Opening Statement by Catelene Passchier, Workers'Spokesperson for Labour Protection Committee

Statement | 01 June 2015
Dear Chair, let me first congratulate you and also my employer colleague Ms Giulietti, to your elections.

In our view labour protection is an extremely important and topical issue and we are looking forward to a productive and constructive tripartite discussion on this. Labour protection is an area of intense tripartite cooperation in many countries and we can probably rely for our discussions on a lot of high quality expertise represented in this room.

Let me also thank the office, Ms Tomei and her colleagues, for the report and all the preparatory work done for this discussion. Your report provides a good starting point for our discussions and let us be optimistic and determined that our final conclusions will justify all the work that went into the preparation of this discussion.
I do not know if this is a ‘first in a lifetime’, but seeing that this Committee will under a ‘women only’ leadership I have no doubt that this will benefit the work of this Committee.

In 2008, we adopted the Social Justice Declaration to call on Member States to achieve decent work for all. The Declaration foresees regular discussion at the International Labour Conference as an institutional mechanism for its implementation. The wording ‘recurrent discussion’ may not be a very inspirational title, but the intention and spirit of the Social Justice Declaration gives our discussion a clear purpose and focus:

What needs to be done to achieve progress towards greater social justice both at national and at international level?
What kind of labour protection policies do we need, to close the decent work deficit and to achieve better social outcomes in our societies?
What can we learn from each other, what can we do together and what do we expect the ILO to do?

This discussion should not only be a global stock taking exercise about the current situation, but also a discussion about change. We need fundamental changes to ensure that economic growth, social justice and decent working conditions go hand in hand. It is absolutely unacceptable and indecent that, despite decades of economic growth, still many workers have hardly any social protection, are exposed to extremely hazardous working conditions, need to work excessive hours, lack maternity protection or do not even earn a proper minimum living wage.

Therefore, it is in my view high time that the ILO, with its strong and clear mandate to realize social justice and protection for all, investigates what is going wrong and why, and what to do about it.

In the fifties and sixties of last century, we had the hope that with economic growth we would also see a progressive extension of labour and social protection to all.
And that the social and labour protection enjoyed by regular employed full time workers would progressively become the universal standard. However, half a century later, we must admit that not only still large parts of the global workforce are working under unprotected or under-protected conditions, and that their numbers are on the increase. And also, that the competition through those ‘poor’ jobs is driving standards downwards, rather than upwards, in many places eroding the level of protection or even existence of the better jobs. And this is not only the temporary effect of the economic crisis….

The report of the office describes some extremely worrying trends that indicate regress instead of progress. Wages do not benefit from productivity growth, casual and unprotected forms of work are on the rise, informality and insecurity are a reality for many working people, and still every year 2.3 million people (!) die of work related accidents or diseases.

The fruits of economic growth are not shared fairly and the market on its own will not deliver social justice. It is therefore the challenge for policy makers to provide a regulatory environment that achieves greater social justice and enables dynamic and sustainable development. This is best achieved through a combination of direct state regulation and supportive measures that enable workers to organise without fear and to pursue their interests collectively. Labour rights often become only a reality where good industrial relations exist, and workers have the organisational strength to engage with employers on an equal footing.

The report gives a good overview of the massive problems and trends we are facing, and rightly points out that adequate labour protection is a question of level, coverage and compliance.

We highly appreciate the report, but want to make a fe remarks to set a few things straight right from the outset.

Often, and indeed also in the Office report, labour protection is primarily seen as a cost, with maybe some long term benefits. We want to emphasize that in reality it is an investment, with not only long-term returns, but also immediate benefits, such as improved living and working conditions, less absence from work for reasons of ill health, higher productivity and enterprise performance.

Furthermore, the report has a tendency to describe trends as something that somehow happens without any social actors. As if certain developments are quasi natural forces beyond our political influence.

It mentions a number of factors like globalisation, technological change, competition, labour market institutions, individualisation, declining trade union membership that contribute to these outcomes, but does not really address the relevance and weight of the different factors.

But what have for example globalisation and technological change to do with zero hour contracts for retail workers? Quite frankly - hardly anything. Technology plays only a role, in so far that workers no longer have to wait in front of the factory gate to hope for a day of work, but can sit instead at home and wait for a text message. But these technological innovations make it neither inevitable nor necessary to return to nineteenth century forms of casual work. It is great that we can call a taxi by mobile phone, but it is wrong if this results in drivers without rights and protection and increased risks for passengers.

As experience in some countries shows, it only takes the political will to introduce and enforce clearer rules and obligations for employers to provide the worker with the contract that reflects the reality of the work done, rather than the wishful thinking of the employer not to be bound to any obligations whatsoever…..
A zero-hour worker in reality never works zero hours, and to be honest is not intended to do so.

In non-tradable sectors – where most of the poorly paid jobs are - globalisation cannot explain the growing casualization and widespread absence of adequate labour protection. It is most likely rather a result of labour market deregulations that allow private and unfortunately even some public employers to stay in control but outsource risk and responsibility: via agency work and labour brokers, involuntary part time work and mini jobs, fixed term contracts and bogus self-employment.
And all this combined with increased barriers for coordinated or centralised collective bargaining, in the name of economic performance.

Why do we accept, that nowadays big firms are making contracts with their subcontractors in which detailed descriptions are put about the quality of the product or service to provide, under threat of large penalties or withdrawing of the contract for underperformance, but deny taking responsibility for the wages and working conditions that come about under the severe competition between the subcontractors ensuing from this?!

