APPENDIX 27
Memorandum submitted by The International
Centre for Trade Union Rights (ICTUR)
GENERAL
While we share the general support expressed
by wide sections of progressive opinion for many of the concrete
reforms announced in the White Paper, ICTUR's main concern is
with workers' rights and trade union freedoms.
Here the White Paper is woefully deficient and overkeen,
to the point of naivety, to advance market solutions to deep seated
social and economic problems. This is illustrated in para 229,
and those immediately preceding it, which gives great prominence
to the role of free (or freer) trade in promoting economic development
while failing to adequately address some of the resultant problems
(destruction of infant industries). As the White Paper concedes
poverty reduction depends on wide ranging economic and social
reforms. In our view it should also concede that greater trade
openness has its problems but that in certain circumstances can
play a positive role provided that other measures are in place
(eg development of the home market and domestic industries plus
income redistribution to assist the poorer sections of society).
As a consequence of its marketised approach
the White Paper totally understates the role and potential of
trade unionism, appearing in places to reduce the labour movement
to the same status as faith groups and externally financed
NGOs in the struggle for workers' rights and economic development.
THE TRADE
UNION ROLE
IN DEVELOPMENT
Trade union organisation in the third world
is generally weak and confined to the formal sector (which is
small in comparison to the heavily industrialised countries).
But outside of organised religion in many countries trade unions
are by far the largest voluntary bodies. They are also schools
for developing democratic and administrative skills and practices.
These unions play both an economic and social role in advancing
living standards (thus expanding home markets—essential
to economic development) and articulating broader social demands.
And third world unions belong to an international network of organisations
which directly links them to workers in Britain and other developed
industrial countries. Increasingly this link becomes closer as
globalisation creates the conditions for the growth of giant transnational
corporations investing in every corner of the world.
In short trade unions are qualitatively different
to other NGOs and could be at the centre of a development process
which sought to end mass poverty and advance democratic and human
rights. So, for us, the key questions are:
— how do governments, international
bodies like the ILO and the international trade union movement
work together to extend trade unionism and workers' rights?
— what role, in particular, can the
British Government play working with the British TUC and the Commonwealth
TUC in helping third world unions develop their representative
and democratic capacities?
On these questions the White Paper has very
little to say.
ON LABOUR
STANDARDS
The White Paper appears to face in at least
two opposing directions. This is best summed up in para 254 which
argues the following:
The UK Government is committed to the promotion
of core labour standards worldwide, and we strongly endorse the
efforts of the ILO to extend the enforcement of core labour standards
in all countries (see Chapter 2). But imposing trade sanctions
on poor countries that do not fully comply with all labour standards
would punish countries for their poverty, and hurt the poorest
most.(para 254)
In reality, campaigners for core labour standards
do not generally argue for the imposition of trade sanctions on
poor countries that do not fully comply with all labour standards.
Some campaigners are for sanctions and others against—the
latter supporting positive incentives through negotiated GSPs
rather than penalties. And most campaigners recognise the primacy
of core labour standards, particularly the right of workers to
organise in independent unions with collective bargaining rights,
which should be immediate entitlements. Other standards such as
the abolition of child labour and an end to discrimination should
be introduced according to a country's economic circumstances
with relevant international assistance in the time span agreed
for implementation. In other words the process is by agreements,
is timetabled (for example a third world country with widespread
child labour may, by agreement, be given 5 years to eliminate
it and be asked to make reasonable progress in each year up to
the fifth year). At the same time the international community
would give generous assistance with education costs, provision
of family support programmes and training for adult workers.
And the argument that trade conditionalities
punish the poorest most stands reality on its head. The application
of neo-liberal policies has for the last two decades pointed the
world towards marketisation and stripped away important layers
of social protection in the poorer countries. The current situation
builds in significant disincentives particularly for Third World
Countries struggling to implement policies which could strengthen
democratic human rights. In their attempts to attract Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) usually from giant transnational corporations,
these countries are tempted to offer all sorts of incentives from
tax breaks to the absence of labour rights. This is most clearly
seen in Export Processing Zones which are a feature of many countries
industrial development programmes. Here we see a sort of Dutch
auction developing with workers' rights being sacrificed in a
desperate attempt to attract new investment. This has rightly
been described as a `race to the bottom' since, without the intervention
of organisations like the ILO and the application of universal
standards, there are no external factors which can slow let alone
halt this process. But with widespread adherence to core labour
standards plus reforms of the international trading system to
assist the poorer countries and increased aid to eliminate practices
like child labour, then all countries would have an economic incentive
to strengthen human rights.
