Workers' Group Members on Standards, Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

Mr. B. Brett, Chairman of the Workers' Group, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the ILO Governing Body:

The simple fact is that globalization has not yet fulfilled its promise of greater wealth for all. Indeed, disparities in wealth and poverty have increased. We have concentrated much effort, quite rightly, during the last year in developing an effective follow-up to the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, but we should never forget the truth encapsulated in the Declaration of Philadelphia of more than a half century ago, namely that "The existence of poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere". Our desire in the British Trades Union Congress and throughout the international trade union movement is for prosperity everywhere, for an end to poverty and oppression because those two things are inexplicably linked, and these are the leitmotivs that must guide our response to globalization.

In that regard, we can see much to commend in the Director-General's Report. There are some who believe that the pain of globalization is inevitable; that we must live through that pain just as we lived through the suffering caused by the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago.
I beg to differ. We are better equipped now than ever before to understand the mechanisms of globalization and, in understanding those mechanisms, to develop effective strategies to control them to the benefit of satisfying human need. That understanding is encapsulated in the notion of decent work for all. So, I want to pay tribute to the work of this house in several respects. The analysis of the Asian financial crisis has been rigorous and illuminating and the report of Mr. Eddy Lee has provided a greater understanding of that crisis: a greater understanding of the need for transparency in business, for control of short-term currency flows, for stable investment, including in human resources, and of the benefits of social security safety nets and tripartism - not just for the individual victims of such crises, but also for the ability of economies and social fabric to recover from those crises.

The Director-General and his staff deserve congratulations for their work to strengthen the influence of the ILO and its guiding principles on the activities and polices of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We are not there yet, we still have to convince the Bretton Woods institutions that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are essential to the sustainable model of globalization. But we have made progress, and I am hopeful that there will be further opportunities to urge the development of a common approach on employment matters, with core labour standards at its heart, at the United Nations Special General Assembly which will be held in this very chamber in two and a half weeks time. We welcome the development of the follow-up to the 1998 Declaration. Both the survey of trends and the Global Report have been useful in identifying where core labour standards are not respected. They gave us much food for thought. Working people in entire regions of the world still lack the basic protections which free trade unions provide because,  quite simply, in those parts of the world all free trade union activity is banned by law. In several countries, including the largest, government-run, so-called trade union organizations provide no avenue for independent worker representation. In other countries, most notably in Colombia, anti-trade union violence remains the norm, with the continued assassinations of our trade union colleagues. This is principally preventing, in those countries, the exercise of normal trade union activity and both the survey and Report illustrate starkly that in several sectors of the economy: export processing zones, agriculture, informal work, domestic service - sectors which between them employ most of the world's working people - freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are commonly denied.

What do these sectors have in common, apart from the fact that they are among the most abusive and exploitative sectors. The answer: the majority of the workforce are women and, among them, many migrant workers. It is women who are most commonly denied the right to be members of free and independent trade unions and the protections which ensue from freedom of association. I welcome the emphasis in the Director-General's Report that the aim of the follow-up, namely to encourage the universal realization of fundamental rights at work, is not a substitute for the ILO's standards and its established supervisory mechanisms. There is still more work to be done in the campaign for the universal ratification of the core human rights Conventions of the ILO, but it would be churlish not to welcome the progress already made.

I also want to draw attention to the new Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), which I am very pleased the United Kingdom Government was one of the earliest countries to ratify. I am also pleased with the announcement today by my Minister that my Government has ratified the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138). Of course, governments and international institutions should be the vehicle through which international labour standards are being pressed, however, there is a need to do more.

The ILO has achieved much during the last biennium. It is now better placed to play the role it should in developing a social response to globalization but it must not rest on its laurels. There is much to do and the challenges are immense. With the concept of decent work, the foundations of labour standards and the structure of tripartism, I believe we can, together, achieve great things but only, if we bring to the party that indispensable element, namely
political will.

The 88th session of the International Labour Conference, 2000

Mr. M. Blondel, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, stated that the Workers' group was somewhat concerned and uneasy at the idea that standards would no longer be the benchmark of this institution and that they would no longer serve as data to determine options and priorities. The speaker was astonished to see that, in referring for instance to child labour, reference was made to Convention No. 182 but that no mention was made of Convention No. 138. The document gave the impression that Convention No. 138 had been relegated to the shelves. When referring to standards supervision, the document did not define the target. And in the case of social protection for all, no reference was made to the appropriate standards; neither had any target been set. The same applied to strengthening of social dialogue; a reference to Convention No. 144 was missing. The Workers continued to believe that standards were the "backbone" of the ILO and they wished to see a reference to these standards. It was by defining standards at the Conference that the Organization justified its existence. There were those who felt that standards should be revised on a permanent basis and obsolete standards reviewed. The Workers could agree -- provided that attention was not only paid to the application and monitoring but also to the ratification of standards considered reliable. Promotion should not only concern fundamental standards or those which had been redefined. In concluding, the speaker asked if there were extra-budgetary resources for standards. In connection with this question, the speaker made a number of comments on the promotion of the Declaration. Paragraph 27 of the document, which mentioned the coordination of activities between units and structures to promote the standards, seemed less ambitious than Volume 2, which had proposed approaching the IMF and the World Bank. Moreover, thought should also be given to the WTO. All this made the speaker wonder if paragraph 27 reflected a change in attitude on the part of the Office or if the policy of going all out to promote the standards, including with the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, still held.

