (2014, p. 12). This explains why digital labour, for
instance, cannot be regarded as a particular form of labour somehow
hived off from the rest, but rather as an expression of its increasing
complexity (Huws, 2014, p. 134). In fact, this covers everything from
talented, independent by choice workers and unpaid labour, such as the

case of posting on Wikipedia.
It is now clear how, when the Internet first appeared in the 1990s,
academic and practitioners perceived it as an opportunity to enable
workers’ voices through trade unions (Diamond & Freeman, 2002) by
fostering democratic participation and attaining a reinforced collective
identity. In that sense, some important civic collective actions clearly
benefited from digital devices: from the Arab Spring to South European
protests against austerity. However, while many authors considered the
Internet held the potential to create solidarities, they seemed to forget
how it might also be deployed to generate counter-mobilisation and
reduce participation through ‘click-activism’ (Wilkinson et al., 2014).
The initial optimism surrounding the Internet as a tool favourable to
workers’ organizations and participation was later revised in the light of
new findings. These findings convey that many trade unions have
difficulties in coping with real-time communication and innovation
(Rego et al., 2016). A recent research demonstrates that the Internet did
not expand the national trade unions network which is supported by the
‘echo chamber’ theory (Carneiro & Costa, 2020). Simultaneously,
competing voices, such as bloggers, Facebook groups and online activism,
do not share the same constraints and have thus expanded, disputing the
voice role of trade unions (Rego et al., 2016). Potentially, only reinforcing
the legitimacy of trade unions through increasing their democratic
procedures will be able to overcome the threats posed by these new actors.
This is how we came to ask: How can workers’ interests best be orga-
nized and represented when coping with today’s increased dispersion of
communication channels and heterogeneity in the workforce? Is labour
market segmentation leading to vulnerable groups being left behind in
adversarial contexts? What kind of influence may we expect from the self-
organization of precarious workers? Is the digital era helping or hindering
the precarious workers’ deficit of voice? These and other questions
motivated the organisation of this book.
1 Introduction 9
The Aim of the Book

This book, The representation of workers in the digital era—Organizing a
heterogeneous workforce, arose from perceptions around the scarcity of
organized empirical evidence responding to the complexity on the need
of workers to have a voice in current times. In fact, there seems to be a
trend in the literature to focus on the Global North and on Anglo-Saxon
countries, as well as on digital workers and the best practices of trade
unions. This book aims to build on this debate by providing a closer
picture of the complexity of experiences. With insights from more
peripheral geographical areas, we place self-organising structures and
trade unions’ initiatives side by side while focusing on a specific voice
approach; hence, collective representation through the associative form.
We did not seek to be exhaustive but rather to pursue the path towards
the legitimacy of trade unions obtained through democratic
representativeness. We would note that the book covers platform workers
but this is not the sole reason we bring the digital era into the debate. The
‘digital era’ emerges here as the main trait of current times, shaping labour
relations as well as both private and public life (Huws, 2014). However,
this book is not about digital work, or at least is not only about it. We
wished to collect some of the diverse possibilities for reflecting on workers
needs for collective representation.
Gathering academics and experts from European and Brazilian univer-
sities, this book aims to provide a contribution for researchers, students,
practitioners and others wishing to be introduced to the debate around
the voice of precarious workers and interest representation in the first two
decades of the twenty-first century. Such purpose is carried out from a
bottom-up perspective, combining trade unions’ reactions with precari-
ous self-organization initiatives, duly supported by scientific evidence
returned by both qualitative and quantitative methodologies as well as
mixed methods.
The Book Structure

The book contains two main sections, although without any formal sepa-
ration. On the one hand, we present three chapters focusing on trade
unions’ reactions and attempts to adapt to the need of endowing
precarious workers with a voice. On the other hand, focusing on
economically dependent self-employed workers, we present four chapters
showing bottom-up experiences without union intervention. Overall, we
conclude that collective action is both feasible and necessary.
Following this Introduction (Chap. 1), Chap. 2, authored by Galvão
et al., stems from the Brazilian labour reform of 2017, launched by a
neoliberal government and stipulating limitation on trade unions’ powers.
Adopting a mixed-methods approach, the authors highlight the different
strategies of old trade unions (acting in structured sectors, typically more
organized and active) and new trade unions (acting in less structured
sectors, frequently less organized and subject to precarious working
conditions) before demonstrating that, despite deregulation, precarious
workers can be organized. Chapter 3 presents three distinct collective
action experiences in Western European countries (Belgium, France and
the Netherlands) based on the respective three scenarios attributed to
trade unionism (extension, community and cooperation). Through a
multiple case study design, which includes semi-structured interviews
and observation, Beuker and Pichault highlight the variable institutional
contexts and conclude that the role of institutional design in the choice
of collective action seems compatible with opening up trade unions to
self-employed workers. Chapter 4 correspondingly presents the different
collective action experiences of diverse types of digital workers but at a
local level. Focusing on the Catalonia region, Martin Artiles and Pastor
Martínez deploy different data collection techniques to identify how the
coexistence of bottom-up and top-down strategies can become an enabler
of union revitalization not only by permitting the parallel emergence of
the self-employed but also by fostering a partial remedy for precarious
workers. Chapter 5 also starts out by considering the heterogeneity of
precarious workers to focus on the strategies of these workers when
attempting to launch organizations in the face of dissatisfaction with the
1 Introduction 11
existing repertoire of trade unions, a trend identified in Europe since the

beginning of the 2000s. Soeiro addresses special attention to FERVE and
Precários Inflexíveis, two Portuguese precarious organisations whose
members were interviewed. Authored by Braga and Silva, Chap. 6 is
based on ethnographic data on how a segment of informal workers,
particularly featuring those whose numbers have grown since the onset of
the pandemic crisis. The on-demand workers, interlinked with young
black people, have entailed new forms of collective action, thus detailing
the relevance of contextual variables. Chapter 7, authored by De Vita,
draws our attention to women’s associations in the Italian high-tech
sector, where they are a minority in keeping with the sector’s general
trend. These associations give voice to women performing special roles
while trade unions continue to focus on collective bargaining despite the
lack of company engagement. The author supports her analysis on 18
interviews, with both association leaders and trade unionists. Chapter 8
also approaches alternative representation structures but in a more fluid
context. Kirov and Yordanova deploy different data collection techniques
to demonstrate how the Facebook group Professional and Freelance
Services partially fulfils a representation void for thousands of platform
and slash-workers in Bulgaria. These structures apparently do not
incorporate the democratic features of trade unions and, while stating
they have no ambition to play the same role as unions, they leave many
questions to be answered. Finally, Chap. 9, again authored by the editors
of this book, highlights the need to strengthen the collective voice of
workers and the challenges of coping with new uncertainties.
References
Campos Lima, M. P., & Artiles, A. M. (2013). Youth voice(s) in EU countries
and social movements in Southern Europe. Transfer—European Review of
Labour and Research, 19(3), 345–364.
Carneiro, B., & Costa, H. A. (2020). Digital unionism as a renewal strategy?
Social media use by trade union confederations. Journal of Industrial Relations,
64, 26–51.
Costa, H. A. (2021). The role of trade unions in the age of austerity: Resistance
and power resources in Portugal. In A. Farahat & X. Arzoz (Eds.), Contesting
austerity: A socio-legal inquiry into resistance to austerity (pp. 213–231). Hart
Publishing.
Diamond, W. J., & Freeman, R. B. (2002). Will unionism prosper in cyber-
space? The promise of the Internet for employee organization. British Journal
of Industrial Relations, 40(3), 569–596.
Doellgast, V., Lillie, N., & Pulignano, V. (Eds.). (2018). Reconstructing solidar-
ity: Labour unions, precarious work, and the politics of institutional change in
Europe. Oxford University Press.
Eurofound. (2016). The concept of representativeness at national, international and
European level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Frangi, L., Koos, S., & Hadsiabdic, S. (2017). In unions we trust! Analysing
confidence in unions across Europe. British Journal of Industrial Relations,
55(4), 831–858.
Grote, J. R., & Wagemann, C. (Eds.). (2019). Social movements and organized
labour. Passions and interests. Routledge.
Gumbrell-McCormick, R., & Hyman, R. (2013). Trade unions in Western
Europe: Hard times, hard choices. Oxford University Press.
Hewison, K. (2016). Precarious work. In S. Edgell et al. (Eds.), The Sage hand-
book of sociology of work and employment (pp. 428–443). Sage.
Holland, P., Teicher, J., & Donaghey, J. (Eds.). (2019). Employee voice at
work. Springer.
Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the global digital economy: Cybertariat comes of age.
Monthly Review Press.
Hyman, R. (2018). What future for industrial relations in Europe? Employee
Relations, 40(4), 569–579.
ILO. (2013). Meeting the challenge of precarious work: A workers’ agenda.
International Journal of Labour Relations, 5(1).
Kirton, G. (2018). Anatomy of women’s participation in small professional
unions. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 39(1), 151–172.
Ledwith, S. (2012). Gender politics in trade unions. The representation of
women between exclusion and inclusion. Transfer—European Review of
Labour and Research, 18(2), 185–199.
Meardi, G., Simms, M., & Adam, D. (2019). Trade unions and precariat in
Europe: Representative claims. European Journal of Industrial Relations. First
Published Online. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680119863585
1 Introduction 13
Mosoetsa, S., & Williams, M. (2012). Labour in the Global South: Challenges
and alternatives for workers. International Labour Office.
Offe, C., & Wiesenthal, H. (1985). Two logics of collective action—Theoretical
notes on social class and organizational form. Political Power and Social
Theory, 1, 67–115.
Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation (Vol. 75). University of
California Press.
Rego, R., Sprenger, W., Kirov, V., Thomson, G., & Di Nunzio, D. (2016). The
use of new ICTs in trade union protests: Five European cases. Transfer—
European Review of Labour and Research, 22(3), 315–329.
Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford Scholarship Online.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.
Visser, J. (2019). Trade unions in the balance. International Labour Organization.
ACTRAV. Working Paper.
Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T., & Freeman, R. B. (Eds.). (2014).
Handbook of research employee voice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
2
Precarious Work and Possibilities
of Union Resistance in Brazil
Andréia Galvão, José Dari Krein, Marilane Teixeira,
and Patrícia Rocha Lemos
Abstract This chapter addresses the impact of the economic crisis and
neoliberal hegemony on trade unions and the Brazilian labour market,
examining the recent experiences of two service sector unions in São
Paulo state. These trade unions represent workers clearly affected by
working-related processes of social precariousness. Affiliated with the
General Workers’ Union (UGT) trade union federation, Sindimoto rep-
resents motorcyclist and cyclist couriers, a professional group including a
high number of informal workers, in particular those providing this ser-
vice through digital platforms. The second union, APEOESP, represents
public sector teachers and is one of the most prominent members of the
Unique Workers’ Central Federation (CUT). However, since the 1990s,
public education sector workers have been submitted to increasingly pre-
carious working conditions, such as fixed-term and ‘on-demand’ con-
tracts, with the latter lacking any working day or payment guarantees.
After examining the role of these two unions during the COVID-19
A. Galvão • J. D. Krein (*) • M. Teixeira • P. Rocha Lemos

UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil
e-mail: agalvao@unicamp.br
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 15

R. Rego, H. A. Costa (eds.), The Representation of Workers in the Digital Era,
Dynamics of Virtual Work, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04652-0_2
16 A. Galvão et al.
pandemic, the chapter concludes that, despite the adverse prevailing con-
text, both remained substantially active. While APEOESP demonstrates
how a strong union organization still makes a difference, Sindimoto, in
turn, has shown that unorganized workers can be organized and develop
the capacity to act collectively.
Keywords Economic crisis • Neoliberal hegemony • Brazil • Trade

unions • Precarious workers • Covid-19
Introduction
The Brazilian labour market is fundamentally characterized by the perva-
siveness of precarious work. As in other countries known for their poorly
structured labour markets, much of the working class in Brazil is histori-
cally deprived of social protection and affected by high rates of underem-
ployment and informality.
The process of social precariousness of work (Druck & Franco, 2007),
however, affects not only those industries that are originally precarious,
but also those that were once protected and had relatively stable labour
relations. Current changes in the way of organizing and managing the
workforce, combined with the development of labour-saving technolo-
gies and implementation of neoliberal policies, lower the level and qual-
ity of available jobs, promoting the deterioration of working conditions
and the loss of rights. Although this is not a new process in Brazil, given
that the labour market and unionism have been undergoing structural
changes since the 1990s, it was accelerated after the economic and politi-
cal crisis of 2015, which led to the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, pav-
ing the way for the labour reform of 2017 (under the administration of
Michel Temer) and the social security reform of 2019 (under the admin-
istration of Jair Bolsonaro).
Successive neoliberal reforms and austerity policies have precipitated
the changes that had been transforming the unions’ social base, in addi-
tion to making union action even more difficult. The rise in informality,
unemployment and precarious employment contracts reduces the scope
of unions’ traditional social bases and the number of workers affiliated
2 Precarious Work and Possibilities of Union Resistance in Brazil 17
with them. Changes in the types of contracts associated with the growing
existence of disguised employment relations may further undermine
unions; workers may call unions into question as they do not feel repre-
sented by them. How do unions face the challenge of representing a
growing contingent of precarious workers?
To address this issue, one must first bear in mind that precariousness of
work affects not only less structured industries—i.e., those with low levels
of union organization and a historically higher incidence of precarious
work—but also structured industries with a tradition of union organiza-
tion. Secondly, although precarious workers are not a category of workers
who cannot be organized, there are several factors hindering their union-
ization efforts (Galvão & Krein, 2019). These difficulties refer not only to
the characteristics of the occupational structure and work process but also
to the limitations on freedom of organization imposed by the Brazilian
union structure. As we will see, precarious workers do have a tradition of
organization, even though not necessarily through unions. Finally, the
mere existence of unions is not equivalent to being able to act collectively.
If precarious work undermines union resistance, it is worth examining
how it impacts different industries. We hypothesize that precarious work
affects differently the industries that we identify here as more structured
and less structured from the perspective of the labour market and union-
ization tradition. Despite this variation between industries, precarious
work is a trend that cuts across all industries—this trend, however, does
not prevent workers from resisting and mobilizing. To contribute to this
discussion, this chapter examines the recent experience of two unions
representing workers in the service sector:1 one is marked by p
recariousness
1
The growth of the service sector is a common trend in Western capitalist economies. It is accom-
panied by the reorganization of the production of goods and services, which partially involves the
increasing use of outsourced work. In the case of Brazil, this expansion has three additional charac-
teristics: (1) the country’s early process of deindustrialization, which pushed many people to the
service sector as a survival strategy (the percentage of jobs in the manufacturing sector drops from
27.9% to 12.7% of the overall employment between 1980 and 2018, whereas in services, it roses
from 33.6% to 66% in the same period according to Pochmann, 2020); (2) the country’s low-wage
market, which inhibited the replacement of low-skilled occupations—such as gas station atten-
dants, delivery services, etc.—by automated processes; (3) the vast income inequality, which led to
the creation of services aiming at the middle and upper classes of society: domestic workers make
up the individual occupation that employs most people in Brazil; the growth of public and private
security activities should also be stressed.
from the start, the São Paulo Motorcycle Couriers Union (Sindimoto)2;
the other represents a category of workers that, since the 1990s, has been
submitted to increasingly precarious work conditions and relations, the
Union of Official Education Teachers of the State of São Paulo
(APEOESP).3 Both unions have a prominent position in the social scene,
with Sindimoto being the most recent. It gained visibility after the 2015
crisis and, above all, during the Covid-19 pandemic, which is the period
we intend to examine in this article. In addition, they represent two very
distinct groups of workers in terms of labour relations, tradition of mobi-
lization, and formation of collective identity. One of the main differences
is that teachers are primarily public sector employees, despite the spread
of different types of employment contracts,4 whereas motorcycle couriers
(motoboys or motofrentistas) are either private-sector employees or self-
employed, with a growing number of delivery couriers providing services
through digital platforms. This division affects their way of organizing,
since this category of workers is split between unions representing pri-
vate-sector employees and class associations representing the
self-employed.
The chapter is divided into three parts. First, we present some of the
characteristics of union organization in Brazil to better situate the anal-
ysed cases. Second, we address the impact of the economic crisis and
neoliberal hegemony on unions and the Brazilian labour market, shed-
ding light into this context of dismantling social welfare policies and
2
The Sindicato dos Mensageiros, Motociclistas, Ciclitas e Moto-taxistas do Estado de São Paulo
(Sindimoto, the Portuguese acronym), created in 1991, is affiliated with the trade union federation
General Workers’ Union (UGT) and represents motorcyclist and cyclist couriers and motorcycle
taxi drivers in the state of São Paulo.
3
The Sindicato dos Professores do Ensino Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (APEOESP, the Portuguese
acronym) was created in 1945. It is one of the most prominent unions affiliated with the federation
Unique Workers’ Central (CUT) and one of the largest unions in Latin America, with 94 offices in
several municipalities in the state of São Paulo. In addition to being one of the most active, demo-
cratic, and organized unions in the civil service, the APEOESP is also affiliated to the National
Confederation of Education Workers (CNTE).
4
Despite benefiting from the rather stable working conditions provided by the civil service,
APEOESP’s social base was significantly affected by the neoliberal reforms promoted by the gov-
ernment of São Paulo.
increasing precarious work. Third, we present some characteristics of the

labour relations in the analysed groups of workers and discuss the role of
these two unions during the pandemic, a time when the health crisis
meets the political and economic crisis that Brazil has been facing
since 2015.
he Tradition of Union Organization in Brazil

T
and Its Reach Into Precarious Workers
Unionism in Brazil—as in other countries—is more active in structured
industries of the economy, such as manufacturing, some sections of the
service sector (such as finance, health, education), certain categories of
rural workers, construction workers, and workers in the public sector
(“direct administration” and state-owned companies). Fundamentally,
unions represent workers with an entry into their Employment Record
Book (Carteira de Trabalho),5 so that a significant contingent of precari-
ous workers is excluded from union activities: they do not participate in
activities promoted by the union, nor are they covered by collective bar-
gaining. This does not mean that there is no resistance or mobilization
among informal workers, but simply that it takes another form.
Associations bringing together workers who do not have a formal employ-
ment relationship do exist, representing self-employed workers, informal
workers, street vendors, workers on alternative transportation, paper-
pickers, and, more recently, platform workers such as motorcycle couri-
ers. By and large, these associations aim to ensure that their work is
regulated and that proper conditions for working in an informal eco-
nomic activity are available. They do not engage in collective bargaining
nor negotiations with their employers, but rather with public authorities,
from whom they demand the regulation of the profession and permission
for the use of public space (Galvão & Krein, 2019).
Trade union organizations basically represent those workers who are
entitled to labour rights, and who are most protected. With the economic
5
That is the document that formalizes the hiring of a worker.
Table 2.1 Union membership data, selected years

2012 2014 2016 2019
Total number of employed 89,233,013 91,945,167 90,776,344 94,642,327
persons
Total number of people 14,403,293 14,592,211 13,501,618 10,566,795
affiliated with a union
Participation (%) 16.10 15.90 14.90 11.20
Source: IBGE
crisis and the rise to power of a neoliberal, conservative right, the use of
self-employed, outsourced, and precarious workers—and the respective
types of employment contracts they entail—increased in the labour mar-
ket, affecting union membership rates. As shown in Table 2.1, the union
membership rate declined from about 16% before the 2015 crisis to 11%
in 2019, a loss of 3.8 million unionized workers. A downward trend also
appears among more structured and traditionally unionized categories of
workers. For instance, the union membership rate in the public sector,
which includes education workers, dropped from 33% to 27% between
2014 and 2019.6
Among private-sector employees working with a formal employment
contract, the number of unionized workers dropped from 21% to 14%
between 2014 and 2019. Such a decline was more pronounced after 2017
due to the labour reform. Because industries with higher levels of precari-
ous, outsourced, and self-employed workers have a lower union member-
ship rate, the drop among these industries was less marked. Among
informal workers (those without a formal employment contract), the
membership rate declined from 5.4% to 4.5%; among the self-employed,
the drop was from 10.3% to 7.3% in the same period.7
Some aspects of the Brazilian union structure, such as the monopoly of
representation and the union tax, which, until the 2017 labour reform,
was deducted from all workers, whether unionized or not, obstructs the
path to unionizing all workers because unions can subsist even with a
6
The APEOESP claims to have a union membership rate of around 70%, more than double the
rate found among education professionals in Brazil.
7
Official data do not allow for Sindimoto’s union membership rate to be calculated; however, con-
sidering the aforementioned indicators, one can assume that it is low.
small number of members. Because unions are state-aided entities—

