Organizing Workfare Workers as Contingent Employees: Lessons from the New York City “Work Experience Program” Worker Unionization Campaign, 1996–1997

  • Victor G. DevinatzEmail author


The stated goal of the nation’s largest workfare program, New York City’s “Work Experience Program” (WEP), is to provide welfare recipients with adequate training and relevant job experience so that they can successfully compete for work in the private sector. When it became apparent that the program was not living up to its stated ideals, the workfare workers began a union organizing drive late in 1996. However, the city administration formally opposed the unionization campaign on economic grounds and by arguing that workfare workers were not employees per se. In this article, I argue that workfare workers are a type of contingent public sector employee, discuss and analyze the New York City WEP worker unionization campaign and provide recommendations how this drive could have used the idea that workfare workers are contingent public sector employees in pursuit of a potentially more successful outcome.

Key words

Workfare Union organizing Contingent employees Welfare policy 


  1. Aronowitz, S. (1998). From the ashes of the old: American labor and America’s future. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, C. A. (1995). Workfare and involuntary servitude—what you wanted to ask but were afraid to ask. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 15, 295–321.Google Scholar
  3. Befort, S. F. (2003). Revisiting the black hole of workplace regulation: a historical and comparative perspective of contingent work. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 1, 153–178.Google Scholar
  4. Benach, J., Benavides, F. G., & Platt, S. (2000). The health-damaging potential of new types of flexible employment: a challenge for public health researchers. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1316–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, K., & Hickey, R. (2004). Changing to organize: a national assessment of union organizing strategies. In R. Milkman & K. Voss (Eds.), Rebuilding labor: organizing and organizers in the new union movement (pp. 17–60). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press/ILR Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, F. (2001). Innovative organizing practices: ACORN’s campaign in Los Angeles organizing workfare workers. Journal of Community Practice, 9, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, B., & Cooper, R. (2002). The organizing model and the management of change: a comparative study of unions in Australia and Britain. Relations Industrielles, 57, 712–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J. (2005). Overcoming opposition and giving work experience to welfare applicants and recipients. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Managing welfare reform in New York City (pp. 171–209). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, L. (1998). Free labor in the name of workfare: New York’s reaction to the Bruhkhman v. Giuliani decision. Brooklyn Law Review, 64, 711–737.Google Scholar
  10. Diller, M. (1998). Working without a job: the social messages of the new workfare. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 9, 19–43.Google Scholar
  11. Dulchin, B. (1999). The welfare workforce: organizing workfare workers. St. John’s Law Review, 73, 753–760.Google Scholar
  12. Dulchin, B., & Kasmir, S. (2004). Organizing and identity in the New York City workfare program. Regional Labor Review (Fall), 1–9.Google Scholar
  13. Fannell, J. (1999). The welfare workforce; the national labor perspective of the AFL-CIO. St. John’s Law Review, 73, 761–767.Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher, B., Jr., & Hurd, R. (1998). Beyond the organizing model: The transformation process in local unions in Kate Bronfenbrenner,, Organizing to Win, 37–53.Google Scholar
  15. Fuentes, A. (1996). Slaves of New York. In These Times. December 23, 14–17.Google Scholar
  16. Goldberg, C. A. (2001). Welfare recipients or workers? Contesting the workfare state in New York City. Sociological Theory, 19, 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg, H., & Jackson, R. (2011). The Excluded Workers Congress: the right to organize. New Labor Forum, 20, 54–59.Google Scholar
  18. Gonzalez, J. (1997). Gov’t revives ugly past with big workfare lie. New York Daily News, March 18.Google Scholar
  19. Gregory, D. L. (1997). Br(e)aking the exploitation of labor?: tensions regarding the welfare workforce. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 25, 1–41.Google Scholar
  20. Griffin, G., Small, R., & Svensen, S. (2003). Trade union innovation, adaptation and renewal in Australia: still searching for the holy membership grail. In P. Fairbrother & C. A. B. Yates, (Eds.), Trade Unions in Renewal: A Comparative Study (pp. 78–101). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. Heery, E., Simms, M., Simpson, D., Delbridge, R., & Salmon, J. (2000). Organizing unionism comes to the UK. Employee Relations, 22, 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hely, M. J. (2003). The impact of Sturgis on bargaining power for contingent workers in the U.S. labor market. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 11, 295–322.Google Scholar
  23. Hoffman, N. E. (1999). The welfare workforce: workfare implications for the public sector. St. John’s Law Review, 73, 769–787.Google Scholar
  24. Holzer, H. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects for less-educated workers. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Hudson, K. (2001). The disposable worker. Monthly Review, 52, 43–55.Google Scholar