276th session of the Governing Body of the ILO, November 1999.

Mr. J.-C. Parrot, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards of the ILO Governing Body: The Director-General's Report and the report by the Chairperson of the Governing Body show how far we have to go to make sure that workers throughout the world can work in dignity.

During the last year, great emphasis has been placed on the need to reform the entire standard-setting system of the ILO. Governments and employers have told us that it is a question of the Organization's credibility. Other people said that the standards were out of date and they had to reflect today's working world. Many people told us that we had to
be conscious of today's realities.

On this last point, the reality that I have known is one in which employers have no respect for human values, and have no qualms, often with a meaningful silence on the part of certain governments, about using child labour in unthinkable conditions and about exploiting women and men all over the world.

The reality is that workers have to carry on fighting in order to obtain or preserve their rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, and to hold their own against the constant attacks by certain governments that act under the pressure of employers' organizations and that do not care to know the consequences of the denial of these fundamental rights for men, women and children at work.

The reality is the thousands of working men and women who die all the time because employers refuse to give them the necessary protection at work, not to mention the thousands of others who are harmed for life.

The reality can be found in numerous ILO studies and the reports of the Committee of Experts. For many, the reality is discrimination, racism and intolerance. The reality is forced labour in Burma, in the most deplorable conditions, with a Government that refuses even to recognize the fact of its existence - a fact known to everyone. It is a Government that tries to teach us lessons on the way the ILO should deal with this horror, and which denounced the Governing Body and the Selection Committee for taking decisions on this question.

Another reality is Colombia, where 39 trade unionists have been killed since the discussion held in November 1999. As regards standards, which should reflect today's working world, I can only recall the systematic opposition by the employers to the adoption of standards to protect workers with respect to questions that are realities in today's working world.

The question of the ILO's credibility is, I admit, very important. But who should we be credible to? Firstly, we must be credible with the Organization's constituents and the working men and women around us, whom we try to protect, and who wonder whether we are really in a position to change unacceptable behavior or at least to adopt measures for that purpose. Credibility has to be earned, and sometimes to do that you have to have the courage of your convictions. But first you have to have these convictions, so as to act according to the principles we all adopted with the Declaration and its follow-up.

During the discussion on the Global Report, we heard some Governments and Employers stress the promotional aspect of the Declaration and say that the Report should not refer to specific countries. I would have liked to hear the same people saying that, as employers, their enterprises had taken measures in their respective countries in support of human dignity at work, and that those measures had borne fruit. I would have liked to hear those Government speakers describing concrete measures that had been taken in their countries, and the results obtained, to establish or restore human dignity in their countries.

After all these years of discussions it would be nice to hear the same speakers talk about the way in which they have used this promotional aspect that they have told us so much about, about the effectiveness of the measures they have taken and above all the concrete results that they have achieved. Do we have any examples where children have gone back to school and the number of industrial accidents and deaths have decreased considerably, where forced labour has been replaced by decent, well-paid work and where there has been an end to discrimination in employment, etc? And why do we not hear governments telling us that they have now decided to ensure freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining for workers who did not have it before, or that they have facilitated access to unions rather than making it more difficult to form them, as is increasingly the case today? Why do not employers encourage governments to facilitate the formation of trade unions rather than lobbying governments to take measures to make enjoyment of that right more difficult? Such action, confirmed by the facts, would be the materialization of the commitments undertaken when the Declaration and its follow-up was unanimously adopted.

It is not the promotional aspect that we adopted with the Declaration, it was promotion itself. Our true follow-up to the commitments we have entered into to re-establish human dignity in the world of work is a step towards decent work for all. Being conscious of today's realities, reflecting the working world today and having credibility, are realities which cannot justify the non-respect of human dignity or renouncement of our commitments.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the Director-General for having integrated the policy of gender equality into the International Labour Organization. I would also like to emphasize the importance of the decision adopted a few years ago to have three official languages in the International Labour Organization. I know that English is becoming more and more important at an international level, but English should not, in practice, become the official international working language in the International Labour Organization, without such a policy having been debated and adopted by our institutional bodies. There has to be a certain equity between the three languages in all fields, such as the drafting of documents, the recruitment of staff and translation services, etc.

The 88th session of the International Labour Conference, 2000.

Mr. R. Falbr, member of the Governing Body of the ILO : When we analyse the situation in the globalizing world, we see little progress in pushing through our demands. Where we do see progress is in the incredible impudence of some governments that not only violate the ILO's Conventions and Constitution but are not uneasy about it. Some of us may consider as a great success the fact that we had the opportunity to speak in a special session about the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. What a pity that our speeches were like so many speeches everywhere - long speeches with few new arguments or ideas.

