*{Fighting for Workers' Human Rights in the Global Economy (ICFTU Website)
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU)
FIGHTING FOR WORKERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY}
FOREWORD
At our 1996 ICFTU World Congress, delegate after delegate spoke about the
fears of working women and men over their jobs. Insecurity in employment,
worries about pay, increased intensity of work, authoritarian management,
union busting, discrimination, children at work when they should be at
school, dangerous and unhealthy conditions, and most of all the difficulty
in getting workers’ views heard. Although they saw the potential of the
expanding global market, what they felt from their members was the
pressure of increased competition undermining basic workers’ rights. Their
answer to these problems was not a reversal of the process of opening up
trade and investment but stronger rules to ensure that core labour
standards are universally observed in the new global economy.
In this booklet you will find the ICFTU’s proposals for linking basic
workers’ rights to trade liberalization through a workers’ rights clause
(often referred to also as a "social clause"). We explain their rationale
and answer the critics, we summarize the history of our campaign and we
point to the next steps forward.
The ICFTU Campaign on Labour Standards and Trade focuses on a short list
of basic human rights at work. Aimed at preventing repression,
discrimination, forced and child labour, they are enabling rights which
all countries regardless of their level of development can and should
apply. With these rights workers have a voice, an opportunity to have
their say about their working conditions. It is a simple but powerful
demand that anybody who professes to believe in democracy and human rights
can accept. But these rights are all too often abused, and as a result
legitimate grievances and aspirations are suppressed.
Markets, including the global market do not work without rules. That is
why the World Trade Organization (WTO)was set up. Its agreements cover an
impressive range of subjects, but not the fundamental workers’ rights that
are essential to determining contracts of employment that reflect a
reasonable balance between the interests of the employed and employers.
World trade is a complex chain of inter-woven contracts across national
boundaries, but the first link in that chain is the exchange of work for
pay. The absence of agreed rules on basic workers’ rights is a gap that
could threaten the whole elaborate edifice of the global market. Without
common rules applied by all member states of the WTO, workers can have no
confidence that their efforts to meet the challenge of competition will
not be unfairly undermined by unscrupulous employers and governments
looking for a quick profit.
I hope this booklet will be widely read by trade unionists and all who are
interested in ensuring that the world economy is founded on co-operation
as well as competition. Our arguments are making headway, even though a
lot of work still needs to be done to convince those who have genuine
doubts about the workability of our ideas. We must build on and strengthen
the acknowledged competence of the International Labour Organization on
labour standards. And we must break down the barriers which separate the
world of commerce from the everyday concerns of working people.
Read this booklet! Use it! Give it to your friends and to all those who
see the dangers of globalization without a human face! And let us have
your views.
1998 could be the year when governments start their preparations for the
Millennium Round of trade negotiations. They will not get far if they do
not take heed of workers’ fears that globalization is for a rich few and
promises only more insecurity for working people. This booklet shows how
the international community can begin to respond to the needs and
aspirations of hundreds of millions of working people for a say in their
future.
Bill Jordan
General Secretary
ICFTU
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE:
THE NEED FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Basic Workers’ Rights in the Global Economy
Defending Fundamental Trade Union Rights
Setting a minimum age for employment
Ending discrimination in employment
Free trade or slave trade?
The human rights case for a workers’ rights clause
__________________________
PART TWO:
THE PROPOSAL FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE
The workers’ rights clause– how would it help developing countries?
What would a workers’ rights clause say?
The myth of an international minimum wage
Developing countries versus industrialized countries?
Developing countries versus…developing countries?
So developing countries can’t use low labour costs to compete…?
And a great profit went out of the land…
How would a workers’ rights clause benefit the global economy?
Who would implement a workers’ rights clause?
The aim is to help, rather than punish
What about national sovereignty?
What about the threat to national culture?
PART THREE:
THE CAMPAIGN FOR WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Introduction
The Havana Charter
GATT – the provisional ITO
The WTO – a window of opportunity?
The UN Social Summit
From Copenhagen to Singapore
Other tactics
The GSP of the United States
The GSP of the European Union
Guidelines and declarations
The NAFTA Side Agreement on Labour
International Commodity Agreements
The rise of ethical consumerism
Do the Codes work?
PART FOUR:
THE WAY FORWARD
The next step
The right time for workers’ rights
The message
Emerging Areas of Consensus
The Need for Dialogue
The ILO
The next WTO Summit: an opportunity to make progress
Conclusion }
*partie=titre CHAPTER ONE:
THE NEED FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Basic Workers’ Rights in the Global Economy *partie=nil
According to the world’s leading economic institutions the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the OECD and the World Trade Organization (WTO),
trade, investment and economic growth are all booming. Globalization of
the world economy is stimulating massive investments by transnational
corporations (TNCs) which is acting as a dynamo to produce more jobs and
higher profits worldwide. Somehow, however, the experiences of individual
workers do not correspond to this rosy view of world developments. Poverty
and inequality are on the increase in the developing world and growing
insecurity and mass unemployment scar the industrialized world.
This contradiction has a simple explanation - we are seeing a worsening of
the two-tier economy, with the divisions between rich and poor widening as
income distribution worsens everywhere. The world economy is producing
wealth and dividends for some but poverty and insecurity for many others.
Yet the only answer seems to be more of the same. Governments desperate to
increase their countries’ exports and attract foreign investment are
finding themselves in a buyers’ market dominated by companies who can name
their price. And that price all too often includes cheap labour, low
standards and no trade unions.
*partie=titre Defending Fundamental Trade Union Rights*partie=nil
The most recent edition of the ICFTU’s Annual Survey of Trade Union
Rights(1) shows that 264 trade unionists were murdered in 1996. There is
no doubt that many of these murders took place as a result of governments’
failure to protect trade union rights and, in some cases, with the tacit
agreement of certain governments. Trade unionists in Colombia, where 80 of
their colleagues were killed during the year, say that the security forces
were implicated in many of the killings. They add that violence against
union members was never investigated.
The persecution of trade unionists in Colombia is extreme but not unique.
It is merely one example of a pattern listed throughout the Survey:
workers carrying out normal trade union activities are accused of
threatening the country’s economic progress, and then find themselves the
victims either of repression by their own governments, or by company
thugs. In many countries, the trade union movement’s scope of action is
being steadily curbed by batteries of new laws, special powers, and
so-called "labour code reforms", with trade unionists being treated as
criminals and accused of sabotage, subversion, and even terrorism. These
accusations are used to justify repressive legislation against trade
unions, or the persecution of individual trade unionists. The Survey
records over 7,600 cases of harassment, intimidation and death threats
made against union members in 1996, and lists 4,262 cases of people being
arrested or questioned for carrying out activities recognized in
international law and codified by the International Labour Organization.
Some countries will not tolerate free trade unions at all. China is
becoming a powerful player on the global economic stage, with many experts
predicting it will have the biggest economy in the world within the next
25 years. There are 153 million manufacturing workers in southern China
alone powering an economy unencumbered, as the regime would see it, by any
kind of independent voice demanding higher standards or fair wages. Many
factories in China are run by the army, and the country has an extensive
forced system of labour camps where the labour is unpaid. It is difficult
to see how any other government could compete with that, no matter how
tightly it restricted workers’ rights.
Yet that is what many governments seem to be doing, especially those who
are competing for foreign investment. In Latin America, governments are
investing heavily in Export Processing Zones, and touting them as sources
of cheap, mainly female labour where unions are suppressed. Some Asian
leaders have tried to portray trade unions as alien institutions that are
threatening Asian culture – though this is not a view their citizens seem
to agree with, whenever they have the liberty to organize free trade
unions. In Central and Eastern Europe, there is widespread hostility to
trade unions, with governments designing labour laws so as to frustrate,
rather than encourage collective bargaining, and to place limits on trade
union activity.
An important part of the explanation for this downward pressure on trade
union rights is the global competition for trade and investment. Rather
than trade being the well-spring for the improvement of living and working
conditions through the resources provided by higher exports, it is all too
often the source of misery as governments actually reduce workers’ rights
in order to minimize labour costs. This "beggar-thy-neighbour" competition
has effects on all countries, including the industrialized, but it goes
without saying that the countries worst affected are those developing
countries genuinely seeking to protect workers’ human rights and raise
basic living standards, for these are the countries most vulnerable at the
margin to being forced out of the world market.
It’s hurting, but is it working? Ironically, the answer appears to be no.
According to the OECD(2), countries that suppressed union rights did not
improve their economic performances, and "concerns expressed by certain
developing countries that core standards would negatively affect their
economic performance are unfounded". The OECD also said that "host
countries may be able to enforce core standards without risking negative
repercussions on FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] flows".
The conclusion is irresistible: never was so much inflicted on so many for
so little and so needlessly. A workers’ rights clause as suggested by the
ICFTU would end this downward spiral in living and working conditions. The
international labour standards we propose constitute basic human rights
for workers. We do not advocate global minimum wages and working
conditions - what we seek to stop is governments trying to gain
competitive advantage through the repression, discrimination, and
exploitation of workers, and instead to ensure that globalization does
result in gains for all workers.
*partie=titre Setting a minimum age for employment*partie=nil
Almost every country has laws against child labour, and virtually all have
signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, protecting children
from exploitation. Many countries respect this Convention as well as ILO
Convention 138 on the Minimum Age for Employment and an increasing number
are taking steps to enforce their own child labour laws. Some are not,
however; a minority of countries is prepared to tolerate child labour in
the belief that it will give them a competitive edge.
Again, this is simply not true. There is no evidence that child labour
does anything other than exploit the children and enrich a handful of
unscrupulous employers. The short term gain will easily be outweighed by
the long-term damage being done a country’s skills base if it puts its
children in factories rather than in classrooms. In other words, today’s
child labourers are tomorrow’s unskilled and unemployed young workers.
Opponents of a workers’ rights clause also deploy the same argument in the
case of child labour as in the case of free trade unions: they say that
child labour is a part of the culture of some countries, and that those
who want to get rid of it are trying to impose "Western values". But child
labour is a world-wide problem, as a 1996 ICFTU report on child labour(3)
made clear. It exists throughout Latin America and it exists in North
America, Africa, Asia and Europe. There is nothing "cultural" about it.
