Rosaria Burchielli

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.
Paper submitted to Our Work: Our Lives Conference 2011 - Dili, Timor-Leste Stream: Womens access to their rights and entitlements Authors: Rosaria Burchielli, La Trobe University; ; Annie Delaney, Victoria University; Jane Tate, Homeworkers World Wide UK.
Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code. This paper provides an analysis of the legislation and related arrangements developed in Australia to protect Australian garment homework. Homework, a key category of informal employment, is work undertaken in the home by either independent own-account workers or dependent subcontractors. Homeworkers are predominantly women and are widely considered to be amongst the poorest, the most vulnerable and disenfranchised workers globally.
Beginning with a discussion of the general characteristics of homework, the paper locates Australian garment homework in the context of global chains of production. Subsequently, we discuss the key events and players leading up to the development of the protective mechanisms. Finally we undertake an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the Australian arrangements to protect garment homework. We argue that, while not perfect, these arrangements and the principles underpinning them could inform women homeworkers and their advocates around the world

Introduction

According to the International Trade Union Confederation, over 80% of Timor Lestes workforce works informally, across a number of different industries. Our research on global informal work, based on the findings and experiences of local NGOs working in various countries, suggests that informal work around the world is associated with precariousness, lack of work regulation, lack of social protection, poor working wages and conditions, and poverty. Similarly, our research suggests that the quality of life and work of informal workers and their communities may improve through the local adaptation of a multi-strategy model, based on a specific organising approach developed by and for informal workers, mapping as organising1 (Mapping). Our evidence indicates that when NGOs, trade unions, or a collaboration between NGOs and trade unions, use the mapping approach to successfully organise small groups of informal workers, it becomes possible to develop strategies that can address the effects of precarious work; create regulation and increase social protection, and improve the economic conditions for informal workers. This paper focuses on a key strategy to protect Australian informal workers. Our major aim is to share our knowledge about the protection of informal work, in the hope that it can be useful for women workers and their advocates in Timor Leste. The paper provides an analysis of the legislation and related arrangements developed in Australia to protect Australian garment homework, which may inform trade unions and NGOs working to improve conditions in Timor Leste. Although homework is a contested term (Burgess and Strachan, 2002), our focus is on homework as a key category of informal employment, within which it is work undertaken in the home by either independent ownaccount workers or dependent subcontractors (ILO 2002). Within the informal employment category, homeworkers are predominantly women, engaged in various types of jobs (Boris and Daniels 1989; HWW 2002). They are widely considered to be amongst the poorest, the most vulnerable and most disenfranchised workers in the world (ILO 2002). This is due to the private location of the work; worker invisibility; precariousness; lack of social and legal protection, lack of voice/representation of homeworkers; and conceptualisations/definitions of homework which fail to recognise homework activities as work, and those engaged in the work, as workers. The ILO Convention on Homework (1996) was designed to recognise the
1 Homework mapping is defined as the location and identification of homeworkers and their employers, supply chains and markets, and organizing homeworkers
to form organizations that can improve their wages and employment conditions or livelihoods (Burchielli et al, 2008).