It has been repeated that the efforts of democratic unions are seeking to influence the future architecture of world finance and trade. In fact it is a struggle for globalizing social justice. The failure of the multinational agreement on investments and Seattle have proved the fragility of the current model of globalization. Let us make the most of it, using new arguments and, if necessary, new actions.

A couple of months ago, our organization sent a representation because the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), was being violated in our country. Three months later we withdrew the representation. After a successful campaign we got three new laws: a law on insolvency, an amended bankruptcy law, and a new Labour Code. We have a decent Government which respects social dialogue. But it is a minority Government and so the parliamentarians had to be reminded of the fact that less talking and more work was needed. A well-timed demonstration did the necessary.

The revised Labour Code will function as a new instrument protecting the rights of all employees and setting decent rules for labour relations. It comprises, inter alia, more than 20 legal norms of the European Union, and as such is an important factor in the harmonization of our legislation with the EU's achievements in the social and economic sphere. It is to be emphasized that the new provisions of our Labour Code are the results of detailed and lengthy discussions and negotiations between the workers' and employers' organizations, to which ILO experts contributed.

To conclude, what are we the ILO going to do about the situation in Colombia, which is the most dangerous State as far as the implementation of basic trade union rights is concerned. In the last 13 years, 2,700 trade unionists have been assassinated. Is it enough to express our deep concern? What are we waiting for in the case of Myanmar, Guatemala and others? This is the reason why we do not see much reason for satisfaction.

The 88th session of the International Labour Conference, 2000

Mr. M. Shmakov, member of the Governing Body of the ILO: During these past two years, the ILO adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182), and Recommendation, which became the culmination of the
standard-setting activity of the Organization during the course of this biennium.

However, there are certain elements which give rise to concern, and which bear witness to attempts to slow down the standard-setting process, emasculate the supervisory machinery and reduce international standards to the status of Recommendations.

We believe that in reviewing obsolete Conventions, it is unacceptable to reduce minimum standards. In elaborating new Conventions and Recommendations, we should set ourselves the goal of raising the level. Today, we are hearing more and more frequently calls for the weakening of social standards, for the dismantling of systems of joint management in the social sphere, for the application of the loosest possible systems of labour relations in the name of economic expediency. The ILO must firmly defend its principles set out in the programmes of activities for 1998 and 1999, and it must meet the challenges of the new millennium by promoting democracy and the protection of workers' fundamental rights, promoting employment and combating poverty, and promoting decent work for all.

The necessity of all this is clear when we consider the situation in Russia, where attempts are being made, sometimes successfully, to adopt laws which directly reduce the level of guarantees given to Russian workers. I mean by this the Government version of a new Labour Code for the Russian Federation which provides for "fixed-term contracts of employment", places labour relations on an entirely "individualistic" level, introduces fines to be imposed on workers and curtails all benefits for women workers. ILO experts have already pointed out the divergences between this Code and international labour standards. The trade unions have actively campaigned against this laissez-faire bill and have succeeded in delaying discussions on it in Parliament.

We are also very much concerned by the draft law on the introduction of a single social tax to replace contributions to extra-budgetary social funds. Consultations with trade unions in other countries where such systems have been introduced have shown that practically everywhere, they have led to a reduction in the level of social protection of workers and their families. In our country, where the level of wages, pensions and benefits is already too low even to safeguard minimum living standards, removal of social security from public control would lead to an even sharper drop in living standards which in its turn would lead to widespread social protest.

Coming back to the basic subject, which is the Report on the activities of the ILO during 1998 and 1999, I would particularly like to highlight the cooperation between the Russian trade unions and ACTRAV in such areas as the training of trade union officials. We believe that, in this area, the ILO has given Russia invaluable assistance in developing new approaches to the training of an active and competent trade union leadership capable of effectively protecting and defending the rights of workers in these new conditions. The trade unions of Russia are prepared to continue to cooperate actively with the ILO in implementing gender projects and programmes for combating poverty and child labour. All these aspects are included in the programme of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the ILO
for 2000 and 2001. I hope the programme will be implemented in full, in the same way as the first such programme of cooperation which was signed in 1998. The Russian trade unions give it their full support.

The 88th session of the International Labour Conference, 2000

Mr. U. Edström, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards of the ILO Governing Body, underlined the special importance of the ILO programme on International labour standards and human rights. At the core of the ILO's mandate, the programme also corresponded closely to the Organization's priorities on democracy and human rights, and the promotion of standards should continue to guide the activities of the Organization of the whole. However, this programme should be reinforced because the ILO spent only 3 per cent of its overall resources on standards activity. It should do more than merely ensuring the proper functioning of the ILO's supervisory machinery and play a role in expanding promotional work called for by the Governing Body, service the review of standards-related activity, ensure the link between standards and technical cooperation, and raise awareness of ILO standards around the world.

The 268th Session of the Governing Body of the ILO, March 1997