BUILDING AN
ALLIANCE FOR
CHANGE
The attempts to build a fairer international
economic system which puts the struggle to tackle poverty at its
heart appear to be supported by the White Paper. But this will
be no easy task and will be opposed by powerful vested interests.
To overcome these interests it is necessary to build a broad based
alliance of forces which must include the labour movements in
the developed industrial countries. Workers will not take kindly
to trade liberalisation policies which directly affect their jobs
and living standards.
And they will be bitterly opposed to processes
which open up markets to goods produced by child labour in inhuman
conditions. There is here a common interest shared by working
people both in the developed industrial countries and the Third
World and socially aware consumers to raise labour standards to
those agreed by governments, unions and employers at the ILO.
This is not protectionism in the economic sense but it does protect
human rights and the dignity of work. With this framework and
governments prepared to intervene so that change is managed and
not imposed by market forces, then it will be possible to build
a progressive alliance in favour of fairer trade. This will of
course need increased international help for poorer countries
and national governments prepared to assist threatened industries
and regions adapt to changing conditions.
GLOBALISATION, JOBS
AND WOMEN
The White Paper (see Box 10) presents the growth
of women's employment in the neo-liberal world economy as on almost
unproblematic benefit. On the downside it can only see a number
of deep seated social problems (sexism in particular). And yet
report after report has stressed the appalling conditions to which
women workers in newly industrialised countries are exposed (see
in particular ILO "Labour and Social Issues relating to Export
Processing Zones, 1998 ISBN—92-2-111357-4).
CONCLUSION
19th Century industrialisation in Britain and
Europe was a painful process which provided the basis for rapidly
rising material and cultural standards. Many free market economists
seem determined to expose the newly industrialising countries
to cut throat competition, open markets as the only possible and
internationally acceptable path to successful economic development.
ICTUR rejects this approach and calls on the British Government
to support international attempts to promote trade union freedoms
and worker's rights at the level of the company (not least in
British based multinationals), the country, and the trading bloc
(eg the European Union). Such an approach can assist in the struggle
against world poverty by empowering workers and the rural poor
and by curtailing those activities of governments, international
financial institutions and giant multinational companies which
put profit before the needs of people.
In particular we call on the British Government
to better support the activities of the International Labour Office
and to bring British employment law fully into line with ILO Conventions
and jurisprudence (particularly the right to strike and collective
bargaining rights). Britain cannot effectively campaign internationally
for the rule of law and for human rights if its own laws fail
to meet the standards set by Conventions to which it is a signatory.
— ensure that the OECD guidelines on
multinational enterprises are implemented by British companies
and to include within the National Contact Point a full trade
union input perhaps through a tripartite structure;
— insist that all trade, investment
and aid arrangements are linked to the labour rights requirements
of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, including
the right to strike;
— encourage the implementation of other
core labour standards internationally through the bi-lateral and
multilateral agreements;
— give enthusiastic support to the
European Union's social dimension with particular emphasis to
improving worker's rights; and
— incorporate as far as is possible
within British law international trade union rights outlined in
the enclosed appendix.
APPENDIX
What is proposed here cuts with the grain of
existing developments. It reflects the need for worker protection
in the global economy. Workers should not be expected to perform
on the global stage in a legal straitjacket, devoid of the essential
human rights which are necessary to promote dignity at work. ICTUR
believes that there are two overriding objectives to be secured
in promoting workers' rights to freedom of association: the first
is the modernisation of the standards, and the second is diversity
in their supervision and enforcement. Modernisation in the sense
that the Conventions should reflect the reality of the current
standards as understood by the ILO supervisory bodies. And diversity
in the sense that more strategic steps should be taken to ensure
compliance with standards.
But in promoting initiatives of this kind, it
is important that ILO standards should be the focus of the different
forms of support, encouragement and pressure. The task of enforcement
and compliance is to ensure a measure of co-ordination, so that
the same standards are enforced and applied by all the agencies
committed to the process of advancing minimum labour standards.
Otherwise we face the prospect of confusion and the dilution of
standards, with one agency demanding something different than
another. The same applies to initiatives to be taken by multinational
companies to ensure that they meet their social responsibilities:
these initiatives should be rooted in ILO standards. But in focusing
on ILO standards, it is important also to emphasise the need for
new rights for international trade unions.
THE MODERNISATION
OF STANDARDS
The need here is to ensure that the standards
reflect the jurisprudence which has developed at a considerable
pace and with a considerable degree of sophistication since the
introduction of Convention 87 in 1948 and Convention 98 in the
following year. If ILO standards on freedom of association are
to be the cornerstone of co-ordinated and concerted action by
a range of agencies, governments and institutions, they need to
be well known. There are strong arguments from transparency, human
rights and globalisation for the robust and powerful restatement
of trade union rights in a more advanced modern form.
In light of the foregoing, as a minimum, a new
international code on freedom of association should include the
following:
The right to Trade Union membership, participation
and representation
— the right of workers to belong to
an independent trade union for the protection of their interests;
— the right of workers to take part
in the activities of a trade union outside working hours and during
working hours with the consent of the employer; and
— the right of workers to be represented
by a trade union in all matters relating to their employment.
The right to Trade Union autonomy
— the right of trade unions to organise
their internal affairs free from State interference, and free
from interference by employers;
— the right of trade unions to determine
their own membership rules and procedures free from State interference;
and
— the right of trade unions to elect
their own officials and develop their own programmes free from
State interference.
The right to Trade Union recognition
— the right of trade union access to
an employer's premises at the request of workers employed there;
— the right of a trade union to be
recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining on all matters
relating to the contract of employment; and
— the right of a trade union to facilities
for the purposes of collective bargaining, including the disclosure
of information.
The right to strike
— the right of a trade union to organise
strike or other industrial action in order to promote the social
and economic interests of its members;
— the right of workers to take part
in a strike or other industrial action to protect and promote
their social and economic interests without being discriminated
against or dismissed; and
— the right of trade unions and workers
to take strike or other industrial action in support of other
trade unions and workers in dispute with an employer.
The rights of Trade Union representatives
— the right of trade union representatives
elected or nominated by a trade union to be recognised as such
by an employer;
— the right of trade union representatives
to protection from dismissal or other disadvantage by reason of
their trade union activities; and
— the right of the trade union representative
to access to workers and to facilities at the workplace to enable
them to carry out their duties.
The right of International Trade Union Federations
— the right to be consulted by and
bargain with multinationals on transnational employment matters;
— the right to be consulted by and
bargain with multinationals on the application and observance
of core labour standards throughout the corporate structure, and
throughout the supply chain; and
— the right to organise industrial
action against multinational enterprises, and the right of workers
to take part in such action.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
UNION RIGHTS
In terms of the foregoing, the most novel proposal
relates to the last category, which deals with rights for international
trade unions. This must be a focal point of any future strategy.
There is a need for a countervailing force to match that of global
capital. Trade unions must have the right not just to be in association
with trade unions from other countries, but also to act together
in association. Although trade unions internationally may never
have adequate resources for this purpose, they must have the opportunity
to engage meaningfully with business. To this end they should
be empowered to initiate discussions with a view to reaching what
are referred to as Labour Standards Agreements with multinational
companies. The essential features of these agreements are as follows:
— the Labour Standards Agreement would
be detailed, just as production instructions are detailed. As
a minimum they would include a commitment to the core freedom
of association conventions, as well as a prohibition on the use
of child labour and forced labour, no discrimination, and a safe
and healthy workplace;
— the Labour Standards Agreement would
not be governed by a commitment to observe `local laws and conditions'
or some similar formula where these set a standard lower than
the ILO core Conventions;
— the Labour Standards Agreement would
be `central to all the company's activities with every employee
from President to the most junior being responsible for making
it operative. It would be incorporated into all contracts between
the company, its contractors, and sub-contractors;
— the Labour Standards Agreement would
be monitored by a `Compliance Council' on which trade unions would
be represented and which would also include independent members.
Any interested party should be free to complain to the Council,
and any complaints should be independently investigated by it;
and
— the Labour Standards Agreement would
provide for practices among contractors and sub-contractors to
be regularly inspected by independent inspectors. This process
of inspection would take place in addition to and independently
of any complaints procedure.
But a multinational should not have the opportunity
to avoid its social responsibilities by the failure to reach an
agreement with an international union. In the absence of an agreement
there ought to be a procedure whereby an international or national
trade union organisation can refer a complaint to the ILO Freedom
of Association Committee alleging a breach of Conventions 87 or
98 by a multinational corporation in respect of its conduct in
a third country. The right to complain should apply in respect
of the conduct of the company, its subsidiaries, its suppliers,
and any other body in the supply chain. Otherwise international
trade unions should have the right recognised by international
law to organise industrial action against a multinational enterprise:
that is to say the right to strike and the right to take international
solidarity action. There is considerable doubt about the legality
of such action in the domestic law of a number of prominent members
of the ILO.
MODERNISING THE
STRATEGIES FOR
COMPLIANCE
Turning finally to the need for a range of strategies
for enforcement and compliance with freedom of association principles,
it is anticipated that international trade union action of the
kind proposed here would have a valuable role to play. Labour
Standards Agreements would help promote trade union rights are
observed through the deep roots of the multinational supply chain,
in a manner which would be based on a process of supervision in
which trade unions would be closely involved. The right of trade
unions to complain to the Freedom of Association Committee would
also help—particularly to expose and highlight corporate
malpractice and irresponsibility. But of course this would not
be enough. It is not only multinationals which bear the responsibility
for the violation of trade union rights. Governments also play
a major part: indeed it is on States that the obligation to implement
and comply with conventions principally lies. It for this reason
that a range of devices is necessary to encourage and promote
compliance.
So what else can be done? In the first place,
there is the potential provided by international agencies such
as the IMF and the World Bank: both are part of the UN family;
both should be required to follow and apply ILO Conventions in
their relationships with national governments. There are various
ways by which these organisations could use their economic powers
as a means of ensuring compliance with core conventions, including
Convention 87: compliance could be a condition of aid; and at
local level compliance by contractors could be a condition of
a public works contract. Secondly there is the WTO and the Social
Clause. Although there are problems associated with this initiative,
it needs to be re-examined after the concerns of trade unionists
in the developing world have been fully addressed. It is one of
a range of responses or strategies: it is not necessarily a panacea.
Initiatives linking trade with union rights—such as those
taken recently by the EU—should also be encouraged.
CONCLUSION
Trade unions and trade unionists face two related
threats: one from hostile governments; and the other from predatory
global corporations. The challenge for the millennium is to renew
the case for strong and vigorous independent trade unions, and
to develop effective strategies at international level to enable
trade unionism to flourish. Trade unions are essential institutions
which help create the conditions to enable democracy to flourish:
they help ensure the accountability of governments as well as
the accountability of corporations. But they are also the means
for ensuring that workers are treated fairly and that their voice
is heard by the employer. There is an overwhelming case in the
new global economy for ensuring that trade union rights are more
effectively protected by international law, and for responding
to changing economic circumstances by facilitating and promoting
global action by the international trade union movement.
But as we contemplate the need for change; the
revision and enforcement of standards; and the need for flexibility
and diversity in the process of supervision and enforcement, we
should not lose sight of the need to recognise that compliance
with international labour standards is a problem of truly global
proportions. It is sad to reflect in the ruins of Seattle that
compliance with international standards appears to be as great
a challenge for the developed nations as it is for others. The
USA has not ratified the core freedom of association conventions
of the ILO; several G7 nations have been in breach in recent years
and continue to be in breach; and the same is true of the member
states of the EU. This is a depressing message to send to the
rest of the world. The campaign for ensuring proper compliance
with international standards must begin in the countries of prosperity
(and poverty), of growth (and greed). Only by setting an example
will the governments of these countries have the moral authority
to promote the observance of standards with which they themselves
have yet fully to comply.
The International Centre for Trade Union Rights
(ICTUR)
January 2001
| 