existence of homework throughout the world; the role of homeworkers in global value chains, and to encourage the development of employment laws by nation states to ensure coverage and protection for homeworkers. However, few countries have ratified the Convention, and there are still many countries which have no specific legislation for homeworkers. In these countries, there is therefore no recognition of the existence of homework, let alone any acknowledgement of the lack of basic employment and human rights for homeworkers. Representations of Australian garment homework suggest that it replicates the general characteristics of informal work, and that Australian homeworkers suffer similar injustices as their counterparts around the world. A suite of protective mechanisms was developed to address the Australian context, including national and state legislation and an Industry code, to achieve comprehensive levels of protection for garment homeworkers, who are largely women. Now more than 10 years old, there is still no systematic analysis of the Australian arrangements designed to protect homework. This paper aims to address this gap. Beginning with a discussion of the general characteristics of homework, the paper locates Australian garment homework in the context of global chains of production. Subsequently, we discuss the key events and players leading up to the development of the Australian protective mechanisms. Finally we undertake an analysis of the strengths and limitations of the Australian arrangements to protect garment homework. We argue that, while not perfect, these arrangements and the principles underpinning them could inform women homeworkers and their advocates around the world.
What is homework?
Homework is both an ancient and a modern form of production (Boris and Daniels, 1989), explained by the literature in various ways. Amongst these is the behaviour of firms (Baylina and Schier, 2002; Burchielli et al., 2008). There is evidence of many firms within advanced economies that are linked to homeworkers via their chains of production (Balakrishnan, 2002; Beneria, 2001; Delaney, 2010b). The garment industry exemplifies this trend, with extensive use of subcontracting, homework, and relocation from developed to developing countries (Brooks, 2007; Collins, 2003). Sweatshop conditions have become a common descriptor of garment and footwear production wherever production is located (Brooks, 2007). Homeworkers constitute a significant proportion of garment workers, are commonly found at the bottom rung of supply chains, and face the most exploitative conditions (FernandezKelly and Garcia, 1989; HWW, 2004; Staples, 2006). Homework may be a somewhat ambiguous term as it encompasses numerous types of employment arrangements (Burgess and Strachan, 2002).

This article focuses on homework as a subcategory of informal work (ILO, 2002). Informal work includes day labourers, casual, contract, seasonal and sub-contracted work, such as agricultural, labouring, and piecework. The universal characteristics of informal employment are: no secure contracts, no recognition as workers, no worker benefits, and no social protection (ILO, 2002). In this paper, we focus on homework as work undertaken in the home by either independent own-account workers or dependent workers subcontractors (Carr and Chen, 2000). Homework is found in both developing and developed countries. It is work conducted outside of formal systems of employment and social security protection, where there is no record of where it originates nor where the output is going. This poses a unique dilemma for those interested in examining supply chain management and ethical firm behaviour that is inclusive of informal employment arrangements. Research suggests that people undertake informal work because of a lack of other employment choices and the need to survive (Burchelli et al 2008; HWW, 2004). Homework does not offer workers any protections under traditional models of labour law because of the separation of workers from their employers through the use of subcontracting, often transnational, with many intermediaries and other forms of informal employment, such as small enterprises and home-based workshops. These chains disguise the employment relationship and obscure who is responsible for minimum legal terms for the worker.
Who are homeworkers?

Homeworkers are amongst the poorest and the most vulnerable people engaged in informal employment. Previously, homeworkers were defined as dependent workers. These disguised wage workers have also been named industrial homeworkers, outworkers, subcontracted and piece-rate workers (Tate and Brill, 2003). In order to understand the range of employment relationships and variety of dependencies in homework, it is useful to think about it as an overlapping picture, like a Venn diagram. One part of the picture represents disguised wage workers. The other part represents the own-account workers or independent workers. In-between, there are many overlapping types of relationships. Own-account homeworkers and dependent homeworkers share a strong, common element of economic dependence. This shared economic dependence is recognised in the ILO Convention on Home Work, which defines a homeworker by excluding only those who have a degree of autonomy and of economic independence (ILO, 1996), and who may thus be considered genuinely self-employed. Many reports have found that homeworkers are doing both dependent and own-account work (HWW, 2004; ILO, 2002; Prugl and Tinker, 1997). A key characteristic of homework is its invisibility (Boris, 1994; Boris and Daniels, 1989; Burchielli et al. 2008), as homeworkers work from their own, or

neighbours homes. Homeworkers contribute to the global economy, but are invisible to labour market regulators, to consumers, and perhaps even to themselves, in the sense that they may not identify as workers (Hill, 2005). In so far as homework is unacknowledged and unprotected by industrial laws (Prugl and Tinker, 1997), homeworkers have no voice. A key challenge facing homeworker advocacy groups relates to nurturing and encouraging homeworker voices to improve living and working conditions and visibility; related to this is using homeworker voices to identify relevant mechanisms of protection and to agitate for their adoption.
The growth of homework