Loving your children and wanting the best for them is not a "Western
value". Families put their children out to work because the family needs
their income to survive. The ICFTU report quotes a study in the UK that
found a clear link between child labour and the parents’ being unemployed.
The cruelties inflicted on children who work illegally are
well-documented. In Peru, gold prospectors buy child slaves from
contractors in the Peruvian Sierra. There are media reports of secret
graves of unidentified children in the forests, and children who have
escaped tell of the treatment they have received: girls are raped, boys
are beaten; they get just one meal a day; there is no medical service and
no education; all they do is work.
In the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, children are locked into garment
factories for 10-14 hours at a time. Some of them are not even paid, but
forced to work for nothing as "apprentices".
A child from a carpet factory in the Indian state of Rajasthan described
the primitive medical care he and his friends received. The employer would
put turmeric paste on their fingers if they got cut. Not for any medical
reason – but to stop blood dripping on the carpets.
In the United Kingdom, children suffer appalling injuries through working
illegally in unregulated factories.
All these and countless other examples point to a multilateral world
problem that cannot be solved by unilateral action alone. This is not to
say that specific initiatives have no value; the ICFTU, the International
Trade Secretariats, and individual trade unions and national centres are
all involved in and committed to projects designed to stamp out specific
instances of child labour. But all these initiatives risk being undermined
by the few countries who turn a blind eye to child labour for sake of
short-term competitive advantage.
The most effective way to protect children would be through a workers’
rights clause that would punish these countries by removing that
advantage. Countries where the abuse and exploitation of children is
tolerated would become outcasts from the world trading system – no more
than they deserve - while those who are trying to work their way out of
poverty and eliminate child labour at the same time would be given help.
The workers’ rights clause would also help eradicate child labour because
it would protect and encourage free trade unions. Trade unions have shown
themselves to be vociferous and effective campaigners against child
labour, and exploitation of any sort flourishes where organizing rights
and collective bargaining rights are weak.
Given how effective a workers’ rights clause would be in eradicating child
labour, it is surprising that it still arouses such virulent opposition.
Ending discrimination in employment
Women workers are the underclass of the global economy. All over the
world, in both industrialized and developing countries, they have become
the main victims of unemployment; they are confined to the jobs requiring
the lowest skills; and most still do not receive equal pay for work of
equal value, or even equal pay for equal work. And most of the workers in
the new bastions of the global economy – the informal sector, the export
processing zones and home working – are women.
A recently-published ICFTU report(4) logs the growing number of women who
are working. In the USA, Canada and Scandinavia, women now make up nearly
half of the working population. In Central and Eastern Europe, despite the
recession brought about in the move towards a free market economy, one in
two women is working. Their contribution to the economies of developing
countries may be even higher because of under-reporting. In Africa alone,
the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) says that women
produce 70 per cent of the food.
Yet they have paid a heavy price to get into the labour market. Many
governments, after pressure from trade unions and women’s groups, have
tried to remove inequalities. But their efforts have been undermined by
employers who still see women, especially young women, as a source of
cheap labour. Many in developing countries rely on labour-intensive
industries with a predominantly female workforce to boost their exports.
To keep up with international competition, the average wage paid to these
women can be half of what men get. Some countries even boast about the
fact that they employ women workers in advertising aimed at attracting
foreign investment, pointing out that not only are the women cheap, but
they are more docile and less likely to become trade union activists. Some
multinationals, keen to escape high wages, stricter laws and stronger
unions in the industrialized world, have been only too happy to take
advantage.
The main culprits are the factories in the export processing zones –
special zones where foreign companies are offered tax breaks and
exemptions from labour laws if they invest. On average, 80 per cent of the
workers in these zones are women. They are subject to a level of abuse,
exploitation and humiliation which would cause a public scandal if it
happened in the investor’s home country. Working hours are long and safety
protection is usually poor. The discipline is harsh and arbitrary, and
sexual harassment is a common problem. The ICFTU report quotes the case of
a young Salvadorian woman who died after an attack of gastro-enteritis for
which her employer refused her treatment. Another woman working at a
Korean factory in the same country was beaten so badly by a supervisor
that she suffered a miscarriage. In some countries, young women have to
take a pregnancy test before they can be hired. If they later become
pregnant, they are sacked.
These women have been forsaken by their own governments. Once they start
work in the zones, they are beyond the protection of their national laws.
Nor do they find it easy to protect themselves. Trade unions are denied
access to the zones, and women who try to join or form unions face at best
dismissal, and at worst persecution.
Countries with higher standards cannot hope to compete fairly with the
export processing zones. Whatever advantage the zones bring is only
temporary: South Korea, for example, once benefited from its low wages,
but it soon found itself undercut by workers in countries like Indonesia,
China, Sri Lanka or Vietnam. They too will find themselves undercut by
others, perhaps from Africa. The only real winners in this game are the
transnational corporations who can move from country to country as soon as
the going gets too expensive.
This is a problem that will have to be tackled internationally by a
workers’ rights clause. Nearly all the countries in the world have signed
up to the ILO convention on discrimination in employment. Nearly all of
them were represented at the United Nations Fourth World Women’s
Conference in Beijing in 1995. There is a clear international commitment
to ending the injustices inflicted on women; and a clear need to end the
unfair competition that is threatening to undermine what has already been
achieved, and what women in many countries are striving to achieve.
A workers’ rights clause would help women to join together in trade unions
to protect themselves; and it would make it clear to every country and
every transnational corporation that exploiting women was no longer
economically viable.
*partie=titre Free trade or slave trade?*partie=nil
The media image of the global economy is of a technology-driven,
high-production free market gearing itself up for the 21st century. But
how free is a market that tolerates forced labour?
Since 1994, Burma’s military dictatorship, the State Law and Order
Restoration Council (SLORC) has been building a railway line that will
connect the town of Ye in the southern part of Mon state, to Tavoy. The
railway will be used to transport troops to and from a pipeline linking
huge natural gas deposits in the Gulf of Martaban with customers in Burma
and Thailand.
It has been alleged that 160,000 Mon and Karen people have been forced to
work on the project. Human rights groups have obtained copies of
requisition orders issued by SLORC ordering village headmen to provide
workers. They contain sentences like "If you do not comply with the order,
you will suffer the most severe consequences", or "if you do not report
for work, a bullet will come to you".
The workers are supervised by armed guards. They have to forage for their
own food and firewood. Hundreds have died of cholera, and countless others
have been beaten and tortured by the guards.
The gas pipeline itself is alleged to have been built under similar
conditions. Thousands of villagers have been thrown off their land to make
way for the pipeline, and thousands of others have been press-ganged into
working on the project. The total value of the project is estimated at
over $12 billion. Foreign companies involved include the French-based
TOTAL, and the US-based UNOCAL.
Burma is an extreme case, but it is not the only offender. Forced labour
exists in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia. In
1993, the ILO said that "Pakistan is beset with some of the most critical
problems in the world in terms of forced labour". Forced labour is used in
several sectors, including carpet-weaving, shoe-making and agriculture.
The problem is caused by a loan system, known as bonded labour, under
which outstanding debts bind the creditor to the debtor. The interest is
so high that the debt is passed on through generations, and in fact, is
never paid off. The employer gets free labour not just for life but for
several lives.
Several of the products made using this kind of labour find their way onto
world markets, and it is the international connection that enabled the
trade union movement and human rights groups to take action.
In the cases of Burma and Pakistan, the ICFTU, the relevant International
Trade Secretariats and the European Trade Union Congress (ETUC) have
framed complaints about forced labour under the European Union’s
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). This allows preferential access
to certain goods from developing countries into the EU’s markets, and
makes such access conditional upon respect for basic workers’ rights as
set out in ILO conventions. As a result of the trade union complaint,
Burma was formally suspended from the European Union’s GSP in March 1997.
There is no doubt that withdrawal or the threat of withdrawal of GSP
benefits will go a long way to helping eradicate forced labour. But in a
global economy, any such system has to have global coverage.
Burma’s recent efforts to secure its membership of the Association of
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) show how international approval does
matter to repressive regimes. Other ASEAN countries argued that the SLORC
would modify its behaviour after joining the club. But the opposite has
happened. The ICFTU says that it has treated its membership as a "license
to increase repression", sentencing an activist of the Free Trade Unions
of Burma (FTUB) to life imprisonment on trumped-up charges of terrorism,
and other pro-democracy activists to long jail terms.
A workers’ rights clause would turn countries like Burma into outlaw
states. But it would have enough flexibility to help countries that were
genuinely trying to deal with the problem of bonded labour, while removing
the economic incentives that make forced labour so attractive to
unscrupulous employers and foreign buyers.
The human rights case for a workers’ rights clause
The moral case for a workers’ rights clause is unanswerable. Globalization
promises a great deal, but delivers insecurity and cruelty to millions.
The world cannot tolerate an economic system that depends on repression
for profit; that exploits children and young women; and that makes slavery
a sound business option. A workers’ rights clause would create the
potential for a different future, one that creates a basis for really
achieving workers’ rights and economic development and growth on the basis
of respect for human rights and improvement in living and working
conditions for all world citizens.
The international community already agrees that the global economy needs
global regulation. That is the whole basis for the World Trade
Organization; for international standard-setting; for laws banning the
manufacture and sale of counterfeit and protecting intellectual copyright;
and for the environmental initiatives following on from the Earth Summit.
Many of the mechanisms set up to enforce these regulations are expensive
for the companies to operate, and operate across the jurisdiction of
nation-states.
There seems no justification for allowing all this, but for claiming that
the same type of international regulation cannot operate to protect basic
human and trade union rights.
But what of the economic case? What of the accusation that a workers’
rights clause is a protectionist device designed to safeguard
featherbedded Western workers from the more competitive and efficient
developing countries? This is the argument we confront in the next chapter.
*{(1) ICFTU Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights, 1997
(2) Trade, employment and labour standards a study of core workers' rights
and internatioanl trade, OECD (1996)
(3) No time to play: child workers in the global econoomy; June 1996
(4) Worlds apart: women and the global eocnomy, March 1996}
*partie=titre CHAPTER TWO: THE PROPOSAL FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE*partie=nil
The workers’ rights clause– how would it help developing countries?
The accusation most commonly leveled against those campaigning for a
workers’ rights clause is that it is an attack on the up-and-coming
developing countries by the hidebound economies of the West.
