It is heartening for many of us to witness the increasingly activist role of the International Labour Organization in promoting worker and union rights in today's global economy. Unions almost everywhere have lost ground in this uphill battle: it is a sad but central reality of our time that the increasingly international economy remains to a large extent unregulated by the democratic values of civil society. Not only is this true at the international level, but increasing globalization also threatens to undermine national and local workplace representation and voice. Current manifestations of this problem include growing inequality and increasing economic and social polarization, both within and across countries. Who will regulate the new global, national and local economies? It is a premise of this conference that one major actor must be a modernized and revitalized labour movement, operating at the workplace, in local community coalitions, in national economic and political arenas, and in cross-national collaboration throughout the global economy. Labour movement decline in many countries, however, has turned labour from a potentially powerful force for high labour and social standards, for worker voice and participation, to a largely missing force, struggling against further decline. It is no coincidence that labour movement decline in countries such as the United States has gone hand in hand over the past 25 years with growing social and economic inequality.

The causes and consequences of union decline have been extensively studied; now, however, there are strong signs in many countries that the tide is turning. A key task for contemporary researchers and activists is to assess current union strategies for renewal, to look at the relationship between new union organizing, the rights and interests of blue and white-collar workers, and the rebuilding of participatory workplaces, to discover what is working and what is not working, to compare such strategies across countries, to see what unions in one country might learn from another and on what basis unions might connect projects of international solidarity.

There are at least four broad strategies for labour movement revitalization. Some are more emphasized in one country than another, but I believe that all four are necessary ingredients of full union revitalization and modernization. The first strategy is organizing. As Juan Somavia puts it: "There is no substitute for organizing, which is the most crucial requirement for building the political base of unions."

There are different approaches in different countries, but a central element in many contemporary efforts involves rank-and-file mobilization. While such efforts may be initiated from the top down and supported with national union resources such as trained staff and financing, the logic is one of grass-roots activism, organizing drives shaped and driven by the energy and efforts of workplace activists themselves. After decades of fairly non-participatory unionism in many countries, the new organizing is an important step forward in the expansion of political and economic participation and empowerment -- for all workers and especially for under represented groups such as women, minorities, immigrants and young workers. Grass-roots mobilization around workplace issues is a vital step forward toward fuller democratization, in developed and less developed countries alike. Because the goals here are to rebuild union membership and activate the members, the success or failure of other strategies may well depend most importantly on this one.

The second main union strategy is political action. This is an area in which unions have long been active, but the emphasis is changing now in many places from electing candidates and maintaining close ties to a political party to a more direct influence on economic and social policy at local and national levels as well as a new emphasis again on grass-roots mobilization: getting union members out into the streets for rallies, door-to-door campaigning, issue education and the like. Workplace organizing and political activism are in fact overlapping, draw on similar sources of energy, and can be mutually supportive; they share in common a focus on coalition building across unions and with other groups including environmental, religious, community, women's, civil rights and citizenship organizations as well as mobilization. And like organizing, these kinds of political action expand the scope of democratic participation.

A third strategy is partnership, or as Europeans call it, social partnership. Although not in common use in the U.S. or many other non-European countries, the European term offers a concept that is broad and useful. Social partnership refers to a relationship between strong and well organized partners on both sides, ranging from firm-level labour-management cooperation (often codified innovative contract language) and sectoral level negotiations between unions and employer associations, to union participation in national policymaking, in negotiations with both business and government. The problem with partnership is that by itself it does nothing to expand union membership or influence, beyond a modest incorporation into company decision-making; and in fact it is quite common for companies to offer partnership relations where unions are strong all the while expanding the scope of their non- or weak-union operations (and fighting the spread of union influence). Thus organizing and political action are essential, even where partnership is widespread, while social partnership offers a model for what is possible a constructive relationship between strong parties, a labour-management coalition, for economic growth as well as expanded worker voice and participation where organizing succeeds and union influence grows.

And finally, the least common but increasingly important strategy is international union collaboration. What is happening today is only a drop in the bucket compared to the need in a global economy in which multinational corporations dominate; such solidarity efforts are nonetheless growing. The most common form targets the policies of a particular multinational corporation, by union leaders and activists who seek support from their counterparts in other countries for collective bargaining or organizing efforts. Impressive successes have occurred, showing the potential for cross-national coalitions in today's world economy not only at the level of the firm but in international arenas (the European Union, NAFTA, trade negotiations,WTO rulings) as well.

As unions approach the 21st century, a significant story line is - that it is no longer necessary to speak only of union decline or of unions holding the line. It is now also possible to speak of union resurgence. New strategies for mobilization and coalition-building, which characterize all four of the above groupings, offer great hope. If these strategies point in the right direction, then a clear message emerges: empower the members and make new allies. The decisive questions are whether unions are willing to do these things, what obstacles stand in the way, what internal reform is necessary to accommodate the new strategies, and how specifically these strategies get applied. The great value of an international conference lies both in the building of new international solidarity and in the exchange of experiences: what works and doesn't work, what we can learn from one another. It is too late to reinvent the wheel, and there are many successes out there from which we all can learn.

James Howard, ICFTU, Belgium, 31/10/99 - Unions and the Challenge of Globalisation

The opportunity to contribute some remarks on this topic comes at an auspicious time. The WTO Conference in Seattle, taking place scant weeks from now, looks set to feature a major debate on the subject of core labour standards. It is significant that the world's trade ministers will therefore be obliged to recognise that they cannot deal with their formerly "pure" trade liberalisation agenda without also having to consider the social impact of trade.

As Bill Jordan reflected in his opening remarks, the last few years have seen a growth of the role of social factors and respect for human rights (including trade union rights) in the world economy. This can, in an official sense, be traced back to the Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development in 1995 and has been given impetus by the clear social deficit, clearly one of the causes of the Asian crisis, and by growing popular concern world-wide about social and environmental degradation associated with globalization.

Tackling these concerns will require serious reform to the world's mechanisms for promoting social development. But such reforms cannot stop there; they must be associated with deep-rooted changes to world economic policies too, to put a stop to the spiral of financial market deregulation which has given inordinate power to hedge funds and other financial speculators; to reorient IMF and World Bank policies to promote economic growth rather than focussing continually on import contraction; and to review the world financial and trading system to examine the structural obstacles to economic development of developing countries, in order to propose changes which can address their concerns.

Such economic changes can lay the ground-work for higher rates of development and more economic growth world-wide. However, at the end of the day, it will be social policies which determine whether the majority of the world's population is able to benefit from growth; and ultimately whether that growth is broadly-based enough to be sustainable. If social development, including institution-building and respect for core labour standards, had been adhered to by the south-east Asian countries, it would have resulted in much more accountability, democracy and equity which in turn could have prevented crony capitalism and the focus on short-term profit-maximisation that led to the Asian crisis (and as a result set back development for many years, if not decades in some cases).

In this respect, the ICFTU has been focusing on respect for core labour standards. We emphasise that short list simply because it is short: it constitutes the minimum which successive United Nations Conferences have been able to agree upon. Those standards are universally agreed to be in no way exclusive to industrialised countries, but instead applicable to every country of the world, regardless of its level of development. Even that limited agreement has not been easy, as any participant in those Conferences could testify.

Emphasising those standards does not imply that other standards like maternity protection, occupational safety and health, etc., are unimportant; however we do believe that the core labour standards provide the building blocks which can enable the other standards to be observed. Full respect for international labour conventions on trade union rights, anti-discrimination etc. would provide workers with the tools, through their own strong trade unions, to negotiate with employers and also to influence national policy-making. They would also, in many cases, simply enable unions to insist upon adequate labour inspections to ensure the fullest implementation of existing laws which are often good enough, but are simply not respected.

We need to see the above-mentioned social values translated into changes in the actions of the world's major institutions of globalization: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. The Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC) has been undertaking important work to introduce these values into the work of the OECD.

The IMF and the World Bank are suffering from a crisis of confidence and should rethink the content of their policy advice and their relationship with member governments and civil society. In this regard, the World Bank's report for the September 1999 IMF/World Bank Development Committee entitled "Managing the Social Dimensions of Crises" is a missed opportunity. While the report contains some useful proposals for further work on certain aspects of social policy, it does not consider the institutional questions which are vital to establishing a sound basis for economic and social development. There is no discussion of the role of consultation and consensus of the representative institutions of civil society in achieving recovery from economic crisis. Neither is there a consideration of the importance of respect for human rights, including core labour standards, in securing a popular mandate for economic recovery programmes.

The ICFTU is therefore concentrating its efforts on next year's UN Special Session on "The World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: Achieving Social Development for All in a Globalizing World" (Geneva, 26-30 June 2000) to provide clear recommendations to the IMF and World Bank to incorporate the Copenhagen Summit Commitments fully into their programmes and policies.

But today's issue, as the countdown to Seattle intensifies, is above all about the WTO. As the ICFTU has had occasion to say on various occasions recently, history over the last number of years has shown that more free trade has not brought prosperity for all. Whereas it has brought prosperity for some, it has also brought misery for many, notably the weakest members of our societies. Unscrupulous companies or governments are able to gain short-term competitive advantage by abusing fundamental workers' freedoms. This has been seen most clearly in countries like Malaysia, where workers in the electronics export sector are denied the opportunity of joining national trade unions; Mexico, where a failure to apply the law in the "maquiladora" free trade zones deprives over a million, mainly young women workers, of freedom of association; Turkey, where free trade zone workers are denied the right to strike; Lesotho, where the mainly women workers in export estates producing goods like textiles and garments face violation of basic working conditions, police violence and even shooting; and Egypt, where child labour is extensively employed in export sectors like commercial agriculture, textiles, leather and carpet-making.