International research shows that in all regions of the world, informal employment is growing (Charmes, 2000; Jutting and de Laiglesia, 2009). Various major, interrelated factors stimulate the growth of informal work. Key amongst these are globalisation and neo-liberalism. The wholesale adoption of neo-liberal philosophies and practices, especially increased deregulation; and an overreliance on markets to provide regulating functions (Baylina 2002; Beynon et al., 2002; HWW, 2004) is clearly linked to globalisation and firm practices such as outsourcing. Globalisation provides firms with opportunities to access new product and labour markets, while the movement of production and the widespread use of management innovations in particular, practices associated with flexibility, outsourcing and subcontracting, creates greater vulnerabilities for workers. Using homework as the form of production in urban and rural locations, suppliers to national and multinational corporations reduce their overheads and economic risks by transferring the pressures of prices and tight deadlines imposed by buyer-driven chains onto the most vulnerable workers at the bottom of supply chains. Increasingly, there is evidence of a web of linkages between formal and informal employment (Trebilcock, 2005). Formal enterprises are using informal enterprises in their value chains and purchasing products directly or indirectly from informal workers. Moreover, workers are moving between formal and informal work on a needs basis. This may be the case in Timor Leste. In many developing countries, informal work may arise from a combination of traditional activities such as farming and handcrafts, alongside participation in new economy activities such as the small-scale production of goods for a global market.
Homework issues in the Australian garment industry and impetus for developing regulation for Australian garment homework
Homework pre and post industry deregulation Although the Australian garment industry has evolved over time since Australia's colonisation, there are some notable continuities in its 5

characteristics. What has not changed over time are: the seasonal nature of demand, the prevalence of subcontractors and homeworkers, the predominance of women in the sector and low wages. In the last two decades, the Australian garment industry was reshaped by changes in global manufacturing and the introduction of technological advancements, which encouraged cheap imports and threatened existing workplaces and employment. New production techniques, such as just-in-time systems affected numbers in employment (TCFUA, 1997). This was accompanied by modifications to Australian economic and industry policy, especially reductions in industry protection, which in turn, resulted in continuing factory closures and the accompanying loss of many jobs. In particular, the 1973 tariff cuts were identified as "the most severe blow" to sectors of the industry resulting in heavy unemployment (Ellem, 1989: 270 271). Paradoxically, while employment in the sectors fell because of industry changes, garment production increased (TCFUA, 1997: 6). The increase in production was attributed to the growth in the unregulated sectors of the market, particularly in the number of outworkers (TCFUA, 1997). The Australian garment industry responded to restructuring and global pressure through progressive relocation of production offshore mostly to China) and into private homes. In the mid-1980s, industry estimates of the number of clothing outworkers were 60,000. In the late 1990s this was estimated to be 329,000 across Australia, with 144,000, or almost half in Victoria (TCFUA, 1995). Current characteristics of Australian garment homework Numerous recent studies and government enquiries have revealed that Australian garment homework is one of the most exploited sectors of the Australian workforce (Rawling, 2007:190). Garment outworkers are usually women working from their homes. Their work is precarious, largely underpaid and sometimes unpaid. They suffer from a range of occupational health and safety problems arising from working in the home. They sometimes have to incur costs such as providing their own raw materials, like sewing threads. They often endure working excessive hours and sometimes have to enlist the help of family members in order to meet deadlines (TCFUA, 1995). The majority of garment homeworkers in Australia are women, many of whom come from refugee or migrant communities. They have limited English language skills, are unaware of their rights, or too frightened to make a complaint for fear of losing their work. They earn on average AUD $3.50 an hour compared with the legal minimum rate of an average of AUD $14.00 an hour (Cregan, 2001a). Australian homeworkers commonly accept work at the rates given by subcontractors, even at a quarter of the legal rate, because some work is better than none. Discussions with Australian homeworkers indicate that they work under an 6

