|
|
What are the most worrying situations for the Freedom of Association Committee at present? Over the past few years, there has been a noticeable increase in the committee's workload on violations of trade union freedom and of collective bargaining rights, as well as a growth in the seriousness of these violations. It looks as if capitalism is getting more and more aggressive towards workers. This is particularly the case in Colombia, where movements close to the authorities or to the guerrillas have already murdered more than 2,000 trade unionists, purely because of their trade union activities. Violence against workers is also on the increase in other Latin American countries, such as Guatemala and Ecuador. In Europe, it is Belarus that is causing us most concern. That country is getting closer and closer to dictatorship. Recent developments show that President Lukashenko is out to destroy free trade unions. He is putting his own people into the top leadership positions in the unions, so as to control them in his own way. Apart from the issue of freedom of association, we must also point to the disastrous levels of forced labour in Myanmar (Burma), despite the serious measures decided upon within the ILO. Furthermore, we deplore the fact that in many countries, public service workers do not have the right to form a union, to engage in collective bargaining or to strike, even when they are not in essential state services as defined by the ILO. This is often the case for teachers and pilots, for example. Such situations are found both in the countries of the South and in those of the North, such as Japan, Canada and even my own country, Germany. On the other hand, what positive developments have been noted by the Freedom of Association Committee? We have had some important successes, such as the developments in countries which, not so long ago, were under military dictatorship in Latin America, or in the ex-communist countries in Europe, where the ILO played an important role. We can also cite the disappearance of the fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal and of the apartheid regime in South Africa. On a smaller scale, the Committee is happy to note, for example, that Brazil has followed its recommendations on the reinstatement of strikers who were fired from their jobs. It was also able to save the lives of several imprisoned trade unionists, notably in Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and Ethiopia where it contributed to the release last year of Taye Woldesmiate, the Ethiopian teachers' leader who spent six years in jail. Of course, there is still an enormous amount of work to do. On certain serious cases, such as Colombia or Myanmar (Burma), the ILO makes recommendations every year but, despite all its efforts, the reality on the ground scarcely improves at all. What is needed in order to become more effective? The ILO cannot, of course, resolve all the problems just by using its own instruments. Its actions or sanctions must be supported by other institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, for example. They have a lot of power in certain countries, whereas the ILO has good supervisory machinery. Real progress could be seen on the ground if we worked together. What are the prospects for this? We can't be very optimistic, because the trend towards a more aggressive capitalism is particularly present within these institutions. They are trying to keep the ILO out of their sphere of influence but on the other hand, the ILO's Director-General Juan Somavia has managed, little by little, to improve communications with them. This progress would be much greater if the various Member States supported it. We in the unions have a duty to press our governments to do so. What is the employers' position within the Freedom of Association Committee? Are they cooperating with the workers in the fight against violations of trade union rights? Concerning serious violations, the employers' representatives cooperate very well with the workers. However, it should be emphasized that some governments, such as those of Colombia, Belarus and Japan, are very effective when it comes to lobbying employers' representatives in order to avoid severe sanctions. We must be careful not to apply two levels of sanction: a severe level for less influential countries such as Myanmar (Burma), and a softer approach with countries that have a strong lobby. Some people have indeed been surprised by the lesser sanctions applied to Colombia, in comparison with Myanmar (Burma) ... The situation of trade unionists in Colombia could not be any worse than it is at the moment. But, despite the calls from the Workers' Group, the majority on the Governing Body is reluctant to apply real sanctions to Colombia, because its government has an effective lobby. The Colombian government would do better to put all these human and financial resources into effectively countering anti-union criminality in its country. Interviewer: Mr. Samuel Grumiau, November 2002.
Updated by LO. Approved by MS. Last updated: 7 June 2003.
|
Interview with Ms. Ursula Engelen-Kefer