There are a myriad other examples from export sectors around the world, which have been extensively documented in the 50 reports the ICFTU has produced over the last two years on respect for core labour standards in many countries of the world (see ICFTU web site for copies of those reports; www.icftu.org ).

The conclusion the ICFTU has drawn from the increase in exploitation of workers in traded sectors has been that these grave problems must be addressed by the multilateral trading system through the WTO. Such action would provide the surest way of achieving a transfer of the benefits of trade liberalisation to ordinary people in developing countries. That is why the proposal to tackle core labour standards at the WTO is supported by trade unions from throughout the developing world. Their members see the daily and worsening effects of international competition on core labour standards. And the countries losing out from increasingly bitter competition for a share of the global market-place are the developing countries which are striving to improve living and working conditions. Thus, the workers who are most hit by India's failure to address child labour in its carpet sector are the exporters in Nepal who are striving to make carpets under good working conditions; those who are most affected by the suppression of trade union rights in Indonesia's coal mines are the coal miners in India, whose strong trade unions obtain decent wages for them which are then undercut by imports from Indonesia; and the whole developing world suffers from China's violation of all the core labour standards, enabling it to act as a magnet inducing multinational companies to uproot their production from other developing countries in order to produce at low labour costs in China's special economic zones instead. In each of these cases, it is competition to produce exports and to attract foreign direct investment by multinational companies that is at the root of the problem.

Tackling these problems, which result so demonstrably from globalization, requires action at the global level by the WTO working together with the ILO.

Trade unions fully support the effective follow-up to the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. At the same time, it is clear that some countries will persistently disregard recommendations from the ILO concerning their respect for core labour standards. As noted above, the 50 country reports on core labour standards produced by the ICFTU in the last 2 years have provided substantial evidence of governments that have been deliberately keeping labour standards low, with a view to reducing export costs and winning a head start over their competitors on international markets. The international trading community needs to face the question of finding effective procedures to tackle the countries which are, in effect, free riders on a world trading system where the majority of countries do respect core labour standards.

The ICFTU's view is that the Seattle Conference needs therefore to start the WTO's process of negotiations on core labour standards and trade by setting up a formal WTO entity, which has a defined work programme with a mandate to undertake analysis and to propose procedures and instruments for the treatment of core labour standards in the international trading system. The WTO Conference will also need to address the concern that trade liberalisation is exacerbating developmental inequalities, environmental degradation and gender imbalances. These concerns must be priority issues in a new round of increased technical and financial development assistance and debt relief must be part of a co-ordinated strategy to achieve balanced economic and social development for developing countries, particularly the least developed.

Whatever the outcome at Seattle, the Ministers meeting there need to pay heed to the worldwide public concern about the impact of trade on labour, development, environment, social and gender issues. These concerns will not go away. They are growing, and they will have to be addressed. That must be done sooner rather than later - because in addressing these challenges the Seattle Conference can help to ensure that trade liberalisation does what it is supposed to do - help make people's lives better. The Seattle Conference must therefore make a decisive move towards shaping the process of globalization to take development goals and social and environmental issues fully into account.

In closing, I would like to make one final remark. Trade unions are by no means confining their strategies to lobbying international institutions like the IMF, World Bank and WTO. Trade unions are also engaged in a variety of direct actions at the international level to address problems ranging from asbestos trade disputes to the anti-labour practices of the Rio Tinto mining corporation. Much of the leadership in these areas is provided by the International Trade Secretariats. The ICFTU, the ITS and TUAC work in partnership on a wide range of issues and struggles in order to take full advantage of the opportunities provided by international trade union solidarity to effect positive change. Such issues will be considered in more detail by other panellists and contributors, as this Forum moves on to more detailed discussion of these topics in the coming months. But we see these parallel lines of work as entirely complementary - just as direct action maintains pressure on specific issues and companies, so we see our work at the WTO, IMF, ILO World Bank, UN and other institutions as vital to establishing effective international regulation in the long-term and something we must continue to prioritise over the coming time.

Despite all the sophisticated technology and other modern means which are key elements of globalization, the means to govern the global economy are barely at the level of those of the early industrial revolution at national level. As was true at that time, our ability to organize; to mobilise effectively; and to combine the force of our argument with the argument of our force will be critical for building global, social and economic justice.

Patricia O'Donovan, ICTU, Ireland, 2/11/99 - Trade Union in Europe

As the European project continues to evolve, there are many new challenges facing trade unions. The move to a single currency is probably the most significant development and creates new opportunities as well as threats.

The impact of the single currency on collective bargaining patterns across the European Union is difficult to foresee at this stage but clearly there will be growing pressure on trade unions to have regard to the competitive pressures created by the single currency and the need for greater wage flexibility. But industrial relations and collective bargaining systems are still firmly rooted within national boundaries and have so far proved themselves impervious to change.

At the IXth Congress of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) held in Helsinki in June 1999, a comprehensive resolution entitled Towards a European System of Industrial Relations was adopted. This resolution provoked a lively debate among the delegates from the 74 national confederations and 15 European Industry Federations which are members of the ETUC. But it was the section of this resolution on co-ordinated collective bargaining policy which attracted most attention and revealed significant differences between the delegates on how best to move forward on collective bargaining at the European level. While all European trade unions understand and accept the wider European dimension to collective bargaining, pay bargaining (be it sectoral, local or national) is still regarded as the most important instrument at the disposal of trade unions and there is a marked reluctance to cede any dimension of this. Of course the ETUC was not advocating a pay bargaining role for itself, but even suggestions of co-ordinating and disseminating information and statistics were treated with suspicion.

But monetary union will inevitably erode the national macro-economic conditions which determine to a large extent current approaches to pay bargaining. Greater transparency and convergence is already creating its own momentum and the ETUC resolution is a clear indication that European trade unions recognize the need for greater co-ordination of collective bargaining.

Securing the European social model in the face of economic globalization which seeks to build competitive edge on low wages and low standards is a major challenge for trade unions in Europe. Enlargement is part of this debate and trade unions in the European Union will have a critical role to play in ensuring that workers in the new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe will benefit from the code of minimum social standards which has been painstakingly built up over the last 25 years. It is also important that the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty on fundamental human rights are fully adhered to throughout the European Union. The next revision of the Treaty must elaborate further on these provisions and explicitly provide for the protection of fundamental rights including trade union, economic and social rights. Employment and social rights enshrined in the Treaty have the potential to impact significantly on the lives of workers and the citizens of Europe generally. If these provisions can be activated and developed in a meaningful way, then we could be on the way to building a Citizens' Europe. Trade unions in Europe are well equipped not only to participate in this process but to set the agenda and shape the future.

Mark Carley, United Kingom, 02/11/99 - "Trade Unions and the Europeanisation"

Economic integration and competition are intensifying in Europe, and especially within the European Union (EU). At the beginning of 1999, this process moved onto a new level with the third stage of EU Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the introduction of a single currency for 11 EU member states. In this environment, it seems clear that industrial relations within Europe are acquiring an increasingly transnational character, and that trade unions are both initiating and responding to this development. This "Europeanisation" is taking three main forms.

First, dialogue and negotiations between European-level trade union and employers' organizations are becoming more widespread and more substantial. This "social dialogue" process, usually sponsored by the European Commission, has led to recent EU-wide agreements between the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and employers' organizations (UNICE and CEEP) on parental leave [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1996/en_393D 6L0034.html], part-time work [http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1997/3D en_397L0081.html] and fixed-term contracts [http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/3D soc-dial/social/fixed_en.htm], all of which have been given legal force across the EU by directives. The influence of unions and employers' organizations in wider EU policy formulation and implementation is also being extended, most recently in the "macroeconomic dialogue" which forms part of the "European employment pact" agreed by EU heads of state and government in June 1999 [http://europa.eu.int/council/off/conclu/june99/jun e99_en.htm]. At the level of individual economic sectors, joint employer-union opinions and declarations on issues such as training and employment have been reached in numerous industries, and EU-level agreements have been reached in a few cases, such as in agriculture and sea transport [http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1998/02/features/EU9802182F.html].

Second, European Works Councils (EWCs) have been set up in well over 500 multinational companies operating in western Europe (though based all over the world), with a further 700-800 liable to establish them in future under the terms of an EU directive. EWCs are forums for companies to inform and consult employees at European level through their representatives, and the evidence suggests that they is increasing understanding and cooperation between representatives from different countries. EWCs generally have no bargaining role, but a few have negotiated joint opinions and framework agreements on issues such as training, equal opportunities and health and safety (examples include Accor, Danone, ENI, Générale des Eaux, Nestle and Sara Lee Personal Products). Employee representatives (who are often also union representatives or members) frequently use EWCs to exchange and compare information on employment conditions across a multinational's European operations, and "to a much lesser extent" to coordinate their bargaining agendas and positions.