A workers’ rights clause, it is alleged, is just part of a protection
racket run by the industrialized countries. The real aim is to shield
high-wage Western industries from the competitive, labour intensive
industries of the developing world. Thereby, it is argued, a workers’
rights clause will bring about an international minimum wage that will
drive the industries in poor countries to bankruptcy; it will split the
world market into two camps and undermine global free trade; it will
weaken the national sovereignty of developing countries; and it will
undermine their national culture by imposing Western values on traditional
societies.
Some of the people making these accusations are insincere, for they
represent the repressive governments with everything to lose from a
workers’ rights clause. But there is no doubt that the idea of a workers’
rights clause also arouses genuine concern, especially among developing
countries. However, much of this concern is the result of a
misunderstanding about what a workers’ rights clause is and how it would
work. A workers’ rights clause is protective – it will help protect
workers and children from exploitation – but it is not protectionist. Its
aim is not to undermine economic competition, but to enhance it by
removing unfair advantages. It will not restrict free trade, but will
bring more people into the global economy. And it will work to close,
rather than to widen, the gap between the developing and the developed
world.
*partie=titre What would a workers’ rights clause say? *partie=nil
The idea of a workers’ rights clause originated with the ICFTU. We have
devised the following text which we would like to see in the WTO and
similar international agreements:
"The contracting parties agree to take steps to ensure the observance
of the minimum labour standards specified by an advisory committee to
be established by the WTO and the ILO, and including those on freedom
of association and the right to collective bargaining, the minimum age
for employment, discrimination, equal remuneration and forced labour."
The first thing to note is what the clause doesn’t say. There is no
mention of an international minimum wage; no mention of developing
countries versus industrialized countries; and no question of imposing any
"cultural values".
*partie=titre The myth of an international minimum wage *partie=nil
The ICFTU has never advocated an international minimum wage. All that a
workers’ rights clause does is guarantee workers’ right to negotiate their
own wages. Its significance lies in its emphasis on the right to freedom
of association and collective bargaining. What is crucial about these
rights is that they are enabling rights. They give workers and employers
the means to negotiate improvements in wages and working conditions as
trade and development expand.
In those negotiations, they would obviously take note of how their
employer was doing, how much their country could afford etc.; negotiations
don’t take place in an economic vacuum. Unlike fly-by-night transnationals
who are only interested in making cheap goods for a quick profit, workers
have a long-term interest in their country’s prosperity. They would expect
a fair share when things are going well; and if they were allowed a
genuine say in economic policy, they would be more likely to accept and
carry out difficult decisions when there were problems.
In any event, it is not true that low wages will give countries a
guaranteed competitive edge. Labour costs obviously figure in the final
price of any product entering the world market. The exact weight of labour
costs, however, depends on productivity; a poor country with low per
capita income and low wages may still not have much competitive advantage
on world markets because of low productivity. Likewise high wages matched
by high productivity may make the output of rich countries very
competitive.
The best way for developing countries to guarantee prosperity is to base
their economies on high productivity and high skills; and the best way to
do this is to allow workers and employers to set high standards, and fair
wage levels. It makes sense that as trade and productivity grows, wages
and other conditions of work also rise as national conditions permit,
rather than be kept down by exploitation and repression.
There is plenty of evidence to back this assertion. An ILO report(5) cites
several studies showing that the economic performance of the East Asian
newly industrializing countries (NICs) has not been boosted by exploiting
workers or by keeping wages low. The real power of the Asian Tigers comes
from the productivity gains brought about by education, and infrastructure
development, and by restructuring low-wage, labour-intensive markets with
upgraded value-added and skill-intensive techniques.
Countries that take the high road to development will become more
efficient, more competitive and more prosperous as long as their efforts
are not undermined by countries who try to cut corners by exploiting their
citizens. A workers’ rights clause will help close off the short cuts.
Developing countries versus industrialized countries?
The ICFTU has been leading the campaign for a workers’ rights clause, and
it is important to note that that campaign did not originate in the
industrialized countries alone. The ICFTU is a world-wide confederation
with over 120 million workers in all five continents. Our proposals take
account of the interests of workers in all countries and are based on the
democratic decisions of our Congress and Executive Board. How many TNCs
can say that? How many views do they take into account in developing their
investment strategies?
However, trade unions do not have a seat at the trade negotiations and we
need to seek the support of governments. The ICFTU, its affiliates, and
its regional organizations are making every effort to get governments to
examine and discuss our proposals. Some who have done so have been
convinced.
In March 1995, speaking at the UN World Summit for Social Development in
Copenhagen, President Nelson Mandela of South Africa announced his support
for a workers’ rights clause. The proposal for a workers’ rights clause,
or at the very least for the establishment of a WTO working group to
examine the case for such a clause, has been supported at various times by
governments from Argentina, Honduras, Venezuela, Barbados, Nicaragua,
Panama, Chile, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon and Tunisia.
We know that several other government have been having discussions at
senior level about the merits of a workers’ rights clause. And we know
that there are some developing countries have never bought in to the model
of progress through exploitation. Mauritius, which has used its Export
Processing Zones to develop an impressive industrial base, has emphasized
the improvement of skills, working conditions and pay of its workforce. A
Director of a Mauritian promotional agency for the zones has stated: "It
is not our aim to attract foreign investors with cheap labour. In the long
term, it is always counter-productive, because unskilled workers produce
goods with no value added which do not sell well on the export market"(6).
Developing countries versus…developing countries?
This remark underlines the telling point that competition is not simply
between developing countries and industrialized countries. Low-wage
economies are in direct competition not with countries producing high
value-added goods, but with other low-wage countries. And the labour on
the other side of the border will always be cheaper.
The world’s financiers have developed an investment strategy where out of
$100 billion for all the developing world, China alone gets $38 billion
and all of Africa gets just $5 billion. The attractions of China are
obvious. There, the labour isn’t just cheap; a lot of it is free. The
country has a vast network of labour camps. Whole factories are being run
by the army. Who can compete with that?
Many developing countries aren’t even at the starting gate. Countries in
sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are still struggling to emerge from
the economic crisis of the 1980s and have so far been excluded from the
benefits of globalization.
Those who have aren’t getting the return they deserve. Around the world,
income and wage inequalities continue to expand with societies polarized
between those who have the wealth or skill to gain from global integration
and those who remain trapped in poverty without productive employment or
basic labour standards.
Apart from a handful of Asian countries, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and
Malaysia, the investments made in Export Processing Zones – where cheap
labour, use of young female workers and lack of union rights are among the
main selling points – have generally failed to spill over into the rest of
the economy.
Anyone from a developing country who harbours doubts about a workers’
rights clause should look at what has happened in the merchant shipping
sector since the Flag of Convenience system started. The system allows
ship-owners to register their vessels in countries where the labour is
cheapest and the standards are the lowest. It has undermined safety
standards at sea, and it has kept wages in the industry down. But while it
has undoubtedly helped the shareholders of many of the world’s shipping
fleets, it has bought no long-term benefits to the countries that have
sought to exploit it for obvious reasons: first, European seafarers were
cheaper than American; then Asians were cheaper than Europeans; now
Eastern Europeans are cheaper than some Asians, and some Asians are
cheaper than other Asians.
It shows how unfettered competition can lead to a race to the bottom.
Without a workers’ rights clause, this is the shape of things to come for
low-wage economies.
So developing countries can’t use low labour costs to compete…?
A workers’ rights clause in not about labour costs; it’s about labour
rights. No-one can seriously suggest that giving workers in the developing
world the basic rights enshrined in a workers’ rights clause will lead to
their wage costs spiraling up to European levels overnight. It just won’t
happen. Developing countries will still be able enjoy comparative
advantages from their abundant supply of labour. All that will happen is
that governments will not be able to keep these costs down by oppressing
their workers; and transnational corporations will not be able to bully
countries into the kind of competitive repression we’re seeing in the
world economy now.
The ICFTU does not accept that cheap labour is all that developing
countries have to offer the world. Not only is that an insulting picture
of their economies; it is also inaccurate. To take just one example, India
turns out 250,000 science graduates a year. Many of the world’s leading
companies are hiring Indian computer programmers to write their software
and to process their data. Cost is a factor; but so are skill-levels. This
is the kind of competition developing countries will have to offer in the
information age. A workers’ rights clause will give them the space to do
that by easing the constant downward pressure on standards brought about
by the present system.
*partie=titre And a great profit went out of the land *partie=nil
The real beneficiaries of the current world trading system are not the
developing countries, but the transnational corporations - TNCs.
Of the 100 top economies in the world, only 49 are countries. The rest are
TNCs.
The combined sales of the world’s top 200 corporations surpass the
combined economies of 182 countries - every country on earth minus the
nine biggest. These corporations have almost twice the economic clout of
the poorest four-fifths of humanity. They control well over a quarter of
the world’s economic activity. But nobody controls them, except their
shareholders.
Many of these increasingly powerful and mobile TNCs can play one country
off against another in search of the best deal. The long-term value of the
kind of investment some of them are offering is questionable; they will
pull out at the slightest economic shock or change in the regulatory
environment; and are unlikely to develop strong links with the rest of the
economy. This problem is especially acute in low-skill industries such as
garments and footwear, where exit costs are low.
Unchecked and unregulated, the labour market in the global economy will
become nothing more than a vast shopping mall for the TNCs, with countries
forced to cut their costs to bargain-basement levels. A workers’ rights
clause will help bring the TNCs under the rule of law. It will create an
environment where countries can compete without fear, and where companies
can invest for the long term.
How would a workers’ rights clause benefit the global economy?
For many countries and many companies, it will be business as usual. No
country which is keeping to its legal obligations under the UN Charter and
which is applying the core conventions of the ILO has anything to fear
from a workers’ rights clause.
As we have argued, we believe that a workers’ rights clause will reinforce
the global economy. The universal application of basic labour standards
will help to ensure a more balanced expansion of world trade and a
smoother process of adjustment to changes in the global division of
labour. High-wage countries would still face the challenge of competition
from low-wage countries. But that competition would at least be based on a
broader-based expansion of markets and the knowledge that the women and
men who work in competitor countries were not being exploited or abused,
and weren’t being forced to subsidize the TNCs.