protected by the principle of union unity8 and compulsory union tax
from workers—they can survive even without representativeness. The
advantages offered by the union structure have so far discouraged union
leaders from adopting successful strategies for “organizing the unorga-
nized” (Heery & Adler, 2004), such as merging organizations, building
solidarity networks, and running membership campaigns based on non-
conventional, disruptive tactics (Campos et al., 2021a).
Conversely, by circumscribing representation to occupational groups,9
the Brazilian union structure stimulates fragmentation and dispersion of
union organizing. For instance, it prevents outsourced workers from
being legally represented by the same union defending the interests of
those workers who are directly hired by the company where they also
work, even if they carry out similar activities at the same workplace; this
situation stimulates the fragmentation of union organizing and inhibits
the unification of distinct unions.10
Despite the existence of trade unions and other forms of collective
organization among the most precarious groups in the occupational
structure, these organizations, with few exceptions, have a limited mobi-
lization capacity. As we will see in the case of delivery platform couriers,
the campaigns held in their favour—which were unusual—were not
always organized by unions. In any case, between 2011 and 2016, the
number of strikes among precarious workers in different industries
increased. It should be stressed, however, that these strikes were defensive
in nature—they intended to preserve rights and react to delays in pay-
ment. Moreover, they were organized outside of unions in many cases
(Dieese, 2019). Since 2016, however, the number of strikes among all
8
Union unity legally imposes the monopoly of representation to a single union per occupational
group and locality, usually circumscribed to a city.
9
According to the law, the employees of a company are part of the “economic category” of their
employer. This concept contradicts the representation by “branch of activity”.
10
In 2021, there were 11,626 labour unions in Brazil, of which 5921 represented workers in the
urban private sector, 2225 from the public sector, and 3480 were rural unions; there are also 14
union federations. Data available on the Ministry of Justice and Public Security’s website https://
app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYzk5OTU3MDktNDM2Zi00YTc5LWFiYTktZmQzMmVjN-
TRlODQ4IiwidCI6ImViMDkwNDIwLTQ0NGMtNDNmNy05MWYyLTRiOGRhNmJmZ
ThlMSJ9 (accessed in July 2021).
groups of workers has declined: from 2114 in 2016 to 1118 in 2019 and
649 in 2020, during the pandemic. In 2020, the private service sector
accounted for 78.2% of all strikes in the private sector; the public service
sector at the state level, by contrast, accounted for 68 strikes—12 of them
(17.6%) in education. The top issues on their list of demands were over-
due payments, salaries, vacations, among others. (Dieese, 2021).
Although union membership and strike indicators dropped signifi-
cantly after the crisis, the index of public confidence in unions improved
in 2019 and 2020, jumping from 37% in 2018 to 44% in 2019 and 49%
in 2020, according to IBOPE Inteligência.11 In other words, although
unionism has lost strength, data show that unions are still well-accepted
among a significant share of the Brazilian population; therefore, they still
have room to grow.
he Impact of the Economic Crisis

T
and Neoliberal Hegemony on the Brazilian
Labour Market and Unions
There are three main reasons why mobilization and collective action face
a very unfavourable context in recent years in Brazil: (1) the labour mar-
ket is increasingly marked by precarious work, along with high unem-
ployment and underemployment, a situation aggravated by the economic
crisis of 2015; (2) the neoliberal hegemony has gained ground following
the administrations of Temer and Bolsonaro—both of which have pro-
moted the dismantling of social welfare policies that had been imple-
mented in previous years; (3) union organization has suffered attacks and
restrictions imposed by Temer’s administration and, particularly, by
Bolsonaro’s administration, which extinguished the Ministry of Labour,
shut down spaces for dialogue with unions, and assumed the position
that labour relations should be increasingly informal.
11
See https://www.diariopopular.com.br/opiniao/em-que-mais-o-brasileiro-acredita-157323/?n_
s i s t e m a = 4 1 2 8 & t y p e = j a n e l a & va r 1 = Em % 2 0 q u e % 2 0 m a i s % 2 0 o % 2 0 b r a s i l e i ro % 2 0
acredita&var2=04/01/2021 (accessed on July 2021).
After a sharp drop in GDP between the end of 2014 and 2016, the
Brazilian economy has been recovering very slowly,12 with no prospects of
reaching again the economic levels of early 2014.13 During this process of
recession and prolonged economic stagnation—with high levels of indus-
trial idle capacity, unemployment, and informal and precarious work—
the living conditions of the Brazilian population are deteriorating rapidly.
Employment in more structured industries is in a downward trend, espe-
cially in intermediate-level occupations, and precarious work is spreading
rapidly in low-productivity industries and among low-skilled, informal,
and self-employed (as a survival strategy) workers.
The unemployment rate, which was only 6.5% by the end of 2014—a
historically low level—has practically doubled, rising to 12.0% in 2016
and 13.9% by the end of 2020; it is even higher among women (16.4%)
and young people (25.8%).14 The number of workers with secure jobs
and guaranteed rights fell from 38.3 million in 2015 to 35.4 million by
the end of 2019, while informal employment rose from 14.5 million
workers by the end of 2014 to 16.4 million in 2019. The number of self-
employed workers grew from 21.6 million in 2014 to 24.6 million in
2019, reaching close to 26% of the workforce in the first quarter of 2020.
Thus, between 2016 and 2019, what expanded the most was informality
and precarious occupations.15 The income of the poorest 5% in Brazil fell
39% and extreme poverty increased 67%, accounting for 8.2 million
Brazilians. In 2019, the wealthiest 1% received, on average, 33.7 times as
much as the income of the half of the population with the lowest
income.16
12
The main indicators of the 2016–2019 period illustrate this trend. There was a drop in both GDP
(−0.35%) and real GDP per capita (−3.4%), which means that Brazilians individually became, on
average, 3.4% poorer. As income was at the same time becoming increasingly concentrated, the
effect on vulnerable workers was even more dramatic, forcing more than 52 million into poverty as
of 2016.
13
Between 2004 and 2014, labour market indicators improved substantially, which facilitated
union achievements in collective bargaining (Krein & Dias, 2018).
14
Check PNADC/IBGE for the fourth quarter of 2020.
15
Data for 2020 indicate a drop in informality, as the population working in precarious conditions
was suddenly without work and income. That year, more than 10 million workers were driven out
of the workforce.
16
Published by IBGE in 2019 in reference to Income from All Sources. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.
br/visualizacao/livros/liv101709_informativo.pdf.
Therefore, in addition to the fact that the unemployment rate had

almost doubled, the remaining jobs tend to became precarious, so that,
in 2019—that is before the pandemic—this survival-strategy-type of
work came to represent a larger share of the Brazilian labour market when
compared to the period of the economic crisis of the 1980s.17 This form
of precarious work, which does not grant workers any rights, is precisely
the type of work that has been most exposed by the pandemic. Because
these workers are deprived of any right, including the right not to risk
contracting Covid-19, they are forced to continue working even without
proper sanitary conditions.
The process of increasing precariousness of work was accelerated by the
expansion of the scope of outsourcing in 2017 and by the labour reform
approved that same year, which terminates or restricts rights and give
employers greater freedom to determine the conditions for hiring, utiliz-
ing, and paying their workers. One should bear in mind that the state, to
a great extent, determines the rules governing employment relations in
Brazil: the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the Consolidation of Labour
Laws (CLT), established in 1943, specify national standards for wages,
working hours, and job stability, among other labour rights; these laws
also constitute the country’s union legislation. However, the labour
reform introduced new forms of precarious employment contracts, inten-
sified the de-standardization of working hours and pay, and authorized
the derogation of rights through collective bargaining and, in some cases,
individual negotiation (Galvão et al., 2017; Krein et al., 2018). The
reform also negatively affected unions in the following aspects:
1. because negotiations may prevail over the law, collective agreements

signed between unions and employers have the authority to restrict
rights guaranteed by the law.
2. collective bargaining has weakened from both a quantitative perspec-
tive (the number of signed agreements dropped) and a qualitative per-
spective (agreements are currently more unfavourable for workers
than in the past) (Colombi, Teixeira & Pelatieri 2021).
17
For instance, self-employment rose sharply between 1980 and 2020 (from 17% to 26%), with
80% of these occupations not being registered with a public agency (PNADC/IBGE)—despite the
existing public policies for formalizing the small business.
3. the encouragement of the use of unusual employment contracts and

outsourced work restricts the unions’ social bases, thus reducing union
membership rates.
4. since union assistance is not mandatory when terminating an employ-
ment contract, and because workers face difficulties when trying to
appeal to Labour Court, the role of unions in the realization of labour
rights is weakened.
Even before the labour reform, the growth of precarious work was
driven by other aspects, which, by extension, also impacted unions. We
will now address some aspects affecting the cases we intend to discuss.
With respect to teachers, it is noteworthy that neoliberal reforms were
implemented throughout the 1990s and 2000s, leading to cuts in
resources for public education, closure of schools and classrooms, con-
tinuous devaluation of the profession, and precariousness of work. The
number of students per class increased while the number of jobs reduced,
augmenting the teacher’s workload. Changes in retirement rules made it
difficult for teachers to access this benefit. The dissemination of types of
employment contracts that are more flexible and precarious—in which
there is no real employment relationship—affected wages and working
hours. All these changes impacted this occupational group objectively
and subjectively, leading to a significant increase in health problems
(Souza, 2013; Zafalão, 2019).
With respect to motorcycle couriers, it should be mentioned that the
encouragement of entrepreneurship through formal arrangements such
as the PJ (Pessoa Jurídica or legal person, that is a legal entity) or MEI
(Micro-empresário individual, that is, Individual Micro-Entrepreneur)18
on the one hand, and the growth of platform work on the other, promote
the disguising of the employment relationship and increase the number
of workers deprived of social protection. With the spread of the uberiza-
tion phenomenon (Abilio, 2020a), workers are stripped of their rights
and removed from their representative bodies.
18
Both the PJ and MEI are options for the legal registration of a professional activity, and they
involve the opening of an individual firm.
The number of platform workers increased drastically after the eco-