Finally, and perhaps most concretely, collective bargaining within the EU member states is becoming increasingly influenced by developments elsewhere in Europe. Trade unions are using more international comparisons and seeking greater cross-border coordination of bargaining. The evidence for this Europeanisation, examined in a recent study by the European Industrial Relations Observatory [http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1999/07/study/TN9907201S.html] - can be seen at a number of levels: -national cross-industry agreements and "social pacts" in some countries refer to EMU and to pay trends in other European states. Notably, the current 1999-2000 inter-sectoral agreement in Belgium uses a "wage norm" related to wage trends in neighbouring countries as the key reference point for average wage increases in Belgium [http://www.eiro. eurofound.ie/1998/11/features/BE9811252F.html]; -national trade union confederations have for some time cooperated and exchanged information and cooperate on bargaining matters, both through ETUC and bi- or multilaterally. In 1998, Belgian, German, Luxembourg and Dutch trade union confederations went beyond this and established explicit cross-border coordination of bargaining policy through the "Doorn declaration" [http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1998/10/featu res/DE9810278F.html]. This includes an "orientation formula" for national bargaining, whereby union negotiators should seek pay agreements which provide at least the equivalent of "the sum total of the evolution of prices and the increases in labour productivity". The confederations involved commit themselves to rejecting any demands for national policies of wage restraint aimed at securing cost advantages over neighbouring countries. In 1999, the unions concerned concluded that the declaration had already had positive effects [http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1999/09/inbrief/DE9909215N.html]. ETUC has welcomed the Doorn initiative and called for wider extension of such measures; -in sectoral bargaining, there is widespread use of cross-country comparisons in sectoral bargaining in order to justify bargaining demands.

Furthermore, greater Europe-wide bargaining cooperation and coordination across borders is developing within certain sectors - notably private services, graphical industries, textiles and metalworking. The most prominent example is the initiative by the European Metalworkers' Federation (EMF) to achieve European coordination of national bargaining policy through the definition of cross-European trade union bargaining guidelines and minimum standards. In 1998, EMF adopted a "European coordination rule" whereby unions' pay policy must seek "to offset the rate of inflation and to ensure that workers' incomes retain a balanced participation in productivity gains" [http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1998/12/features/DE9812283F.html]. EMF has also agreed a working time charter, stating that working time in Europe should not exceed an annual maximum of 1,750 hours. Bi- or multilateral coordination initiatives - such as the exchange of observers in bargaining - also exist in sectors such as metalworking and construction; and -at company level, a handful of agreements link pay to developments in other countries, notably a 1998 agreement at Vauxhall, the UK subsidiary of General Motors, which makes part of the pay rise contingent on sterling falling below a specified level against the Deutsche Mark [http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/1998/05/inbrief/UK9805127N.html]. Much more widespread is the use of cross-border comparisons in national bargaining within multinationals by both unions and management (often in a "coercive"manner in the latter case). EWCs (see above) can play a key role in this area.

The Europeanisation process is uneven across countries and sectors, and is generally still at an early stage, while the counter-effects of employer hostility and of competitive pressures promoting a more "nationalistic" approach among unions cannot be discounted. However, although explicit European-level pay bargaining is a long way off, bargaining coordination across borders is undoubtedly growing and can be expected to develop further as economic integration deepens.

Brendt Keller, 02/11/99 - New Social Dialogue at the Inter-professional and Sectoral Level

Our research analyses the Protocol on Social Policy and its Agreement of the Maastricht Treaty, which later became the social chapter of the Amsterdam Treaty, not only in legal, but mainly in empirical perspective. The Social Protocol introduced new procedural rules for law making within the EU ( by permitting qualified majority voting on certain matters, and requiring consultation and negotiations of the social partners) and improved the status of the corporate actors (ETUC, UNICE, CEEP). These 20 "new" social dialogues could be considered, on the one hand, as instruments of European social policy; on the other hand, it could be argued, they mirror the range and degree of the Europeanisation of industrial relations.

The first attempts of using the provisions of the Protocol at the inter-professional or macro level are well known: European Works Councils, parental leave, burden of proof of sex discrimination, part time work, 20 limited contracts, information and consultation, among others. Different problems emerging in the implementation processes of the results of legal enactment and voluntary agreements have to be taken into consideration (interpretation and application of differing legal provisions, representation of the signatory parties, problems of package deals, democratic legitimisation). The main findings indicate a scope of ambivalent results, so that a more or less pessimistic outlook on future perspectives is justified. In the focal part of our work we do not deal with the inter-professional, but with the sectoral variant of social dialogue. First of all, the "old" sectoral dialogues which were abolished by the Commission in 1998 took place in two organizational settings: joint committees and informal working groups. So far no binding agreements have been signed. On the union side, national members hesitate to transfer major parts of their human, financial and political resources to supranational level. On the employers' side, a certain re-orientation of internal politics suits national employers quite well who are in favour of defending the status quo of next to no supranational regulation. They enter into negotiation only in cases in which the Commission credibly threatens an initiative of its own.

Our results reveal significant differences between as well as within sectors. The implication of empirical findings is that a homogenous and coherent model of industrial relations is unlikely to become a reality. The fragmented structure of national systems is not only reflected, but even aggravated at supranational level. National systems are unequally affected by degrees of Europeanisation. At least three different trajectory lines seem to be possible in the foreseeable future, all of which would lead to different outcomes: One option is that social dialogues will not gain in importance; in some sectors, they might even diminish due to lack of content. In some sectors the range of social dialogue will likely be limited because of a lack of consensual objects/topics (like hotel and catering). Core issues of national industrial relations will be discussed, if at all, only in some selected sectors (like construction or transport). Only in these sectors could sectoral dialogue gain in importance.

All in all, a patchwork of an incremental nature is the most likely scenario. In the short term, lobbying will remain the main activity of the social partners; only in the medium term might social dialogue serve as an instrument of European social policy and industrial relations in some sectors.

Abebe Abate, ILO, Switzerland, 03/11/99 - The ILO Declaration on Multinational Enterprises

The tripartite character of the Organization and its unique experience in international standard setting in the labour field are two factors which have considerably influenced the nature, content and procedure of the existing specific ILO instrument in the field of multinational enterprises, i.e. the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.

The Declaration has the following structure: it contains a preamble, stating its aims, addressees and nature and recalling its history; the operational parts of the Declaration are grouped under five major sections. These are as follows: General Policies; Employment; Training; Conditions of Work and Life; and Industrial Relations. The specific subjects mentioned in these sections denote at the same time the areas of competence of the International Labour Organization within the total activities on multinational enterprises in the United Nations system. Attached to the Declaration is a list of ILO Conventions and Recommendations containing general standards relevant in the before-mentioned areas.

The Declaration has a number of specific features as follows:

1. The Declaration is not a general instrument (as the OECD Guidelines or the proposed UN Code on Transnational Corporations) but relates specifically to the ILO areas of competence, i.e. employment and labour relations matters in a large sense of these terms (employment; training; conditions of work and life; industrial relations).

2. The Declaration is addressed jointly to the governments, the employers' and workers' organizations and the multinational enterprises themselves in their home and host countries the world over.

3. It applies to all multinational enterprises whether they are of public, mixed or private ownership; and whether they are engaged in production, distribution, services or other facilities.

4. The principles are non-mandatory; they are standards which should be adhered to by the addressees on a voluntary basis.

5. Wherever relevant the principles are thought to reflect good practice for nationally, as well as for multi-nationally operating enterprises.

6. The Declaration aims at a continuous dialogue between the parties to which it is addressed in the belief that tripartite cooperation is a precondition for effective flexible, situation-specific approaches in the fields in question.

7. The Declaration encourages the integration of multinational enterprises in employment (and basic needs) oriented development strategies as well as into the local industrial relations systems. At the same time it mentions specifically certain transnational contacts.

8. Last but not least, the Declaration ascribes a leading role to multinational enterprises in various social fields, in particular where the enterprises operate in developing countries.

This Declaration is the first universal response to the social and labour problems the activities of multinationals may give rise to, and was achieved as a result of extensive consultations and negotiations between representatives of governments, employers' and workers' organizations and multinational enterprises. It sets out principles in the fields of employment, training, conditions of work and life and industrial relations, the observance of which enhances the contributions the addressees can make individually and collectively to the overall objectives of furthering economic and social progress. The principles and practices enunciated in the Declaration reflect good practice for all concerned, irrespective of whether or not an enterprise is national or multinational. A series of international labour Conventions and Recommendations further amplify in the form of international standards the contents of the Declaration.

The aim of the Tripartite Declaration is "... to encourage the positive contribution which multinational enterprises can make to economic and social progress and to minimise and resolve the difficulties to which their various operations may give rise ...". Tripartite cooperation and dialogue are essential for the application of the principles of this non-mandatory instrument. The aim will be furthered by appropriate laws and policies, measures and actions adopted by the governments and by cooperation among the governments and the employers' and workers' organizations of all countries.

It is to be recalled that six of the seven fundamental instruments of the ILO, Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 100, 105 and 111 form part of the relevant Conventions and Recommendations referred to in the Declaration. A further six Conventions and their corresponding Recommendations were recently approved for inclusion and now constitute Addendum II of the Annex of the Declaration. These are:

- Convention (No. 167) and Recommendation (No. 175) concerning Safety and Health in Construction, 1988 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration);

- Convention (No. 168) and Recommendation (No. 176) concerning Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment, 1988 (relevant to paragraph 13 of the Declaration);

- Convention (No. 170) and Recommendation (No. 177) concerning Safety in the Use of Chemicals at Work, 1990 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration);

- Convention (No. 173) and Recommendation (No. 180) concerning the Protection of Workers' Claims in the Event of the Insolvency of their Employer, 1992 (relevant to paragraph 28 of the Declaration);

- Convention (No. 174) and Recommendation (No. 181) concerning the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents, 1993 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration);

- Convention (No. 176) and Recommendation (No. 183) concerning Safety and Health in Mines, 1995 (relevant to paragraph 36 of the Declaration).

With the above, the total number of Conventions and Recommendations annexed to the Tripartite Declaration becomes 28 and 33 respectively. The follow-up of the effect given to the Declaration is done through a regular survey of which there have been six to date. The survey enables governments, employers and workers to provide information about their activities and experiences in the implementation of the Declaration.

This last activity is one concrete step in ensuring that the Declaration continues to be a living instrument that meets the concerns of the ILO's tripartite constituency. Even though the Declaration is not an instrument which is legally enforceable there are established procedures for interpretation of its provisions in cases of disputes arising over its application.

It has been stated that ILO instruments derive their strength, not necessarily from the legal form they take, but from the commitments made by the Organization's tripartite constituents. Thus, the fact that the Declaration is a tripartite and voluntary instrument makes it necessary for all parties to recognize the level of their interdependence and the concomitant responsibility to consult and cooperate with each other - a firm foundation for progress and development.

The Tripartite Declaration is a set of recommendations to all those concerned by the activities of MNEs. It provides an indispensable "social foundation" for negotiations on labour and social issues. It is responsive and adaptable to the exigencies of a changing international economic and social environment and helps to cement a partnership in which governments, employers and workers bear proportionate responsibilities in enhancing economic and social development.

The Tripartite Declaration challenges governments to strike a balance between what would be economically and politically acceptable and socially tolerable, between the need for investments and the obligations to introduce and maintain an equitable and progressive social policy.

Governments, the MNEs, and the workers, as equal partners in this triangular relationship are called upon to assume commensurate responsibilities in order to ensure a peaceful industrial relations climate as a foundation for labour and social peace.

As a normative instrument, the Declaration provides guidelines for policy-makers and negotiators. Consequently labour regulations, collective agreements and national policies on foreign direct investment are certainly likely to be influenced by its provisions.

Anne Trebilcock, ILO, Switzerland, 04/11/99 - Promoting the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

What does the ILO Declaration involve?

1. A pledge

The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted on 18 June 1999, constitutes a universal pledge by the international community to respect, promote and realize: freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour effective abolition of child labour elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

2. Complementary obligations

Under the Declaration, all ILO member States - even if they have not ratified the 8 fundamental ILO Conventions on those subjects * have an obligation to respect, promote and realize these principles and rights.

The Declaration also requires the ILO to: assist its member States to attain these objectives mobilize external resources and support for this encourage other organizations with which the ILO has established relations to support these efforts.

ILO assistance aims at: helping countries create a climate for economic and social development offering technical cooperation and advisory services to promote the ratification and implementation of the fundamental Conventions and to respect, promote and realize these fundamental principles and rights.

3. A promotional Follow-up

The Declaration includes a promotional Follow-up which features: annual reports from countries that have not yet ratified all the fundamental Conventions and a compilation of these reports, prepared by the ILO, plus comments received from workers' and employers' organizations a global report on the overall trends in all countries on each category of principles and rights in turn, to serve as a basis for: discussion at the tripartite annual International Labour Conference conclusions by the ILO Governing Body on priorities and plans of action for technical cooperation as a key element of the Follow-up.

4. Guarantees

The Declaration Follow-up is not a substitute for established supervisory procedures, nor shall it impede their functioning. The Declaration states that nothing in it or in the Follow-up shall be invoked for protectionist trade purposes. The comparative advantage of any country should in no way be called into question by the Declaration or its Follow-up.

How do the Declaration and its Follow-up fit into the multilateral system?

The Declaration has taken up the challenge given to the ILO by: The World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, 1995), where Heads of State committed to respect basic workers' rights the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (Singapore, 1996), which renewed a commitment to observe internationally recognized core labour standards, falling within the mandate of the ILO.

The ILO is continuing its efforts to have the fundamental principles and rights form an integral part of a broad-based approach to sustainable and equitable development for men and women everywhere, across the multilateral system. For example, the ILO obtained observer status on the Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund and the Development Committee of the World Bank in 1999.

How does the Declaration relate to the private sector?

While the text of the Declaration is directed to ILO Member States and the tripartite Organization as a whole, the principles and rights contained in the Declaration can inspire voluntary efforts in the private sector to pursue sound business practices. Employers' and workers' organizations participate in making the Declaration and its Follow-up translate into concrete action.

Who deals with the Declaration and its Follow-up within the ILO?

Headquarters and the ILO field structure around the world. Recognizing the importance of respect for the fundamental principles and rights at work in the Declaration for sound, equitable and gender-sensitive development, the ILO has set up a special Programme. Its purposes are to: raise awareness of the Declaration among a broad range of actors catalyse technical cooperation programmes for the realization of the principles and rights at work as part of countries' development efforts enhance knowledge about how respect for these principles and rights contributes to development carry out activities related to the reports under the Declaration Follow-up.

Tony Morison, 01/11/99 - Background to the 1997-1998 Australian Dock Dispute

The unions covering waterside workers (now the Maritime Union of Australia, or MUA) have, like their counterparts in other countries, a long and proud history of industrial struggle against the poor and sometimes deadly working conditions faced on the docks. As one of the strongest and most cohesive unions in Australia, the MUA became a target for right wing political parties, groups and private companies. Academic commentators speak of a "grand plan" which emerged in the late 1990s to "smash the MUA" and with it, the rest of the Australian labour movement.

Part of the strategy was to bring about the dismissal of all the unionised workers employed by one of the key stevedoring companies, Patricks, and replace them with non-unionised labour. In one of the wilder plans associated with this scheme, a company called "Fynwest" was created to recruit and train an alternative workforce: soldiers and those leaving the armed services were targeted, and training facilities in the port at Dubai were rented. John Wiseman states that "while it has disputed involvement, there is substantial evidence that the government actively supported the Dubai operation at the highest levels and assisting in fast tracking passports and visas". However, news of this plan was leaked to the Australia press in December 1997. The head of the MUA informed the International Transport Federation (ITF) of his concerns, and the ITF notified officials in the United Arab Emirates that there would be an international union blockade of the port in Dubai if the "industrial mercenaries" were trained. UAE officials suspended the training, and the plans for training the replacement non-union workforce collapsed.

At the same time, Patricks restructured its group of companies. The companies which had formerly run stevedoring services at Australian ports were stripped of all assets except what were called Labour Supply agreements, which were agreements to provide the stevedoring service to other Patrick companies. These agreements set rigid conditions upon which the labour would be supplied, and would be breached in the event of "disruption". Professor Harry Glasbeek notes that "the interruption of supply was, of course, inevitable given the Patrick group of companies obvious endeavours to find non-union labour for its operations".

Eventually, the current workforce were all sacked by administrators of the companies whose only assets were the Labour Supply Agreements, after other Patricks companies terminated their contracts. Mass picket lines were established at Patrick ports. Bill Kelty, the then Secretary of peak union federation, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), had stated that "To weaken the MUA is to weaken the union movement as a whole. The day we give away that support is the day we rip out our own heart and leave it pumping in irrelevancy. The only promise I make to John Howard (Australian Prime Minister) - that if you seek to destroy the MUA we will be there. You will have the biggest picket that has ever been assembled in this country".

Complex legal proceedings eventually led to a Court order for therein statement of the sacked dockers. A spokesman for the right-wing think-tank, the HR Nicholls Society, admitted "the union won this dispute, I don't quibble with that, I'm not going to gild the lily, we were done, we were beaten, they beat us". Academic Braham Dabscheck concluded that "the MUA and broader union movement achieved a major victory in this dispute. They not only acted to protect the heart of the union movement, to quote Bill Kelty, but also its body. The court found against Patrick's corporate restructuring as a means of union-busting."

Helga Svendsen, Australia Services Union, Australia, 02/11/99 - On the Picket Line (Australian Dock Dispute)

Back in April 1998, Australians were shocked to hear that Patricks, one of the big waterside companies, had overnight sacked all of their workforce.

And not just sacked them, but dragged them from their posts, in the middle of the night, with dogs and security goons. The workers were unceremoniously tossed out of the gate.

The response from the Maritime Union of Australia was immediate -workers had been locked out and picket lines were established at each site. The reaction from the Australian community was extraordinary. It only took a few days for the numbers to swell at the picket lines (which, for legal reasons, were called a "community protest"). Workers, community groups, school groups, families, entertainers and more all came together to support not only the wharfies, but the basic industrial rights which were under attack from both the conservative government and the employers.

