Selection of Workers' Contributions to the International Labour Conference Debate

Ms. ENGELEN-KEFER, Workers’ delegate, Germany; Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Maternity Protection at the 88th session of the International Labour Conference; Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body of the ILO:

I am speaking on behalf of the Workers’ group of the Committee on Maternity Protection. First of all I would like to commend to you all the report before you and especially the new instruments — the revised Maternity Protection Convention and Recommendation. Despite differences of opinion, we believe that the Committee has worked well and the agreed revised texts are a satisfactory result. A comparison shows that a better balance has been struck in the revised instruments between strict regulations and freedom of choice, especially for the women concerned, and there is also a better chance for adaptation to different cultures and religions as well as different levels of development in different countries.

In summary, there is a much better chance of securing more ratifications and practical benefits in the member countries. At the same time, the substance is such as to make these standards meaningful. I cannot now go into all the details but would like to pinpoint some of the most important aspects.

The scope of the Convention is broader in that it covers all employed women, including those employed in atypical forms of dependent work. Henceforth, it is not only women with written employment contracts who are covered, since they account for only a very small percentage of women workers. The vast majority of employed women do not have this luxury. Now, they are all covered by maternity protection. Many employed women are working in situations of disguised  employment and told they are self-employed, but in reality they meet all the criteria of dependent employees. They are also now covered by the new international standards. Many employed women are working in situations where employment laws are frequently flouted, especially the many women working in export processing zones. They will now all be covered by this Convention. Many employed women all over the world are working in the so-called “informal sector” and are grouped in categories where employment relationships are not recognized, for instance homeworkers, contract workers, casual and temporary workers and migrant workers. The new Convention will also apply to them. I think this is a big achievement in broadening the range of women covered by the new Convention, which is a clear improvement on the old Convention No. 103. Unfortunately, we could not completely avoid exemptions of limited groups of women from the scope of maternity protection, but we were able to restrict these exemptions much more than was possible with the old Convention. It will thus no longer be possible, as before, to deny maternity protection to women working, for instance, in the transport sector or to agricultural, domestic or homeworkers.

For pregnant women and mothers it is of extreme importance that the new Convention contains requirements for health protection of the mother and child. I think it is extremely important, especially to women workers, that they should not be obliged to perform work associated with health hazards during that very important period of their lives. This provision was not included in the old Convention No. 103.

The period of maternity leave can now be extended to 14 weeks, as opposed to 12 weeks under the old Convention. The new text also requires six weeks of compulsory leave after confinement, a requirement that can only be changed through agreements between governments, employers and trade unions. I think this gives the necessary protection for many millions of women during the time after confinement where it is most needed for the health of the mother and the child. By the same token this increases the chance of ratifications in countries which want to provide more freedom of choice to allow better adjustment of the period of maternity leave to individual needs of women concerned.

Turning to the crucial provision of benefits, we as workers would have favoured the payment of full wages during the period of maternity leave. We congratulate all countries and women workers who have the opportunity of full wages during their period of maternity leave, but what is the reality elsewhere in the world? There are millions of women workers who during maternity leave lack any form of adequate cash benefits. It is to help them that we are here, to work on new international standards. For them it will be extremely important if we can at least achieve what is now in the new standards, that is, a guarantee of two-thirds of previous income or, in the case of the least developed countries, a provision to ensure that the floor should be not less than sickness or disability insurance benefits. I think that is very important to the millions of women workers who are not among the lucky ones in the more developed countries and the countries with better maternity protection regulations and practice, and for them it will be of extreme importance and help if they get benefits that are at least no lower than the minimum stipulated in the new standards now before you.

No country is prevented from having better standards and no one would think of forcing the reduction of cash benefits in countries where they are currently higher than those provided for in the new texts. I think we have to make a choice between higher standards on paper, which can only help a few women, and more realistic objectives and regulations, which will be of help to the vast majority of women concerned. I would make the choice for the latter in order to do what we are here to do — to help the vast majority of women concerned as much as we can. I think we have achieved that in the standards that are now submitted to you for adoption.

I would like to say some words on a very sensitive issue, the protection of women with regard to termination of employment. Of course, the Workers’ group would have liked a complete ban on termination of employment or dismissal during the whole period of pregnancy, maternity leave, and the subsequent period. But the period has been agreed as it is. We have at least made sure that women get adequate protection against dismissal, not only during the period of maternity leave, as it was provided in Convention No. 103, but throughout the period of pregnancy and after the women’s return to work, including the nursing or breastfeeding period. And I think, seeing the reality of the many millions of women who have no protection whatsoever in the world, it could be of some help. If a woman has reason to complain that she is being dismissed as a result of discrimination because of pregnancy, maternity leave or the subsequent period, including the nursing period, then I think it is only just and fair that the employer should have to prove that there is no discrimination. That is what we have in this text before you. This is not a reduction in protection, I think that it ensures adequate protection, and is to some extent even an improvement in comparison to the old Convention No. 103. What is the reality? The reality is that women are discriminated against and dismissed when it becomes obvious that they are pregnant. Usually it makes no sense to dismiss them during the period of maternity leave because they are not at the job anyway. And in reality, no company can be forced in the event of bankruptcy to employ workers for longer terms than is allowed under other social security regulations. So if you sum up all these considerations, we have still a very adequate and decent protection of women with regard to termination of employment, and this is extremely important to the workers and the trade unions.

Again I would like to congratulate those countries which provide an absolute ban on dismissal or termination of employment for women during the whole period of pregnancy, maternity leave and the time thereafter. I think the women covered by those regulations and practice can be extremely happy, and there is no danger of that protection being reduced.

But again let us do something for the many millions of women, the majority in the world, who are not so lucky, who do not have that protection and who would find their situation greatly improved if the new regulations were effectively put into practice.

I would now like to turn to the issue of the nursing or breastfeeding period. This is a very important issue, and we had a lot of NGOs and international organizations explaining the extreme importance of nursing and breastfeeding. And I think we have managed to provide adequate protection in the new text. We should make sure that all women get adequate and paid nursing breaks during working time. They now even get the possibility of a reduction in working time, which was not part of Convention No. 103, so in this respect too, I think we have got a very fair and realistic regulation which improves the situation of the many women concerned.

Now let me come to my final remarks. I think that we have stuck a good balance and obtained an improvement. We have found the right balance between the need for adjustments, on the one hand, and providing adequate protection through a meaningful standard, on the other. We are talking here not simply about a technical standard, we are not talking here only about better protection for mothers and children, we are talking here about the future of our societies, which will have no future without children. Adequate maternity protection at work is a very important condition for creating a good future. That is a very important task at the beginning of the new century and the new millennium ahead of us.

So let us do our duty, let us adopt these new texts, even if some of you have some doubts about certain points. I also have some doubts about certain points, but the reality is that no group can achieve all the objectives of its individual members; we always have to make compromises in order to find the right balance and achieve something worthwhile. Of course, I know that on the employer’s side, maternity protection involves costs, but they are not only costs, they are investments in human development; they are investments in our own future; they are investments for making globalization a human development, giving globalization a human face. In this respect we are all in the same boat, all the members of all three groups here, the members of all countries irrespective of their stages of development, the members of all races, all religions, all cultures. So I really would like to appeal to you to make this exercise useful, by adopting the revised texts of the Convention and Recommendation tomorrow.

I would like to express my thanks to those who helped us to achieve this result — the Chairperson of our Committee, the Reporter, and the secretariat, especially Ms. Dy Hammar and her team. I would also especially like to thank the Legal Adviser, and Ms. Knowles, the Employer Vice-Chairperson. We had very good and fair cooperation, despite the differences of opinion that were clear from our speeches, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Government members. I think I learned a lot from you, we had a very interesting exchange of experience and I hope it can be brought to a successful conclusion.

Mr. BRETT, Workers’ delegate, United Kingdom; Chairman of the Workers' Group, Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Governing Body of the ILO:

I had not intended to take the floor in this debate, but I was moved to do so by the ebb and flow of arguments from our Employer colleagues and some Governments, and the tendency for all those flows to lead to one river of abstention. And I want to counsel against that.

Firstly, there are those who seek to reject these instruments because they wish to see a more fundamental review of standard setting. Mr. Thüsing said that; Mr. Potter said something similar. Latin American delegates have made it clear outside this meeting that they fear the revised standard lowers those standards already accepted half a century ago in Convention No. 103. They may abstain. The governments of other developing and developed countries take the view that, if they cannot ratify immediately, they should not support the revised Convention. They may abstain.

This is a recipe for failure and we have to consider what we are left with. It would not be a more dynamic Convention No. 103, to be accepted as the standard. As Mr. Thüsing said, it would be a relic gathering dust. For those who want to see the retention of something stronger, this will not be achieved by defeating this revised Convention.

Others who take the view, as my Government has done on occasion, that this is something we cannot vote for if we cannot ratify it — may I say to them and to all other governments, this is about inspiration, it is about targets. May I remind my own Government that when Convention No. 138 was debated many years ago here, I suspect it probably abstained. My Government ratified Convention No. 138 last week — so many years later.

This shows that even in the developed world setting standards does form a target, and without targets how are we to improve the lot of women across the world? This is not a technical standard. It is not simply any standard. It is a standard involving half the world’s population and the whole of the world’s future. It is a standard that will enable women to participate, it emancipates women; it is not some sterile technical standard.

To my Employer colleagues I say, I understand you want to see a revision of the standard-setting machinery; I understand you want to see the process modernized. That is indeed an ongoing debate in the Governing Body. But you should not seek to make this debate about the principle of standard setting rather than a judgement of the past two weeks’ deliberations.

Now, much of what Mr. Potter said I absolutely agree with. I think we should look at the technology, we should look at how we do business. But we should look at it on the basis of what we are here for — to set ratifiable standards, I agree, but to set standards for the world, not standards for the lowest common denominator.

Ms. ABDEL HADI, Workers’ adviser and substitute delegate, Egypt:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! The interest of the Director-General and Governing Body in the question of maternity protection is related to one of the ILO’s core activities, which requires the support of all the social partners.

Maternity protection is the ultimate investment in human resources. The revision of the Maternity Protection Convention (Revised), 1952 (No. 103), for the third consecutive year, coincides with the United Nations Conference, Beijing +5, that was held a few days ago in the follow-up to the first Beijing Conference. This Convention is a minimum of what should be done to protect women and mothers. The laws of Arab countries are based on religious precepts that accord women many rights. Therefore, both our laws and national practice reflect a large degree of interest and importance given to working woman as a pillar of society.

We strongly support this Convention, which is the result of considerable debate. We feel that sufficient work has been done to allow us to proceed with the adoption of this important instrument. I call on the social partners to support working mothers and to ratify and approve this Convention, recalling that a working mother is a daughter, mother and sister. Maternity protection means protection for society as a whole and for the workforce of the future. This is something that we all need.

I thank the President of the Conference for accepting the work of this Committee. I also thank the Worker Vice-Chairperson who was very patient and level-headed, helping to bring together the different views of the different members of the Committee.

I hope that you will listen to the voice of justice, which is the voice of working women throughout the world. Since they have to face the consequences of globalization with their only protection being the provisions of the old maternity protection Convention, adopted in 1952, we hope that more progress will be achieved in terms of protection of working women. We therefore call once more on the social partners to support this Convention.

Mr. PARROT, Workers’ delegate, Canada; Worker Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards of the Governing Body of the ILO:

I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Committee that has done an excellent job on this very important issue. There are a few points that have already been raised by preceding speakers that I would like to address. The first one is a very important point. We have heard here many times the argument that this Convention would run counter to legislation and practice in certain countries and, consequently, it will be unratifiable.

What would the point of the ILO be if it only adopted standards that were in conformity with the legislation and practice in all the countries of the world? If that were the case, the ILO would serve merely to maintain the status quo. If in some countries there were no standards at all, the ILO would be obliged not to adopt any standards, as otherwise it would run counter to the national practice of the country in question.

I think this is a very dangerous argument indeed. What it means is that some countries which consider themselves developed would never adopt any Conventions because they would run counter to their legislation, and they would not be ready to amend such legislation. The whole purpose of adopting new standards is to give countries a reason to adapt their legislation, so as to ratify them.

The second point I would like to raise concerns the contention that we are currently revising the standard-setting system of the ILO. I would like to say that we have not yet really begun this revision process. At the last session of the Governing Body, the Workers’ group clearly stated that before any effective revision can take place, some guarantees must be established to ensure that the revision process does not result in a weakening of standards.

My third point is this. We have before us here a Convention that is not, strictly speaking, a technical Convention. It is a Convention that recognizes differences in the workplace. It recognizes the fact that work is different for men and women, it recognizes that women are disadvantaged in the workplace by comparison with men. There is a very obvious reason for this and it is something that is beyond our control: women bear children, men do not, and there is nothing we can do about that. But what we can do is to ensure that women enjoy the same advantages as men, by affording them protection — as we are trying to do through this Convention. In other words, we are trying to ensure that women do not lose their jobs simply because they are pregnant, that they do not lose the benefits and the advantages that they should enjoy simply because, for a certain period of time, they cannot be present at the workplace. I think that this is very significant. After all, when we start adopting employment programmes, then we in the ILO constantly seek to encourage the participation of women, not just in the workplace but in society as a whole; that this is part of the objective of the ILO. If women lose their jobs then they obviously no longer enjoy the kind of protection that should be afforded them and no longer enjoy the opportunity of playing their rightful part in society — an opportunity of which men are never deprived for those reasons.

This being the case, I do not believe that we should make this Convention some kind of test case for the standard-setting process. We should not merely set out — as some have suggested — to make it ratifiable. I think that we have to take a decision here to recognize that women should enjoy the same advantages at work as men, without losing other advantages to which they are entitled and which allow them to participate fully in decision-making within society. This would allow women to make their voices heard and would allow them to be full and equal partners in society at all levels. If we don’t grasp this, then we are going to go on moving backwards, and we are going to fail to encourage women to participate as they should. In fact, we are going to go back to the situation we had in the past, where women were just supposed to stay at home, chained to the kitchen sink. 

That is why we need this Convention. We have had Convention No. 103 for 50 years and things have changed a lot in those 50 years. Women now work, women now participate in economic terms in bringing up children, and we recognize today that women and men have to work together. That is why we must provide the services required to allow them to work together, and to allow children to be brought up as they should. 

Society has changed, and we have to change, too. I think we have an opportunity tomorrow, an opportunity to vote for a Convention that will allow us to acknowledge that change has taken place. To all the Governments who say that revision of the standard-setting system is necessary because we need modern standards, I would say this: what could be more modern than ensuring that women of today are recognized as women of today, and not women of yesterday?