nomic crisis of 2015: between 2016 and 2020, the number of private
drivers19 increases from 1.39 to 2.02 million (+ 600,000, an increase of
41%); the number of motorcycle drivers grew 39.2%, rising from
522,100 to 729,700 (+ 200,000) in the same period (Manzano & Krein,
2020). Teachers represent a rather stable group, so only very small
variations were detected in this occupational group.
Education workers in the public sector form a very active “union sec-
tor”, in contrast with their counterparts in private schools—which repre-
sent a fairly large industry in Brazil. The total number of elementary and
high school teachers (including the education of adults and young peo-
ple) in Brazil is 2.88 million, 78.8% of which are working in the public
sector and 21.2% in the private sector (Hirata, Oliveira, & Mereb, 2019).
Although we classify the APEOESP as a civil service organization, it is
important to stress that, given the creation of new types of employment
contracts in recent decades, this union, which was born exclusively out of
the civil service, no longer represents only those working under the civil
servants’ statute but rather a variety of professionals working under dif-
ferent statutes in the public education system.
The APEOESP’s social base underwent significant changes because of
the diversity of employment contracts and conditions. Only about two-
thirds of its social base have stability and other benefits linked to the
statutory regime: this is the so-called “category A”,20 into which teachers
who passed a public service examination enter. The estimated number of
“category A” teachers is about 65,000, a number that has been declining
since the examinations were halted in 2013. In 2020, around 35,000
19
This category includes private car drivers and taxi drivers (including those who provide this ser-
vice through digital platforms). Available data do not inform on the number of platform workers
in this category. However, as the number of workers in this category increased significantly, one can
make an educated guess that a considerable number of workers are platform workers.
20
“In September [2020], a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) showed that Brazilian teachers have much lower pay than the average of the
38 OECD member countries and eight guest countries such as Brazil. A high school teacher earns
up to the equivalent of U$S 25,966 per year, while the average among OECD member countries
is U$S 49,778.” See http://www.apeoesp.org.br/noticias/noticias-2020/golpe-contra-a-educacao/.
Teachers were left without wage adjustment between 2014 and 2018; in 2018 their salary increase
covered only 25% of their losses from inflation. Available at: https://www.pebsp.com/
evolucao-da-remuneracao-dos-professores-do-estado-de-sao-paulo-x-salario-minimo/.
teachers were working in the public sector under precarious contracts,

without the same benefits received by their “category A” counterparts.
About 30,000 of the teachers under precarious contracts are in the so-
called “category O”—they have a contract (public employment), but
they do not have stability since they work under fixed-term contracts. In
addition to not having the same benefits as teachers under the statutory
regime, they have no guarantees that they will be assigned to a class
because they are called only if the vacancies in their region are not filled
by the teachers in “category A”. A smaller share of teachers is exposed to
an even higher level of vulnerability: the so-called occasional teachers, or
“category V”, who are not assigned classes nor have a fixed place of work
and are paid according to the number of hours worked in a classroom.
They are paid US$ 2.10 per hour (exchange rate of May 2021), which is
extremely low even by Brazilian standards. These teachers are not required
to have completed their training to teach, they may teach subjects unre-
lated to their field of education, and they are summoned according to the
momentary need of a particular school. It is work on demand, in which
workers do not have any contract, bringing them closer to digital plat-
form workers.21
L abour Relations and Union Action of Teachers

and Delivery Couriers from the Political
and Economic Crisis to the Pandemic
APEOESP
In line with the standard among civil servants’ unions, APEOESP’s per-
formance is historically defined by a high number of strikes,22 usually,
long-lasting strikes that come to an end after a large number of missed
21
The fact that these teachers are working without a contract, being paid per class, and submitted
to the logic of on-demand services corresponds to some of the main characteristics of what we later
came to call uberization (Venco, 2019). Some teacher app initiatives have recently been considered,
although so far they have not prospered (see https://www.redebrasilatual.com.br/blogs/blog-na-
rede/2020/01/uberizacao-precarizacao-professores/).
22
The union went on strike in three of the last eight years: 2014, 2018 and 2021.
workdays. Strikes and demonstrations by teachers are recurrent, and their

claims include not only salary adjustments but also issues related to edu-
cation policy and reforms (Silva, 2013). The fight for better conditions
for temporary workers allowed for a share of these workers to achieve
stability. The union also successfully managed to extend the contract
period of “category O” teachers from two to three years. Finally, in 2018,
they succeeded in reducing the time gap between one contract and
another and even maintain the contract after termination.
Despite being one of the most prominent Brazilian unions, with great
mobilization capacity and high union density, the APEOESP was not
able to reverse the growth of precarious work among teachers in general.
First, “Category A” teachers accumulate losses of pay. Second, despite an
intense mobilization against the pensions reform—in coordination with
civil servants from other occupational groups—and a series of court bat-
tles, the union mobilization was defeated, and the reform was sanctioned
in 2019. This reform increased the civil servants’ pension contribution
from 11% to 14% of salary and the number of years in work and rede-
fined the rules for calculating the pensionable earnings. Finally, despite
some advances concerning the situation of “category O” teachers, the
number of precarious contracts among teachers in general increased.
During the pandemic, the APEOESP and other organizations repre-
senting education professionals struggled in the absence of public educa-
tion policies. First, teachers lack the conditions to carry out remote
education; as in other countries, schools were closed to restrict circulation
and maintain social distance (GESTRADO/CNTE, 2020; PPGEd-So,
2020). Difficulties arising from the overlapping of remote teaching and
housework, especially for women, and the lack of structure, equipment,
and qualification for using technology stand out. The second challenge
refers to the imposed return of in-person learning without proper plan-
ning and protective measures.
As a measure to restrict Covid transmission, the APEOESP closed its
headquarters, but doing so did not stop union mobilization. Although
union members began assisting teachers remotely, by telephone, the
union have kept their legal assistance team on duty at the headquarters.
A hotline has also been made available to report irregularities found in
schools when they are open; the goal is not only to report cases of con-
tamination but also instances of moral harassment and abuse of power.
Moreover, given the lack of transparency of the federal government,
the APEOESP created an online list to publicize all cases of COVID-19
among teachers. The survey began on 26 January 2021, when in-person
activities and classes had been resumed in the public education system of
the State of São Paulo—by 1 July, 2715 cases had been reported in 1194
different schools, leading to a total of 103 deaths.23
During this period, all public discussions and official meetings of
APEOESP’s council of representatives were held remotely. The union
petitioned and resorted to legal channels to stop the reopening of schools;
it also turned to the Public Prosecution Office for support in their effort
to oppose the Remote Education proposal presented by the State of São
Paulo government. In addition, it organized campaigns on Twitter (tuita-
ços), motorcade rallies, street protests, and a strike.24 The APEOESP has
mainly called for in-person learning to not be resumed and for teachers
to be prioritized in the vaccination programme. It also sought to defend
and guide teachers in more precarious positions (with insecure contracts)
to request emergency aid25 in case of need. Moreover, the union’s offices
were instructed to set up “solidarity committees” to raise money, food,
and cleaning materials for teachers in the occasional category who had
their contracts suspended (no classes assigned) or teachers in general who
are not receiving their wages.
The union is also carrying out a campaign “in defence of life”, mainly
in social media, calling for basic rights that exceed the demands of its
occupational group. For instance, they demand that constitutional
amendment no. 95, which freezes spending on health and education, be
repealed. Moreover, they advocate for the taxation of large fortunes, the
23
Seeupdateddataat:http://www.apeoesp.org.br/publicacoes/educacao/casos-de-contaminacao-pelo-covid-
19-na-rede-estadual-de-ensino/.
24
To check records of the campaigns, go to: http://www.apeoesp.org.br/busca/mobilizacao/.
25
The National Congress approved an emergency aid package for unemployed workers in the pan-
demic, which was available between April and December 2020. Teachers without assigned classes
and income were among the beneficiaries.
guarantee of employment and income for all workers, and the strength-
ening of the public health system (SUS), among other policies.26
Sindimoto
For its part, Sindimoto been seeking to represent—since its creation in

1991—a category of workers characterized by the precariousness of work,
a group with a high number of informal workers deprived of rights.
Before the arrival of delivery platforms in Brazil, these workers were
divided into three distinct subgroups: (1) the self-employed, usually ser-
vice providers working for a single company; (2) those hired by delivery
companies providing services to steady and occasional customers; (3)
those hired directly by a company to deliver goods. Workers in these two
last subgroups were, by and large, properly registered, and thus had access
to labour rights and pension benefits, despite their low salaries. They had
some degree of stability in terms of working hours and income, some-
thing they lost when they started working through digital platforms, as
they are now only paid for what they produce. As a result, they extend as
much as possible their working hours, during which time they are avail-
able to companies and under the control of algorithms (Abilio, 2019).
As we have already mentioned, although the Brazilian union structure
does not prevent self-employed or informal workers from organizing, its
characteristics make it harder for them to do so. Nevertheless, Sindimoto,
which seeks unionize informal workers and integrate them into the for-
mal sector, has been targeting delivery platforms since 2016. These com-
panies deny the existence of an employment relationship between
platform workers and platforms, arguing that workers are “free” to join
different platforms and determine when, where, and for how long they
will do so. The union demands that the work of delivery couriers be regu-
lated by the Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho, that is, Consolidation of
Labour Laws (CLT), thus recognizing their employment relationship and
extending to them the rights guaranteed to any formal worker; however,
26
See the publication of April 2020—http://www.apeoesp.org.br/publicacoes/cr-rr-conselho-de-
representantes/boletim-crrr-abril-de-2020/.
this is not a consensual position among couriers. While the union advo-
cates that delivery couriers should be legally recognized as employees, a
share of this category of workers wishes to remain self-employed, and yet
another supports the creation of a new work status—and the passing of
bills in Congress that recognize them as on-demand workers (Abilio,
2020b).27 These different claims and views regarding the legal framework
for their occupational group makes delivery couriers resistant to recog-
nizing Sindimoto as their sole representative; for this reason, they have
created several non-union associations and collectives to represent them
(Campos et al., 2021b).28
Delivery platform couriers came into the spotlight during the pan-
demic as a result of the increased demand for delivered goods due to
social isolation and the expansion of e-commerce. Because their service
was deemed essential, their precarious working conditions—which were
captured by various studies—became evident. Manzano and Krein
(2020) analysed nationwide data from the Continuous National
Household Sample Survey (PNAD-C) and found that the informality
rate among motorcycle couriers, which was already high before the spread
of platform work, rose from 67.0% to 71.8% between the first quarter of
2016 and the first quarter of 2020. Although the number of people work-
ing as motorcycle couriers increased by 39.2% in the same period, their
average monthly income fell, standing at R$ 1199.00 in the first quarter
of 2020, a value slightly higher than the minimum wage (R$ 1045.00).
Abilio et al. (2020) also identified a reduction in these workers’ pay and
a lack of responsibility from platform companies in what concerns the
adoption of preventive measures against Covid-19 and the availability of
personal protective equipment. Both studies note that this category of
27
Almeida et al. (2021) identified 61 bills introduced in Congress in 2020; however, none was
passed until May 2021.
28
Some of the organizations that stand out are the Associação de motofretistas de aplicativos e
autônomos do Brasil (AMABR, or Association of Motorcycle Couriers and Autonomous Workers
of Brazil) and the Treta no Trampo (Mess at Work) collective, both acting in defence of better work-
ing conditions for the self-employed; and Entregadores Antifascistas (Anti-Fascist Couriers), an orga-
nization that sees a strong connection between the fight for labour rights and the fight for
democracy, and also advocates for the recognition of an employment relationship between workers
and platform companies.
workers is predominantly male and black, showing an intersection of the

categories of class and ethnic/racial origin.
During the pandemic, Sindimoto continued visiting workplaces and
provided an on-call legal team to assist workers who had been unfairly
blocked by platform companies. Acting in defence of workers’ health has
become one of the union’s main concerns, expressed in their demand that
companies provide workers with PPE, in the dissemination of prevention
guidelines, and distribution of protection kits for workers. This initia-
tive—along with their campaign to distribute food—is aimed at all
motorcycle couriers, including informal workers and those not affiliated
with the union, and is carried out in partnership with companies adver-
tising in their monthly newspaper. Sindimoto also criticizes the govern-
ment for authorizing motorcycle delivery services to run without proper
health safety conditions, calling for the adoption of health measures spe-
cifically designed for motorcycle couriers. Moreover, they want to be
included in the annual flu vaccination programme and in the priority list
for vaccination against Covid-19 (Campos et al., 2021b).29 Although the
union supports public policies for this industry, it is not engaged in the
political education of its base, which partially explains why this category
of workers is not much involved with protecting universal rights, and
even why they hardly advocate for public labour regulation. Until the
pandemic, the union’s action had a rather corporatist nature, so that no
coordinated action with other categories of workers were taken.
In 2020 and 2021, delivery couriers organized several demonstra-
tions—among which were the well-publicized “breque dos APPs” (a break
on apps)—calling for an increase in their pay per delivery, the end of
blockades and suspensions from platforms, and better working condi-
tions.30 Sindimoto sought to get involved in these mobilizations, calling
on its members to participate in the demonstrations; however, as already
mentioned, a proportion of these workers rejects the union. Most of the
demonstrations were organized outside of the union, through social
29
SindimotoSP calls for the inclusion of motorcycle couriers in the priority groups for vaccination.
Newspaper A Voz do Motoboy (The voice of the motoboy), no. 119, Jan 2021, p.6. Available at:
https://sindimotosp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ED_119.pdf.
30
Among these are paid leave for those infected with Covid-19, meal allowance, life insurance, and
accident and theft insurance.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
is hollow. It is a worthless canoe;
a hollow canoe. A canoe that will
never reach the ocean.”
When Keawenuiaumi heard this A lohe o Keawenuiaumi i keia

call from the birds the tree-felling leo o na manu, haalele i ke oki
was abandoned. As the birds ana i ke koa, no ke kahea mau o
kept up this calling continually na manu pea i na la a pau loa;
Keawenuiaumi became vexed nolaila, uluhua o Keawenuiaumi,
and thereupon made up his mind a manao iho la oia e imi i kanaka
to go in search of a skillful archer akamai i ka pana pua i make na
to come and kill the birds. About manu. Ua hiki aku ke kaulana o
this time the fame of Mainele as Mainele ma Hawaii a puni i ka
an archer reached Hawaii, so pana iole, nolaila olelo o
Keawenuiaumi made a vow, Keawenuiaumi me ka hoohiki:
“That if Mainele would kill the “Ina e make na manu ia Mainele,
birds he should receive the alaila, lilo kana kaihamahine i
king’s daughter in marriage 15 wahine na Mainele, a me kekahi
together with a portion of the aoao o Hawaii.”
island of Hawaii.” Upon the
arrival of Keawenuiaumi’s A hiki na elele a Keawenuiaumi i
messengers in Oahu, Mainele Oahu nei, hai ia Mainele i na
was informed of the wish of the olelo a Keawenuiaumi. Ia lohe
king. As soon as Mainele heard ana o Mainele i keia holo ona i
that he was wanted on Hawaii, Hawaii, hoomakaukau iho la ia i
he immediately prepared his na waa a me na kanaka holo pu
double canoe and got together me ia. [461]
his men who were to accompany
him. [460]
When Kauakahi, the man who O Kauakahi, ke kanaka nana i

found Pikoiakaalala sleeping on lawe o Pikoiakaalala, ia ia e moe
the sand, heard of the ana ma ka ae one mahope o
contemplated trip to be made by kona pae ana mai Kauai mai,
Mainele to Hawaii, he went to olelo aku la ia ia Pikoiakaalala:
Pikoiakaalala and told him of “E holo ana o Mainele i Hawaii e
what he had heard, saying: pana ai i na manu, ua hiki mai
“Mainele is going to Hawaii to nei na elele a Keawenuiaumi.”
shoot birds for Keawenuiaumi; “Ae, ina oe e manao e holo au, e
the messengers have just pii oe i ie, a ulana hokeo, i wahi
arrived from Hawaii.” no’u e noho ai, i ole au e ike ia e
Pikoiakaalala answered: “If you Mainele, a e olelo no hoi oe, he
wish me to go along you had hokeo akua nou. Pela au e hiki
better go up and get some ie ai.” Hana iho la o Kauakahi e like
vines and make a basket in the me na olelo a Pikoiakaalala, a
shape of a calabash for me to makaukau ka hinai ie, a me ka
hide in, so that I may not be holo o Mainele.
seen by Mainele, and you can
say that it is a basket for the safe
keeping of your god. This will be
the means of getting me to
Hawaii.” Kauakahi then followed
out the instructions given by
Pikoiakaalala and had the basket
made, and the trip with Mainele
arranged.
When Mainele’s preparations I aku o Mainele ia Kauakahi: “E

were finally completed, he holo kaua i Hawaii.” Ae mai o
approached Kauakahi and said: Kauakahi: “Ae, he ae no ko’u i
“Let us sail to Hawaii.” Kauakahi ka holo me oe i Hawaii, aia nae
replied: “All right, I am willing to a ae oe i ka’u olelo.” “Heaha ia ia
go to Hawaii with you providing olelo?” wahi a Mainele. “He
you give me your consent to do hokeo akua no’u, he kapu kona
what I want.” “What is it you waa e kau ai, aohe kanaka e kau
want?” asked Mainele. “I have a ma kona waa, owau wale no.”
basket where my god is kept. Ua pono ia olelo ia Mainele. I ka
The canoe in which this god is to la o lakou i holo ai i Hawaii, kau
be taken, as I want to take it aku la o Mainele ma kona mau
along, must be tabued and no kaulua, me na ohua a me na
one must be allowed to take hoewaa; o Kauakahi me
passage in it outside of myself.” Pikoiakaalala i loko o ka hokeo
This was satisfactory to Mainele. ie ma ko laua waa, mahope ka
On the day agreed on for the hokeo, mamua o Kauakahi.
voyage to start for Hawaii,
Mainele, his followers and
paddlers boarded their double
canoe, while Kuakahi and
Pikoiakaalala, who was in the
basket, boarded their canoe, the
basket in the after part and
Kuakahi in the fore part of the
canoe.
A few words of explanation Olelo hoakaka no ka hokeo ie.

relating to the basket. This was No ka hakahaka o ka ulana ana,
made with several openings komo ka makani i loko, aole e
which allowed a free current of pau ke aho, nolaila i komo ai o
air and enabled Pikoiakaalala to Pikoiakaalala i loko e noho ai. A
sit therein. After leaving Oahu to hala o Oahu nei mahope o
their rear, the canoes after a lakou, hoalulu na waa o lakou
quick passage, were laid to off mawaho o ka pali o Kaholo, i
the cliffs of Kaholo, at Lanai, on Lanai, a ahiahi, hina ke kehau o
the afternoon of that same day. Kahalapalaoa mahope o na waa,
In the evening the breeze from holo aku la lakou mai ia ahiahi a
Kahalepalaoa which came owakawaka kai ao o ke
directly from behind them sent kakahiaka nui, nana aku la lakou
their canoes flying along at such i ka wailele o Kawaikapu i na pali
a rate of speed that by dawn of hulaana, e kupono ana i
the next morning they were able Makaukiu ma Kohala i Hawaii.
to make out the waterfall of Aia hoi, he hulaana, o
Kawaikapu on the steep cliffs of Kuukuunaakaiole ka inoa e
Makaukiu, Kohala, Hawaii. At hamama mai ana kona waha i
this place is a sort of a bay kahi a na waa e holo aku nei. I
surrounded by high cliffs which aku o Pikoiakaalala ia Kauakahi:
opens directly to the sea and “E olelo aku oe ia Mainele e
which was right ahead of the pana aku i ka waha o ka iole e
canoes as they were pouliuli mai nei.” A lohe o
approaching land; the name of Mainele i ka olelo a Kauakahi,
the place is Kuukuunaakaiole. hoole maila: “Aohe iole, he pali
Pikoiakaalala upon seeing where ia; he kanaka lalau oe.”
they were said to Kauakahi: “Tell
Mainele to shoot at the mouth of
the rat which is dimly seen
ahead of us.” When Mainele
heard this he replied to
Kauakahi: “That is not a rat, that
is a cliff, you are mistaken.”
Upon passing the cliffs they A haalele lakou i na pali

continued on their way to Hilo, at hulaana, po a ao hiki lakou ma
which place they arrived the next Hilo a pae ma ke awa o
day and landed at Kaipalaoa. Kaipalao; pii na mea a pau a hiki
Everybody upon landing i kahi o Keawenuiaumi, koe o
proceeded to the place where Kauakahi me ka hokeo ie ana. I
Keawenuiaumi was at that time aku o Mainele: “E pii kaua.”
residing with the exception of Olelo mai o Kauakahi: “Aole au e
Kauakahi and his basket. When pii a hiki kuu hokeo akua. Ia lohe
Mainele saw that Kauakahi was ana o Mainele, kauoha aku la o
left behind he asked him: “Let us Mainele ia Keawenuiaumi i
go on up?” Kauakahi replied: “I kanaka no ka hokeo akua e hiki
will not go on up unless the ai i uka. Kena mai la o
basket which my god is in goes Keawenuiaumi eha kanaka, amo
with me.” When Mainele heard aku la i ka hokeo ie a hiki i ka
this, he requested of hale, olelo aku o Kauakahi ia
Keawenuiaumi that men be Mainele: “Aole kakou e pono ke
furnished to carry the basket noho ma ka hale hookahi me ke
along up to the house, ’kua o kaua, e aho e olelo oe ia
whereupon Keawenuiaumi Keawenuiaumi i wahi hale no
ordered four men to pack the maua.” Olelo aku la o Mainele ia
basket to the house. Upon their Keawenuiaumi, i [463]hale no ke
arrival at the house, Kauakahi akua o laua me Kauakahi;
spoke to Mainele: “I don’t think it mahope oia lohe ana, aohe i
right for us to live in the same upuupu iho paa ka hale,
house with our god; it is best that haawale o Kauakahi me ka
you ask Keawenuiaumi that a hokeo ie. O keia mau hana a
small house be given me where I pau loa, na Pikoiakaalala wale
can live with the god.” Mainele no, i ole oia e ike ia e Mainele a
therefore requested of me na kanaka.
Keawenuiaumi for [462]a house
for the god and Kauakahi. As
soon as the king heard this,
orders were given that a small
house be built, which was
finished in no time, where
Kauakahi moved in with his
basket. This request was really
made at the wish of
Pikoiakaalala, in order that he
might not be seen by Mainele
and the people.
On the second day of their I ka lua o ka la o lakou ma Hilo,

arrival at Hilo, Keawenuiaumi, pii o Keawenuiaumi me Mainele i
Mainele and the people kahi o ke koa waa, a na manu e
proceeded up into the koa forest hea ai, me ka auamo ia o ka
where the tree that had been hokeo ie. A hiki pono lakou
already picked out was situated. malalo o ke kumu o ua koa nei,
On this trip the basket was noho kaawale aku la o Kauakahi
carried along, and when they me ka hokeo ie. Ia wa, ooki na
arrived at the tree, Kauakahi and kalai waa a Keawenuiaumi i ke
his basket remained at a little kumu o ke koa, kau ana na
distance from the others. The manu, kahea ana: “E,
king’s canoe makers then Keawenuiaumi e! Aohe waa, he
proceeded to cut down the tree. puha. He waa ino, he waa puha.
Just as soon as this was done He waa hiki ole i ka moana.”
the birds lit on the tree and
called out: “Say, Keawenuiaumi!
You cannot make a canoe [out of
this tree], it is hollow. It is a
worthless canoe, a hollow
canoe. A canoe that will never
reach the ocean.”
As soon as the people heard the Lohe na mea a pau loa, pana o
call, Mainele shot at the birds, Mainele i ka pua, aohe launa ae
but his arrow did not come i na manu. Hana ke olokea he
anywhere near them on account alanui e pii ae ai a waena o ke
of the height of the tree. A koa pana ae, aohe no he launa
staging was then built up which ae i na manu. Hawanawana aku
reached about half way up the o Pikoiakaalala ia Kauakahi: “E
tree, but even then Mainele’s ninau alu oe ia Mainele a me
arrow did not reach the birds. Keawenuiaumi heaha keia ku
Pikoiakaalala then whispered to ole o na manu? He pana ole ia
Kauakahi: “Ask Mainele and paha i ka pua, ina paha e pana
Keawenuiaumi why the birds are ia ku na manu.” A lohe o Mainele
not hit. Perhaps Mainele was not i keia olelo a Kauakahi, i mai la:
shooting at them, if he did he “Aole no la hoi e pana ae; aia no
would hit them.” When Mainele hoi ka manu ke kau mai la, eia
heard the remarks of Kauakahi, ka pua, pana ae no hoi paha,
he replied: “Why don’t you shoot malama o ku ia oe.” I aku o
at them yourself? There are the Kauakahi: “Ae, e olelo ae au i
birds, here is the bow and here kuu akua a nana e pana na
are the arrows, go ahead and manu.” Ia wa ku ana o
shoot, may be you will hit them.” Pikoiakaalala mai loko ae o ka
At this Kauakahi replied: “All hokeo ie me kana pua pana iole.
right, I will ask my god to shoot Alaila, ike o Mainele a me na
the birds.” Pikoiakaalala then kanaka o Oahu aku nei he
came out of the basket with his kanaka ko loko o ka hokeo ie.
rat shooting arrows to the Olelo aku o Pikoiakaalala ia
surprise of Mainele and the Keawenuiaumi: “I poi wai, e lawe
Oahu people that accompanied mai a malalo o ke kumu o ke koa
him, for they had not known that nei kukulu.” I loko oia wa pana o
a man had been in this basket all Pikoiakaalala i na manu; kulou
this time. Upon coming up to iho la kona poo i loko o ke poi
Keawenuiaumi, Pikoiakaalala wai, e nana ana i ke aka o na
requested that a basin of water manu i kupono ka pua ke pana,
be brought and made to stand o ka lima me ka pua iluna kahi i
under the tree. As soon as this pana ai, o na maka i loko o ke
was done Pikoiakaalala came poi kahi i hooponopono ai i ke
and stood over the basin; while kupono. Ia pana ana, ku na
he looked into the basin at the manu a elua, pahu ana i lalo,
reflection of the birds in the uwa ka aha kanaka i ke akamai
water, he held his arms above o Pikoiakaalala.
his head with his bow bent and
his arrow aimed at the birds; as
soon as he saw that the birds
were in line he let fly his arrow
which flew true to the mark
hitting both birds and they came
tumbling down to the ground.
The people upon seeing this
great skill shown by
Pikoiakaalala gave a mighty
shout.
Keawenuiaumi, true to his word Lilo ke kaikamahine a

gave his daughter to Keawenuiaumi ia Pikoiakaalala a
Pikoiakaalala to wife and also me kekahi aoao o Hawaii waiwai
gave him a portion of Hawaii, o Kauakahi, hilahila o Mainele a
which made Kauakahi a very rich hoi mai i Oahu nei. [464]
man. Mainele was so ashamed
that he immediately returned to
Oahu. [451]
1 This name, showing Pikoi’s descent,

is a departure from the customary
form, being not only of, or from, Alala,
but is more definite as from ka (the)
Alala. ↑
2 Kaulamawaho, outside rope;
Kekakapuomaluihi, “the arrow
shooting of Maluihi”. ↑
3 Ike ole laua, as translated here, may
also mean “they did not know”, or
“were unaware”, etc. ↑
4 Olohu, name of a stone disk for a
rolling game, which takes the same
name. ↑
5 Pahee, a favorite betting game of
sliding a stick along a grass or
gravel course. ↑
6 Koieie, probably the same as koieiei,
a play at a flowing stream where the
incoming tide or current will return the
object thrown. The sport of sliding down
the rapids, as in Samoa or other islands
of Polynesia, takes the same name. ↑
7 E moe ana might mean simply “lying
down”, from his exhausted
condition. ↑
8 Rat shooting was a pastime of the
aliis. ↑
9 Kaukau alii, probably a prince, since
the term applied to a class of chiefs
below the king. ↑
10 The kalolo prayer was a petition
supplicating favors. ↑
11Aweoweo, a shrubby plant at various
altitudes (Chenopodium
sandwicheum). ↑
12Haumakaiole, an epithet applied to
one who is blear-eyed, from old
age. ↑
13 Hau, frost or misty; maka, eye; iole,
rat. ↑
14 Kuaiole, the upper ridge-pole of a
house. ↑
15 A stereotyped form of royal
recompense. ↑
[Contents]
Legend of Kaao No Kalelealuaka

Kalelealuaka and a Me
Keinohoomanawanui. Keinohoomanawanui.
The land where Kalelealuaka Oka aina i noho ai o

and Keinohoomanawanui lived Kalelealuaka a me
was Lihue, situated below and to Keinohoomanawanui, o Lihue e
the east of the Kaala mountains waiho ana malalo hikina o ka
on Oahu. The ground upon mauna o Kaala i Oahu. O ke
which the house stood is kahua hale nae, o Oahunui. O
“Oahunui”. At this time Kakuhihewa ke ’lii o Ewa a me
Kakuhihewa was the king of Ewa na aina e pili ana me ia; o
and of the districts adjoining; Pueonui ko Kona nei, oia mai
while Pueonui was the king of Moanalua a Makapuu, e noho
the district of Kona, embracing ana laua me ka paonioni a me
that stretch of country from ke kaua, kokoke e pau loa o
Moanalua to Makapuu. At this Ewa ia Pueonui.
time these two kings were
contending in war with each
other whereby Pueonui was
acquiring the Ewa lands.
Kalelealuaka was a very brave
and fearless man in battle and in
fighting. Kalelealuaka and
Keinohoomanawanui often spent
their time wishing for certain
things. The house in which they
lived faced directly towards Ewa.
Usually after partaking of their He kanaka koa loa o

evening meal they would light Kalelealuaka ma ke kaua a me
their kukui nut lamp and then lie ka hakaka. O ka laua hana me
down with their heads on their Keinohoomanawanui, o ke kuko.
pillows, look up at the roof, O ko laua hale, ua kupono ka
Kalelealuaka at one gable of the puka i kai o Ewa, o ko laua
house and Keinohoomanawanui manawa e kuko ai, o ka wa pau
at the other, when Kalelealuaka o ka paina ana o ke ahiahi e
would call out to pupuhi ana kukui, aia a hoi e
Keinohoomanawanui: “Let us moe, kau ke poo i ka uluna, huli
name our wishes.” ke alo iluna nana i kaupoku o ka
Keinohoomanawanui would then hale. Moe o Kalelealuaka ma
reply: “My wish is this: that we kona kala, moe o
sleep until the first crowing of the Keinohoomanawanui, ma kona
cock, then wake up and proceed kala, kahea aku o Kalelealuaka
down to the plain, pull up some ia Keinohoomanawanui: “O ke
ahuhu, 1 gather them together, kuko a kaua.” I mai o
continue on down to the beach, Keinohoomanawanui: “O ka’u
pound until soft, put the stuff into kuko, o ka moe o kaua a kani ka
the cracks, catch an eel, return moa kuakahi, iho a ke kula,
home, put the eel in banana huhuki auhuhu, a loaa, iho aku a
leaves, cook it in the oven kahakai, kui a wali, hoo aku i ka
underground; then at the second mawae o ka ala, make ka puhi,
crowing of the cock uncover the hoi mai a uka nei, haihai i ka lau
oven and place the cooked eel to maia, kalua, a kani ka moa, huai
one side to cool; after it is cooled ae a hoomaalili ma kapa. A
we will then proceed eating until maalili, ai kaua a maona, hoi aku
we have had our fill; when we a luna o ka hua moena, kau ke
will retire to our mats, place our poo i ka uluna, huli ae ke alo
heads on our pillows, face up to iluna, nana ae i kaupoku o ka
the roof and watch the rats race hale, liilii ka maka o ka iole, oia
along the battens. That is my ka’u kuko la i lohe oe.”
wish, I want you to know.”
Kalelealuaka would then reply: I aku o Kalelealuaka: “Aole kau