ambiguous status of self-employed, independent contractor, worker or employee (Delaney, 2010a). It is difficult for homeworkers to identify as workers. Therefore, they face greater challenges than workers in formal workplace arrangements to organise collectively, to join a union and to secure legal and social protection (Delaney, Tate & Burchielli, in press; Tate & Brill, 2003; TCFUA, 1995). In many instances homeworkers cannot identify their direct employer; they do not have a workplace context to develop collective grievances in relation to an employer, nor to develop solidarity with coworkers (HWW, 2004). Isolation is a prevalent feature of their work and they remain marginalised in relation to their work location, gender, race and class. (Cregan, 2001a; Delaney, 2010a, 2001b). The Australian home-based workforce is largely unorganised, mainly due to their limited social/political visibility and to the lack of union organising strategies specifically targeting homeworkers. Having said this, it is to be recognised that the union in this sector: the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA),has played an important part in the long struggle for recognition and securing legal protection for Australian garment homeworkers. The TCFUA has monitored the textile, clothing, and footwear (TCF) industries through industry specific awards that specify working conditions. Its campaigns led to two Senate enquiries on homework in 1996 and 1998, which eventually led to the exposure of the clandestine and invisible nature of homework in the industry into the public domain (Senate Economics References Committee, 1996, 1998). During the late 80s and 90s, specifically targeted union resources and a homework-dedicated, Union Official role, were devoted to improve the recognition of homework and the protection of homeworkers. While these resources were aimed largely at the national context, they also contributed to international homework initiatives and campaigns, such as the international mapping as organising programme, and the emerging international homework movement (IHM) (Delaney, 2010). Together, these historic actions and events formed the backdrop for the current forms of regulation of homework, and led to the formation of a broad community coalition, called the FairWear Campaign, which has been instrumental in maintaining a voice for the ongoing monitoring and regulation of Australian homework.
Regulatory and other protective mechanisms

A suite of regulatory mechanisms to protect garment homeworkers have been put in place since the mid-1990s. These are extensive in the scope and range of protections provided to homeworkers and the obligations and regimes of joint liability towards employers and subcontractors across the supply chain. Three types of mechanisms regulate the supply chain and in particular

homeworkers work entitlements. These include; the national garment industry law, known as the Clothing Trades Award 1999, (CTA); the Homeworkers Code of Practice 1996, (HWCP), a voluntary industry code; and homework-specific State legislation, for example, Industrial Relations (Ethical Clothing Trades) Act 2001 (NSW). The Clothing Trades Award (CTA) The CTA outlines workers entitlements and conditions in the garment industry. Provisions include work conditions and requirements for wages and other work related arrangements. The CTA also determines the terms for firms contracting work out. The provisions set down requirements by corporations and their suppliers in regard to record keeping, lists of suppliers, registration with the Industrial Relations Commission registration board. In addition, corporations bound to the CTA, usually manufacturers, fashion houses or contractors, but rarely retailers, are required to maintain records of all parties they provide work to. The type of information they are required to provide includes: how much they pay per garment, how many minutes sewing time for each garment or part of the garment, and the total volume of work and hours of sewing time involved. These contract and record keeping requirements of the CTA allow the work to be traced to the next level of the contracting chain. There are cascading levels of obligation, from employer to employer in regard to the conditions under which the work is subcontracted out, and performed by homeworkers. This is meant to ensure that these legal minimum conditions are carried over to various sub-contractors down the supply chain. The information that employers must keep and provide in regard to work subcontracted out has been built upon by the TCFUA over the years since 1987, following the initial Industrial Relations Commission decision to impose these obligations (Weller, 1999). The information, when provided, gives the TCFUA an opportunity to estimate the number of workers required to complete an order and determine if the work is being subcontracted out, and to further investigate the conditions of the workers. Homework state legislation A number of states in Australia have passed homework specific laws that deem garment homeworkers to be employees and regulate the supply chain. The legislation in various states operates within different frameworks, but is essentially the same (Nossar, Johnstone and Quilan, 2004; Rawling, 2007). State legislation recognises the CTA and the National Retailers Ethical Clothing Code (discussed below) and attributes homeworkers entitlements through the implementation of each of these mechanisms. State legislation applies an obligation on direct employers or principal employers, to remedy any non-payment or underpayments for homeworkers. This aspect of the legislation obliges corporations who do not employ homeworkers directly to share a joint liability for minimum conditions of homeworkers making their 8