I won't go into the legal or industrial aspects - they are for others to talk about. But the incredible feeling of camaraderie and solidarity during that dispute are unsurpassed in my experience. And, whilst we were all calling it a "community protest" at the start, just to avoid the legal consequences of "unprotected industrial action", that's what it really became. It wasn't just about the MUA, but about the community taking a stand when the government and bosses went just too far.What I can provide are some of the stories from the picket line (oops, sorry, "community protest"!).Like one Saturday when they tried to roll a train in to get the goods that had been sitting on the wharves for a week or two. About 20 or so picketers did the good picketing thing and stood in front of it, facing up to a couple of lines of cops. Apparently an official from the transport union managed to convince the first train driver that he was feeling a bit off colour, and he went home sick. But the next driver was pretty determined. Then, two old ducks were passing by in a taxi, on their way to deliver some cake to the lads on the picket. Apparently they saw the commotion and stopped the taxi driver, got out, marched straight up to the front of the line and stood eye to eye with the coppers - and the train driver - and said words to the effect of "you'll have to drive over us if you want to get that train through sonny". These old biddies were each about 80 not out - and apparently were resplendent in their pearls and twin sets- I kid you not. What a great picture.

The picket itself has turned into this great community event - it's really more like a local festival than a picket line. There are bands and comedians and dancers every night, and some of the workers have even erected this huge stage for the festivities. A couple of metal workers found some old railway lines which they have erected on the road as a barricade and welded together (sign nearby:"Community Art Project: "The Barricade": A living art sculpture"). Then the building workers moved in and put fences up around it. Then the painters came in and painted it. Then the sign writers came in and put pretty pictures and writing all over it. Tents are going up everywhere - there's a permanent first aid tent (run by the Nursing union), a permanent food tent and permanent sales tent for MUA paraphanalia. A hippy anarchist mob called "Food Not Bombs" have adopted us and fed us this great vegie organic food every night. The Turkish community dropped by the other night with mountains of food. The Vietnamese community delivered a huge box full of spring rolls. It's a fantastic atmosphere. But of course, it is a "dry" picket line (wouldn't want to mess with some of these wharfies sober, let alone with a few beers under the belt). And strictly enforced - for example, one of the local (and sympathetic) pubs sent down a pallet of beer one day. Now a pallet of beer is an absolute mountain of beer. But of course the picket line is dry. So they had to turn it away. Many a wharfie was heard to cry "but can't we just have one?". The only real confrontation we have had with the cops was last Friday night when we got word that a few hundred of them were massing down at the World Trade Centre. Word went out and within a few hours we had about 3000 people down on the picket line, practising our drills of lining up and linking arms and so on. A couple of women were allocated to go up the front to break up the blokey look of the wharfies. About 3.00am we got word that the coppers were on their way so we duly lined up and waited. The helicopter arrived first, circling overhead for about 3 hours in all, spotlights on us and all that.

The first line of police turned up at about 4.00 am - about 200 of them I guess. They advanced (well, as well as they could - the road was absolutely littered with cars and train tracks to block their way). We had this ridiculous face off for literally a couple of hours - lines of them staring at lines of us whilst speeches were made by the likes of the Ambulance Union and the Firefighters along the lines of "come on, we are all emergency workers and we support the MUA. Don't bring it to violence". All of us had been worded up ad nauseam about non violent protest and so on, so we weren't about to advance. As the sun came up at 6.00am the President of Trades Hall called for a minutes silence for all the workers who had died in workplace accidents. It was an incredible moment. Complete silence from 3 - 4000 people, the sun rising, lines of police and protesters. Broken 60 seconds later by the chanting of "MUA, Here To Stay". Incredible.

Then word came that the building workers who had just started work on the local building sites were on their way down - 2000 of them. The cops were sandwiched between us. Another great moment. It was like "well, you know how you blokes turned up a few hours and gave us 30 minutes to consider our position? Well, we are now giving you the same courtesy. What do you want to do?". "Ummm . . . . we'd like to leave thanks!". Can't blame them really. 3000 protesters in front of you. A couple of hundred cops and 420 police horses in the middle. 2000 building workers behind you. What a great pantomime it all was ("they're behind you!").

The exhilaration of beating the odds and facing up to "the authorities" was amazing - all of those old adages of sticking together and worker solidarity became real instead of just theories. There is no doubt that, as a picket line, the action was totally illegal. But it seemed that every person there was completely aware of it and more than happy to take that risk of being arrested for "the cause" because the cause was right

And, what's more, it was a protest which was not only "right" but successful! After weeks of protests, legal battles (and the sight of hundreds of wharfies hanging off every broadcasted word of a SupremeCourt judge was pretty unusual too!), the High Court determined that they return to work. The night those workers walked back through the gate was no tone that I will forget in a long time - absolute jubilation and victory. Lots of singing and dancing (but, of course, no drinking!).

This dispute was a tremendous boost of morale for the union movement generally, and the community who took a stand. Just goes to show what we can do when we stand together.

Kees Marges, International Transport Workers', United Kingdom, 03/11/99 - International Solidarity (Australian Dock Dispute)

At its world-wide Conference in 1997 the delegates to the ITF Dockers Section unanimously signed a so-called International Solidarity Contract. The contract is not legally binding, but the affiliated unions which signed it are morally obliged to support any call for international solidarity which comes from the ITF Secretariat. At the same conference delegates adopted two resolutions on policy issues. One resolution requires authorities to involve unions in the port reform and privatisation process and the other contains a policy against union-busting. Later the ITF's Seafarer's Section Conference formally endorsed the docker's policies and pledged their support in case this was needed. This was one of the seafarers acts of solidarity with dockers in response to the solidarity of dockers with seafarers as part of the long running ITF Campaign against substandard shipping, the FOC Campaign. The 1997 pledges deliberately avoid that unions have to formally ask ITF for international support, in case they are legally not able to do so. In many cases port reforms and privatization are used by authorities and would be private entrepreneurs to eliminate trade unions in the port industry.

Because of the policies adopted in 1997 the Maritime Union of Australia did not need to ask the ITF for international support and solidarity when it was confronted - in 1997 and 1998 - with several attempts by port employers to replace unionised dockworkers with unorganized labour. When in 1997 unionised workers in the port of Cairns were replaced by unorganized labour the ITF responded by calling on USA Seafarers for support, which was sufficient to convince a US owned shipping line not to make use of the non-union labour in Cairns. The MUA-members ultimately kept their jobs. Another attempt - by Patrick Stevedores - included among others a training programme for soldiers and retired military personnel in the port of Dubai in the United Arabic Emirates, a country which has not ratified ILO Conventions 87 and 98 and where trade unions are prohibited. Patrick's aim was to use an MUA organized strike to replace the MUA members by the unorganized ex-militaries who had been trained as port workers. Again interference by the ITF via the UAE's embassy in London and the threat of an international boycott of ships calling at Dubai resulted in the plan being aborted. A third attempt - again by Patrick, but like the two previous attempts initiated and set up by the Australian right wing government - took place in April 1998 when, in the middle of the night by means of a military coup style operation, dock workers were forcefully driven from all Patrick terminals in Australia and replaced by non-union, newly recruited - and thus badly-trained workers. After one month of legal battles, including an injunction against the ITF in London, the final decision of Australians highest court meant that the unorganized workers had to be replaced by the original, MUA organized dock workers.

During the whole fight the ITF organized international support for the Australian dock workers, including among others stoppages of ships in different ports. Threats by affiliated unions to stop ships led to the diversion of the ships to other ports. The most famous action of all was the 19 day boycott in Los Angeles of a ship which was loaded in Australia by non-union labour. The ship was finally forced to return to Melbourne in order to be reloaded by MUA organized workers.

One should understand that International Solidarity cannot replace industrial, legal or other action to be organized by a union itself. In general solidarity means support for a union or for workers who have started their own action. If there is no action, there cannot be support of that action. International trade union bodies like the ITF cannot replace national unions, they only can support them. In the port industry the ITF has an education policy in place to support dock workers unions in dealing with privatisation. This education project is based on the principle of international support for national policies. The ITF does not dictate to its affiliates about how they must respond to privatisation because no blue print exists. Subsequently no international blue print for a trade union policy on port privatisation exists and each union needs to develop its own policy. In developing this policy and getting the national authorities to accept their policies the unions are supported by the ITF by means of education and, where necessary, by International Solidarity, as decided at the world-wide ITF Dockers Conference in 1997.

Tan-Ern Ser, Singapore, 01/11/99 - Child Labour

Trade liberalisation must "help make people's lives better." It is also true that the use of child labour in one country can sabotage and has sabotaged the livelihood of workers in those countries that observe the core standards.

I guess the issue here is this:

(1) Can we ensure that child labourers have access to education and training and to eventually become productive workers making decent wages?

(2) Can we ensure that their parents have access to jobs and be able to support their children's education and livelihood?

Edward Mazey, Canada, 02/11/99 - Co-operation and Competition among Unions

It was quite nice to learn about the Australian dockworkers and others solidarity in the face of a crisis to the livelihood of many people. Such solidarity is something that needs to occur between unions invoicing dissent against the power manipulative and greedy MNCs. Unfortunately, that type of solidarity is not existent within all unions or between all unions.

As I have read the commentaries also listed on-line, I am a little bit wary of the 'rosy' picture being painted in these commentaries of unions. This is not to state that I think that unions do not have an important role in helping to voice the interests of workers (persons),it is just that the interests of workers and unions are not always the same. Unfortunately, unionism has become big business with many unions competing for their market share of worker representation. Rather than working together to promote workers interests, some unions fight among themselves to become the rep in the workplace, resulting in union wars. This is particularly so in North America. Within this war for market share the interests of workers diverges from the interests of the unions.

An example of interests diverging is no more apparent than a few years back in Canada within the labour relations dispute between Maple Leaf Foods (MLF) and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), a very powerful international union. Within the series of lockouts and strikes between the parties was a strike at the dilapidated 91 year-old Edmonton hog processing plant. Dispute developments were occurring also at 4 other plants across the country. The UFCW had set up a national bargaining table made up of national union leaders and local union leaders to develop strategy for the negotiations in all the concerned locations, thereby to advise local in their negotiations.

The Edmonton workers, on the union's advice, refused to accept a mediator's recommendation which included a meagre pay raise. As well, it must be noted that MLF had informed the union and workers that the plant was scheduled for closing due to its physical condition and that plans were in the works to build a new plant within three years. The union local demanded that MLF promise to build in Edmonton. MLF refused to make such a promise. The eventual result in Edmonton was the closing of the plant and the loss of 850 'union' jobs for those workers. In the same period of the closure, MLF announced that the new processing plant would be built in Brandon, Manitoba. At that time it came out that the local of the UFCW in Winnipeg, Manitoba had been negotiating secretly with MLF the terms of a collective agreement"should" the plant locate to Brandon. Supposedly, the local in Winnipeg was sworn to secrecy not to tell the national leaders of the negotiations otherwise the plant would not be located in Brandon. In the aftermath, the national leadership of the UFCW denied any knowledge of the negotiations, though the Edmonton workers questioned such denials. In analysing such developments, does it not reveal that the UFCW, in its effort to maintain its power share of representation in comparison to 'competing' unions, ignored their duty to represent the workers that were already unionised in Edmonton. Would the Edmonton local have not changed their negotiation demands had they known of the Winnipeg negotiations for non-existent workers at that time. As well, as for the UFCW, they either think people are naive in suggesting that the national leaders did not know of the negotiations or they are the most unorganized union in the world to not require locals to inform them of such negotiations and heaven help any workers that have them as representatives because, as I think the situation reveals, they would sell them out in a 'power' heartbeat.

Having given this listing of events is not to say that all unions work this way, but it shows there is a problem of union competition that exists in the workplace. Yes, some blame the capitalist market for having forced them into such situations, but in reality unions have chosen not to work together or physically unite. Unions, though they are big business, must find it within themselves to remember why they were formed, to put aside their competitiveness and merge, like the MNCs are doing, both across industrial lines and national boundaries, to give them the political and fiscal clout to shut down transnational industries, not just a local plant. As the Australia situation revealed, illegality of action does not mean much when the size of the demonstration reveals to political forces that 'the people' voice their support for the illegality.

On a side note, in analysing the 1996 OECD study on worker rights and trade liberalisation (though some, like Charnovitz have questioned their conclusions), an interesting pattern emerges when you cross-reference their data (p. 110 and table 13) on the relationship between improved association rights and trade liberalisation [I am assuming most in this conference are familiar with the study so I shall not go in great detail on the chart facts] with IMF (Int. Monetary Fund) export trade stats for the countries in table 13 for the years analysed in the table 13 study. As it notes, they came to the conclusion that there is some positive association between the actions, with either preceding the other or occurring simultaneously in most cases (the first 3 groups). However they did note in some countries (group 4 in the chart) that no association rights improvement occurred after trade reforms. In the cross-reference, the countries in the first three groups had strong ties to a hegemonic trading power, such as the United States or members of the EU or Mercosur, with such being a top 5 trading partner and increasing trade (on a percentage basis to overall trade by the country). As well there was an increase in trade with developed countries. As for group 4, the countries did not have any connection with a hegemonic trade power and there export trading increased with developing countries with a decline in trade, of course, with developed or industrial countries. There were other patterns revealed in the groups, which I am not listing, but suffice it to say that such patterns may suggest that trading blocs may have an influence on countries to observe labour standards as required by trading bloc members, such as the U.S.'s GSP requirements, in order to develop trade relations. I just thought I would throw that out into the conservation in an effort to show that all developments of trading blocs may not be bad or cosmetician nature.

08/11/99 - WFTU Memorandum to the Third Ministerial Meeting of World Trade Organization

WFTU memorandum to third ministerial meeting of world trade organization

Seattle, 30 November - 3 December 1999

1. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and its affiliates in all continents are greatly interested on all the issues before the Third Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization since they directly affect the jobs, working conditions and the well-being of the working people in all Member States of the United Nations.

2. For all those who expected that the Uruguay Round and the establishment of the WTO would promote equitable and just international economic relations, trade and economic growth, there are now growing misgivings. Established structures such as the transnational corporations continue to dominate world trade. Already a larger part of world trade takes place as internal transactions within the transnational corporations and outside the framework of national or international regulation ? an aspect which should be seriously examined by the III Ministerial Meeting of the WTO.

3. It is widely felt that the multilateral trade agreements which are supposed to create a level playing field for all trading partners have apparently failed to impose a sense of equity and fairness in the global market.

4.Evidently, world trade does not measure up to its actual potential mainly because demand is inhibited by the falling purchasing power of the vast majority of the world population. As UN reports show, one-half of the world population has an income per capita of less than two dollars a day. The purchasing power of developing countries as a whole has been declining because of the low prices their peasant producers and small undertakings get from the transnational corporations. Moreover, the outflow of resources from the developing countries resulting from declining terms of trade and the high cost of debt service to the foreign banks show up in their declining import capacity. Most developed countries have not fulfilled their commitment to devote 0.70 per cent of their GDP as Official Development Assistance (ODA).

5. Moreover, the overall purchasing power of the working people, both in developed countries and developing countries is declining because of the decline in real wages. This is a major reason for the recession in several industrial sectors, which affects trade growth as well.

6. Therefore, there should be a comprehensive review of these negative effects of the ongoing "globalisation? under the auspices of the transnational corporations and banks and, in particular, over the negative impact of trade liberalisation on employment and living standards of the working people in many sectors and the consequent deterioration in the world social situation.

7. Such a comprehensive review should cover all the trade agreements negotiated and to assess the gains and losses in order to provide necessary relief to those negatively affected by these agreements.

8. While the solemn commitments undertaken by member States of the United Nations at the World Summit for Social Development which was held in Copenhagen five years ago are not acted upon, tremendous economic and political pressures are applied on countries to liquidate the social safety net and hand over the vital public services to the private sector and foreign capital. The central point of the Copenhagen Programme of Action that all economic decisions should be aimed at the eradication of poverty and unemployment and should have a social dimension is thus totally ignored.

9. The WFTU wishes to reiterate that the basic issues outlined in the international development strategies and the General Assembly Declaration and Programme of Action for the establishment of a New International Economic Order (NIEO) which was adopted a quarter of a century ago, it appears, are being sidelined - if not ignored. That is why the WFTU wishes to emphasise that Member States reiterate their commitment to the NIEO to work towards an international order "based on equity, sovereignty, equality, interdependence, common interest and cooperation between states which shall correct inequalities and redress existing injustices (and) make it possible to eliminate the widening gap between the developed and developing countries.?

10. The trade unions are of the opinion that in the last 25 years, no serious efforts were taken to eliminate the distortions, inequalities and the pernicious influence of monopolies and cartels on vital sectors of world trade. As a result, the grim statistics of the Human Development Reports produced by the UNDP are now all the more glaring and scandalous. For instance, some 250 financial tycoons have more wealth than the combined assets of almost one-half of the world population. The other side of the global picture shows that one-third of the labour force is either unemployed or under-employed, that more than one billion people are unable to meet even their most basic human needs, over 800 million are undernourished and hungry and that nearly 60 per cent of the population of developing countries ? more than 2.5 billion people ? have no access to basic sanitation and 30 per cent cannot get safe, drinkable water.

11. It has to be pointed out that the current priority to impose privatisation can only further strengthen the stranglehold exercised by the monopolies and cartels and undermine the goal of the international development strategies adopted by the UN. It was specifically stated in UN documents that economic order should be founded on several guiding principles, among them recognition that all states had "full permanent sovereignty" over their natural resources and economic activities. It was specifically stated that states were entitled to exercise control over them, including the right of nationalisation - and should be free of economic or political coercion for exercising those rights.

12. It was also widely agreed that steps should be taken to establish a "just and equitable? relationship between the prices of products, raw materials and primary commodities exported by developing countries, and the prices of capital and manufactured goods and equipment imported by them with the aim of bringing about improvement in their "unsatisfactory terms of trade?

13. In other words, the WTO is called upon to take energetic measures to eliminate the unequal trade and economic relations which lies at the root of the vast belt of poverty and exploitation of the working people and blocks the normal development of world trade and economic exchanges.

14. The events which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s must alert all those formulating strategies for the 21st century to the grave dangers of market manipulation, domination and control exercised by the monopolies and cartels and their modern incarnations as transnational corporations, trading companies, banks and finance cartels. Recent turmoil in the capital and currency markets has already created a huge social crisis.

15. The proposed multilateral discussions on services should draw the right lessons from the recent financial turmoil, which undermined the economies of several countries and regions. While capital transfers for productive purposes and to finance trade should be encouraged, strict measures should be taken to eliminate all forms of illegal practices and economic crimes.

16. The WFTU reiterates its submission to the earlier Ministerial Meetings that WTO should act upon the basic issues and ensure that international trading systems are based on principles of equality, sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. In particular, the WFTU draws attention to the non-implementation of the resolution of the UN General Assembly asking the US Administration to lift sanctions on Cuba. The Helms Burton Act who claims extra-territorial jurisdiction has not been repealed as yet. From a humanitarian point of view, the WFTU has repeatedly called for the lifting of all trade sanctions against countries such as Cuba, Libya, Iraq and Iran, which deprive working people of access to food, medicines and other essential commodities. The WFTU hopes that the Third Ministerial Meeting will impress upon all Member States of the WTO to uphold the basic principles of international trade law and cancel all trade bans and other such measures which affect the free flow of international trade. States, which have imposed arbitrary sanctions and boycotts, should be obliged to pay compensation to the countries and peoples who were victimised in this manner.

17. The WFTU believes that effective mechanisms exist within the tripartite structures of the ILO to oversee the implementation of international labour standards and investigate complaints related to violations of ILO conventions. The ILO Declaration ON Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up adopted by the 86th Session of the International Labour Conference (1998) notes the consensus, which exists on this issue.

18. National and international programmes of action should be put in place to ensure the universal implementation of international labour standards. In this connection, laws on corporate governance should be updated, to include provisions requiring all undertakings to include in their annual reports all facts concerning the implementation of international labour standards. Institutions should be established for a "Social Audit" with authority to look into the social consequences of all economic decisions by all private and public sector enterprises, the transnational corporations as well as governmental institutions.

19. In all these matters, the WTO should further strengthen its cooperation with the ILO and the world trade union movement, calling on member States and all those concerned to coordinate efforts to secure the implementation of these international labour standards.

20. In this spirit, the WFTU reiterates its position that the World Trade Organization should establish a system of regular consultations between the WTO and the international and regional trade union organizations as well as other NGOs concerned with trade and development, in order to find effective ways of dealing with all trade issues which have a bearing on jobs and living standards and the enforcement of international labour standards and social justice.

Salihu Lukman, Nation Union of Textile, Garment and Tailoring Workers of Nigeria, Nigeria, 09/11/99 - Heterogeneity of the Union Movement

One is perhaps more disturbed at the way attempts are made to present globalisation and the different manifestations in a way that suggests homogeneity, thereby eliminating the issue of power and the global contest for enthronement of command lines. For me, I see the phenomena called globalisation as just another manifestation of that global contest in which international capital, represented by the TNCs, asserts their hegemony.

This is not a recent process. It dates back into history. Perhaps, the only thing is that the present uni-polar world made it possible for economies to submit to the hegemonic dictates of capital with little or no resistance.

Now, what does this mean for the discussion of trade union's experience? I think, for many of us in the trade unions, we have a fundamental problem of comprehension, particularly because the new reality challenges the old ways of work. The new reality demands new forms of commitment and solidarity. Unfortunately, by orientation, trade unions are in their mode of organization conservative. This accounts for why at times, we over celebrate ourselves. This element is very prominent in the discussion so far. There were quite strong convincing narrations about how the ICFTU, ILO and so on are working to ensure respect for core labour standards.

Rich experiences of unions and ITS's in the effort to combat globalisation, as is the case with MUA were presented. One is sceptical about the usefulness of such a discussion/debate among trade unionists. This is because it portends danger of reducing the struggle to protect jobs to a mere legal category. Besides, there is also the unwelcomedevelopment of discussing only cases of success as has happened to the ITF blockade in UAE. My instinct is to agree with Edward Mazey who expressed wariness at what he described as "the 'rosy' picture being painted at these commentaries of unions". I think, we need to pose some questions, which are necessary in terms of applying the experience of the MUA to our local situations.

For instance, what is the organizational structure of the MUA? It is important to raise this question because, I imagine that the maritime industry in Australia is covered by perhaps only one union - the MUA - or at the worse, if there is more than one union covering the industry, all are affiliated to the ITF and therefore inter or intra union contest minimal. In many countries, the maritime workers are fragmented into two or three unions and may be only one of the unions is affiliated to the ITF. It may as well be that non is affiliated, in which case, one will be compel to ask: what capacities could there be for international solidarity.

Let us take another extreme case, the MUA is the only union in the Australian maritime industry and affiliated to ITF. I think, it is important to assess the success of the blockade in UAE. The narration is so sketchy as to explain the objective factors that facilitated that. I believe without those objective factors, the ITF can not perform any magic.

I have to make this remark because, we should not gloss over the realities facing unions. Particularly for unions in third world, we need to appreciate thec omplexities. It is a globally held view that globalisation is taking away jobs. Such evidence may not however be immediately apparent in the third world, which limits the capacity of unions to demonstrate solidarity with workers in the same industry in another country threaten by globalisation. And very few unions in the third world are able to appreciate that. It will amount to over simplification to assume that unions have a global agenda for action the way for instance ICFTU and ITS's would have us believe. We need to develop an objective approach, which should take into account peculiar difficulties and experiences of unions across the world and not just success stories and discussions of standards. Such a strategy should emphasise difficulties encountered and possible strategies on how to overcome them.

Jane Wills, University of London, England, 11/11/99 - Unions Structure and Globalisation

Trade unionists now routinely emphasise the importance of global organization, and in his opening remarks, Bill Jordan argued that unions needed to widen their appeal (working with NGOs to reach non-traditional audiences) and to forge new relationships with the International Trade Secretariats (ITSs).But trade unions may need to go further than forging new alliances and making new relationships to tackle the problems in hand. I have identified three (rather hazy) models that are being proposed to promote global unionism (as called for by Ron Dickson): 1. using existing organizations to build tripartite social partnership at the global level 2. ceding more responsibility to the ITS and the ICFTU to play much more of an active trade union role at a transnational level (in signing agreements with TNCs, organizing strike and action campaigns etc) 3. developing social movementist trade unionism that is non-hierarchical involving direct contact between members and communities (but the organizational structure of this model is not clear)

On the ground, it is certainly clear that the existing structures of trade unionism are often a barrier to successful organization and that change is needed. Writing from the perspective of the UK, we often have more than one union in each sector, and even each firm. These unions often have different organizational structures (some are industrial and some geographic) while the employers are increasingly transnational in organization.Just as the ITS are looking at their structures and merging, I think it is imperative that this happens lower down the trade union movement. Strong national unions could then forge meaningful, working, alliances with their international partners, and even merge in the future - perhaps even joining regional arms of the ITS to become strong regional unions (as might be envisaged in Europe)? Such transnational unions could then forge credible strategies to tackle transnational capitalism (as some of the ITS's such as the IUF and ICEM are already trying to do).

The reason I make these remarks is my disappointment at the experiences of European Works Councils. Mark Carley rightly suggested that these bodies are a demonstration of the Europeanisation of industrial relations, bringing trade unionists together at a transnational scale. Yet I wonder on whose terms this Europeanisation is occurring? EWCs do pose concrete opportunities for unions to organize at a new transnational scale, and in the early days, the European Industry Federations - in conjunction with national trade unions in Europe - had EC funding to host meetings and establish networks in order to set up EWCs.This work was extremely important. However, I have been researching the operation of EWCs once they have been established, and have attended meetings in a number of firms. Maybe I have picked weak examples, but in these firms there is no consultation (only information provision) with the employee representatives. Moreover, the trade unionists involved do not have the support they need to set up networks for more informal communication and information exchange between the meetings (and at present nothing takes place outside the annual event). The EWCs I have studied are inadequate to deal with the speed at which economic change is occurring (mergers and take-overs, closures, relocation, restructuring are constantly taking place in these firms) and they are isolated from other structures of industrial relations.

EWCs are always cited as the one positive example of an institution that gives labour scope for transnational organization and action, and I have been very disheartened by my research. If the trade union movement do not have the resources and capacity to service these bodies, and make them work in the interests of workers, then something is really wrong - and in need of urgent attention.Moreover, I wouldn't blame individuals for this (I know that trade union officials already have too much to do) - I think the structures and organizational focus on the trade unions (in Europe at least) need a serious overhaul and some difficult decisions about mergers and policymaking need to be made.

I am unsure about what mergers might be sensible, and how they might take place, but I hope this focuses the discussion on the structures and organizational priorities of the trade union movement at all scales so that unions can make an adequate response to the global neo-liberal economy.

Michael Herrmann, Eberhard-Karls-Universitaet Tuebingen, Germany, 15/11/99 - Labour Standards and Strategies

L.V.Subramanian, India, 16/11/99 - The Need for Change in Trade Unions Structure and Leadership

So much is happening in India which needs to be better understood by the international trade movement. Unfortunately, younger groups do not take much interest. The elder statesmen and people on the wrong side of seventies are in top level leadership. They have guided the movement in the best of times and have received their rewards for their work in their political field.

Trade Unions no longer attract youngsters as there is no career there. Youth leadership programmes assisted by the international trade union movement have not produced any significant improvement in inducting young cadres. Some brilliant and outstanding scholars from universities gravitate towards NGO's and work among rural people because of sheer commitment and social sensitiveness. Somehow trade unions do not attract them.