And a workers’ rights clause would make it impossible for some
irresponsible TNCs to leap from country to country in search of a
government prepared to violate workers' rights. If there was no reason to
move on, they might stick around. This would encourage a more sustainable
process of foreign investment which would bring increased benefits to the
host country, and long-term, stable profits to the investor.
So much for the principle. What about in practice? As in all negotiations,
the devil is in the detail. How will a workers’ rights clause be enforced?
What is to prevent the rich and powerful countries from exploiting it to
their own advantage?
These are crucial questions that touch at the heart of what a workers’
rights clause is about. If a workers’ rights clause is to command respect,
it must be open and transparent; and it must be strictly and fairly
enforced. It must not be seen as a stick with which aggressive countries
can beat their commercial competitors; but nor must it be seen as simply a
pious declaration to which countries and corporations need only pay lip
service.
The ICFTU has devised an enforcement procedure which we believe satisfies
all these criteria. It will all be done out in the open, so there need be
no fear of groups of countries ganging up on weaker countries; it will
give plenty of chances to put things right for countries which transgress
through negligence rather than malice; the emphasis will be on helping
countries meet the required standards, rather than on belabouring them for
falling short; but in the end, it will have teeth that bite and bite hard
for persistent offenders.
*partie=titre Who would implement a workers’ rights clause? *partie=nil
The aim behind a workers’ rights clause is to ensure that the promotion of
free trade goes hand in hand with the improvement of workers' rights.
Implementation should therefore be a joint operation between the World
Trade Organization (WTO) and the ILO. The ILO has obvious competence in
setting standards and in supervising their application; and the WTO would
make sure that failure to enforce the basic standards does not lead to
unfair competition.
Our proposal is that a joint WTO/ILO Advisory Body could be set up to
oversee the implementation of a workers’ rights clause. This body would
have the authority to undertake periodic reviews of how countries were
applying the principles enshrined in a workers’ rights clause; or to step
in if there was a well-justified complaint.
This side of the operation would be the particular responsibility of the
ILO team on the joint advisory body; the ILO already does much of this
anyway, although there would be a need to reinforce its existing
procedures.
The reviews would typically show either that the standards were being
followed – in which case, no further action would be needed – or that the
country concerned was in breach of its obligations, and certain changes in
labour law and/or practice were necessary.
In the latter case, the ILO report would make recommendations to the
country concerned on these changes and, if necessary, offer technical
assistance and make additional resources available to help countries put
things right.
The government of the offending country would then have a period of time
in which to change its ways. We are suggesting two years, following which
there would be a second report. This second report would typically reach
one of three conclusions. It could show that the country was applying the
standards; or that while the problem had not yet been solved, but progress
was being made; or that the government had failed to co-operate with the
ILO and that the standards were still not being met.
Where progress was being made, a further report would be prepared in a
year or two.
If the government concerned was clearly ignoring the ILO’s
recommendations, there would be a final warning; if within one year there
was still no co-operation with the ILO, the matter would then be referred
to the WTO Council for consideration of possible trade measures.
When it came to deciding on the appropriate sanctions, the WTO should have
a range of options which could be escalated over time if the government
carried on offending. A first step might be to suspend the countries'
right of access to the WTO’s new binding rules for dispute resolution.
The aim is to help, rather than punish.
The procedure is hardly Draconian. It places the right blend of emphasis
on opening up markets and enforcing basic rights. The emphasis throughout
is on helping countries reach the required standard, rather than on
punishing each and every failure. Trade measures are only used as a last
resort, and even there, the measure are initially quite mild. We know that
there are many countries who have been forced into a low-wage, low
standard economic policy by the present set-up. It would make no sense to
impose unrealistic targets and timetables on such countries. On the other
hand, there are countries who are willfully profiting from repression;
these countries have to know that at some stage, there will be sanctions,
and those sanctions will hurt.
It is also important that their people know that the international
community has recognized their plight, and is prepared to do something to
help them. In all the talk of committees and advisory bodies and
macro-economics, we must not forget that a workers’ rights clause is
designed to help individual workers and their families. There is real
misery out there, and real money being made out of that misery.
The step-by-step procedures we have outlined provide just the right blend
of stick and carrot. It has all the elements of clarity, predictability
and objectivity that an effective multilateral system requires.
It builds on the established competence of an existing specialized
international agency – the ILO.
It also provides enough time for problems to be solved by dialogue.
It avoids the danger of the big players trying to dictate terms for market
access to small countries.
And it is even-handed; because it refers to universal standards, all
countries would be subject to equally close scrutiny. Fully transparent
procedures would be used which would leave no opening for misuse for
protectionist purposes.
In fact, the opposite would happen; a workers’ rights clause would ease
protectionist pressures, and strengthen free trade. Many people in the
industrialized world blame competition from cheap manufactured goods from
the developing countries for job loses. This is increasing the support for
populist demands for protection in one form or another. If unemployment
worsens, there is likely to be increased public pressure to restrict the
flow of what are perceived to be "unfairly" produced goods.
Whether these allegations have an economic basis or not, they pose a
serious threat to the world trading system. In the absence of any
international curb on goods that are seen as "subsidized" by abuse of
basic standards, there could an irresistible temptation to rely on
unilateral protectionist measures. This could result in endless argument
at international level, and perhaps even political tension between
countries. A workers’ rights clause could rein in these unilateral
measures and provide a more open and fair means for settling disputes. It
could lower rather than raise protectionist tendencies and help keep
markets open by sharing out the benefits of trade more fairly.
Industrial countries would also benefit from a workers’ rights clause too,
in the long term. A more balanced development of consumer markets around
the world would generate further growth for all countries. It would not
end the need for labour market adjustments in the industrialized
countries. But such, often painful, adjustments would be easier to justify
against the background of a common set of core principles for the
treatment of workers. Further growth of world trade would also open up new
job opportunities both in industrialized and developing countries.
By guaranteeing fair trade, a workers’ rights clause would protect free
trade.
*partie=titre What about national sovereignty? *partie=nil
The notion that a workers’ rights clause would violate national
sovereignty is simply not true. A workers’ rights clause would not
infringe any country’s national sovereignty; if anything, it would
strengthen it. In today’s global economic environment, national
sovereignty is anyway something of a myth. Many TNCs outgun developing
countries economically and politically, as they have done for years. The
famous phrase, "banana republic" just about sums it up. It refers to
countries so dependent on the export of their banana crop that they had
surrendered economic and political authority to the companies controlling
the banana trade. Without a workers’ rights clause, we’re all in danger of
becoming banana republics.
How much national sovereignty does a country have when it dare not pass
laws enforcing its own citizens’ trade union rights for fear that half its
foreign investors will shut down their factories and pull out? How much
power does it have when it is forced to put areas of its own territory
off-limits to its own laws in Export Processing Zones? What’s the point of
having parliamentary accountability when citizens going into those zones
have to surrender their rights in order to get a job in their own country?
The reality is that sovereignty has already been surrendered and policy is
being shaped to an increasing extent by the demands of the global market.
The issue is not whether but how policy will be determined internationally
- through the market or through political negotiations.
A workers’ rights clause would restore sovereignty by allowing policy to
be determined through negotiations – providing a counterweight to the
enormous economic muscle of TNCs. Its aim is not to limit power, but to
limit the abuse of power.
Both the WTO and the ILO (the organizations which would be charged with
implementing a workers’ rights clause) proceed by consensus. This can mean
that they move slowly at times; but it also means that they move very
surely – and that their legitimacy is unquestionable. The WTO negotiations
have a timetable designed to take account of the needs of ministers to
report back to their citizens, and to consult all their constituents. The
ILO is a United Nations agency made of national representatives of
governments, employers and workers. Over its 76-year history, it has
developed standards which are elaborated through a two-year process of
discussion and adopted by a full Conference of all 179 member-states.
While there can be no compromise on the principles established by these
core labour standards, how they are translated into law and practice may
vary according to the institutions and customs of the country concerned.
A workers’ rights clause would be based on these core standards, and
enforced within countries in the same way. The rights it enshrines are
enabling rights. They would put sovereignty back where it belongs: with
the people and with their governments, rather than with the TNCs.
A workers’ rights clause will give developing countries a powerful weapon
with which to assert their economic independence against the invisible
pressures of international trade and investment.
*partie=titre What about the threat to national culture? *partie=nil
The argument that a workers’ rights clause would threaten national culture
is another myth. The real threat to national cultures comes from the
uncontrolled commercialism of the free market. To take one single, but
powerful example, how many national cultures embrace compulsory
contraception, or enforced sterilization? Yet both these are common in
many export processing zones, where companies want to employ young women,
but don’t want the inconvenience and expense of granting them maternity
rights.
It is the TNCs who are undermining national cultures. Because their
activities are unchecked, they can impose wage levels, patterns of work
and working conditions without taking any account of the needs or
interests of anyone. A workers’ rights clause would mean that where
workers want to form a union of their own choice, companies would have to
negotiate with trade unions, and shape their activities according to what
their workers want. It will restore to people the basic human rights that
globalization has stolen from them.
These basic rights are based on the most highly ratified of the ILO
conventions. Over 100 States have ratified at least six of the seven. By
no stretch of the imagination can they be said to embody "Western values".
They contain a built-in flexibility which makes them applicable for all
countries whatever their level of development. Furthermore, how they are
translated into law and practice can vary according to the institutions
and customs of the country concerned, just as already happens with ILO
conventions. The ILO in its supervision of the standards does not attempt
to impose a global harmonization of labour laws; it examines whether the
effect of laws and practice achieve the objective of ensuring that the
principles are applied.
To argue that the principles themselves are "Western values" is offensive
and dangerous. It splits the world’s workers into first- and second-class
citizens. It legitimizes the notion that workers in the "West" are more
"advanced" than workers in the developing world, while the people in the
developing world neither need nor deserve any protection of their basic
rights. That is what this argument is really saying. It is surprising that
it is being put forward with such fervour by governments in the developing
world; and it is interesting that this view is not shared by the citizens
of these countries. Workers in the developing world make up some of the
most committed members of trade union organizations; their women workers
are among the most passionate advocates of equal treatment; and the
campaign against child labour and slave labour has strong roots in the
developing countries.
All women are entitled to equal treatment; all children should be
protected from child labour; all workers must be allowed to join trade
unions, and must be free from the threat of slavery. To argue that workers
in developing countries must be treated differently from workers in the
industrialized countries is to promote global economic apartheid.