products (Rawling, 2007). The legislation provides for the capacity to implement a mandatory retailer code, which applies to retailers that are noncompliant or not signatories to the voluntary code. If implemented, the mandatory retailer code sets out steps that retailers must follow to ensure that homeworkers receive minimum conditions. These steps include making the supply chain transparent from the homeworker, through to the retailer. The conditions of the mandatory code also include the retailer providing supplier lists and details of contracts to the TCFUA (NSW Government, 2011). The state legislation gives the union the right to inspect retailers or principal company records. This legislation provides a means for the union to inspect records of corporations that are not included in labour award provisions through the CTA (Australian Government, 2011). Therefore it extends the reach of the union to corporations across the supply chain to verify and check supply chain records for the purpose of monitoring homeworkers wages and work conditions. National Retailers Ethical Clothing Code and previous Homeworkers Code of Practice The National Retailers Ethical Clothing Code (NRECC) was previously known as the Homeworkers Code of Practice (HWCP) (Ethical Clothing Australia, 2011). HWCP came out of a government senate inquiry process, as employers lobbied against legislation. This voluntary, but prescriptive industry code, led to the development of an accreditation scheme and to the use of a no sweatshop label as the sign of compliance to the code. The NRECC committee is jointly managed by union and employer representatives, and applies to the supply chains of garments produced in Australia. The code stipulates the records that corporations are required to keep; it defines standard contracts firms must enter into with their subcontractors, and recognises the role of the TCFUA in monitoring the code. Through the code, firms can seek accreditation by providing evidence of compliance. Firms seeking accreditation must provide a list of all suppliers/subcontractors; they must secure evidence of homework from each supplier; further, they must provide evidence that homeworkers in the supply chain are being paid their legal minimum entitlements. The accredited corporation shares a joint liability with their subcontractors. If a subcontractor is found in breach of the code then the accredited firm is also in breach of the code, and is obligated to remedy the situation or lose accreditation. Accreditation confers a moral and ethical status to the firm, as it denotes that the product and the firm are sweatshop free. The NRECC and the previous HWCP and no sweatshop label have become the public face of the industry legal standard and compliance toward homework and supply chain regulation.
Discussion: Current Issues & Challenges

State legislation deems homeworkers to be employees, while the Clothing

Trades Award and NRECC attribute homeworkers entitlements equal to those of factory-based workers. Sanctions include $10,000 fine per breach of the CTA, and State and Federal legislation. The prescriptions in the NRECC are aligned to existing national and state legislation covering homeworkers, such as The Clothing Trades Award 1999, (CTA), and the Industrial Relations (Ethical Clothing Trades) Act 2001 (NSW), or the Outworkers (Improved Protection) Act 2003 (Victoria). Together with the NRECC, the national and state laws function synergistically in dealing with the interdependent links of the supply chain. The NRECC facilitates retailers compliance with the obligations of the CTA, even when they may not be legally bound to comply, since they are not manufacturers. Similarly, the state legislation provides requirements for reporting and record keepingkeeping, as do the CTA and the NRECC. FairWear, a community campaign comprising broad coalition of organizations including unions, churches and workers, (Fairwear, 2011) issues an ethical shopping guide to consumers, which lists the firms or brands meeting these minimum conditions through accreditation. Firms that are not accredited can become the subject of campaigning by the FairWear Campaign, and are thus encouraged to seek accreditation and then be promoted as ethical suppliers. Legislation requires corporations and all suppliers to maintain all contract records, to provide lists of suppliers, and to register with a board. Requirements on manufacturers, fashion houses and contractors force them to keep records of who they provide work to; how much they are paying; how many hours work is involved and the total volume of work, including the sewing time per garment, in minutes. The record keeping requirements of the CTA allow the work to be traced to the next level of the contracting chain, and obligations cascade through each level of the supply chain, from employer to employer, in regard to the conditions under which the work is performed by homeworkers. Legislation at state and federal levels reinforces the CTA requirements and obligations. The three mechanisms are mutually supportive, in that each contributes to compliance of one or more of the other mechanisms. Moreover, the existence of the NRECC led to other improvements. The Retailers Association agreed to a new and strengthened version of the NRECC (Retail section-Part one), during the negotiation of a mandatory code in New South Wales. The outcome of improving the voluntary code and the development of the mandatory code are linked in the legislation. The mandatory code states that retailers in compliance with the NRECC are exempt from the legislation, therefore any retailer not in compliance and, or not signatory to the NRECC is covered by the legislated mandatory code. There is a monitoring role for various organisations that make up a community union coalition, including FairWear, briefly discussed above. Moreover, Asian 10

