FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – A majority working in the shadows Figure 8.3 Groups perceived to benefit from trade union activities 60% 40% 23.2% 20% 36.2% 34.9% 0% –20% –40% –29.2% –60% –80% –51.6% Senegal Zambia Kenya 43.3% 4.5% 28.4% 29.6% 25.7% –12.4% –69.0% Benin –48.3% –42.1% Côte d’Ivoire 5-country average (excl. Ethiopia) Ethiopia Employees of the government Workers in the informal economy Own-account workers Employers in the private sector The Poor Everybody The government Farmers The Unemployed Values express net agreement: agree(fully+mostly) – disagree(fully+mostly); answer option partly agree/partly disagree is not considered. Question:»Do you agree that trade unions improve the situation of the following groups: a. the poor; b. workers in the informal economy; c. farmers; d. the unemployed; e. employees of the government; f. the government; g. employers in the private sector; h. own-account workers; i. everybody«. (iii) Respondents then declare their interest in trade union membership. (iv) The interest in trade union membership is then put to a »reality check« by asking whether those willing to take up membership are equally willing to pay membership fees. 8.3.1 Who are perceived as beneficiaries of trade union activities? To avoid leading questions the list of potential beneficiaries of trade union actions has broad scope and includes groups not usually seen as being part of trade unions’»recruitment terrain«. The list includes employers in the private sector and the government. The findings are summarized in Figure 8.3: – In five out of six countries, informal labour has a clear understanding that trade unions act as interest-based organizations. This is the case when we can identify groups who benefit from their actions while others do not. Ethiopia is the exception as trade unions are per­ceived to help all groups. – In the five countries in which trade unions are perceived to act as interest-based organizations, some views are uniform across borders and always identify the same cluster of beneficiaries while others differ and talk of national features or distinctions. Because of the special findings, we exclude Ethiopia in the following remarks and return to it later. In all other countries, the informal labour force usually per­ceives two groups as being usually neglected by trade un­ions:»the unemployed« and the all-embracing»everybody«. A third group,»own-account workers« is equally not seen as a trade union clientele, but here respondents in Benin differ. Their views are split: about half see trade unions as taking care of own-account workers. Opinions diverge with regard to other social groups. Sen­egalese and Ivorian respondents reject the view that trade unions support farmers, the poor and workers in the infor­mal economy. Respondents in the other three countries are mostly undecided and split their views into»yes« and»no« votes of equal strength. Those gaining from trade union activities are believed to be three groups in particular:»government employees«,»pri­vate sector employers« and»government«. While the levels of support for them differ the three are the front runners in each of the five countries or belong at least to the four highest-rated categories. What do these findings on the perception of informal labour imply? Clearly, trade unions are not seen as being primarily caretakers of informal labour interests. When employers, formal sector employees and the government are primarily picked as beneficiaries we can conclude two things: (i) Employers and employees are not viewed as being em­bedded in adversarial employment relations. Respond­ents rather subscribe to the view that trade unions help both sides. Instead of being perceived as conflict agents trade unions are seen as forming a common bond be­tween actors on different sides of employment relations in the formal economy. 72