“That is no wish, I have the he kuko; o ka’u no ke kuko.”
proper wish.” “What is your “Pehea kau kuko?” wahi a
wish?” Keinohoomanawanui Keinohoomanawanui. “O na ilio
would ask. “That we may eat the nahu maka o Kakuhihewa na
dogs of Kakuhihewa that bite the kaua e ai; ka puaa kea o ka
face of people; that we may bake niho, na kaua e kalua; ke awa
the hog whose tusks are nui o na loko na kaua e ai, na
crossed; that we may eat the fat puawa ona na kaua e inu. Na
awa 2 of the fish ponds; that we Kakuhihewa no e mama a wali,
may drink of the best and most e hoka a loko o ke kanoa, e
intoxicating awa; that hoohee a loko o na apu; nana no
Kakuhihewa himself shall chew e hooinu i na waha o kaua, ona
the awa, strain it into the kaua, moe i ka ona awa a huli
containers, pour it out into the ae; nana no e lawe mai i na
cups, place the cups to our lips; kaikamahine ana a ma na aoao
and after we have slept off the o kaua hoomoe: oia ka’u kuko la
effects of the awa, that he bring i lohe oe.” “Kahaha, make kaua;
his daughters and make them kai no paha ma na mea e ae
our wives. That is my wish, I kaua e kuko ai, eia ka o ke ’lii
want you to know.” kau kuko; ina pela kou manao
Keinohoomanawanui then mamake kaua,” pela aku o
replied: “Say, we will get killed. I Keinohoomanawanui. Pela ko
thought we were to wish on other laua hana mau ana a hala ke
subjects; but I see your wish is in anahulu o na po a me na po
relation to the king. If that is your helelei, oia he mau po keu. O
wish we will surely get killed.” anahulu a me helelei. Anahulu,
This was carried on by these two he umi ia. Helelei, he keu
for ten nights and over. 3 mawaho o ka umi; oia ke ano
ma ka olelo kahiko o Hawaii nei.
Eia ke ano o keia mau inoa.
As their lamp was seen burning No keia a mau o ke kukui i na po

for several nights, Kakuhihewa a pau, uluhua o Kakuhihewa,
got vexed and ordered one of his kena i ke kiu e pii e nana i keia
spies to go on up and see what kukui a o ke aumoe. A hiki ke kiu
this midnight lamp was for. As ma waho, e olelo ana o
the [466]spy arrived and stood on Keinohoomanawanui [467]i kana
the outside of the house he a pau ia, olelo o Kalelealuaka i
heard Keinohoomanawanui kana a pau, hoomaha iho la
name his wish, which was laua. Kukulu iho la ke kanaka kiu
followed by Kalelealuaka, after i ka pahoa ma ka puka o ka hale
this the two became quiet. The a hoi mai la a hiki ia. Ninau aku
spy then stuck a short wooden la ke ’lii: “He kukui aha kela au i
dagger in the ground at the pii aku nei?” Hai mai la ke kiu i
entrance 4 of the house and na olelo a pau loa ana i lohe ai,
returned to the king. At his arrival a lohe ke ’lii i keia mau olelo. Aia
the king asked: “What was that me ke ’lii he kahuna; ui ae la ke
lamp burning for that you went ’lii: “Pehea kela kanaka o
up to see?” The spy then Kalelealuaka, he pono anei kana
repeated all he had heard. While olelo, aole anei?” I aku ke
the spy was repeating what he kahuna: “He pono kana olelo; o
had heard to the king, a priest ke kanaka ia puni ko aina; o na
was at this time with the king. At mea a pau ana i olelo mai ai, e
the conclusion of the recital, the hooko oe, o oe ponoi no ke hana
king turned to the priest and e like me ka olelo a ua kanaka
asked him: “What about that ala.” O keia mau olelo a pau loa,
man Kalelealuaka? Do you think ua hooko o Kakuhihewa ke ’lii;
his wish proper or not?” The eia nae, olelo aku ke kahuna i ke
priest replied: “What he has said ’lii: “I mau hale elua, i hookahi
should be carried out, because hale ai, i hookahi hale moe,
he will be the man to gain the hookahi la paa, alaila, kii ia o
conquest for you, so that you will Kalelealuaka a lawe mai.”
own the whole island. You must,
however, carry out every detail of
his wish with your own hands.”
On the advice of the priest,
Kakuhihewa 5 proceeded to carry
out in detail the wish made by
Kalelealuaka. The priest had,
however, instructed the king to
build two houses, one to serve
as an eating house and the other
a sleeping house; both to be built
and completed in one day and
then Kalelealuaka was to be sent
for and brought down.
When Kalelealuaka 6 and O Kalelealuaka a me

Keinohoomanawanui 7 woke up Keinohoomanawanui, i ko laua
in the morning and went out of ala ana i ke kakahiaka a hele
doors, they saw a wooden iwaho o ka hale, iko iho la laua
dagger sticking in the ground just he pahoa e ku ana ma ka puka o
outside of the entrance. At ka hale, ua kukuluia. I aku o
seeing this Keinohoomanawanui Keinohoomanawanui ia
said to Kalelealuaka: “We are Kalelealuaka: “Make kaua! Eia la
going to be killed. Here is a he pahoa ma ka puka o ka hale
wooden dagger at our door. We o kaua! Ua loaa. Aloha ino kaua
have been discovered. What a i ka make; o ka’u no ia e olelo
pity that we are to be killed. You aku ana ia oe e waiho ke ’lii,
can now see the consequences aohe make olelo.”
of disobeying my advice, not to
speak anything in connection
with the king.”
While they were discussing the Ia laua e kamailio ana no ka

dagger found at their door, they pahoa i kukulu ia ma ka puka o
looked down toward Ewa and ka hale, nana aku la laua i ka
saw a company of people moe mai o ke kaoo huakai
coming up toward them from the kanaka, mai kahi o ke ’lii a
king’s house all armed with kokoke i ko laua nei wahi, me na
stone axes from front to rear of koi lipi mai mua a hope o ka
the procession. At the sight of huakai. “Aia hoi paha ka make o
the people Keinohoomanawanui kaua la,” pela aku o
remarked: “There perhaps is our Keinohoomanawanui ia
death coming?” Kalelealuaka Kalelealuaka; makau wale. O
replied: “You coward.” The keia huakai, he poe ooki laau
company they saw coming was hale, e like me na olelo a ke
on their way to cut timber for the kahuna i ke ’lii, hookahi la ua
erection of the two houses as paa na hale elua.
advised by the priest. These
houses were completed in one
day.
how kalelealuaka and no ke kii ana ia

keinohoomanawanui kalelealuaka a me
were sent for and keinohoomanawanui, e
how they were taken lawe i kai o ewa imua o
to king kakuhihewa at ke ’lii o kakuhihewa.
ewa.
On the following day Ia po a ao ae, nana hou aku la o

Keinohoomanawanui again saw Keinohoomanawanui i nei
a large company of people huakai nui e pii mai ana mai kai
coming up from Ewa, all armed mai o Ewa, me na pololu, me ka
with spears and other ihe me ke kuia, me ka elau, me
instruments of war; some had na mahiole, me ka ahuula, me
war helmets and feather capes ka manele auamo. Hai aku o
while some had a litter for Keinohoomanawanui ia
carrying people. Upon seeing the Kalelealuaka, eia ka make o
people Keinohoomanawanui kaua ke kiina mai nei. Wahi a
turned to Kalelealuaka and said: Kalelealuaka: “Nana ia aku.” O
“Our death is now close upon Kalelealuaka, ke moi nei no me
us.” Kalelealuaka replied: “Keep kana laau palau, me ka maka’u
your eye on them.” Kalelealuaka ole me ka aa no e hakaka.
all this time was lying down with
his war club, showing no fear A hiki ka huakai ma waho o ka
and acting as though willing to hale o laua nei, eono poe
fight. When the people arrived kanaka ka puni o ka hale me ka
outside of the house, six of them makaukau i na mea make. Ia wa
surrounded the house all armed ala mai o Kalelealuaka me kana
with death weapons. Soon after laau [469]palau a uhau iho la i ka
this Kalelealuaka got up, hale, kaawale ae la elua mahele
stepped [468]outside with his war me ka lele liilii i o i anei. Olelo
club in hand, raised it and struck mai ka luna o na kanaka: “Aole
it on the house cutting it in two ka makou huakai he kaua a he
and scattering the grass and make; i kii mai nei makou ia oe e
timbers in all directions. The iho i kai o Ewa, ma ke kauoha a
officer in command of the ke ’lii a Kakuhihewa. Eia hoi ka
soldiers spoke up saying: “We manele la kau mai iluna.”
did not come here to inflict
death, but we have been sent to
bring you to Ewa by the orders of
Kakuhihewa, the king. Here is
the litter, get in.”
Before their arrival at Ewa, A hiki lakou nei i kai o Ewa, ua