Is there any justifiable or objective reason that those who care for our beloved - children or elderly - are chronically underpaid and overexploited?
This cannot be explained by skills levels or low productivity.


The underpayment of mainly female care workers should not be accepted just because it exists already for too long and because there is a constant supply of desperate migrants.

Many million people, either refugees fleeing war and violence or migrants driven by extreme poverty, are often at the bottom of the labour market being forced into the 3-D (dirty, dangerous and demeaning) jobs. Rather than accepting that a new underclass of unprotected workers is developing where labour standards are absent, which will increasingly exert a downward pressure on overall standards, we will need proactive policies to integrate migrants and refugees in our labour markets with equal labour rights and social policies.

To be clear, there are constant and massive changes in our world that require also a constant adaptation and modernisation of regulatory frameworks, but there is no reason why technical progress should lead to social regress.

Skyrocketing profits or cheaper prices in the shops are unjustifiable, if at the expense of unprotected and exploitative conditions of work. Rana Plaza is in this respect only the peak of the iceberg, and the thousands of dead or injured workers must be a constant reminder for all of us that this has to change.
There is also no justification that dirty and dangerous jobs are shifted to the developing world, because employers can benefit from the desperation of poor workers in these countries. Asbestos kills everywhere! And can we accept that the beautiful flowers in the shops of the rich countries are produced by workers, exposed to toxic pesticides and high risk of cancer in many developing countries !

The report shows that good regulations and good labour protection do make economic sense for societies, for sustainable economic development and also for business. However, we have to recognise that one can make also high profits based on bad working conditions.

Therefore, the enforcement of labour protection requires for instance well-resourced public labour inspectorates that extend their reach towards all workplaces, including those in the grey areas of the formal economy, often only called ‘informal’ workplaces because of the absence of formal control.

Without proper regulation, a race to the bottom is the logical outcome of market competition, not only at the expense of workers, but also of business, economies and societies. And this recognition has been at the heart of ILO for now almost hundred years.

At the ILO, we should be able to build solid tripartite consensus that we need regulations enabling employers to offer decent working conditions to their workers without being undercut by those who don’t care about the people working for them.

There cannot be decent work and social justice without adequate regulatory frameworks for labour protection.

Sometimes we hear that the we must create employment first as there cannot be any decent work without jobs. But in most countries of the world most of the people work all the time. They are not lacking work, but income. They are so poor and desperate that they cannot afford to be unemployed. Indeed, extremely low wages force them to work extensive hours under often dangerous and humiliating conditions. It would be wrong to argue that any job is better than no job. This is a false alternative. The real challenge is that every job must be a decent job.

To achieve this, labour protection is essential.

The example given shows also why it is right for the Office report to focus on 4 key issues: wages, working time, OSH and maternity protection, as these issues are strongly interlinked: if wages are too low, one cannot afford to work reasonable hours of work. If there is no maternity protection also protecting their income, women will work with dangerous chemicals even when pregnant.

We know from research that countries with good labour protection and greater equality are those countries where trade unions are comparatively strong.
We also know, that strong workers’ representation improves compliance with labour protection at the workplace. Strengthening of trade unions tends to strengthen labour protection and vice versa.

Labour protection cannot be left to the market. It requires state regulations and binding agreements between workers’ organisations and employers. The ultimate responsibility to secure adequate labour protection is with the state, because only states have the authority to impose minimum standards on everybody.
But this does not mean that all working conditions should be directly regulated by the state.

Many important issues can be dealt with through collective bargaining, which also offers the possibility to find tailor-made solutions to diverse labour market realities. It is high time that collective bargaining therefore is recognized and promoted as one of the most flexible regulatory instruments!

However, it is a reality that many workers today are neither organised nor covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Today, in many countries workers do not enjoy the right to organise and to bargaining collectively, or access to these rights in practice is made unduly difficult. The conclusions of the Expert Meeting on Non Standard Forms of Work (NSFW) therefore rightfully stated that the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining are essential for exercising all labour rights .

Improving labour protection requires the empowerment of workers. This could include a range of measures including extension of collective bargaining agreements, socially responsible public procurement, public information campaigns about labour protection rights, information hotlines etc.

Governments should also be exemplary as employers and engage with their own employees in collective bargaining.

Building the right labour market institutions that support inclusive rights-based labour markets is a precondition for effective universal labour protection.
The recent tripartite meeting on non-standard forms of employment already suggested in this respect that the office should evaluate “the need for additional international labour standards ….. to address temporary contracts, including fixed-term contracts, and discrimination based on employment status.”

The ILO was founded precisely because the tripartite constituents recognised that without social justice neither social peace within societies not peace among nations is possible. Looking at the turmoil in many parts of the world, we witness also today the destructive role of poverty and inequality. It is up to us to provide guidance how we can achieve greater social justice in today’s world and what can be done through proper labour market regulations.

Some of the issues addressed are also discussed in other committees: formalisation of the informal economy (and not vice versa!) is an important step. The role of SME’s and the importance of taking into account the various responsibilities down the supply chain are certainly other very relevant issues.

But in this Committee, it is our duty to hold the ILO to task: it cannot be acceptable that in the 21-st century labour standards do not apply to those masses of workers that are most in need of them. Not an easy task, but certainly worthwhile, and of key importance to the future economic performance and well-being of our societies.