  26. Hurd, R. (1998). Contesting the dinosaur image: the U.S. labor movement’s search for a future. Labor Studies Journal, 22, 5–32.Google Scholar
  27. Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Nonstandard employment relations: part-time, temporary and contract work. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F., & Hudson, K. (2000). Bad jobs in America: standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States. American Sociological Review, 65, 256–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kean, N. (2004). The unprotected workforce: why Title VII must apply to workfare participants. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 9, 159–200.Google Scholar
  30. Krinsky, J. (2006). The dialectics of privatization and advocacy in New York City’s workfare state. Social Justice, 33, 158–174.Google Scholar
  31. Krinsky, J. (1998a). Election affinities: union symbolism and organization in the fight against workfare in New York City. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association Meetings, Research Committee on Labour Movements, Montréal, Canada, July 1998.Google Scholar
  32. Krinsky, J. (1998b). The wages of workfare: legal mobilization, worker organizing and the definition of “worker” in New York City. Paper presented at Sociology of Law panel at the American Sociological Association Annual Meetings, San Francisco Meetings, August 1998.Google Scholar
  33. Lopez, S. (2004). Overcoming legacies of business unionism: why grassroots tactics succeed. In V. Kim & M. Ruth (Eds.), Rebuilding labor: organizing and organizers in the new union movement (pp. 114–132). Ithaca: Cornell ILR Press.Google Scholar
  34. Luers, W. M. (1998). Workfare wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fordham Law Review, 67, 203–237.Google Scholar
  35. Mahmoudov, V. (1998). Are workfare participants “employees”? Legal issues presented by a two-tiered labor force. New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 349–387.Google Scholar
  36. Mehta, C., & Nik, T. (2000–2001). Winning union representation for temps: an analysis of the NLRB’s M.B. Sturgis and Jeffboat Division ruling. Working USA: The Journal of Labor and Society 4:37–58.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, K. J. (1999). Welfare and the minimum wage: are workfare participants “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act? University of Chicago Law Review, 66, 183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Connell, M. J. (1999). Municipal labor perspectives on the public sector welfare workforce in New York City. St. John’s Law Review, 73, 805–811.Google Scholar
  39. Polivka, A. E. (1996). Contingent and alternative work arrangements defined. Monthly Labor Review, 119, 3–9.Google Scholar
  40. Quaid, M. (2002). Workfare: why good social policy ideas go bad. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rasell, E., & Appelbaum, E. (1997). Nonstandard work arrangements: a challenge for workers and labor unions. Social Policy, 28, 31–36.Google Scholar
  42. Recht, D. A. (2006). Neither mutual aid nor protection: how current National Labor Relations Board practice denies to temporary workers their rights to organize. Connecticut Law Review, 38, 565–591.Google Scholar
  43. Reese, E. (2002). Resisting the workfare state: mobilizing general relief recipients in Los Angeles. Race, Gender, and Class, 9, 72–95.Google Scholar
  44. Reese, E., & Newcombe, G. (2003). Income rights, mothers’ rights, or workers’ rights? Collective action frames, organizational ideologies, and the American welfare rights movement. Social Problems, 50, 294–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reyes, D. (1998). WEP workers suspect dead end as their fate. New York Amsterdam News. v89, n12 (March 19–March 25).Google Scholar
  46. Ryan, K. M. (2001). Reshaping the welfare debate: the poor people’s labor movement. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 10, 41–47.Google Scholar
  47. Schurman, S. J., Eaton, A. E., et al. (2012). Trade union organizing in the informal economy: A review of the literature on organizing in Africa, Asia, Latin America, North America and Western, Central and Eastern Europe (Report to the Solidarity Center). Rutgers University: US Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
  48. Stettner, A. (1999). A dubious future: the challenge of welfare reform in New York City. Georgetown Public Policy Review, 5, 73–91.Google Scholar
  49. Stone, K. V. W. (2006). Legal protections for atypical employees: employment law for workers without workplaces and employees without employers. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 27, 251–286.Google Scholar
  50. Symposium proceeding: Workfare: Current challenges in organizing and litigation. (1998). Review of Law and Social Change 24: 601–634.Google Scholar
  51. Tait, V. (2005). Poor workers’ unions: rebuilding labor from below. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  52. The Acorn Report. (1997). Newsletter from the National Office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (November).Google Scholar
  53. “United Stance/Workfare Employees Vote Overwhelmingly to Unionize.” (1997). Newsday (24 October).Google Scholar
  54. Vaccaro, J. (2002). Temporary workers allowed to join the unions: a critical analysis of the impact of M.B. Sturgis decision. St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary, 16, 489–528.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Distinguished Professor of Management, Department of Management and Quantitative MethodsIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations