"Promoting Decent Work: The Role of Civil Society"
 Questions & Answers
 Questions
1. The ILO was created 1919 and based on the principle of tripartism. This is a concept which has now become a reality.
It has advanced social justice and promoted social dialogue at national and international level. Today, at the beginning of
a new century, the ILO is trying to implement a new concept, that of decent work.
The ILO believes that decent work should be promoted, not only with the traditional tripartite partners, but also with civil
society. So this is an extremely interesting and ambitious programme which certainly meets the expectations generated by
a new century. But there are difficulties, this can't be denied and the speakers this afternoon have indicated some of those
difficulties very clearly. Some NGOs see their role as exerting pressure on their own government, challenging policies,
insisting that social ideals and principles are respected. The NGOs which have addressed this meeting are trying to
defend the interests of social groups who have no-one to lobby for them or help their causes. Large numbers of people
are marginalized even though they constitute the majority of the population. Eighty per cent of workers are in the
informal sector in some countries. This raises questions about the role of the state. On the one hand are the NGOs which
have their varios roles, and on the other hand are the traditional social partners who have to reconsider their own roles in
the context of globalization. In some cases the role of government is considered excessive in the social area; in other
cases government intervention is inadequate in terms of social needs. So, sometimes we say the government is meddling
in social affairs; at other times we say there are so many social problems that the state should be doing more. The role of
the state is being called into question. Unions are also looking at what they should be doing. They obviously try to
protect the interests of workers, but should they not be also looking at the needs of those in the informal sector.
Independent workers, the self-employed, small-scale entrepreneurs?
At the moment they defend the interests of the worker in the work place. But should they perhaps be looking at the
personal lives of workers as individuals? Cultural needs, for example. The expansion of the informal sector is calling into
question the traditional role of employers as well. Important decisions are being taken at levels which no longer concern
them.
NGOs see their activities differently; sometimes they represent interests which are contrary to those of the traditional
social partners. It is a fact that the role of the social partners is being questioned. How then do we bring all this together?
How do we ensure that the new partners and the traditional partners recognize each others' role, that they stop trying to
protect their own exclusive preserves and move on to cooperation in the pursuit of common objectives instead of
competing for scarce resources? How do we ensure that they come to dialogue? The ILO, for example, is designed for
the tripartite system of governments, employers and workers. There is no place for the NGOs here.
The same applies to other forums. We see institutions that have been organized for governments. NGOs are occasionally
invited to a forum or the special General Assembly, or Copenhagen, Vienna, Beijing. I think the first step is to create
some kind of forum where all the players can get together in an informal framework. Not to take decisions but simply to
discuss, to have a constructive dialogue, to exchange experiences and identify their common objectives. The next step is
to ensure that the common objectives are developed in such a way that all the partners have a role to play. I would like to
recommend that the ILO and the Institute reflect on ways to bring the traditional partners and the new partners, the NGOs,
together to talk about their programmes and, develop common objectives. They need to pool their resources to develop a
platform for action, a kind of pact or chart which commits them all to working towards their future. And this is how I see
the concept of decent work being enhanced. Obviously it will take a long time to ensure that decent work is implanted at
all levels. I think that decent work is quite an uncomfortable concept for the traditional social partners. So, I think we
need time for people's mind-set to change, for reactions to settle down, so that we can approach this concept in a tranquil
and reflective mood which will help us to look forward.
2. I have a question for Ms. O'Donovan. I am very intrigued by your presentation of the Irish experience and my
questions are very factual.
I am interested in what you call the "renewal of participative democracy", but you only talked about horizontal
democracy, that is the involvement of other groups within the existing architecture of partnership. I was wondering if you
could say a little more about vertical democracy, organizational democracy, because we now have the leaders of the
established organizations and the new civil society organizations engaging in wider forms of bargaining. How do the rank
and file workers, for example, feel about the unions involving in these partnerships, in particular do they have an
opportunity to be informed, to discuss the approach the unions are taking, to vote on these policies, for example, through
referendum? I would also like to hear from Mr. Mbongo about the South African experience.
The other question is about the consequences for unions. The Irish unions have engaged in 13 years of wage moderation,
and it is possible that persistent wage moderation may lead to member dissatisfaction. Have the Irish unions experienced
dissatisfaction or are there new capacities to organize new sectors of the economy such as young people?
How would you describe the Irish model of social partneship? Would you label it corporativist or not, and if not, how
would you consider it, where would you place it in the literature on social corporatism?
Answers
Ms. O'Donovan
They are fairly detailed questions but given the time restraint I'll be brief.
Regarding vertical democracy within our structures, we have a process for concluding agreements at national level. First
of all we have to get a mandate from our members to open negotiations and then we have to get a majority of workers
voting in favour. So every time an issue is submitted there is a big logistical exercise but it's done. The union goes into
the workplace.
The other point is that within economic life we have a whole range of other partnerships, for example in the education
and training area at community level and local employment partnerships. The national structure doesn't sit alone, it has
roots which go down into the workplace and into individual communities where you get local partnerships between
unions, business and local society. In fact, the national partnership emerges subsequent to the local partnership.
The persistent wage moderation is an ongoing debate within our trade union movement but Ireland at the moment has one
of the more successful economies in Europe; it is the fastest growing economy and so on. We are now running into
difficulties of capacity. We have skill shortages, we are experiencing all the problems of an economy which is growing
very fast. We don't operate on the basis of a low-wage economy. It's high-skill, good working conditions and good
wages. But, effectively the Irish economy has pursued the high road of development and we are competing at the higher
end of the market. So, there are issues because skilled workers can now command higher wages in a free bargaining
environment than through negotiated bargaining. Finally, we are not neo-cooperatist. This is quite different from the
traditional neo-cooperatist model and it's an Irish solution to a particular problem. It was really an organic development
which grew out of a set of circumstances. It's institutionally very light; it doesn't have an elaborate institutional structure.
It responds to problems. It adapts and tries to respond to the environment of the day. Each agreement is quite different
from the previous one. The content and the substance are quite different.
Mr. Mbongo
I think this sort of experience finds its expression in national priorities. Five priority areas focus the network of
NEDLAC. First is the task of projecting South Africa as an emerging world market to attract foreign direct investment
and create a business friendly environment. Second is the issue of developing our human resources to match the needs of
the economy. That leads us to address the crisis of social underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment and disease.
Fourth, we look at basic infrastructure, housing, roads, etc. and lastly we look at the provision of essential services -
education, health care, water and electricity. Those five areas are all relevant to the promotion of rights and principles at
work. They are releated to employment, social security, and skill training. In the next 12 months NEDLAC will be trying
to focus on these key areas.
|
