|
|
To people out in the workplace, the ILO can seem very remote. Do they really benefit from its activities? Yes, there's no doubt about that. In fact, they are the first to benefit from an organization that was founded to combat exploitation and promote social justice. Of course, the ILO can't meet unions' financial needs, but one of its aims is to ensure that the tripartism operating in Geneva is matched in each country, and that the right of every trade union to be recognized and to negotiate is respected. It is vital that workers should be able to form free trade unions entrusted with the defence of their interests. The Bureau for Workers' Activities (ACTRAV) has programmes to facilitate this process and we make sure, as far as the Organization's finances are concerned, that when there is a budget surplus, part of it is earmarked for strengthening national trade unions. We'll know we've won when the workers in a town somewhere go on a demo for the application of ILO standards, while the bosses hold a demo for the opposite! We're not there yet. It has to be admitted that certain workers' and employers' representatives arrive in Geneva thinking that they're some sort of world labour executive, but that's a dangerous illusion, because the situation of workers on the ground does not flow directly from what happens at the ILO. We address ourselves less to the employers than to governments, whom we ask to be the guardians of the standards. Do the multinationals feel that they are represented by the International Organization of Employers? No prizes for guessing the answer. The unions are having more and more trouble in maintaining their membership levels. Doesn't that pose a long-term threat to tripartism within the ILO, and thus to the relevance of the organization? Maintaining the ILO's legal status is not a problem. Maintaining its influence is something else. Trade unions are currently experiencing strong competition. Some people see us as archaic, revolutionary organizations. They think that personalities outside the unions are more important than trade unionists. More and more attention is given, including within the ILO, to the campaigns of the anti-globalizers, the Porto Alegre participants, the demonstrators in Genoa, and so on. Those people are out to win recognition as discussion partners, and they make very good use of the modern means of communication - which trade unions perhaps don't do enough. In my country, France, there's a law permitting three people to form an association, and that status is enough for certain people to voice their views as though they were a trade union. They end up meeting people who rush towards them saying «That's tomorrow's way of doing things.» I think that, when all's said and done, associations which succeed become trade unions. Things will always come back down to the trade union movement, or to something that will take its place but which will nevertheless always be a gathering together of workers - voluntarily, I hope. Within that context, the ILO's role remains undiminished. In fact, it has become even more important, because globalization has called a lot of things into question, and not only in the developing countries. What things? What is globalization? It's the hegemony of the capitalist system. That system develops only by calling acquired social rights into question. The companies set up shop in countries where there are no social rights, and the corollary is that those rights are called into question in the places where they do exist, and which want to keep those firms. From that moment onwards, even the industrialized countries, which thought themselves well above the international labour standards, start seeing them as a minimum guarantee. Taking this to its logical conclusion, if capitalism globalizes more and more, trade union action may be combated more and more in the industrialized countries, and even freedom of association might be at risk. I've noticed that, in my country, people have started talking about minimum service ... It should be remembered that the capitalist system is all about letting investors earn money. It has never been about the general good, which is far from their thoughts. All of this justifies the existence of the ILO. Now, it's up to the ILO to tackle the problem. That is what moved the Director-General to create the Commission on the social dimension of globalization. He didn't do that because he's an anti-capitalist, but because he wants the wealth that is produced to be redistributed to those who produce it. Capitalism as it currently exists is calling public systems into question. Privatization is the order of the day, allegedly because a private enterprise is by definition more dynamic - and, above all, to attract inward investment. But investors are no fools. They go mainly where the purchasing power is. Globalization is a confidence trick. If it was about creating economic activity and trade worldwide, I'd be in favour, but the places where that happens are carefully selected. They're the places that have purchasing power. Parallel to this globalization, we're witnessing a proliferation of world summits on all sorts of topics. The ILO always attends. Doesn't it risk spreading itself too thin? Above all, the ILO wants to show that it is the one institution that deals with the world of work. That said, I don't believe in these world summits. If you bring together landless peasants, economists, trade unionists and defenders of Galapagos turtles, what you get is an assembly of discontented people rather than a focussed body that can move mountains. What really could move those mountains would be a dynamic ILO. The summits of the World Trade Organization are not very open to the ILO ... We were taken for a ride at the WTO. All we managed to get there was a declaration reaffirming that the ILO is in charge of social issues, when what we wanted was for the WTO to take account of the implementation of international labour standards. Should China have been accepted in? Yes, but only on condition that it respected trade union rights. That would have been a worthwhile advance, but since everybody wants to get into China and its market of more than 1.3 billion consumers, nobody wanted to take such a hardline stance. At the ILO, it's not the governments that decide. It's the governments together with the employers and the workers. This tripartism gives us an advantage as far as representativity is concerned, but a disadvantage as regards diplomacy. Because we're not a group of diplomats discussing amongst ourselves. Here, diplomatic relations are not the decisive point, because the trade unions are here to try and get the workers' interests taken into account. Does the Workers' Group have a say in the management of the ILO's finances? Yes. We don't control day-to-day management, but we do set the course. We try and see if the ILO's financial behaviour is in line with its general course of direction. One of the big problems is to know whether the ILO should live within its own budget - which, by definition is multilateral and leaves it independent - or if it should top up with bilateral financing, whose neutrality and independence cannot be guaranteed. My role is to satisfy myself that the regular budget is adequate for the implementation of our programmes. In that respect, I think that the ILO does not receive the contributions that it deserves in comparison with other UN organizations. Not enough money is devoted to the world of work. Another part of my tasks is to check whether the Director-General is indeed applying the budgetary priorities that we define by consultation. If, within such or such a budget, the desired effect is not produced, we bring this to the attention of the Director-General, who generally takes account of our remarks. The United States recently paid off their debts to the ILO. Is that a relief, in view of their major role in the ILO budget? The United States got into the bad habit of paying their contribution late. That leads to management problems. If you've adopted a budget and the associated programmes, and then the money doesn't turn up, you're forced to make cuts in the programmes. Then the money arrives at the end of the year, but it's too late to catch up, within one month, on what you had planned to do over twelve months! When money comes in late, the regulations say that it should be redistributed, but last time, I fought for just 10 per cent to be redistributed, while the rest went into a supplementary budget that enables us to do things that weren't provided for in the regular budget. The governments would have liked to claw that money back, but we don't want them to get hold of the idea that it's in their interests to pay late. I'm not too keen on rolling that money over into the next year, either. Otherwise, some might be tempted not to pay up then! Interviewers: Mr. Luc Demaret and Mr. Samuel Grumiau, November 2002.
Updated by LO. Approved by MS. Last updated: 7 June 2003.
|
Interview with Mr. Marc Blondel