It will divide the world as surely as a workers’ rights clause will unite
it.
*{(5) Amsden, A.H. (1989), Asia's next giant: South Korea and late
industrialization, Oxford University Press, Oxford; Lim, L.Y.C. (1990),
Singapour, in Herzenberg, S.A. Perez-lopez, J.L. and Tucker, S.K. (eds.)
(1990), Labour Standards and Development in the Global Economy, US
Department of Labour, Washington, D.C; and World Bank (1993), The East
Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy, Washington DC.
(6) op cit., ICFTU (1996), p.25 and 26.*partie=nil}
*{CHAPTER THREE:}
*partie=titre THE CAMPAIGN FOR WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Introduction*partie=nil
Ever since world trade began, merchants and manufacturers have dreamt of a
borderless economy around which goods and capital could flow without let
or hindrance; a free-market Shangri-La, uncluttered by rules or
restrictions. Political and technological changes are at last making that
dream a reality. We are living in the global village with its own global
market-place. According to the free market acolytes, the role of
governments and international institutions now is to refine and accelerate
the process of globalization by removing all the remaining barriers to
trade. Anything else is irrelevant; it has no place on the world’s
economic agenda.
That might be how some people like to tell it; but it’s not how it is. In
fact, the kind of concerns being raised by the trade unions have been
connected with the whole globalization project from the very beginning.
They were raised during the attempt to set up the International Trade
Organization at the end of the Second World War; and while it is true that
the international business community managed to sideline them during the
years of the GATT, they have remained central to wider attempts to create
an international community – as opposed to an international shopping mall.
The reason our proposals are making such an impact now is that more and
more people are beginning to see that globalization will fail if it has no
social dimension.
*partie=titre The Havana Charter *partie=nil
Between 1946 and 1948, the United Nations held a conference on Trade and
Employment. The agenda was ambitious. The aim was to create a third
institution along with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
that would handle international economic co-operation. More than 50
countries were involved. The new institution was to be a specialist United
Nations agency known as the International Trade Organization (ITO). Its
charter would cover employment rules, commodity agreements, restrictive
business practices, international investments and services. Known as the
Havana Charter, this draft document included a workers’ rights clause that
specifically linked economic progress and trade liberalization to fair
labour standards. The text read as follows:
1. The Members recognize...that all countries have a common interest
in the achievement and maintenance of fair labour standards related to
productivity, and thus in the improvement of wages and working
conditions as productivity may permit. The Members recognize that
unfair labour conditions, particularly in the production for export,
create difficulties in international trade and, accordingly, each
Member shall take whatever action may be appropriate and feasible to
eliminate such conditions within its territory.
2. Members which are also members of the International Labour
Organization shall co-operate with that organization in giving effect
to this undertaking.
3. In all matters relating to labour standards that may be referred to
the Organization....[under dispute settlement provisions of the
Charter] it shall consult and co-operate with the International Labour
Organization(7).
The unions which shortly afterwards became the ICFTU’s founder-members
backed the ITO, and its Workers’ rights clause. Unfortunately, although
the draft was approved at the UN Conference on Trade and Employment in
Havana in 1948, some national legislatures refused to ratify it.
Opposition by the US Congress proved to be the fatal blow; the US
government, which had been one of the driving forces behind the ITO,
announced in 1950 that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the
Charter. The ITO was dead, and with it died a workers’ rights clause. For
the time being.
*partie=titre GATT – the provisional ITO *partie=nil
Even while the ITO talks were going on, 23 out of the 50 participants
began negotiations on reducing customs tariffs. With the war having just
ended, they wanted to give an early boost to liberalizing the world
economy, and to start hacking down all the protectionist barriers that
were still in place from the 1930s. The first round of these negotiations,
which took place in Geneva, brought about 45,000 tariff concessions
affecting $10 billion worth of trade. The participants also agreed that
they should "provisionally" accept some of the trade rules in the ITO
Charter to protect some of the tariff concessions they had negotiated. The
"Geneva 23" became founding members (known officially as "contracting
parties") to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Even though it was provisional, GATT remained the only multilateral
instrument governing international trade until the WTO was set up in 1995.
Its agenda was limited to traditional commercial aspects of trade in goods
and since it was assumed that the ITO would eventually supersede GATT, the
ITO chapter on employment and labour (among many others) was not included
in GATT.
Apart from Article XX(e) which permits governments to ban trade in goods
produced by prison labour, GATT makes no further reference to labour
standards – though the trade union movement has pressed repeatedly for
their inclusion.
The GATT did a great deal to promote the liberalization of trade. During
the 1950s and the 1960s, it is estimated that tariff reductions alone
boosted world trade by an average of eight per cent per year. But as time
passed, problems grew. A series of recessions in the 1970s and the 1980s
led to factories shutting down, and unemployment soared. Many governments
sought new protectionist devices to safeguard their industries. They
sought bilateral deals with competitors and extended subsidies to keep
their hold on trade. Both these tactics undermined the GATT’s credibility
and effectiveness.
The ICFTU would not maintain that a workers’ rights clause would have
eliminated these difficulties and the tensions they caused. But it is
worth pointing out that such a clause would have provided a potential
mechanism for dealing with the problem; and that at the very least, it
would have removed any suspicion of unfair competition on wage costs.
The most recent stage in the evolution of GATT was the mammoth Uruguay
Round of trade talks, launched in Punta del Este in September 1986. It
took seven and a half years; involved 125 countries; and covered almost
every product and service that could be made and traded. It was the
biggest trade negotiation in history – probably the biggest negotiation of
any kind.
The Uruguay Round ended in Marrakech in April 1994. The Marrakech meeting
was a significant success for the trade union movement. It is true that
there was no formal declaration referring to the link between trade and
labour standards; all that came out of the meeting in the way of a text
was in the chairman’s concluding remarks. But a workers’ rights clause was
firmly on the agenda, being the single issue that dominated discussions
all week long. The issue received extensive press coverage, and there were
at least 20 governments (not all from the industrialized countries) who
spoke in favour of discussing the need for the clause. Another ten
governments were receptive to and interested in the idea, but concerned
about whether the WTO was the proper forum for this debate, and were
anxious about protectionism. Twenty-two countries spoke out in opposition
to a workers’ rights clause.
In January, 1995, the agreements signed in Marrakech began to take effect
in Geneva with the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The WTO – a window of opportunity?
There is no doubt that the WTO represents a real opportunity for a
workers’ rights clause campaign. This is partly because of the success we
have had in arguing our case; but it is also because of the nature of the
WTO itself.
The WTO effectively takes the role which the ITO would have had. Unlike
GATT, which, despite its longevity, was never more than a provisional
arrangement, the WTO is the legal and institutional foundation for a
multilateral trading system. It provides a contractual framework which
determines how governments shape and implement domestic trade laws and
rules. It is a platform on which trade relations among countries can
evolve through debate, negotiation and consensus.
The WTO is a rules-based organization. It is dedicated to maintaining a
system of rules for open, fair and undistorted competition. Those rules
will be worked out in "trade rounds" where trade concessions are
negotiated in a package. This means that concessions which are necessary
but would otherwise be difficult to defend domestically can be made sold
within a package which contains other politically and economically
attractive benefits.
It is a genuinely global organization. 76 governments became members of
the WTO on its first day, and by the end of 1997 the WTO had 132 members.
Both the "package deals" and the way the WTO operates as an organization
mean that the ICFTU and our affiliates can target our lobbying campaigns
much more clearly. The WTO also has a review mechanism, which sets a
useful example for a workers’ rights clause, and which means that WTO
members have already given the organization some policing powers that
could be said to have implications for national sovereignty. The WTO
monitors national trade policies through its Trade Policy Review Mechanism
(TPRM). The purpose of the TPRM reviews are to increase transparency and
understanding of trade policies, to stimulate public and intergovernmental
debate on the issues, and to assess the effects of policies on the world
trading system.
The reviews are conducted regularly. The four biggest traders - the EU,
the US, Japan and Canada - are examined approximately once every two
years. The next 16 countries in terms of their share of world trade are
examined every four years, and the remaining countries every six years;
with the possibility of a longer interim period for the least-developed
countries. The reviews are conducted in the Trade Policy Review Body
(TPRB) on the basis of two documents; a policy statement prepared by the
government under review and a detailed report prepared independently by
the WTO Secretariat.
The TPRM shows that the WTO is an organization that means to monitor its
members’ activities to make sure they are sticking to the rules. One
method by which the WTO, in cooperation with the ILO, could reinforce
internationally recognized core labour standards is through the
examination of the effects of non-observance in the context of the regular
country trade policy reviews. The ICFTU would contend that labour
standards should be considered among the trade-related issues which are
discussed by the WTO General Council when it undertakes a debate of the
trade policies of WTO members. Accordingly, over the course of 1997 the
ICFTU began producing reports on core labour standards in the countries
subject to TPRs by the World Trade Organization, as a basis for
encouraging an informed debate on the issue.
The aim now is to intensify the campaign to convince WTO members that a
workers’ rights clause should be part of those rules. Twenty already
agree. The rest must be persuaded to follow. In March 1995, there was yet
another sign of the way the pendulum is swinging in our direction.
*partie=titre The UN Social Summit *partie=nil
In March 1995, leaders from 115 countries gathered in Copenhagen for the
United Nations World Summit for Social Development. Known as the "Social
Summit", this meeting was the first time that world leaders had sat
together and held a thorough discussion on how to put social concerns at
the centre of economic and political developments. It was a massive
international endorsement of what the trade union movement had been
arguing since the Havana Charter and before: that the global economy has
to have a social dimension.
The Summit proved to be more than a talking shop. At the end of the
Summit, everyone present signed up to a series of commitments(8) that
entailed not just international obligations, but also action at home.
The extracts below are taken from the commitments which relate to the
ICFTU campaign for a workers’ rights clause:
"We commit ourselves to create an economic, political, social, cultural
and legal environment that will enable people to achieve social
development." (Commitment 1)
Internationally, governments have promised to:
Promote social development through international co-operation in
economic policies and agreements on trade, investment, technology,
debt and development aid;
Reaffirm and promote all human rights, which are universal,
indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.
