Conference Agenda

In 2015, the 104th International Labour Conference (ILC) adopted ILO Recommendation 204 Concerning the Transition of the Informal to the Formal Economy (R204), outlining principles for addressing decent work deficits through formalization. Critically, it affirms that workers in the informal economy — including self-employed workers — have a right to bargain collectively. It calls on member states to create an ‘enabling environment’ for workers to exercise this right and to participate in social dialogue on the transition to the formal economy.

Ten years later, formalization is back on the agenda of the ILC. The question of what constitutes an ‘enabling environment’ remains unresolved. This is partly because bargaining in this context looks very different from how it has been conceptualized in labour law. More fundamentally, there are divergent perspectives on which legal institutions constitute an ‘appropriate’ regulatory framework to formalize the informal economy: Should informal activities be incorporated into laws regulating businesses or into laws that regulate employment relations? This question has ideological, as well as legal, dimensions, which are under-explored in policy debates and in the broader literature about formalization.

As a starting point for enabling conversations among stakeholders, the paper develops a typology of approaches to formalization: market-centric, institutional, and rights-based. It contributes to the literature by locating each approach within a theory of development, considering how they are reflected in policy debates, and exploring the implications of each for realizing the right to collective bargaining for informal self-employed workers . Our aim is to advance the debate about the kind of legislation needed to effectively translate aspirations for decent work into reality for informal self-employed workers. We conclude that a rights-based approach to formalization — grounded in a political economy understanding of the law — is best able to achieve this goal.

We then consider the empirical realities of creating social dialogue and collective bargaining institutions, discussing initiatives by organizations of workers in informal employment to: gain recognition as workers; participate in decisions about their working conditions; and realize decent work. Through comparative analysis of these initiatives, we identify factors influencing their effectiveness, grouped along two broad axes: institutional form take and scope covered. Our aim is to explore what, concretely, is possible, what is needed, and what questions remain, in order to strengthen collective bargaining as a central component of a rights-based approach to formalization.

The question of collective bargaining personal scope represents an important question of International and comparative labour law. Within new forms of work (including platform work) access to these rights is often difficult, inter alia, because of the unclear employment status of workers and the narrow attachment of access to collective labour rights (in many legal systems) to the notion of an employee in an employment relationship. Especially from the perspective of competition law barriers (which are also predominantly addressed in legal scholarship) there have been some positive developments on the EU level (the adoption of Guidelines on the application of Union competition law to collective agreements in 2022).

Nonetheless, the purpose of this paper is to highlight and analyse other (beside competition law restrictions) legal barriers for the effective exercise of self-employed workers’ right to collective bargaining. Methodologically, the paper will be based on the analysis of the relevant international, and European legal sources, and selected national legal solutions.

We conclude that comparative law regimes have also responded to the need to ensure access to collective labour rights for certain groups of self-employed workers. As a rule, this is to protect the weaker, economically dependent solo self-employed worker who carries out work personally. For example, Germany allows collective bargaining for persons similar to workers (Arbeitnehmerahnliche Personen). Similarly, Spain regulates the status of economically dependent persons (TRADE) by law. France has also established specific rules that regulate the collective rights (of certain categories) of self-employed platform workers. On the other hand, in some legal orders (e.g. Slovenia) there are no specific rules on the right to collective bargaining for self-employed workers.

Nonehteless, it is worth pointing out that national legal orders need to resolve not only the question of personal scope, but also the question of how to design the legal framework in which the right to collective bargaining (of persons outside the employment relationship) would be effectively exercised. Open issues include, inter alia, the question of determining trade union representativeness, possible erga omnes and normative binding effects of collective agreements (in contrast to limited inter-partes contractual binding effects) etc. In particular regarding these issues, there are important differences between national legal orders. We note that access to the right to collective bargaining (for self-employed workers) does not necessarily mean that they may exercise it (on the national level) in the same legal framework (form) as workers in an employment relationship.

Collective bargaining and social dialogue are fundamental to improving labour conditions, yet millions of workers in India —particularly in informal and precarious employment—remain excluded from these protections(Sen,2012). This paper examines how worker agency and voice (Kabeer 1999, 2020; Anner & Fischer-Daly 2023) can be activated to extend bargaining rights to marginalized workers. By analysing diverse initiatives and showing how they operate at three intersecting levels, recognising that worker agency, even where severely curtailed by the forces of production and accumulation, can shape labour conditions and relations (Silver 2003, Carswell and De Neve 2013).