Kakuhihewa had in the hoomakaukau ponoi o
meantime prepared with his own Kakuhihewa ke ’lii i na mea a
hands everything as advised by pau, e like me ka olelo a ke
the priest, as already set forth in kahuna i olelo mua ia ma ka
this story. The reason why hoomaka ana o keia kaao. O ke
Kakuhihewa had followed the kumu o keia hana ponoi a
instructions was because he Kakuhihewa, no ke ake e lilo nui
wanted to gain possession of all ko Pueonui aina ia ia, a no ka
of Pueonui’s lands, and also olelo kekahi a ke kahuna. Lilo ae
because the priest had advised la o Kalelealuaka i hunona na ke
him so. Kalelealuaka and ’lii a me Keinohoomanawanui,
Keinohoomanawanui were from hookahi hana a Kalelealuaka he
this time on taken as the king’s hiamoe i loko o ka hale me ka
sons-in-law. All Kalelealuaka did wahine, ke kaikamahine a
after this was to retire with the Kakuhihewa.
daughter of Kakuhihewa in one
of the houses prepared for them.
While they were living together I loko o keia wa a lakou e noho

at this time, war was again nei, hoomaka ke kaua o na ’lii, o
resumed between the two kings, Kakuhihewa a me Pueonui. O
Kakuhihewa and Pueonui. 8 Keinohoomanawanui lilo ae la ia
Keinohoomanawanui was at i luna koa, oia kekahi i hele i ke
once made one of the king’s kaua, ua lanakila ko lakou aoao
officers and he went out to take ma ke kaua ana me Pueonui. O
part in one of the battles, and in Kakuhihewa a me na koa kai
which Pueonui was beaten. hele i ke kaua i ke ao, ua nui ka
Kakuhihewa and his men went make ma ko Pueonui aoao, ua
out to fight during the daytime lanakila loa o
and they slew a great many of Keinohoomanawanui ma keia
Pueonui’s men. mau kaua ana, a ua manao ke
Keinohoomanawanui always ’lii o Kakuhihewa nana keia
gained the victory in these make.
battles so that in time the king
began to give
Keinohoomanawanui the credit
of such splendid results.
Kalelealuaka in the meantime No Kalelealuaka. I ke ao, moe

retired during the daytime, but at oia a kani ka moa kuakahi o ka
the first crow of the cock at early wanaao, hele e pepehi i na ’lii
dawn, he would get up and go koa o Pueonui. Mai lalo mai o
out and slay the officers in the Ewa e holo ai, a loaa na ’lii koa a
army of Pueonui. He would run me ke kaua i Kapukaki e nana
from Ewa to Kapukaki, the ala ia Halawa. Lawe kela i ka
heights looking down at Halawa, mahiole a me ka ahuula o na ’lii
where he would meet the officers a me na koa, hookahi laau palau
of the opposing army and fight e uhau ai ma ka akau, a pela ma
them single handed, striking on ka hema, ua pau loa ia poe
the right and then on the left. kaua; pela kana hana mau ana i
After slaying the enemy by the na po a pau me ka ike ole ia. A i
use of his war club he would kekahi po ana i hoi hou ai, ike ia
carry off their war helmets and e ke kanaka mahiai i Halawa. Ua
feather capes. This was carried luku aku o Kalelealuaka i na koa
on by him for several nights o Pueonui a pau i ka make, ua
without the knowledge of loaa ka ahuula a me ka mahiole,
anyone. One night as he was e huli hoi ana ia, a no kona
returning a farmer at Halawa mama loa aole maopopo kona
saw him. Kalelealuaka had slain mau helehelena. Nolaila,
several of Pueonui’s men, and hoomakakiu ua kanaka mahiai
secured some feather capes and nei i kekahi po hou mai, a ike ia
war helmets and was on his way ia Kalelealuaka e hele ae ana
home; but he was traveling at me ka mama loa, ia wa, pahu
such speed that the farmer was kela i ka ihe laumeki kohe o mua
unable to make out who he was. a ku i ka lima, i ka peahi mahope
On the night following the farmer mai, paa loa i loko ka upe o ka
thought he would lie in wait for ihe. Lalau iho la o Kalelealuaka i
this man; sure enough he saw ka ihe a uhaki ae la, paa no ka
Kalelealuaka going along at a upe i loko o ka lima.
very great rate of speed, so
taking up his spear whose point
was fixed like a hook, he threw it
and hit the man in the arm just
above the wrist; the spear point
entered and was made fast.
Kalelealuaka seizing the spear
tried to pull it out, but was unable
on account of the peculiar point,
so he broke it, leaving the point
still in the arm.
Pueonui was defeated and O Pueonui ua pio kona aoao, a

Kakuhihewa took possession of ua pau loa kona aina ia
all his lands. Kakuhihewa all this Kakuhihewa, ua manao hoi o
time thought Kakuhihewa na
Keinohoomanawanui was the Keinohoomanawanui keia pio o
cause of these victories over Pueonui, a me keia make o na
Pueonui and the slaughter of the kanaka. No ke kanaka mahiai.
men. In the meantime the farmer Hoole oia ia
refused to give Keinohoomanawanui: “Aole
Keinohoomanawanui the credit nana keia make o Pueonui, he
of these victories and declared kanaka e wale no ke kanaka
that the final defeat and death of nana e luku nei, aia a kokoke e
Pueonui was the work of a ao [471]hele keia kanaka. He
different man altogether, who kanaka mama loa, aohe lua, me
went out to fight only in the early ka laau palau i ka lima, a i ka hoi
morning. He described this ana mai me ka mahiole a me ka
unknown man as a very fast ahuula, ua pahu ia e a’u i ka ihe,
runner of whom he knew no a paa ka upe o ka ihe i loko o ka
equal; the man always carried a lima. Oia ka hoailona o ua
war club, and on his return would kanaka ala.”
come with war helmets and
feather capes. “I have wounded
him in the arm and I think [470]the
spear point is still in his arm. It
will be the means by which the
man could be recognized.”
When Kakuhihewa heard this, he A lohe o Kakuhihewa i keia mau

issued a call for everybody to olelo kukala aku la ia i kana olelo
come together, no man, woman kuahaua: “Aohe kanaka noho,
or child to remain at home, aohe wahine, aohe keiki. O ka
excepting those who when they mea ku ae a hina iho, oia ke
fell down were unable to get up noho aku, o ka mea mai hiki ole
again, and those who were so ke hele.” A akoakoa na mea a
sick that they could not walk. pau loa i kahi hookahi, hele ua
After everybody had come kanaka nei e nana i ka lima,
together, the farmer proceeded aohe loaa iki. Ninau aku la ia
to look for his man by looking at Kakuhihewa: “Aohe kanaka i
their arms; but he was unable to koe?” “Aole,” pela aku ke ’lii.
locate him. He then asked “Aka, o kuu hunona wale no koe
Kakuhihewa: “Is there no one e moe la i ka hale, aohe ana
left?” “None,” said the king, hana e loaa.” “E kii aku, e lawe
“except my son-in-law who is mai e nana aku au,” pela aku ke
asleep at home, and has done kanaka mahiai. A hiki mai la o
nothing requiring him.” “Send for Kalelealuaka, hoike mai la i kona
him and let me see [his arm],” lima, i nana iho ka hana e paa
said the farmer. When ana ka upe o ka ihe i ka lima.
Kalelealuaka came up to the “He oiaio, o keia kanaka ka mea
farmer and held up his arm the nana i luku ko Pueonui aoao a
point of the spear was found. pau i ka make. O ke kanaka keia
The farmer then remarked: a’u i hoomakaukiu ai i ke

The Representation of Workers in The Digital Era Raquel Rego Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Representation of Workers in The Digital Era Raquel Rego Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Representation of Workers in the

Digital Era Raquel Rego

The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in

Extremism in the Digital Era: The Media Discourse of

The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in

Water Conservation in the Era of Global Climate Change

Salman’s Legacy: The Dilemmas of a New Era in Saudi

Employee-Centric IT: Advancing the Digital Era Through

Oedipus Rex in the Genomic Era Yulia Kovas

The Collaborative Era in Science: Governing the Network

ISSN 2947-9290 ISSN 2947-9304 (electronic)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022

Cover illustration: Pattern © Harvey Loake

This book is financed by Portuguese funds through the Foundation for

Laura Beuker has a PhD in Political and Social Sciences. She is a

Sociology. His interests focus on trade unionism, sociological theories,

Economics (CESIT) and Professor at the Institute of Economics of the

main interests focus on associations of different types, having published

Table 2.1 Union membership data, selected years 20

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

democratization through to the means for worker exploitation. The aim

Keywords Unions’ representativeness • Unionism crisis • Self-­

The Genesis of This Book

challenge these traditional forms of workers’ representation but also to

 he Crisis in Trade Unionism and the Consequent Need

associate to compensate for their inferior power position while capital,

Trade unions base their legitimacy on their representation of workers’

 he Complexification of Precarious Work

of working standards is not a new thing, we more recently came to realise

talented, independent by choice workers and unpaid labour, such as the

The Aim of the Book

The Book Structure

existing repertoire of trade unions, a trend identified in Europe since the

A. Galvão • J. D. Krein (*) • M. Teixeira • P. Rocha Lemos

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 15

Keywords Economic crisis • Neoliberal hegemony • Brazil • Trade

increasing precarious work. Third, we present some characteristics of the

 he Tradition of Union Organization in Brazil

Table 2.1 Union membership data, selected years

small number of members. Because unions are state-aided entities—­

 he Impact of the Economic Crisis

Therefore, in addition to the fact that the unemployment rate had

1. because negotiations may prevail over the law, collective agreements

3. the encouragement of the use of unusual employment contracts and

The number of platform workers increased drastically after the eco-

teachers were working in the public sector under precarious contracts,

L abour Relations and Union Action of Teachers

workdays. Strikes and demonstrations by teachers are recurrent, and their

For its part, Sindimoto been seeking to represent—since its creation in

workers is predominantly male and black, showing an intersection of the

When Keawenuiaumi heard this A lohe o Keawenuiaumi i keia

When Kauakahi, the man who O Kauakahi, ke kanaka nana i

When Mainele’s preparations I aku o Mainele ia Kauakahi: “E

A few words of explanation Olelo hoakaka no ka hokeo ie.

Upon passing the cliffs they A haalele lakou i na pali

On the second day of their I ka lua o ka la o lakou ma Hilo,

Keawenuiaumi, true to his word Lilo ke kaikamahine a

1 This name, showing Pikoi’s descent,

Legend of Kaao No Kalelealuaka

The land where Kalelealuaka Oka aina i noho ai o

Usually after partaking of their He kanaka koa loa o

Kalelealuaka would then reply: I aku o Kalelealuaka: “Aole kau

As their lamp was seen burning No keia a mau o ke kukui i na po

Table 2.1 Union membership data, selected years 20

Keywords Unions’ representativeness • Unionism crisis • Self-

The Genesis of This Book

he Crisis in Trade Unionism and the Consequent Need

he Complexification of Precarious Work

The Aim of the Book

The Book Structure

he Tradition of Union Organization in Brazil

small number of members. Because unions are state-aided entities—

he Impact of the Economic Crisis

L abour Relations and Union Action of Teachers