The national action promised under this commitment includes a promise that
governments will provide:
full respect for human rights, freedoms and the rule of law;
equality and equity between women and men;
transparent and accountable government;
and that they will work in partnership with free and representative
organizations.
"We commit ourselves to promoting the goal of full employment as a
basic priority of our economic and social policies, and to enabling
all men and women to attain secure and sustainable livelihoods through
freely chosen productive employment and work." (Commitment 3)
Internationally, governments have promised to:
Ensure that migrant workers are protected against exploitation, in
line with international instruments on migrant workers;
Promote sustained economic growth through international co-operation
on economic policy, trade and investment, and through exchange of
experiences on successful approaches.
The national action promised under this commitment includes a promise that
governments will:
put job creation at the centre of government policy, with full respect
for workers' rights and with the participation of employers, workers
and their organizations, and with special attention to long term
unemployed people, the disadvantaged and those subject to
discrimination;
expand work opportunities, productivity and access to resources in the
rural and urban sectors, including in the informal sector and small
and medium enterprises;
ensure that workers and employers have the education, information and
training needed to adapt to changing conditions;
ensure that women have access to employment, protection in the labour
market and equal treatment, especially equal pay;
promote quality jobs, and safeguard workers' rights in line with
relevant ILO Conventions and to this end, freely promote respect for
relevant ILO Conventions, including on forced and child labour,
freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively
and the principle of non-discrimination.
"We commit ourselves to promoting full respect for human dignity and
to achieving equality and equity between women and men, and to
recognizing and enhancing the participation and leadership roles of
women in political, civil, economic, social and cultural life and in
development." (Commitment 5)
*partie=titre WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN THE INFORMAL SECTOR *partie=nil
In many developing countries, a majority of workers are in the informal
sector, engaged in production for the domestic economy. Any workers’
rights clause should include measures to benefit those workers as well.
It should simply state that all WTO members would fully respect the
basic workers' rights included in the workers’ rights clause - not just
in export production but throughout the economy.
A workers’ rights clause would therefore lead governments to confront a
problem which many have so far largely ignored. Governments would have
to start an effort to apply the basic labour standards covered in the
workers’ rights clause to all workers in their countries, including
those in the informal sector. This should be complemented with a range
of supporting policies to upgrade the living and working conditions of
people in the informal sector.
Internationally, governments have promised to
Promote and protect women's rights and encourage the ratification of
the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination
against women and other relevant instruments;
Recognize the full extent of women's work and all their contributions
to the national economy, including unpaid and domestic work;
Assist developing countries to achieve equality and equity and the
empowerment of women.
The national action promised under this commitment includes a promise that
governments will:
promote gender balance and equity in decision-making and integrate a
gender perspective in economic and social policies;
promote equal partnership between women and men and full and equal
access of women to education;
work to eliminate all obstacles to human dignity, equality and equity;
enhance the equality of girls;
combat and eliminate discrimination, exploitation, abuse and violence
against women and girls;
support gender equality in the labour market through positive action,
legal protection, child care and other support services.
The trade union movement must campaign and lobby to make sure that
governments keep their word on these commitments. Many of them are very
specific and trade union organizations will be working with community
groups and NGOs on particular issues. But the fact is that the commitments
governments entered into at the Social Summit will never be fully realized
without a workers’ rights clause. No country, however much it acknowledges
the importance of the social dimension, will take initiative which it
thinks may threaten its economic well-being. No-one will want to be the
trail blazer. A workers’ rights clause will enable the international
community to move forward collectively on the commitments made at
Copenhagen as a community.
*partie=titre From Copenhagen to Singapore *partie=nil
The Social Summit gave a powerful boost to a workers’ rights clause
campaign. The UN Fourth World Women’s Conference held in Beijing in
September 1995 reaffirmed the principles adopted in Copenhagen, especially
respect for basic workers’ rights including the core ILO labour standards.
The next key date in the diary was the WTO Ministerial Summit in December,
1996.
Singapore was a difficult meeting. But the final Declaration that came out
of the meeting included a paragraph as follows:
"We renew our commitment to the observance of internationally recognized
core labour standards. The International Labour Organization is the
competent body to set and deal with these standards and we affirm our
support for its work in promoting them. We believe that economic growth
and development fostered by increased trade and further trade
liberalization contribute to the promotion of these standards. We reject
the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes, and agree that the
comparative advantage of countries, particularly low wage developing
countries, must in no way be put into question. In this regard, we note
that the WTO and ILO secretariats will continue their existing
collaboration."
Both sides were giving their own views of this text after the meeting.
There will be plenty of battles ahead over how it is interpreted. But our
view is that the text is a small, but significant step forward. It is not
the Havana Charter; but it is the first time in the fifty-year history of
GATT that a commitment to core labour standards had been made.
We haven’t got a workers’ rights clause yet. But we do have a sound basis
for the next stage of the campaign, leading up to the WTO ministerial
meeting from 18-20 May 1998 in Geneva.
*partie=titre Other tactics *partie=nil
The trade union movement’s final goal is to get a workers’ rights clause
enacted within the WTO. But the WTO is not the only show in town, just the
biggest. The battle to defend workers’ rights is being fought on several
other fronts.
There are the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) arrangements
operated by the USA and the European Union. These are deals by which
certain developing countries get preferential access to US and European
markets. Both GSPs include references to observance of basic labour
standards.
There are the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, adopted in
1976; the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinationals and Social Policy, adopted in 1977; and a number of codes
of conduct in particular sectors, an issue that has been given greater
impetus by the rise of "ethical consumerism".
*partie=titre The GSP of the United States*partie=nil
The GSP was adopted by the US Congress in 1974. It provides temporary
duty-free treatment to certain products from developing countries. A
country cannot get GSP status if it "has not taken or is not taking steps
to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the
country".
Organizations and individuals can petition the government at public
hearings to review the behaviour of countries benefiting from GSP status.
The Committee examining these petitions looks at information on workers’
rights in the State Department annual Country Reports on Human Right
Practices, findings of the ILO, reports from US Embassies and Consulates,
and US International Trade Commission reports on the economic effects of
GSP decisions. In a number of countries of Central America and the
Caribbean, and most notably in the Dominican Republic, the threat of US
GSP sanctions brought about changes to the labour code and improved rights
to collective bargaining and freedom of association for workers. There is
no doubt that potentially and in practice, the GSP is a powerful
instrument for enforcing international labour standards.
At present six countries are suspended from the US GSP for violating
workers’ rights: Brunei, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Sudan and Syria.
Further petitions filed by the AFL-CIO are under investigation including
Belarus, Swaziland, Pakistan, Indonesia and Thailand.
*partie=titre The GSP of the European Union*partie=nil
In 1994, the European Union integrated some workers’ rights into its own
GSP. Countries which respect core labour standards can get additional GSP
benefits, while countries denying core labour standards face suspension.
As from 1 January 1995, countries which tolerate forced labour, or which
export goods made by prison labour could face trade sanctions in the form
of temporary suspension from the GSP scheme. Investigation by the European
Commission can be initiated by member states or any natural or legal
persons or associations able to demonstrate a bona fide interest in the
case. Sanctions, if any, cannot be implemented before a year of
investigation and a decision by the (qualified) majority of the Council.
In March 1997, the European Union formally suspended Burma’s trade
privileges on the grounds that Rangoon’s military regime sanctions the use
of forced labour. This action set a precedent in the Commission’s
bilateral trade relations by linking trade and core labour standards for
the first time.
Starting from 1 January 1998, countries can apply for "special incentive
arrangements in the form of additional preferences", provided that they
have adopted and apply the substance of ILO standards concerning freedom
of association and collective bargaining.
*partie=titre Guidelines and declarations*partie=nil
In the 1970's, the international trade union movement was campaigning to
establish a system of guidelines for multinational corporations. The OECD
adopted its Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in 1976 and the ILO
its Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinationals and
Social Policy in 1977. The OECD Guidelines are voluntary and consequently,
not legally enforceable. The ILO Declaration is also voluntary and is
essentially a statement of principles on issues such as basic human
rights, conditions of work, equality of treatment and industrial
relations. As it is voluntary, it cannot be enforced in the same way as an
ILO Convention. Nevertheless it and the OECD Guidelines have been used by
unions to pressure companies and governments to live up to the standards
they have adopted.
International negotiations have started at the OECD on a global investment
instrument (Multilateral Agreement on Investment — MAI) to set rules
governing the treatment of foreign direct investment. Once ready, non-OECD
members could also sign the MAI, which could serve as the basis for a
world-wide investment instrument through the WTO. TUAC is working to
ensure that the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies are linked to
the new instrument. The new agreement must contain a clause to stop
governments promising cheap labour and a union-free environment to attract
investors. The UN Commission on Trade and Development and the WTO are also
looking at how a global instrument might be negotiated and the ICFTU is
following these discussions closely, stressing the need to incorporate the
ILO declaration on Multinationals and respect for core labour standards.
*partie=titre The NAFTA Side Agreement on Labour*partie=nil
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a further stage in the
process of economic integration in North America. There was, and still is
strong concern that NAFTA could bring downward pressure to bear on wages
and working conditions. To accommodate this concern, a "side" or
"parallel" agreement on labour standards was negotiated. The North
American Agreement on Labor Co-operation (NAALC), also commonly known as
the NAFTA Side Agreement on Labor, came into force at the same time as
NAFTA on 1 January 1994.
The NAALC provides for a commitment to uphold existing labour laws in
basic areas of workers’ rights including freedom of association, the right
to collective bargaining and the right to strike; prohibition of forced
labour; discrimination; protection of migrant workers; health and safety;
child protection; and minimum employment standards. In the areas of
minimum wages, safety standards and child labour alone, fines of up to $20
million could be levied on countries that allow their companies to gain a
competitive advantage by violating labour laws in these areas. Seven
submissions have so far been filed for review under the NAALC.
The agreement has shortcomings, however. The procedures are highly complex
and time consuming. And crucially, it makes no reference to
internationally recognized labour standards. The focus is on the
enforcement of each country’s own labour laws.
*partie=titre International Commodity Agreements*partie=nil
Some international commodity agreements also refer to core labour
standards: the International Sugar Agreements, the Tin Agreement of 1981,
the Cocoa Agreement of 1986 and the International Rubber Agreement of
1987.