At the micro level - community and workspace - we will highlight innovative strategies to organize workers outside the traditional union framework. In Gujarat’s seafood processing industry, community-led organizing has evolved into a women-led industry specific union facilitating localized bargaining mechanisms that enable women workers to negotiate improved working conditions. Domestic workers’ collectives have facilitated grassroots mobilization by enhancing workers’ rights awareness and leadership development in the National Capital Region (NCR) in India. Anukatham’s work in informal sectors in Tamil Nadu highlights how new models of worker representation emerge in spaces where formal structures are weak.

At the meso level -cluster and wider administrative locality-initiatives showcase how collective bargaining frameworks can be adapted outside traditional unionized settings. SLD’s Worker Resource Centre (WRC) facilitates community-based dialogue fora bringing together workers, industry leaders, CSOs, unions and state actors to uphold labour rights in the NCR.TTCU-led Dindigul Agreement in Tamil Nadu highlights cross-sector collaborations across unions, labour rights organizations and brands can create enforceable mechanisms for workplace safety and gender-responsive grievance redressal in garment supply chains. Samsung workers' protest in Tamil Nadu, which began in September 2024 exemplifies how localized organizing can challenge corporate labour practices.

At the macro level, national and transnational frameworks illustrate how binding agreements and large-scale worker movements create sustainable bargaining mechanisms. SEWA’s sectoral model successfully expanded protections for informal women workers in India, ensuring access to social security and labour protections. Emerging gig worker mobilization (Singh et al., 2024), through both legal challenges and collective action, signals the evolution of bargaining mechanisms in digital labour markets.

By mapping these case studies within and across this three-tiered framework, this paper argues that effective social dialogue requires fluid, multi-level interventions that respond to local realities and global economic forces. Beyond legal reforms, worker-led strategies—rooted in community organizing, sectoral negotiations, and transnational advocacy—are key to expanding collective bargaining.

In many countries, states are struggling with the rise of diverse and unprotected forms of work. Current regulatory frameworks are failing to promote decent working conditions. Creating new mechanisms or rethinking existing ones is essential. This study addresses the second approach, aiming to analyze whether and how collective bargaining can innovate to ensure labour rights for non-employees. Collective bargaining agreements have traditionally been designed for employees. However, as argued by Estlund and Liebman, Contouris and Stefano, and others, despite their historically restricted scope, collective bargaining is a regulatory strategy based on social dialogue that can go beyond employment. This is exactly what is happening in Brazil: collective agreements establish labour rights for casual workers (who are not covered by labour legislation), known as day laborers ("diaristas”, in Portuguese). This paper seeks to contribute to the literature by unveiling the Brazilian case and identifying lessons that can inspire other jurisdictions. It then analyzes the strengths and shortcomings: are day laborers unionized? How can adequate representativeness be ensured in the social dialogue process? How can a single instrument be negotiated for distinct legal relationships? What are the resistances? Is it possible to cover other workers? How can antitrust objections be overcome? To this end, the research methodology combines three methods: literature review, documentary analysis (agreements registered with the Brazilian Ministry of Labour and judicial decisions), and interviews. Preliminary findings indicate that more than fifty collective bargaining agreements across different economic sectors ensure day laborers a minimum wage and, in some cases, paid vacation, paid rest, and 13th salary. While some day laborers are formally self-employed, others are informal. Generally, agreements expand labour rights for informal workers but do not promote the transition to formal economy. In one case, the agreement encouraged day laborers to formalize their social security status. Interviews with unions revealed substantial challenges: negotiating robust clauses and ensuring their implementation, compounded by the weakening of union movement and the judicial invalidation of agreements. Notwithstanding its limitations, collective bargaining agreements has proven to be an important co-regulatory mechanism. A remarkable example is found in domestic work: Brazilian law classifies domestic workers as employees only if they work more than two days a week for the same employer. Those who work fewer days are casual workers (not employees) and are completely excluded from labour protection. Given the legal exclusion by the state, collective bargaining has become the sole protective provision for them.