Bank unions and other white collar unions in India have large resources. As yet managing unions is not offered as professionally attractive. Since leadership is increasingly confined to (as opposed to outsiders) working employees trade unions leadership held for short tenures by working employees as they have their own professional career in the enterprise. We do not have a system of attracting talents from the academic world or from other management processions. like in UK and other western countries. In India trade unions do not pay salaries for their leaders and attract talents. Union work is regarded as sacrifice of one life for a social cause. Business unionism concept has not caught on. The only example of business unionism and an organization designed on that type of trade union is run of Dr. Barnes, General Secretary of National Union Seafarers (affiliated to ITF). There are a few more emerging not very visible as yet.

Indian trade unions need to change their attitudes towards this. The earlier concept of sacrifice of personal comforts and self denial philosophy still holds its way over the rank and file. Freedom movement and Mahatma Gandhi's approach to all mass movements continue to influence trade unions. The INTUC for instance is committed to Gandhian concept of trade union movement which involves self-sacrifice. Many of its former leaders practised it to an extent until they moved to political leaderships positions and began to hold ministerial offices. This makes it difficult for leadership to sell the idea of introducing salaried professionals.

Maybe the idea of revival of a trade union college as was run by ICFTU in 1950s and 1960s may influence some rethinking. The management institutes are churning out qualified MBA's in financial management, and other management disciplines. It attracts talents from engineering and science disciplines. After graduating in science and technology young boys and girls move to MBA studies and go into financial management specialisations and get attractive jobs in the financial world which is very lucrative and gives them a long career which assures quality of life.

Trade union management could be another subject for MBA's. Time has come to take trade union related philosophy to schools and colleges. In fact the student movement and trade union movement should build enduring bonds of solidarity as the school students and college students are potential workers and would be part of the labour movement once they finish educational pursuits.

I had suggested this in of the recent conferences I had occasion to participate to those countries who are facing difficulties in building solidarity within the trade union movement because of impediments created by countervailing forces in their countries.

Trade union education must shift their emphasis from the traditional training methods and innovate new strategies for the next millennium. The challenges ahead for labour movement are stupendous. To induct younger cadres in trade union movement will have to offer professional career which should be almost equivalent to what is available in the corporate sector. In fact trade union career combines power plus and independence. In the corporate sector one has to accept within a hierarchy, pay obsistence to ownership families.

MBAs (with specialisation in industrial and labour management relations) are presently taken as personnel officers in the campus recruitment and eventually become Personnel Directors in the corporate sector. This promise of moving up to Director's level attracts talents.

Trade Union finances will have to be strengthened as a precondition. Most unions do not have resources to fund their activities. Trade Union laws provide for less than cent as subscriptions. Seafarers and banking unions and other white collar unions who collect subscriptions almost equivalent to a US dollar or even more in cases, union subscriptions are very low. National centres receive a measly fraction of the already small subscriptions. Therefore national trade union centres depend on outside sources. Governmental and sympathetic - group patronages.

The international assistance to trade union educational programmes will have to think of something new for developing countries. Much of there source invested in trade union education programmes hardly produce cadres on continuing basis. ILO will have to play a role in this. Leave (as if on duty) for full time trade union work will have to become a tripartite ILO convention. In banks because of sheer power of the strength of the unions full timers are given time off from their official duties for trade union work and their jobs are protected. In India way back in the 1970s I had got the facility of full relief for trade union work for managerial unions introduced by sheer collective power and strength even in the absence of any industrial law protecting the group. The managements in banks acquiesced in trade union activists of managerial unions in remaining away from their desks and pursuing trade union work in the offices provided by the bank managements in the bank's own office premises free of rent. All these free facilities may have some corrupting influence in the system.

But bank managerial unions were clever in building income generating influencing building (within the society and community ) activities by starting schools for the community as image building exercises for trade unions.. Many office bearers given up their bank career and staying back as office bearers. As consequence of their office bearers in the trade union they are also Correspondents for the schools. which gives them considerable clout as admissions are sought in schools by all segments of the community.

Even workers governed by industrial disputes act both in public and private sectors have not been able not get this facility. Despite public outbursts, parliamentary debates, pressures from the Government relief for full time trade union work continues in banks.

In the civil services in India the British had introduced a foreign service concept of accepting elected general secretary on duty with lien in service and seniority protected during the tenure of office of the general secretary. The salary was paid out of the unions funds as reimbursement to the government department This is prevalent only in Post Telegraph department maybe in the railways.

We need in India urgently an institution which will produce some young men and women with recognised post graduate or diploma qualification to run and manage trade unions. The present labour institutes produce personnel officers for industries and corporate sector. Exclusive trade union functionaries will have to turned out of these institutions. One may ask why not the trade unions induct some out of the men and women churned out of Labour Institutes of Government. The syllabi teaching and other attitude building during education is largely aimed at building them as management representatives. This indoctrination to become management representatives and learning strategies and tactics to even break unionism militates against the basic spirit. They are not taught to build transactional culture with trade unions and accept them social partners and as part of the industrial society.

At least large trade unions and national centres must think of inducting some cadres even on an experimental basis just as shipping companies accept cadets for training them as seafarers and seamen and expect them to learn in practice navigation and pass examinations to eventually become masters of ships. Trade Unions must offer good salary and offer a career in the labour movement. Trade Unions must come to accept them in junior positions below the elected leaders and get them elected or nominated each time and get popular mandate. We have trade union bureaucrats in the international movement who without a mass base are managing the international trade union movement very well. all over west the trade unions are managed by salaried professionals.

The ICFTU and ITSS can think of establishing an institution exclusively for this and seek recognition as a deemed university. It has been my experience as a resource person in trade union education that some of the cadres who attend trade union education classes eventually get inducted as personnel managers either their own existing employment or move to greener pastures elsewhere by virtue of their experience and training. Managements induct them as they have had specialised exposure in trade unions and have the necessary theoretical and practical knowledge of labour relations. One must be assured of a career in the trade union movement then only younger men and women will offer themselves. The trade unions conceived as political fronts may have wither over a period of time.

People like me are willing to take initiative in getting an institution established in places like Mumbai which is the financial capital of India and one oldest industrial centres where trade union movement took firm roots and still continues to be a major centre. There are many committed trade unionists who would like to associate themselves with a project if initiated by ILO ICFTU, ITSs in collaboration with national trade union centres, independent labour centres, maybe regional and local centres.

It is also time national trade union centres in India looked at seriously about their own positions vis-a-vis the expanding influence of regional and local trade unions centres emerging in India which will eventually assert their superiority and effectiveness. One reason for regional and local centres emerging as more important centres could be because there is no need to look to national trade union centres for any assistance. Labour being state subject concurrently in the Constitution of India and most problems getting resolved at local levels in the labour courts and collective bargaining pressures local centres and regional centres are bound to stronger. International trade union movement erroneously believe national trade union centres the entire work force aspirations.

In terms of policy formulation nothing much has happened in the last two or three decades at the tripartite national labour conference. It is more a clearing house for getting consent and approval for certain policies and steps initiated by the bureaucracy and political centres for advancing what they think as progressive measures to building stable industrial relations.

The recent announcement of a Second National Labour Commission chaired Ravindra Verma may yet give some thought to questions which have remained unattended for over four decades.. The earlier labour commission recommendations have not been fully implemented.

India must be made to ratify all ILO conventions. National pressure for this does not come from national centres because it has political implications. National Centres of Trade Unions in India are largely political centres and front organizations of political parties. Every regional political party has labour front, a womens' front, a students front and various other fronts for newly emerging social forces and groups.. The pattern followed by all political organizations is the same. The trade union leaders pay obeisance to their political bosses and patrons who may get them into committees maybe one or two may make it ministerial positions over a period of time either at the central or state governments.

Even the labour ministry is manned largely by persons drawn from administrative bureaucracy. No one stays in the labour ministry longer than necessary. Occasional chance to get into the ILO cadres for one or two is all that bureaucrats can look to. Similarly national trade union centres provide an opportunity senior to move ILO.

ILO, ICFTU and the ITSs will have to think of some of the issues I have raised. I am connected with only one ITS that is FEET . FEET may give equal attention to India as they do to Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal where trade unions are far behind as compared to India. With FEET affiliaites in the Indian banking industry and other new sectors which are not inconsiderable they can think of making their effective presence to build international solidarity within the their ITSs potentials with UNI emerging as a powerful force. International solidarity on the ITF model where local solidarity is more effectively organized will have to be organized in all sectors more particularly in the financial sector where the globalisation and liberalisation is going to claim maximum victims.

Alvaro Moreno, Panama, 17/11/99 - LeadershipTraining for Trade Unions

I agree that there is a need for labour education institutions to provide union leadership, and future leaders, with the necessary education and preparation to face the challenges of globalization and other oppressing tendencies. The situation of labour education in Panama, and in Latin America in general, does not differ much from that in India. Universities in Panama do not offer careers in any labour related field, not even the labour relations found in other countries, though depriving labour leaders of the possibility of acquiring a more specialized education, but equally important, discouraging potential labour leaders from choosing a career in the labour field.

In Panama we are in the initial steps of establishing a Labour University, but labour's critical financial situation has made it necessary to associate with the University of Panama (a state university) where we have not found much support. In preparing for this project, we have found that in all Latin America there is only a few well organized labour education institutions (Universidad Obrera de Mexico, Universidad de Trabajadores de America Latina in Venezuela) but none of