These clauses are essentially statements of intent. They contain no
special sanctions or control mechanisms. They are therefore of limited
use, but they do nevertheless add strength to the trade union argument
that there is nothing unprecedented about linking trade to labour
standards.
*partie=titre The rise of ethical consumerism*partie=nil
Ethical consumerism really began with the campaign against apartheid. It
now encompasses a range of issues from environmental protection to concern
about workers’ rights. Trade unions have formed alliances with consumer’s
organizations and human rights groups to ride the tide of ethical
consumerism by drawing attention to abuses of workers’ rights, child
labour and exploitation of women, especially in labour-intensive
industries like clothing and sports goods. Unions have campaigned to force
transnational companies to adopt Codes of Conduct on the treatment of
workers that will apply right down the whole production chain. Typically,
the brand owners of such goods use a chain of suppliers and
sub-contractors, and deny responsibility for any maltreatment of workers
they do not employ directly.
UNICEF’s 1997 State of the World’s Children report further called on TNCs
to adopt codes of conduct banning the use of child labour by their
suppliers in developing countries.
Among the companies to adopt codes of conduct have been clothing makers
Levi-Strauss and Phillips-Van Heusen, athletic footwear makers Nike and
Reebok and retailers Eddie Bauer, The Gap, Nordstrum, JC Penney, Sears
Roebuck and Co. and Wal-Mart. All of these retailers are heavily involved
in organizing the production of clothing and footwear internationally
through outsourcing. In 1996, the US clothing giant The Gap went even
further, by reaching agreement with a coalition of trade union, human
rights and religious organizations to establish a system of independent
monitoring of the observance of this company's code of conduct by its
subcontractor in El Salvador. Levi’s has terms of engagement with its 600
contract manufacturers around the world in which it states that it will
not do business with companies who use child or prison labour.
Fifa, soccer’s world governing body, has agreed to a code of conduct for
manufacturers of soccer balls, after a trade union campaign by the ICFTU,
the ITGLWF and FIET revealed that souvenir balls for the Euro’ 96
championship had been produced by child labourers in Pakistan.
The Fifa code will set labour standards for suppliers of Fifa-approved
balls, covering the minimum working age, hours and conditions, and union
representation.
*partie=titre Do the Codes work?*partie=nil
Codes of conduct have obvious drawbacks. To date, they have been entirely
voluntary; firms are not legally bound to follow them. There are usually
few if any satisfactory monitoring and enforcement procedures, despite
constant calls from unions and pressure groups for independent monitoring
and verification mechanisms. For many companies, the problem is simply one
of public relations; they will do enough to get the campaigners off their
back, but no more.
But despite these problems, there is no doubt that codes of conduct do
make a difference. Even if all they are worried about is getting a bad
press, many companies, especially those who invest heavily in their brand
image, are very sensitive to public opinion, and will go to great lengths
to avoid adverse publicity. They can be shamed into improving their labour
practices. And if respecting labour standards improves a firm’s image, and
its sales, other firms may start to see labour rights as a bankable
commodity.
Campaigning on labour codes also raises public awareness of the way
workers’ rights are abused, and of the role of trade unions in defending
workers. Through these campaigns, trade unions have forged powerful
alliances with NGOs, women’s groups, consumer groups and human rights
organizations that may prove useful in the campaign for a workers’ rights
clause.
A recent report by the NGO Human Rights Watch claims that public action
and serious insistence on human rights can work. Public pressure on
conditions of work faced by textile workers have forced large importing
companies to source their goods from companies that respect labour rights.
Major manufacturers from GAP to Nike have been forced to own up to myriad
abuses of workers in a number of developing countries.
Codes of conduct and GSP systems have helped raise public awareness of the
reality of globalization; of just why certain goods are so cheap; and of
who really pays the full price. They have also blown away the myth that
the mighty TNCs are omnipotent and invincible, and given a powerful boost
to the confidence of the trade union movement and other campaigners. As
well as the substantial publicity these campaigns have attracted, they
have made a profound impact in many sectors, especially child labour.
People are now much more aware of how extensive and complex a problem this
is.
But however many examples one can find of their working, voluntary codes
of conduct are no substitute for a workers’ rights clause.
That is not to say that the trade union movement will be sidelining its
work on developing and strengthening codes of conduct, or on pressing for
links between trade and workers’ rights to be included in regional trade
arrangements. But these campaigns are part of the global campaign for a
workers’ rights clause.
*{(7) Havana Charter for an International Trade Organisation, Department of
State Pub. No. 3117, Commercial Policy Series 113 (1948)
(8) The ICFTU has published a "Users' Guide to the Social Summit".
Available from the ICFTU, or on our World Wide Web site at
http://www.icftu.org
CHAPTER FOUR:
THE WAY FORWARD
The next step}
The campaign for a workers’ rights clause is now at a critical phase. The
trade union movement made significant gains from the Marrakech meeting and
the Singapore meeting. These gains were the result of careful planning, a
lot of media work and intensive lobbying during the negotiations. The next
WTO Ministerial Summit will be held in Geneva from 18-20 May 1998. The
planning for this meeting has already started, and will intensify over the
intervening months. Our aim is keep up the pressure for labour standards
and trade nationally and at world level, and to create and use
opportunities to keep the issue in the headlines.
*partie=titre The right time for workers’ rights*partie=nil
Time is now on the side of the workers’ rights clause campaign. Public
awareness of international social issues is high. The growth in media and
communications technology has shrunk the distance between countries.
Everyone sees more, knows more, and seems to care more.
The political climate has also changed in many parts of the world.
Alongside the growing awareness that everything connects has come a
recognition that the free market cannot simply be left to operate
unchecked and ungoverned. As we have argued earlier, the international
business community itself campaigns vigorously for global regulation when
it comes to matters like copyright control, or the manufacture of
counterfeit goods that affect corporate profits. This sits rather uneasily
alongside their opposition to a workers’ rights clause.
Women’s organizations have become aware of the way the global economy
exploits and discriminates against women and girls, especially in
employment. There have been a number of campaigns to raise awareness about
equal wages and treatment for women workers, improving their working
conditions and organization into trade unions, including the ICFTU’s
international campaign on the rights of working women and the campaigns of
the ICFTU Asian and Pacific Regional Organization, ICFTU/APRO on "Women
Know Your Rights" and "1 + 1 = Women Power". Women trade unionists and
women’s organizations were vocal and effective at the United Nations
Fourth World Women’s Conference in Beijing in 1995, particularly in
ensuring that the final declaration included a strong reference to the
importance of guaranteeing workers’ rights, including rights to protection
against discrimination, in international trade agreements.
Ethical consumerism, fired in part by energetic and imaginative
campaigning from the trade union movement and other civic groups has also
helped dispel the image of the all-powerful, all-conquering TNC. People
are beginning to see that these juggernauts can be brought under control;
all it takes is the determined activism to generate the political will.
All this has created a fertile environment for the campaign for a workers’
rights clause.
*partie=titre The message*partie=nil
One reason that the message on a workers’ rights clause has got through is
that it is a very simple message. Despite (or, perhaps, because of) the
vehemence of the opposition, few people doubt that trade and labour
standards are connected in just the way that the trade unions maintain –
that unscrupulous employers and governments are paying low wages and
oppressing workers to maximize profit. It sounds like common sense - and
it matches people’s experience.
All of the abuses that the trade union movement has targeted during the
workers’ rights clause take place behind closed doors and barbed wire. The
abusers are always on the defensive; ministerial pronouncements about
"traditional culture" ring hollow when set against images of young
children toiling their childhood away in sweatshops and factories; and
claims by the big companies that they have no control over what happens
all the way down the production chain rarely convince. TNCs cannot at the
same time boast to their customers about the rigors of their quality
control, while maintaining they have no jurisdiction over what goes on in
their sub-contractors’ factories. The two propositions are inconsistent.
*partie=titre Emerging Areas of Consensus*partie=nil
As this document has shown, the debate about whether and, if so, how to
encourage the parallel improvement of basic workers rights and the opening
up of global markets is not new. It was a major topic of discussion and
agreement in 1947 in Havana at the first post-war international conference
on trade. It gained significance since the signing of the Uruguay Round
agreements in 1994 in Marrakech. The ILO, UNCTAD, the World Bank, the
OECD, and the G7 Summit have discussed the issue extensively and a number
of serious studies have been produced. There are some signs of an
emerging, if partial, consensus upon which trade ministers can build.
Firstly, there is widespread agreement on the ICFTU’s proposals for the
following seven core ILO standards, supported by the Copenhagen UN Social
Summit, the Beijing UN 4th World Women’s Conference and in the Singapore
Declaration by WTO trade ministers, as points of reference:
· Conventions 29 and 105 on the abolition of forced labour;
· Conventions 87 and 98 on the rights to freedom of association and to
bargain collectively;
· Conventions 111 and 100 on the prevention of discrimination in
employment and equal pay for work of equal value; and
· Convention 138 on the minimum age for employment (child labour).
These standards are amongst the most highly ratified of the ILO. Over 100
states have ratified at least six of the seven. They are not
industrialised country standards; they constitute the most accepted
standards in the world for the following reasons:
· they assert the right of workers to form and join unions and to
negotiate conditions of employment that are fair and appropriate for
their country's level of development;
· they outlaw forced labour or slave labour, which prevent workers from
having any say in where they work or in the terms of their employment;
· they seek to end discrimination in employment which stops particular
groups of workers such as women or migrant workers, from benefiting from
trade growth; and
· they seek to end the commercial exploitation of children, and will lay
the foundation for a programme of aid aimed at communities and families
who presently depend on child labour to survive.
Adherence to the seven basic ILO standards would prevent the most extreme
forms of exploitation and cut-throat competition. It would not end
developing countries' comparative advantage, but it would establish a
process by which conditions of employment could gradually be improved as
trade increases. This would encourage the growth of consumer markets,
stimulating both domestic and foreign investment and, most importantly,
jobs.
This would help to ensure a more balanced expansion of world trade and a
smoother process of adjustment to changes in the global division of
labour. At the Copenhagen Social Development Summit in 1995 there was a
very broad consensus that these are core labour rights to which all
countries should and can commit themselves. Furthermore, as stated in the
Programme of Action adopted at the Summit (paragraph 6), "...social
progress will not be realized simply through the free interaction of
market forces. Public policies are necessary to correct market failures,
to complement market mechanisms, to maintain social stability and to
create a national and international environment that promotes sustainable
growth on a global scale."