Women At Work, (AWATW) has established a network of several hundred homeworker members, and the Textile, Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia, (TCFUA). These organisations can all monitor the supply chain, while the union TCFUA - can initiate legal prosecutions, or sanctions for breaches of the CTA. Complaints and information from homeworkers are collected and provided to FairWear, which initiates consumer pressure on individual brands and corporations. The involvement of homeworkers is a key source of information for this ongoing monitoring to occur. FairWear provides information to consumers, about the corporations that are accredited to the NRECC. The corporations that become the target of the campaign are encouraged to become accredited to the code and can thus be promoted as ethical suppliers (FairWear, 2011). The strength of this approach has been that the emphasis has shifted from reliance upon an individual complaints process to a broader approach of corporate accountability through the maintenance of regulation mechanisms and its implementation across the supply chain to provide minimum conditions to homeworkers. The emphasis on promoting minimum standards for all garment homeworkers has meant that individual homeworkers are not singled out and face less risk for participation in FairWear activities. In addition, the FairWear Campaign provides a space for key organisations to develop strategies and effective activities to organise homeworkers in relation to corporate accountability that would otherwise be difficult to achieve on an individual basis. The bundle of regulatory mechanisms are essential to enable homework legal protection, supply chain regulation, and most importantly, to improve homeworkers capacity to access such protections (Delaney, 2007). The Australian example demonstrates that the linking of hard and soft mechanisms can assist to improve homeworker access to legal protections. Arguing that homework is work, that homeworkers are workers, and that an employment relationship exists has been important for the Australian union discussed in this paper, since these concepts have provided the foundations for homework protection. In most countries, where an employer fails to treat homeworkers as workers or employees, the responsibility lies with the homeworker to challenge the employer. A way to reverse this is by changing the onus of proof on the employer and deeming that homeworkers are employees. Deeming provisions may determine a homeworker to be an employee in legislation therefore they have the same rights as an employee. Deeming a homeworker to be a worker and therefore entitled to the same rights as any employee may prevent ambiguities in law around the status of a homeworker. Australian legislation which includes this provision and recent legislation on minimum wages in the UK have proved that this approach is more effective than when the onus of proof remains with the homeworker. The protective mechanisms discussed here, and the concepts and processes 11

contained in them, suggest that the status of who is a homeworker needs to be dealt with through collective application to whole groups of workers, rather than in courts by individual homeworkers. Clarity of homeworker status can eliminate the need for a court to determine a homeworker status and therefore increase the likelihood that a homeworker will be protected and have rights in law. The Australian suite of protections for homeworkers may be considered inclusive and comprehensive, however, a key problem remains relating to homeworkers accessing these laws. Relatively few homeworkers have invoked the mechanisms in order to address breaches to the law. Moreover, there have been relatively few prosecutions, which is currently the responsibility of the relevant union. A more general problem is the lack of government resources invested in any form of labour inspectorate appropriate to homeworkers by most governments. In most countries, there are currently inadequate resources available for general labour inspectors, let alone inspectors who can visit women in their homes. The many problems around inspection and implementation of the law are greatly increased when a chain of subcontracting is involved, even when this is within one national area. There may be several subcontractors and intermediaries, with varying degrees of informality, involved in the chain and it can be difficult to establish where the employers responsibility lies. A solution to this, implemented in Australian law, is for joint and several liabilityliability along subcontracting chains. This legal provision is still unusual in national legislation and extremely rare unknown internationally. It is widely recognised however that legislation, however well drafted, is only one part of the solution to improving conditions for homeworkers. The ILO itself has supported several programmes to support research and organisation among homeworkers in developing countries. These technical cooperation programmes adopt a multi-pronged approach including research and support for programmes of work with homeworkers and organisations close to them. Many of these issues relating to effective legislation can be resolved when a more collective approach is taken and when legislation is implemented in a decentralized way which recognizes and encourages trade unions or other organizations to be involved in the process, through negotiation for homeworkers as a group or through tripartite bodies in which homeworker representatives have a voice. As evidenced in the homework mapping experience (Burchielli et al, 2008), the development of new legislation for the protection of informal work is well supported if it occurs within an organising and organisation building approach.
12