A second point of consensus is that all countries should aim for
progressively more and more open trade. The global market is thus set to
enlarge and affect significantly an ever increasing number of workers. The
intensification of competition is already causing trade tensions to rise
between states. This calls for a much closer interaction between trade
policy and policies in such fields as the environment, foreign direct
investment, business practices and labour. The WTO therefore must adapt to
these pressures and increase its collaboration with other agencies, such
as the ILO.
The third area of consensus is that the international community should
exert pressure on countries that violate basic standards not only out of
concern for basic human rights but also because such violations call into
question the legitimacy of a trading system that allows unscrupulous
companies to gain short-term competitive advantage by abusing fundamental
workers’ freedoms. Already a number of governments and some socially aware
companies and trade associations are responding to such concerns by
introducing workers’ rights provisions into national or regional trade
laws and codes of conduct. However such actions cannot provide a general
solution. It is high time for the WTO, together with the ILO, to create a
pro-active multilateral framework to stave off the danger that even well
intentioned unilateral measures could be used for protectionist purposes.
A fourth area of common ground is that fears that core labour standards
could negatively affect economic performance are unfounded. Studies of the
relationship between trade liberalisation and labour standards show a
positive two-way relationship over time in which improved observance of
basic workers’ rights acts as an incentive to raise productivity through
investment, especially in education and training, and helps to create a
more stable social framework attractive to foreign direct investment.
Nevertheless efforts to extend basic labour standards can be undermined by
governments which seek to gain a short-term advantage by suppressing
labour rights, typically in Export Processing Zones. The countries most at
risk from such behaviour are typically developing countries with similar
levels of labour productivity and which are consequently under pressure to
weaken established workers’ rights. International action is therefore
needed to promote adherence to basic standards and prevent destructive
competition which is damaging both for the country and the workers
concerned as well as the international system.
*partie=titre The Need for Dialogue*partie=nil
There is clearly a need for further dialogue. The ICFTU and its affiliates
have had extensive discussions with governments, international
organizations, employers and many other interested experts and
non-governmental organizations. These have revealed widespread recognition
that a problem exists and that practical solutions need to be found which
reinforce the integrity of the open trading system and improve the
observance of basic workers’ rights. We are convinced that the elements of
consensus that are emerging could be enlarged through a deeper and more
considered examination of the options and in particular the procedural
mechanisms for cooperation between the ILO and the WTO.
Developing countries working to improve the rights of their citizens at
work at the same time as increasing their participation in the global
market have most to gain from a reinforcement of basic workers’ rights.
Responsible business, that recognises that the security and productivity
of their investments ultimately depends on the degree to which the system
in which they operate produces social justice, would also benefit. Support
could also be expected from industrial country governments that are trying
to adapt to a new global world economy and stave off the dangers of a
protectionist backlash. And workers everywhere would be able to face rapid
and sometimes intimidating changes with a greater degree of confidence.
The potential consensus includes all the major social and political
adherents of what is known as the free world. This basis of support was
and remains vital to the GATT system and for the future of the WTO.
The ICFTU, for its part, is more than ready to participate in an open
dialogue with all concerned. What is needed is an organized forum for such
discussions so that by the time ministers or heads of state and government
meet to agree on the agenda for the WTO for the 21st century, they can
examine specific policy options for the international community. A WTO
Working Party should therefore be set up with a remit to study and report
on how the Organization can contribute to furthering the observance of
basic international labour standards in an open trading system with
well-defined non-discriminatory mechanisms for action.
The promotion of trade and enabling workers to exercise their basic rights
are mutually reinforcing. There is no evidence that respect for workers’
rights weakens the competitive position of developing countries, indeed by
laying the foundations for cooperation between workers and employers, core
labour standards contribute positively to trade and development. A
workers’ rights provision would strengthen the political authority of the
WTO and break, rather than build, barriers to world trade. It would
provide a means of solving disputes that, if allowed to persist, might
increase pressures for protectionism. And it would serve to reinforce the
case for enlarged access for developing countries to world export markets.
A workers’ rights provision in the WTO would need to be backed up, where
necessary, by international financial and technical assistance through the
ILO, particularly to fund programmes designed to eliminate child labour
through the expansion of education facilities and increased
income-generating opportunities of the poorest families.
The Geneva Trade Ministers Meeting of the WTO in May 1998 is an
opportunity to move on the process of finding a way forward on a issue
which threatens to provoke serious disagreement. What is required is a
cool objective examination of how the WTO, working closely with the ILO,
can take action to improve the likelihood that the benefits of trade
growth will be more broadly spread within and between countries, thus
widening the constituency of support for trade liberalisation. Such an
initiative is vital to ensuring a non-protectionist means for securing
basic workers’ rights in an increasingly competitive world market.
The link between the ILO and the WTO is crucial to the success of a
workers’ rights clause. The final declaration of the Singapore meeting
clearly gives the WTO a mandate to co-operate with the ILO.
The ILO’s pre-Geneva work programme will therefore provide some vital
occasions to follow-up on the gains made in Marrakech and Singapore. The
ILO Governing Body Working Party on the social dimensions of globalization
meets regularly. The priority at the ILO Governing Body will be to
continue the pressure to enhance ILO supervision of the core conventions.
The ILO Conference itself brings together representatives from all the
main players in the workers’ rights clause debate – governments, big
business, and unions. It will be a perfect platform from which to
highlight the link between trade liberalization and labour standards. The
main focus of attention in 1998 is likely to be the debate on
strengthening the supervisory mechanisms for the core Conventions. This is
already being discussed in the ILO Governing Body and was a major theme of
the Director-General’s report to the 1997 Conference. The debate has
developed around the idea of the adoption by the ILO Conference of a
Declaration on fundamental rights, and of new supervisory mechanisms which
would give the ILO significant new capacities to examine the situation in
respect of those rights in countries which have not ratified the relevant
conventions.
Paradoxically, both sides of the workers’ rights clause argument have
reasons to back a stronger ILO: those who want labour rights issue to be
solely an ILO matter have an interest in its being seen to have a more
effective machinery; while those, like the ICFTU, who are looking for an
eventual linkage want new procedures in place so as to highlight the need
for WTO action on cases of persistent and gross abuse of core standards.
The ICFTU and the whole union movement is further gearing up for the new
ILO Convention on child labour, which is on the agenda for the 1998 and
1999 ILO conferences. Our principal objectives for the new standards are
to retain the age benchmarks set in Convention 138, to maintain a strong
connection between C138 and the proposed new Convention, and to include
strong references in the new Convention to the "intolerable" nature of
commercial exploitation of children and to work that interferes with the
education and development of children, along with other criteria already
contained in the text circulated by the ILO. This will be an perfect
opportunity to raise the profile of what is already a headline issue. And
it will be another area where the ILO will be better equipped to set the
standards that will underpin a workers’ rights clause.
Public attention to this issue is expected to increase early in 1998 with
the holding of the Global March Against Child Labour, an international
event over several months, organized by NGOs and trade unions, culminating
at the International Labour Conference in Geneva in June.
*partie=titre The next WTO Summit: an opportunity to make progress*partie=nil
The dates of the next WTO ministerial meeting have been announced as
Monday 18 May to Wednesday 20 May 1998 in Geneva. The opening on 18 May is
likely to be a short ceremony to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
GATT. The format of the following two days is still under discussion. It
is envisaged that the meeting will provide an occasion for ministers to
review progress since Singapore and prepare itself for a new "Millenium
Round" of multilateral negotiations to be launched in 1999 or 2000.
Endorsed by the United Nations Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen
1995), the universal observance of core labour standards would mark a
major step forward in ensuring that all workers have the opportunity to
benefit from the potential that an open trading system offers for growth
and improved living standards. At their meeting in Geneva, trade ministers
should therefore consider the following proposals:
the establishment of a Working Party on International Labour Standards
and Trade to examine how the WTO, in collaboration with the ILO, can
contribute to improving the observance of core labour standards;
including core labour standards as one of the subjects for discussion
in the next round of WTO trade negotiations;
strengthening cooperation between the ILO and the WTO in line with the
agreement in paragraph 4 of the Singapore Declaration;
that the WTO should in future receive regular reports from the ILO on
what countries are doing to respect core labour standards.
*partie=titre Conclusion*partie=nil
The campaign for a workers’ rights clause is probably the most
wide-ranging in the history of the trade union movement. It is a campaign
that goes a long way beyond the confines of that movement. It touches
every aspect of the global economy at every level.
In this campaign, the trade unions are asking governments and corporations
whether the global economy as it stands now really represents the kind of
a world they want to create; or whether they have the courage to face a
different vision; and whether they have the courage to face the facts
about the global economy, rather than the fantasies; to look behind the
sound-bites and the buzz words at the reality of globalization that our
members - their citizens and their employees - live out every day.
The global economy is asking people too many people to make too high a
sacrifice for too uncertain a reward. The injustice of all the trappings
of the global economy - the export processing zones, child labour,
discrimination, persecution of trade union activists - could not be
plainer. We have to confront the international community with those
injustices, and we have to ask them to choose between that vision and
between ours; between looking backwards and facing the future.
The global economy needs global rules. In an era when multinational
corporations have more money, better technology, and more raw power than
many nation-states, it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.
There is a wide consensus that they should apply to tariffs, standards,
and all the practical paraphernalia of getting goods and services across
borders and into as many market places as possible; there is broad, if
grudging agreement that they need to cover the environment - no country
can keep its own air pure, and few can keep their own water clean; and
there is passionate agreement (especially among the multinationals) that
they should cover copyright and the protection of intellectual property.
Why should these rules not cover workers’ rights?
The ICFTU is focusing its efforts now on the Geneva meeting. That meeting
is likely to be a staging post in a journey that began even long before
the Havana declaration of 1948. We may not get a workers’ rights clause in
Geneva. What we are certain of, however, is that the tide is now flowing
in our favour. And we intend to achieve a commitment that workers’ rights
are important and should be discussed in the next round of WTO trade
negotiations. With all our resources, and all our strength behind our
message, we intend to succeed in what will rank as the greatest project
ever mounted by the trade union movement - saving the global economy; and
creating a true global society.