It is widely recognised however that legislation, however well drafted, is only one part of the solution to improving conditions for homeworkers. The ILO itself has supported several programmes to support research and organisation among homeworkers in developing countries. These technical cooperation programmes adopt a multi-pronged approach including research and support for programmes of work with homeworkers and organisations close to them.
References
Australian Government. (2011). Fair Work Ombudsman: Entering a textile, clothing or footwear industry workplace. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment/unions/pages/entering-atextile-clothing-or-footwear-industry-workplace.aspx Balakrishnan, R. 2002. 'The Hidden Assembly Line: Gender Dynamics of Subcontracting in a Global Economy.' (Kumarian Press: Bloomfield). Baylina, M. & M. Schier.: 2002., 'Homework in Germany and Spain: Industrial Restructuring and the Meaning of Homework for Women', GeoJournal, 56:4, 295-304. Beneria, L.: 2001., 'Shifting the Risk: New Employment Patterns, Informalization, and Womens Work', International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 15(:1), 27-53. Beynon, H., D. Grimshaw, J. Rubery & K. Ward.: 2002., Managing Employment Change: The New Realities of Work. (Oxford University Press, New York). Boris, E.: 1994,. Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States. (Cambridge University press, New York). Boris, E. & C. Daniels 1989. 'Homework: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Paid Labor at Home.' (University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago). Brooks, E.: 2007,. Unravelling the Garment Industry: Transnational Organising and Women's Work. ( University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, :London). Burchielli, R., D. Buttigieg & A. Delaney:. 2008,. 'Organizing Homeworkers: The Use of Mapping as an Organizing Tool.', Work, Employment & Society, 22(:1), 167-80. Burgess, J., & Strachan, G. (2002). The home as the workplace: Developments in homeworking in Australia. Selected pPaper presented at the Canadian Industrial Relations Associationfrom the Rethinking institutions for work and employment: XXXVIIIth Annual Canadian Industrial Relations Association (CIRA), 51-70, Lavalle University Press. Quebec, Canada. Carr, M., M. Chen & J. Tate:. 2000,. 'Globalization and Homebased Workers.', Feminist Economics, 6(:3), 123-42.
13

Charmes, J.: 2000. of Conference, 'Research for Organising Homeworkers', Paper presented at Mapping Planning Meeting Conference,( Leeds). Cregan, C. ( 2001a). Home Sweat Home: Preliminary findings of the first stage of a two-part study of outworkers in the textile industry in Melbourne Victoria. January-June 2001: Department of Management Working Papers, Melbourne University of Melbourne. Cregan, C. (2001b). In the dark world: outworker narratives. Melbourne: Department of Management Working Papers, University of Melbourne. Collins, J.: 2003,. Threads: Gender, Labor, and Power in the Global Apparel Industry. ( The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London). Delaney, A. (2007). New strategies to organise homeworkers and workers in informal employment: Notes from the Field. In D. Buttigieg, S. Cockfield, R. Cooney, M. Jerrard, & A. Rainnie (Eds.), Trade Unions in the Community: Values, Issues, Shared interests and Alliances Heidelberg: Heidelberg Press.Corporate accountability through Community and Unions: linking workers and campaigning to improving working conditions across the supply chain. In C. Fenwick & T. Novitz (Eds.), Legal Protection of Workers' Human Rights: Regulatory Change and Challenge. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Delaney, A. (2010a.) Organising homeworkers: womens collective strategies to improve participation and social change. School of Management, Uunpublished thesis. Bundoora, Victoria: La Trobe University; 302 pages. Delaney, A. (2010b). Corporate accountability through Community and Unions: Linking workers and campaigning to improving working conditions across the supply chain. In S. Marshall & K. Macdonald (Eds.), Fair Trade, Corporate Accountability and Beyond: Experiments in Globalised Justice ( pp. 259-275). Farnham: Ashgate. Delaney, A., Tate, J., & Burchielli, R. ( In press). The Global state of homework: towards better work and better lives. Geneva: ILO. Ellem, B. (1989.) In Women's Hands? A History of Clothing Trades Unionism in Australia., Kensington, New South Wales University Press. Fairwear. (2011). Fairwear: stopping the exploitation of homebased outworkers: Campaign Activity. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from http://www.fairwear.org.au/engine.php?SID=1000007 Fernandez-Kelly, P. & A. Garcia.: 1989, . 'Informalization at the Core: Hispanic Women, Homework, and the Advanced Capitalist State', in A. Portes, M. Castells & L. A. Benton (eds.), The Informal Economy. ( The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London), 247-64. Hill, E.: 2005,. 'Organising 'Non-Standard' Women Workers for Economic and Social Security in India and Australia'., Paper presented at Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand ( AIRAANZ)19th Conference Reworking Work. ( Sydney, 9-11 February).
14

HWW.: 2004,. 'Organising for Change: Women Homebased Workers in the Global Economy. Final Report on Mapping Homebased Work.' ( Homeworkers Worldwide, Leeds). ILO. 1996. 'Homework Convention.' ( International Labor Organisation: Geneva). ILO.: 2002,. 'Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture.' ( International Labour Office, Geneva). Jtting, J. & J. R. de Laiglesia.: 2009,. 'Is Informal Normal? Towards More and Better Jobs in Developing Countries.' ( OECD Publishing, Paris, France). NSW Government. (2011). Ethical Clothing Trades Extended Responsibility Scheme; Information for Clothing Suppliers and Manufacturers. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au Nossar, I., Johnstone, R., & Quinlan, M. ( 2004). Regulating Supply-Chains to Address the Occupational Health and Safety Problems Associated with Precarious Employment: The Case of Home-Based Clothing Workers in Australia. Australian Journal of Labour Law, 17(2), 124. Prugl, E. & I. Tinker.: 1997,. 'Microentrepreneurs and Homeworkers: Convergent Categories.', World Development, 25(:9),, 1471-82. Rawling, M.: 2007,. 'The Regulation of Outwork and the Federal Takeover of Labour Law.', Australian Journal of Labour Law, 20(: 2,) 189-207. Senate Economics References Committee. ( 1996). Inquiry into Outworkers in the Garment Industry. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Senate Economics References Committee. ( 1998). Review of the Inquiry into Outwork in the Garment Industry. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Staples, D. E.: 2006,. No Place Like Home: Organizing Home-Based Labor in the Era of Structural Adjustment. ( Routledge, New York & London). Tate, J. & L. Brill. 2003. 'Defining Homebased Workers - Who Should Be Included?' HomeWorkers Worldwide Policy Workshop. ( HomeWorkers Worldwide: Zlatibor, Serbia). TCFUA. ( 1995.) The hidden cost of fashion: Report on the national outwork information campaign. Sydney, TCFUA. TCFUA. (1997.) Submission by the TCFUA to the Industry Commission Inquiry into the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries., Sydney, TCFUA. Trebilcock, A.: 2005,. 'Decent Work and the Informal Economy.', Paper presented at EGDI-WIDER Conference on Unlocking Human Potential - Linking the Informal and Formal Sectors ( Helsinki, 17-18 September, 2004). Weller, S. (2007). Retailing, Clothing and Textiles Production in Australia. Working Paper No. 29. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University. October 2007.
15

Rosaria Burchielli

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rosaria Burchielli

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Who are homeworkers?

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

The growth of homework

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Regulatory and other protective mechanisms

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Discussion: Current Issues & Challenges

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Protecting Australian Garment Homework Combining legislation and an Industry Code.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi