CLR Newsletter #26
Nov-Dec 1999 Newsletter -- Web Edition
In this issue:
This special double issue of the newsletter includes a forum on new
developments in the International Labor Organization (ILO). Following
a statement by CLR's national coordinator are opinion pieces by representatives
of the Open World Conference, the International Labor Rights Fund and
the Washington office of the ILO. Also included is a sign-on letter
to the heads of state who will be attending the summit of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle later this year. Campaign for Labor
Rights has endorsed that letter.
A statement on the ILO and the WTO
by Trim Bissell, national coordinator. Campaign for Labor Rights
There is something to be said for taking the position: Anything the
WTO is for, I am against; anything the WTO is against, I am for. Knowing
that the World Trade Organization has promoted changes in the International
Labor Organization (see the following analysis by Ed Rosario and Mya
Shone) is for me a sufficient reason to resist those changes.
We ought to resist any attempt to water down the ILO Conventions,
the set of global standards establishing the rights of working people.
Rosario and Shone make a credible case that watering down is exactly
the result we should expect from the document changes now being promoted.
Although some organizations backing the changes certainly are doing
so with the best of intentions, good intentions are not something I
would attribute to the WTO.
It is another step altogether - one I am unwilling to take - to say
that labor should put its trust in the ILO Conventions. Bama Athreya
(see her analysis also in this newsletter) argues ably that, even where
countries have ratified ILO Conventions, implementation has generally
been less than spectacular. In the face of the global sweatshop economy,
it is fair to say that the ILO has been relegated to an insignificant
role.
If we can't look to the ILO, which is supposed to be an ally, then
Athreya argues that we should alter the charter of the WTO, which clearly
is an adversary of labor. The charter changes she suggests would go
a long way toward undoing the WTO's mission to destroy labor standards
wherever they exist - which is why there is no chance of getting such
changes written into the WTO charter.
Any attempt to enact meaningful changes in the WTO charter stands
the danger of ending up with phony side agreements which would only
lend legitimacy to bad institutions and bad trade agreements. North
American labor's bitter experience with the toothless labor side accord
in NAFTA should make us wary of heading down such a road again.
Tens of thousands of unionists, labor rights activists, environmentalists
and democracy advocates are expected to gather in Seattle in late November
when the WTO is scheduled to hold its meeting there. Their message is:
"Shut down the WTO!" It is better to oppose corrupt institutions than
to accept a powerless seat at their table.
In another good example of refusing a meaningless seat at the table,
students in the U.S. anti-sweatshop movement have wisely rejected participation
in the Fair Labor Association (FLA - previously known as the White House
task force and then as the Apparel Industry Partnership), understanding
it to have been created solely for the purpose of providing cover for
sweatshop business as usual in the shoe and garment industry.
Instead of looking to the corrupt FLA for real change, students have
successfully pressed their administrations to promise the adoption of
standards such as freedom of association, a living wage and disclosure
in their licensing agreements with companies making logo apparel for
their schools. The students wrested these gains from their administrations
only after they walked out of the bargaining rooms, where they had spent
many months arguing over minutiae of language, and mobilized their base
in a series of sit-in's and other demonstrations.
Whether corporate-friendly administrators have any intention of putting
the agreements into practice is another question. Just as the students
had to show their strength of numbers to get agreements onto paper,
they are now having to show their strength to transform words on paper
into real changes in the labor practices of the apparel companies with
which their schools do business.
What is proving true for the student no-sweat movement has long been
true for labor: The wealthy and powerful are not moved by our finely
honed logic or by our moral appeals, but by seeing that we have mobilized
our strength of numbers. Labor can look nowhere but to itself and its
natural allies to reverse the global decline in labor standards.
National governments will not rescue labor - whether they are democracies
thoroughly corrupted by the influence of money or authoritarian governments
backed up by guns (often supplied by their friends in the money democracies).
And, as long as international institutions are answerable to governments
controlled by money or guns, labor cannot expect rescue from international
standards such as the ILO Conventions. President Clinton's high-sounding
words (quoted in Mary Covington's analysis, later in this newsletter)
remind us of his promotion of the trade agreements which have done so
much to destroy the standards he professes to support.
But knowing that we cannot put all our hopes in ILO Conventions or
national labor codes or other written standards does not mean that we
should ignore them or stand idly by while corporate institutions such
as the WTO attempt to dismantle them. If the WTO did not believe the
ILO Conventions to be an obstacle to anti-labor practices, it would
not be trying to change them. If the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund did not see national labor codes as an obstacle to the
proliferation of sweatshops, they would not bother to attack them through
structural adjustment programs.
A challenge is to know which institutions and codes have sufficient
legitimacy that we should defend them and which, such as the WTO and
the FLA, are so corrupted that we should oppose them outright. However,
even when denouncing codes produced in total cynicism (as with the FLA
code or companies' own codes of conduct), we can make use of them by
pointing out discrepancies between promises and practice.
The third installment of the 1999 Sweatshop Activist Organizing Packet
has been completed. Everyone who ordered the packet earlier automatically
receives the updates. Anyone ordering now receives the third installment,
plus whatever is still current from installments one and two. Order
by email clr@clrlabor.org or phone
(202) 232-5002. Include your postal address: Packet is in hard copy.
Packet includes donation form and return envelope. Suggested donation:
$10.00.
If ordering from outside the United States, please pay by credit card.
From within the U.S., either credit card or check payment is welcome.
If you are paying by card, the charge will be credited to Campaign for
Labor Rights through the Alliance for Global Justice, of which CLR is
a member project. Your bill, however, will show a payment to the Alliance.
Just email us your name exactly as it appears on the MasterCard, Visa
or Discover card, your account number, the expiration date and the amount
of the payment in U.S. dollars.
Contents of Third Installment
Fall/Holiday Plans:
Sweatshop activism in the fall
Wal-Mart Campaign
Update on important struggles
Speaking tours
New Brochure:
Solidarity: What it is, why it matters
Nike Campaign:
An activist replies to Nike
Sign-on letter to Nike
Five Years after NAFTA:
A great new 6-page outreach tool
Gap Campaign:
Gap employees write to the company
Letter to Gap employees
Gap employee sign-on letter
Farmworker Campaign (FLOC):
Conditions take toll on North Carolina farmworkers
Model resolution of organizational support
Model Procurement Policy:
Calling for full public disclosure
Defend the ILO Conventions:
Sign-on letter to WTO heads of state
If you would like your signature added to this letter to Nike, please
send the following information to Campaign for Labor Rights by mail
(1470 Irving Street, NW, Washington, DC 20010), email clr@clrlabor.org
by December 20, 1999:
I am signing on to the Nike letter.
Name:
City & state (or country, if not in U.S.):
Organization (optional):
We encourage local activists to photocopy pages 3 - 5 (we have left
off the usual header and footer information on page 3) and to collect
signatures in petition style. We will bundle your signed letters together
and forward them to Nike at the end of December.
Philip H. Knight
Chairman and CEO Nike Inc.
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
Dear Mr. Knight:
I am writing to seek the reinstatement of a union organizer who
was unjustly fired from a Nike shoe factory in Indonesia.
Haryanto [ complete name ] belongs to PERBUPAS, a union organizing
Nike workers. From September 28 through October 19, U.S. audiences
in more than 20 cities heard his remarkable testimony, included as
an attachment on the reverse side of this letter.
In 1996 Haryanto lost two fingers because of a defective machine
which already had maimed 5 other workers and later would injure still
two more before being repaired. In compensation, he received $150
- the price of one high-end pair of Nike shoes. Seeking justice, Haryanto
turned to the government-controlled union in the shoe factory where
he was employed. He soon discovered that the purpose of that "union"
was to put down worker unrest.
Haryanto founded a real union in his factory. PERBUPAS is independent
of government control. One of Haryanto's responsibilities was to distribute
Nike's code of conduct to other workers. [ During the time that
Haryanto worked there, the Lintas factory went from being an Adidas
contractor to producing for Nike.]
In 1998 Haryanto lost his job because of his union activities. Officially,
the reason for terminating him was that his injury had made him less
productive. However, the real reason became clear when Haryanto was
offered a position in another factory if he would leave the union.
The Nike representative in Indonesia refused to intervene with the
factory on Haryanto's behalf.
Nike is a founding member of the Fair Labor Association, whose code
requires participating companies to respect the right of freedom of
association (the right to join a union) and also commits them to be
responsible for the labor practices of their contractors. In spite
of this commitment, Nike has never lifted a finger to pressure its
contractors to reinstate Haryanto or any other unionist fired for
organizing.
Throughout his speaking tour, Haryanto asked people in the United
States to contact the Nike company and seek reinstatement for himself
and other PERBUPAS members fired for their union activities.
Recently, Nike disclosed the names and addresses of 41 factories
in 11 countries where it produces apparel for five of the universities
with which it has licensing agreements to make apparel with those
schools' logos. This was an important and positive step forward for
Nike. Now that your company has begun the process of informing the
public about the location of its factories, human rights organizations
will make contact with unions in those countries, to determine whether
they are organizing in the Nike factories and whether your contractors
are respecting workers' right to freedom of association.
Mr. Knight, you have often wondered aloud what it would take to
satisfy your critics around the world. The one policy - more than
any other - which would demonstrate a sincere desire to behave justly
toward your workers is to respect their right to participate in real
unions free of government or company control. The best way for Nike
to settle its labor problems is to have its contractors deal with
the workers themselves, through their unions. Rehiring fired organizers,
recognizing independent unions as the legitimate representatives of
the workers and bargaining a fair contract with those unions are the
essential ingredients of such a policy.
Seeing to the reinstatement of Haryanto, without restrictions on
his union membership, would be a good start. I hope to learn in the
near future that you have done so.
Sincerely,
transcribed by Daniel Hunter
I came from a very poor family. My father had only an elementary education
with no skills. He taught himself electricity and, because of his lack
of education, he was only able to get temporary jobs as a helper for
a technician. He was not paid minimum wage. My mom also only had an
elementary school education. She worked as a housewife. Therefore, my
parents could not provide enough for their seven children.
Of my siblings, I am the only one with a high school education. After
I graduated from high school, I decided to go straight to the workplace
to help get a better living for my family. I worked for PT Lintas, a
factory that made shoes for Adidas and then later for Nike. The factory
that I was working for had 4,500 workers. Most of them are temporary
workers. Most of us were paid below the minimum wage and therefore could
not live properly.
While I was training a new employee in 1996, I had an accident that
disfigured my hand and made me disabled. I was stationed in the technical
division which was involved with transforming raw materials into rubber
soles. The machine that I was working with had three metal rollers that
pressed the rubber materials into outer soles of a thickness of 3-4
millimeters.
For this process, I had to manually insert the raw material into the
metal rollers wearing gloves. The material was heated to 45 degrees
Celsius [ 113 Fahrenheit ] and was therefore very sticky. My
glove got stuck to the rubber and was pulled into the metal rollers
and I lost two of my fingers. The accident could have been avoided because
there is an emergency switch that could immediately turn off the metal
rollers - but the switch was broken. Therefore a friend of mine had
to run to another switch some distance away to turn off the machine.
My accident happened while the PT Lintas factory was producing for
Adidas. After the accident, I learned that five other similar accidents
had occurred with that same machine while the factory was producing
for Adidas. The factory later switched to producing for Nike and, after
that change, two other accidents of the same type happened on that same
machine. In all of those accidents, the emergency switch did not work
and, if it had worked, would have prevented all the accidents. Over
the course of the next few months after the accident, I was under recovery
and was given a leave from the factory and also some medicine when I
was an outpatient in order to assist in the recovery. I was then given
2,250,000 rupiah in compensation [ about $150-200 U.S. ] The
company also gave me a new pair of gloves to cover my hand.
I tried to voice my concern using the state-sponsored labor union
within the factory: SPSI (the All-Indonesian Worker's Party). However,
the labor union was controlled by the Indonesian government and instead
of listening to our complaints they took sides with the factory. The
factory used this union to stifle our complaints. SPSI was created by
the government and at the factory level was created by the company.
The leaders were actually determined by the company! Once again, it
is important to emphasize that their focus was not on supporting the
workers' struggle but on supporting the factory's interests.
Realizing the inability of the labor union SPSI to voice our concerns,
I decided that I would create a new labor union called PERBUPAS, which
is an acronym for The Labor Union for Shoe Factory Workers. We created
this labor union as an independent labor union that would fight for
the rights of workers, by workers.
We began by holding discussion groups started by students and workers.
We held these discussions on a regular basis. We began to hold these
discussions in order to talk about raising the minimum wage in 1996.
As we grew, we began monitoring the procedure that the management had
done within the factory. We realized that the factory time and time
again violated the Nike Code of Conduct that should be implemented.
Instead, the company simply used the Nike Code of Conduct as a decoration
on the wall.
After watching and spying on our activities within PERBUPAS, the management
began intimidating our members one by one. They threatened us, suspended
us and terminated many of our members. Our union was continually followed
by the military and secret agents. Our members were put on a blacklist
by the company so that we could not be given any wage increases or promotions.
One example of intimidation by the factory was my suspension. In my
suspension letter they did not tell me why I was being suspend except
that I could not work in a productive manner because of my injury. In
an oral discussion, however, they told me that I was being indefinitely
suspended because I was working with the union and was distributing
Nike's Code of Conduct, trying to recruit for PERBUPAS and educating
workers about Nike's Code of Conduct. In fact, the company offered to
transfer me to another factory if I was willing to quit my union organizing.
My fellow members of PERBUPAS tried to bring my suspension case to
the Indonesian government and the Nike representative in Jakarta. The
Indonesian government refused to comment further on my case than agreeing
with the level of compensation. The Nike representatives told me they
sympathized with my case but refused to involve themselves with the
"internal matters of the factory."
My status currently is still "suspended" and I have not gotten a wage
since I was suspended. But I want to emphasize that this happened not
just at the PT Lintas factory but at other factories, including the
case of 200 PERBUPAS workers who were all dismissed in one factory.
The only excuse was that the company was facing "difficult conditions"
and that orders had dropped. Yet, PERBUPAS discovered that they were
not facing such conditions (the number of orders had not decreased)
but were in fact still hiring new workers.
While fighting for our rights, we were accused as extremists who were
doing violent acts. Within the factory, members of PERBUPAS were being
discriminated against and were told that we would never get a raise
or be promoted. The intimidation was done by both the factory and also
by the military police. The 200 dismissed workers carried out a demonstration
in front of the factory but were met with the military, security forces
and gangsters, who were trying to force them to quit in exchange for
receiving only one month of wages. For example, in 1996 while we were
having a meeting, the police came and took all of us into custody and
we were held in jail for one night. Despite these threats, by 1997 PERBUPAS
had in both the shoe and garment industry 3,000 workers.
I would like Nike to sanction all the factories that violated Nike's
Code of Conduct. I'd like to force Nike to rename its slogan from "Just
Do It" to "Do It Justice." My last demand would be for Nike to reinstate
myself and all the other workers who have stood up for their rights
but have been terminated because of it.
In August and September, two union organizers were fired by a factory
in El Salvador which produces for several U.S. clothing companies, including
the Kathie Lee line. Kathie Lee Gifford is a founding member of the
Apparel Industry Partnership/Fair Labor Association.
The following testimony by one of the workers dramatically illustrates
the repressive conditions in many free trade zones. Reading the testimony
of Lorena del Carmen Hernandez Moran, we can see why international solidarity
is an essential component of winning justice for sweatshop workers.
She and the other fired worker and a third organizer not employed by
the factory received serious death threats to intimidate them from further
union activities. In El Salvador, where hundreds of unionists were murdered
by death squads in the 1980s, such threats are not taken lightly.
This case also points out the necessity for proceeding with great
caution in our solidarity work. These three were threatened and their
organizing drive was disrupted when film seized from a delegation organized
by the National Labor Committee revealed them to be union members. United
Students Against Sweatshops is to be commended for immediately mobilizing
in defense of the threatened organizers. Student activists on a number
of U.S. campuses organized demonstrations and wrote letters to Kathie
Lee Gifford, urging her to intervene to ensure safety and justice for
the three.
Hopefully, this incident will remind all of us in the no-sweat movement
of the seriousness of our work and our responsibility to take every
precaution not to endanger the jobs and lives of those with whom we
are in solidarity.
[ Fired September 2, 1999 from Caribbean Apparel, Santa Ana, El
Salvador ]
September 17, 1999
My name is Lorena del Carmen Moran. I am 21 years old and a single
mother. I have three children, 2 boys and a girl. To support my family,
I have worked in the Caribbean Apparel factory in the American Park
free trade zone since April 1, 1997.
In Caribbean Apparel I worked as a production line operator, making
shorts, pants, blouses, skirts, jackets and dresses of the labels Kathie
Lee, Miss Dorby, Components, Koret, Esleep and others I can't remember.
At the beginning I also worked in the pressing section of the factory.
I worked Monday to Saturday, almost 12 hours a day from 6:50 am to 6:10
pm and at times until 9:40 pm. My base wage was 1260 colones a month
($145). Including overtime, I earned up to 700 colones ($80) every two
weeks.
The job at American Park was my first job. I had the illusion of finding
work where they would appreciate me and treat me well, even if they
didn't pay me much. Nevertheless I imagined that I would be able to
give a better life and better future to my children.
The first week of work was good. They treated me well. But starting
the second week, it changed: The supervisors demanded more and more
production; they screamed and would hit the tables when the production
was not enough. The chief of production, Mr. Lee, screamed the most.
They only allowed us to drink water once in the morning and once in
the afternoon, in the hellish heat of the factory.
Together with other companeras, we decided to organize ourselves to
improve our working conditions and to improve our income. I never thought
that doing something just and legal would bring me to one of the bitterest
experiences of my life. I will tell it.
On Thursday, September 2 at 1:30 p.m. the chief of personnel of Caribbean
Apparel, Leone Catota called me to his office. He told me that the factory
was cutting personnel: "Look daughter, we are going to make a cut, and
unfortunately you are on the list." I said that it was strange they
were firing me and at the same time hiring new personnel. I asked him
to tell me who else they were firing. He got nervous and told me he
was just following orders.
The supervisor took my things from my locker and brought them to me
in the office. She told me not to come into the production area of the
factory. They asked me to give them my ID card so they could give me
my severance pay calculation in the Ministry of Labor. I wasn't carrying
my ID. Then the chief of personnel pressured me that we should go to
my house to get the ID. I went in a car with the chief of personnel
and another woman who works in the free zone. My house is approximately
35 km (21 miles) from the factory.
My mother did not want me to return with them, but I felt under pressure,
so I took my ID and returned to the car. The same people drove me to
the city of Santa Tecla, about 60 km (36 miles) from my house. There
they took me to the Labor Court to calculate my severance. When I received
the documents, the chief of personnel took them from me and wouldn't
give me a copy.
Then they took me to the factory again. We got to Caribbean Apparel
around 5:00 pm. I told them that I just wanted to go home, but the chief
of personnel told me that the manager wanted to talk with me.
They closed me in an office in the factory. At that moment I felt
very bad and very nervous, since I had been in their hands for almost
four hours. In the office of the chief of personnel, Leonel Catota said
to me"You have to sign here." I distrusted this. I didn't want to sign,
but since he pressured me a lot and since I was very tired, I signed.
Immediately after I signed, they took me to the office next door to
the manager of Caribbean Apparel, Martun Yun, and Mr. Choi, who is in
charge of hiring personnel. I was alone with them. Martin Yun offered
me a candy and put me between the two of them.
"You know why they took your job?" Martin Yun asked me. I said that
I didn't know, since I had not received even one warning and though
it was hard for me, I completed the production goals. "You are sneaky.
You were with a group. You know what group. Through the computer, I
received information from the Ministry of Labor." Martin Yun told me
that my name and ID number appeared in the computer, together with those
of Blanca Ruth. "That old woman is a unionist. You know it," he said.
"I propose that we make a deal - a business that will be good for both
of us. If you talk and tell me who is with the union, I'll offer you
a job in another factory." Mr. Choi offered me a job with higher pay
if I would give him the information. "You have children and you need
us, and we need you." They continued to press for a long time about
the names of other unionists in the factory.
It was past 6:00 in the afternoon and I could hear that the buses
were about to leave with the workers and I wanted to leave. Then Mr.
Martin Yun told me, "No, because we have a lot more to talk about."
The buses left. They continued to pressure me to give them information.
"For the sake of your children, you have to collaborate more with us,"
they kept saying. When it was 7:15 pm, I told them it was too much,
that I had been in their power for 6 hours and that I needed to see
to my children. He proposed we make a final agreement. "I will give
you three days to tell me the names." He threatened that if I didn't
speak within three days, he would communicate with all the maquila companies
in the country and give them my name so that I would never again find
a job.
[ Information provided by the Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union
(SBSI) ]
In August, the Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union (SBSI, an independent
union not to be confused with the government-controlled SPSI) reported
that 835 of its members were fired by PT Aneka Garmentama, a clothing
manufacturer in North Jakarta which produces for The Gap and other major
U.S. brands. The SBSI represents 835 of the more than 900 workers at
the factory.
The workers were dismissed after a one-month strike for fair compensation
and after initiating grievance proceedings at the Department of Manpower.
Prior to their dismissal the workers were seeking:
1. Pay increases, adjusted to the new legal minimum wage; 2. Transportation
and meal allowances, as mandated by Department of Manpower standards;
and 3. Freedom of association and collective bargaining. (The company
had refused to meet with SBSI mediators.)
The parent company of PT Aneka Garmentama is the Karwel group, which
owns 12 factories in Jakarta. Although the factory is wholly Indonesian-owned,
its buyers are international clothing labels. They include The Gap,
Donna Karen, Eddie Bauer, Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger.
The international department of SBSI contacted Campaign for Labor
Rights, requesting that we mobilize solidarity in support of the fired
workers, with the goal of having them rehired and getting the factory
to address their original demands.
The Gap already was the focus of a major campaign organized by Global
Exchange in response to outrageous sweatshop practices on Saipan by
Gap and other major U.S. clothing companies. Mobilizing support for
the fired Gap workers in Indonesia has now become part of the ongoing
Gap campaign.
On September 1, Campaign for Labor Rights posted an alert calling
upon people to endorse a sign-on letter to Donald Fisher, Chairman of
The Gap. Meanwhile, Global Exchange also conducted behind-the-scenes
negotiations with Aneka Garmentama's other U.S. buyers.
On September 21, an SBSI representative wrote to report: "The regional
Gap office in Hong Kong just got a verbal agreement from the Karwil
Group to rehire the workers and admit SBSI. The Gap apparently took
a hard line and told them they would stop buying if the company didn't
bring back the workers and accept the union. We'll know more [ soon
]. Nothing is certain yet, so we'll stay cool and hope for the best."
In mid-October, Muchtar Pakpahan, General Chairman of the SBSI and
until last year an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in Indonesia,
wrote: "The sustained international pressure succeeded in forcing the
factory management into negotiations with the union. But, unfortunately,
to date, little progress has been made. PT Gamantama is only willing
to offer severance pay to the workers, nothing more. The workers have
rejected the company's offer and are holding out for their jobs. It
is therefore essential that the workers continue to get international
support for their struggle, now more than ever. Please send letters
of protest, appealing for the workers' jobs and SBSI recognition."
Sample letter:
Donald Fisher
The Gap
One Harrison Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
fax: (415) 427-7037
Dear Mr. Fisher:
I am writing to ask for continuing intervention by The Gap, which
reportedly played a constructive role in pressuring your Indonesian
supplier, PT Aneka Garmentama, to rehire 835 employees unjustly fired
because of their union activities.
Initial reports indicated that the company had agreed to rehire
the union members. Given the well-documented and highly publicized
abuses of Gap contractors on Saipan, it had seemed a breath of fresh
air that your company was pressuring one of its contractors in Indonesia
to do right by its workers.
However, recent developments suggest that Aneka Garmentama management
doubts the resolve of Gap representatives to see to it that Gap's
code of conduct for its contractors is enforced. Latest reports indicate
that management has reverted to its previous decision to terminate
the employees.
Prior to their dismissal, among other grievances, the workers were
striking to demand payment of at least the legal minimum wage in Indonesia,
as well as other legally mandated benefits.
I want to emphasize that I am not asking The Gap to cut and run
from this situation. Do not abandon these workers whose labors have
helped to enrich your company. Instead, use the economic leverage
which you have via your contractual agreement with the factory to
get it to abide by the standards set out in The Gap's own code of
conduct for its contractors. I hope to learn soon that The Gap has
played a role in getting these 835 employees back to their jobs.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Edy Sulaeman, Director, PT Aneka Garmentama Indah, Jakarta
Utara, Indonesia, fax 011-62-21-440-5212
The Continental [ light industrial ] Park in La Lima, Honduras
has been the scene of intense labor activism in recent months.
Yoo Yang Clothing Factory
[ Information provided October 12 by the International Textile,
Garment, and Leather workers Union (ITGLWU) ]
Workers at Yoo Yang in Continental Park were holding a series of daily
protests inside the factory in mid-October, in an attempt to pressure
the company to rehire six fired workers. In one demonstration, the workers
handed management a petition signed by approximately 300 Yoo Yang employees.
Workers at the Kimi factory - also in Continental Park - were putting
together plans to support the rehire campaign with joint demonstrations.
Phillips Van Heusen, which contracts with Yoo Yang, was contacted regarding
the situation, and there was some evidence that it may have been playing
a positive role. The text of the petition reads:
To: Management of the company Yoo Yang
We, the undersigned, all the workers of the company Yoo Yang, S.A.
and members of the union SITRAIMASH, ask you stop the verbal and physical
abuse, firings of new workers, unjust written warnings and punishments.
Respect our right to organize ourselves since the Labor Code, the Constitution
of the Republic and ILO Conventions give us this right. For a better
worker-management relationship.
Kimi Clothing Factory
[ Information provided September 6 by the U.S./Labor Education
in the Americas Project (773) 262-6502, usglep@igc.org
]
On the evening of September 2, striking workers at the Kimi apparel
factory won an agreement achieving their basic demands.
The workers had gone on strike on August 18 to demand compliance with
the union's collective bargaining agreement, the only contract at Continental
Park. Kimi management sought to criminalize the labor conflict by charging
the union with sedition, kidnaping and other acts of violence. After
management refused to negotiate, Kimi workers shut down Continental
Park for two days (September 28, 29). On Monday, August 30, workers
at other factories in the park refused to go to work in support of the
Kimi workers and were tear-gassed and beaten by riot police. On September
1, non-Kimi workers returned to work after Kimi workers distributed
a leaflet urging them to do so.
Under the agreement, all Kimi workers returned to work on Monday,
September 6 without reprisals. (Management had been demanding that the
union leadership be removed.) In addition, Kimi agreed to drop the criminal
charges it had filed against the union, SITRAKIMIH. Kimi also agreed
to respect the collective bargaining agreement and agreed to a new pay
scale. Negotiations between Kimi management and the union were mediated
by the Honduran Labor Ministry.
The Kimi union had won a contract in March after a two-and-a-half
year struggle but immediately faced opposition from Continental Park
owner Jaime Rosenthal, who refused to renew Kimi's lease. Kimi then
announced it would close and move to a new factory too far for most
workers to travel. An international outcry ensued and a resolution of
this issue appeared likely. Discussions then began between the union
and the company regarding the company's failure to respect the collective
bargaining agreement. Negotiations seemed to be proceeding positively
until August 18, when management walked out of the meetings, leading
to a strike.
Kimi is a long-time supplier for JC Penney. Other U.S. companies sourcing
from Continental Park include The Gap, Phillips-Van Heusen, Kohl's,
Dayton-Hudson, Salant, Gear for Sports and American Eagle.
No-Sweat Purchasing Policy
by Bjorn Claeson, Bangor Clean Clothes Campaign: (207) 947-4203, pica1@hamtel.tds.net
On Monday, October 25, the Bangor, Maine City Council passed an anti-sweatshop
purchasing policy, establishing ethical criteria to guide the City's
purchases of such items as police and fire department uniforms, t-shirts
and soccer balls. A cooperative effort between the City of Bangor and
the Bangor Clean Clothes Campaign, the policy states that, whenever
possible, the City of Bangor will purchase items of apparel, footwear,
textiles and related products from contractors who operate in accordance
with international codes regarding wages, workplace health and safety,
forced labor, child labor and freedom of association, as embodied in
United Nations and International Labor Organization Conventions.
A national model for community-based activism against sweatshop production,
the Bangor Clean Clothes Campaign is working in partnership with the
City of Bangor, area consumers and many local retailers to raise awareness
of sweatshop production and to promote ethical alternatives. In 1997,
Bangor became the first city in North America to go on record against
having sweatshop clothes on its store shelves, passing a resolve that
clothes for sale in our community ought to be made in accordance with
international labor and human rights standards.
With the ethical purchasing policy, Bangor joins a number of cities
and universities nation-wide that have passed no-sweat policies. Developed
with input from UNITE and the Pittsburgh Labor Action Network, the Bangor
policy establishes a series of questions about working conditions to
be submitted by the Purchasing Agent to bidders on items of apparel,
footwear, textiles and related products. By asking these questions,
the City of Bangor will help create greater transparency in the apparel
industry; send the message that sweatshop production violates Bangor's
community values; and provide a competitive advantage for ethical companies.
A next step for the Bangor Clean Clothes Campaign is to bring the
city ethical purchasing policy to nearby towns and to hospitals, restaurants,
churches, schools, businesses and organizations in the community that
purchase apparel. Hopefully, the city government's policy can become
the community standard.
[ Note by Campaign for Labor Rights: We should be cautious about
putting excessive hopes in changes which might result from purchasing
standards such as those now enacted by the City of Bangor. City governments
are ill-equipped to monitor their contractors comprehensively for honesty
and compliance. However, purchasing standards play an important role
in shifting the national debate on labor practices and may provide legal
leverage in specific cases where unions or labor rights advocates are
engaged in a struggle with a particular company. ]
by Ed Rosario and Mya Shone, Co-Coordinators, Open World Conference
San Francisco (415) 641-8616, owc@igc.org
At the end of November 1999, government leaders from around the world
will gather in Seattle at the Third Ministerial Summit of the World
Trade Organization (WTO).
Feeling the need to articulate a campaign around which the entire
international labor movement could unite in its struggle to defeat the
global corporate agenda, the Organizing Committee of the Open World
Conference in Defense of Trade Union Independence and Democratic Rights
(OWC) issued an "Open Letter to the Heads of State Attending the World
Trade Organization Summit in Seattle." The Open Letter calls on government
leaders to ratify, implement and enforce fully the Conventions of the
International Labor Organization (ILO)."
[ To date, more than 300 leading trade unionists and activists
in the United States and Canada have endorsed the Open Letter. Thousands
of signatures have come in from the rest of the world. ]
The Organizing Committee of the OWC initiated this campaign after
reading the strong statement by the ICFTU calling on the U.S. government
to ratify and implement the core Conventions of the ILO. Our effort
is also the product of ongoing discussions with leading trade unionists
in the United States, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa who have
participated in seven yearly meetings in Geneva aimed at ensuring the
defense of the ILO Conventions. These ILO Conventions represent a tremendous
gain for the workers' movement. The binding constraints for national
labor legislation in the ILO ratification procedure, in particular,
make them both a reference point and a rallying point for the independent
trade union movement in every country.
The New ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
The OWC Open Letter warns that the signatories will not accept any
substitutes for the 176 existing ILO Conventions. (Though 182 ILO Conventions
are on record, only 176 are "in force.") This is a reference to the
new ILO "Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,"
which was adopted in June 1998.
Why this concern?
For more than seven years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
World Bank (and later the WTO) have engaged in a concerted campaign
to "reform the ILO" and scuttle the ILO Conventions. IMF Director General
Michel Camdessus stated that the ILO Conventions had to be made more
"flexible" and more "adapted" to the needs of the global economy in
the new millennium. It was necessary, Camdessus said, to "create a less
constraining framework for ensuring international labor standards."
The new ILO Declaration on Principles does just that: It makes it possible
for the principles and rights to be disconnected from the ratification
process. This means that a country can adopt these "fundamental principles
and rights at work" without ratifying any of the ILO Conventions or
enacting national laws based on these conventions. In response to various
concerns raised by trade union delegates about this new Declaration,
top ILO officials insisted they were not in the process of jettisoning
the existing ILO Conventions. It was simply a means, they said, of gaining
new adherents to the general principles of the ILO and of ensuring that
more countries, down the road, could get behind the ILO Conventions.
The international labor delegates who met in Geneva at the Seventh Annual
Assembly in Defense of the ILO Conventions were not convinced by this
argument. They feared that the new ILO Declaration could undermine and
ultimately cast by the wayside the existing ILO Conventions. Nor were
they reassured by the way the representatives of the employers and of
the States interpreted this new Declaration on Fundamental Principles.
The representative of the U.S. employers declared in June 1998, for
example: "The [ new ILO ] declaration does not impose on member
States the detailed obligations of Conventions that they have not freely
ratified, and does not impose on countries that have not ratified the
fundamental Conventions the supervisory mechanisms that apply to ratified
Conventions. The principles and rights of the Declaration therefore
only encompass the essence, that is, the goals, objectives and aims
of the fundamental Conventions." (source M. Potter, Employers' delegate;
Employer Vice Chairperson of the Committee on the Application of Standards,
36th Session, Geneva, June 1998. Report of the Committee on the Declaration
of Principles)
This is why the "Open Letter to the Heads of State Attending the WTO
in Seattle" - following the lead of the trade unionists assembled in
Geneva - states the following:
"We, the undersigned, state categorically: If this ILO 'Declaration
of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work' is to be of any value
to working people the world over, the seven corresponding Conventions
of the ILO must be ratified, implemented and enforced fully by every
government participating in the WTO Summit in Seattle."
Another issue of great concern to the trade union delegates assembled
to defend the ILO Conventions was a paragraph of the new Declaration
on Fundamental Principles which states that "the comparative advantage
of any country should in no way be called into question by this Declaration
and its Follow-Up."
We all know the meaning of "comparative advantage." It refers to the
low costs of production in countries across the globe that pit workers
in one part of the world against workers in another. The new Declaration
on Fundamental Principles doesn't beat around the bush: It states explicitly
that it is opposed to calling into question the cheap labor and deregulated
labor conditions that permit such "comparative advantages" on the world
market.
In this context it is useful to compare this paragraph of the new
Declaration with the Preamble of the Founding Declaration of the ILO,
which states that "universal and lasting peace can be established only
if it is based upon social justice." The Preamble goes on to explain
that "any nation refusing to adopt genuinely humane labor norms is creating
obstacles to the efforts of the other nations which want to better the
fate of workers in their own country."
Thus, the early members of the ILO established that international
trade should be organized in such a way as to forbid corporations and
economic groups from making use of countries that would refuse to include
in their laws the right for workers to protect themselves from poverty
and arbitrary action by the governments and employers.
New Convention against the "Worst Forms of Child Labor"
The Open Letter also warns that the signatories will not accept any
watered-down agreements. This is a reference to the new ILO Convention
(adopted in June 1999) opposing the "worst forms of child labor" - a
document which Clinton supported and vowed to take to the U.S. Congress
for ratification.
By "worst forms of child labor," the ILO Convention refers to all
forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and
trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory
labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use
in armed conflict. It also refers to the use, procuring or offering
of children for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for
pornographic performances.
It is necessary to point out that these atrocious practices are dealt
with already by criminal laws in most countries of the world, and in
the great majority of cases they are regarded as criminal offenses that
must be dealt with by penal law and the courts - and not by labor laws.
These practices, moreover, have been dealt with already in other ILO
Conventions, which rightly prohibit them not merely for children but
for all human beings (eg., ILO Convention 29 of 1930 on forced labor,
and that of 1956 on the prohibition of forced labor). There is therefore
no need to proscribe in a new ILO Convention these "worst forms of child
labor."
Defenders of this new ILO Convention argue that it is a "bridge" to
increased support for - and ratification of - ILO Convention 138, which
bans child labor altogether. This is not what the employers and the
governments are saying.
Take the declaration of the representative of the U.S. government,
who stated that the United States "opposes any mention of a total prohibition
of child labor. Even if this expression is drawn from the foreword to
Convention 138, it is useless, because it is not the aim of the (new)
convention to prohibit totally child labor." (Report 1V[ 2A ],
Child Labor, Fourth Question on the agenda of the 87th session of the
ILO, Geneva, June 1999)
In a word, this new ILO Convention would do nothing to protect young
children who today across the United States and around the world are
obligated to work in agriculture and manufacturing sweatshops.
For the U.S. government, as for all the G8 governments, the new Convention
is not a bridge to ILO Convention 138; it is meant to be an insurmountable
obstacle in its path. It is a means to undermine and finally scuttle
a Convention they all have considered "too rigid."
Another important point must be made in this regard: It is a fact
that ILO Convention 138 has not been abrogated. But it is also a fact
- verified by experience - that when two norms deal with the same subject,
it is the least constraining one which in reality becomes the point
of reference for labor standards and legislation - especially in the
case of labor norms that are facing the assault of deregulation by governments
and employers.
ILO Convention 103 Is under Attack
Another ILO Convention that is under attack is ILO Convention 103,
which deals with maternity leave for working women. The substance of
the problem is presented quite clearly by the Public Services International
(PSI), one of the most important trade union bodies in the world. The
PSI writes:
"ILO Maternity Protection Convention under Threat
The ILO is now reviewing the Maternity Protection Convention (MPC).
At the end of February 1999, the ILO Secretariat released its recommendations
for changes to MPC. PSI was shocked to find that the recommendations
would significantly weaken the current convention. Some of the proposals
would include:
- Providing mechanisms for wide ranging exemptions from coverage;
- Removing the obligation to pay women on maternity leave a minimum
of two thirds of their salary by providing an option for unspecified
flat rate payment;
- Removing the requirement for six weeks compulsory leave after the
birth of a child;
- Removing additional leave when a child is born after the due date;
- Removing the right to nursing breaks;
- Removing the requirements for women to have maternity services delivered
by qualified staff."
(Women, PSI Newsletter, April 1999. http://www.world-psi.org/women/news/womenet.html)
The draft of the new proposed Convention, moreover, specifies that
"the [ maternity ] leave should include a compulsory leave whose
length and moment should be decided in each country."
There is a fundamental difference between the two conventions. Once
ratified by countries, ILO conventions constitute labor laws around
the world. All trade unions - big or small - can rely on them to demand
the implementation of the labor rights which they embody. On the contrary,
revised draft Convention 103 gives each government the authority to
define what labor rights should be implemented and what labor rights
should not. It questions the very notion of ILO conventions.
It has been stated that ILO Convention 103 is not being undermined;
it is simply being "updated." Is this the case?
Convention 103 protecting maternity rights was one of the first conventions
adopted by the ILO when it was created in 1919. The text of the Convention
was then modified in 1952 to take into account the evolution of laws,
especially those concerning Social Security systems, which allow a greater
protection for the majority of women workers. It can be said that in
1952 this Convention was genuinely updated.
The fundamental and juridical principles of the ILO stipulate that
an ILO convention should be revised when the modifications proposed
increase the degree of protection to workers included in the Convention
concerned. This is not what is being proposed with the new recommendations.
The modifications proposed to Convention 103 - as the PSI statement
points out - aim at undermining Convention 103 and lessening the degree
of protection granted to women workers.
A Few Words To Conclude
Many leading trade union bodies across the country have supported
the ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work on
the grounds that, for the first time, it stipulates that all ILO member
states - whether or not they have ratified the ILO Conventions - have
an obligation to respect fundamental workers' rights. On the surface,
this would be reason enough to support this Declaration.
On closer examination, there is enough evidence to suggest that this
Declaration could be wielded by the ILO member states and international
financial institutions simply to give lip service to workers' rights
- or worse, to scuttle the existing ILO Conventions altogether. The
two proposed changes to ILO Conventions regarding child labor and maternity
leave may just be the beginning of a process aimed at casting aside
the existing ILO Conventions.
The Organizing Committee of the OWC believes it is necessary to promote
a wide-ranging discussion within the labor movement about how best to
ensure respect for workers' rights and, in particular, for the existing
ILO Conventions.
We also call upon all supporters of labor rights - whatever their
point of view on the merits of the new ILO Declaration and the new Conventions
on child labor and maternity rights - to join the international campaign
to demand the ratification, implementation and enforcement of the existing
ILO Conventions.
More than ever, we must send a strong signal to the heads of state
meeting in Seattle that working people the world over are attached firmly
to basic labor rights and will accept nothing less than the rights and
standards codified in the existing ILO Conventions.
Bama Athreya, International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) Washington, DC
bama.athreya@erols.com,
(202) 347-4100
We need an international labor tribunal. As much as we need an international
criminal court, to bring individual criminals to justice, so too do
we need an international labor court to bring corporate criminals to
answer for their crimes against workers and citizens worldwide. Decades
have shown that our current legal architecture to deal with international
human rights abuses is woefully inadequate.
The purpose of this forum is to assess whether or not it makes sense
to push the U.S. government, and governments worldwide, to ratify key
ILO conventions. In all honesty it is unlikely that ratification of
the conventions would lead to any greater protections for workers' rights.
We would all like to believe that governments honor their commitments
to international bodies like the ILO; however, the reality falls short
of the belief. We need to stop discussing governments' words, and start
discussing their deeds.
Countries don't follow through on their commitments to the ILO. Ratification
of an ILO core convention obligates a country to report on its compliance
with that convention. Also, all countries have a constitutional obligation
as members of the ILO to report each year on what they have been doing
to move toward adopting and complying with unratified conventions. However,
in nearly a century of its existence, the ILO has rarely called on non-ratifying
states to provide reports on progress toward compliance. Nor, as we
can see, have countries been in any great rush to sign onto the core
conventions. Now, the new ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work will obligate countries to report on their compliance
with all the core conventions, whether or not they have ratified them.
The public reporting exercise can be a very important and useful one,
if governments truly follow through; for example, Congress requires
the U.S. State Department to report on human rights violations around
the world each year. The report usually provides a gold mine of information
to human rights advocates, who, even if they already have access to
this information, can use it more effectively because it has been acknowledged
and openly reported by the U.S. government.
The Fundamental Declaration is neither better nor worse than the core
ILO conventions. The problem is not with the content of these documents,
although the content of the core conventions could certainly be strengthened
and expanded. However, the real problem is that it is futile to work
on improving language that can never be enforced. The painful reality
is that, without an oversight mechanism, governments are as little likely
to report against the Fundamental Declaration as they are to report
against the core conventions.
Decades have proved that the ILO and other UN bodies have little to
no ability to enforce international treaties or to serve the critically
needed task of providing global governance on labor, environmental or
human rights issues. Even democratic countries ignore the authority
of the ILO. In the 1980s, the ILO found New Zealand to be in violation
of fundamental international standards protecting the right to associate.
A commission of experts went to New Zealand to investigate that government's
blatant disregard for workers' rights in dismantling their industrial
relations laws. The ILO commission had no authority to do more than
slap the New Zealand government on the wrist. Not surprisingly, the
New Zealand government ignored the ILO recommendations altogether; and
the country continues to be a hostile environment for trade unions.
When a democratic, rule-based country will not comply, what can we expect
from a Burma or a Nigeria?
Not that the ILO should be held to blame for its ineffectiveness;
the U.S. government may rightly take credit for that. We continue to
withhold payment of our dues to the UN and have ratified only one of
the core ILO conventions. Despite Clinton's grand promises in June,
the Administration has yet to send the new convention on child labor
to Congress for ratification. The problem is not one of words; it is
one of deeds. We don't need more conventions until we have the mechanisms
to enforce them. That's why those of us who have been working on exactly
these issues for many years don't see any purpose in opposing the Fundamental
Declaration or the new Convention on Child Labor; there's little to
be gained by putting our efforts here. We need instead to focus on a
binding social clause at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
To be sure, the call for a social clause is controversial. Some NGOs
in the South are concerned that powerful Northern governments will use
the social clause to protect their own industries. However, more and
more trade unions and NGOs from the South are recognizing that their
people are being exploited by multinational corporations operating on
a global basis, and the only solution for dealing with them is worldwide
social regulation. The only body in existence today with global enforcement
power is the WTO.
A social clause, whatever the specific terms ultimately are, will
make a concrete improvement in the lives of working people in the global
economy only if there is an effective enforcement mechanism. In actuality,
the labor laws of many countries are already sufficient to provide the
protections a social clause would contain; however, those laws are not
enforced. Similarly, pushing governments to ratify ILO conventions is
meaningless if those conventions could not be enforced. The major barrier
to enforcement of labor laws in the global economy is that countries
fear that if they require corporations to comply with the law, the companies
will flee to another country offering greater freedom from regulation.
A major objective of the social clause is ultimately to provide a worldwide
floor for labor standards so that there can be no place that a company
could flee to in order to avoid compliance.
In developing a global mechanism to hold corporations accountable
for labor rights violations, we must insist that all countries seeking
to participate in global trade agreements must be in compliance with
the social clause as a condition to membership. One proposal that the
ILRF has offered is that each country would participate in an extensive
review of its law and practice to determine compliance with the standard.
If a country is found not to be in complete compliance, it could have
probationary membership, provided it agrees to implement specific reforms
within two years, subject to ongoing monitoring. If at the end of the
two-year period it fails to be in complete compliance, then its membership
in the trading group would be terminated with the right to reapply only
when there is complete compliance with the social clause. Without this
threat of sanctions, the social clause, like the ILO conventions, would
have no teeth.
Upward harmonization also is essential. The need for a social clause
rests on the premise that one or more of the countries participating
in the trade agreement either does not have adequate laws or is not
enforcing its laws. Otherwise, a social clause would not be necessary.
The social clause must interact positively with individual governments'
own responsibilities to uphold their labor laws. If there is a serious
enforcement process, governments will be motivated to adjust their own
laws and enforcement mechanisms upwards and to assume direct responsibility
for enforcement of the provisions of the social clause.
Finally, an enforcement mechanism that applies direct sanctions to
companies is essential. We must recognize that employers, not governments,
initially deny workers their rights and that the role of government
is to enforce the law. A major goal for effective enforcement of a social
clause is to develop ways to regulate the employment practices of companies
operating in the countries bound by the social clause. Most of the problems
relating to denial of rights created in the social clause would be solved
if companies respected the law.
One way to improve company accountability to international standards
would be to require all WTO member countries to conduct annual Labor
Information Audits of businesses operating in two or more of the trade
agreement countries. Companies would be required to report information
pertaining to all of their operations, whether under their own corporate
form or through subsidiaries, joint ventures, contractors or other business
forms. The information would include: a) location, b) total number of
employees, categorized by job classification and pay grade, c) wages
paid for each job classification and/or pay grade specified by form
of payment (i.e., hourly, daily, weekly, monthly etc. or average wages
for piecework), d) total benefits provided to all individual employees
or groups of employees, e) present unionization status of any employees,
specifying the name of the union, number of represented employees, status
of, and a copy of, the most recent collective bargaining agreement,
affiliation of union with any central labor body or confederation, f)
health and safety records and g) some record of employment practices
that might violate the law in one or more trade area countries. The
information would be publicly available to inform governments and organizations
seeking to enforce domestic laws or the provisions of the social clause.
What's needed in this era of globalization is not more words, but
deeds. Labor rights violations occur not because employers and governments
are unaware of workers' rights, but because there are no real ways in
which ordinary workers and citizens can hold them accountable. Pushing
governments to ratify yet more treaties without dealing with the serious
and fundamental problem of enforcement is meaningless. The first stage
to creating a global legal architecture to deal with human rights issues
occurred fifty years ago, and the declarations issued by the United
Nations and the ILO after World War II are still adequate. However,
in the intervening half a century we have failed entirely to make the
grand declarations of that age meaningful to the majority of the world's
citizens. What we need now are systems to make corporations and governments
liable for violations of those rights. We need to empower ordinary citizens
to act on those rights. The challenge is to develop an enforcement mechanism
for our international laws, be it a social clause to the WTO or an international
labor court. Rather than debating the pros and cons of different pieces
of paper, we all need to act to transform those documents into real
and realizable rights.
by Mary W. Covington, Associate Director Washington, DC Branch
Office, International Labor Organization covington@ilo.org,
(202) 653-7652
The mission of the International Labor Organization is to improve
the lives of people in the world of work. After it was established in
1919, the ILO built its programs on a foundation of labor standards
in the form of conventions having the force of international treaties.
Eighty years later, the ILO's foundation is still its international
labor code comprising 182 conventions. International research and publications
were added in the 1920's. Technical assistance was launched in 1948.
And over the past four decades, the ILO has developed a system to supervise
observance of ILO conventions, linking it whenever feasible with technical
assistance to nations seeking to improve their labor standards.
During the past 10 years, all levels of society around the world have
been affected by the rapid growth in international trade, investment
and financial markets. In response to these changes, coalitions of unions
and citizens groups around the globe have raised awareness about the
tremendous need to improve work opportunities and conditions in many
countries. Their efforts have focused greater attention on the work
of the ILO, and have heightened expectations that its work will produce
results.
Not surprisingly, this accelerated global change has driven the choice
of ILO priorities for the new millennium. Moreover, the organization's
top priorities reflect the concerns of civil society because at the
ILO, workers and employers have equal voice and vote with governments.
Among these priorities, and perhaps the most visible, are basic worker
rights, child labor and gender equality.
Basic Worker Rights
The ILO's seven "core" conventions (there will be eight when the new
treaty on the worst forms of child labor takes effect) are dynamic instruments
covering four areas of fundamental worker rights:
- Freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively (Conventions
No. 87 & No. 98);
- Abolition of forced labor (Conventions No. 29 & No. 105);
- Equal opportunity and treatment in the workplace (Convention No.
100 and No. 111);
- Elimination of child labor (Convention No. 138).
Observance of these conventions by countries that have ratified them
is tracked by ILO supervisory bodies through a cycle of procedures triggered
by complaints and proceeding through review, recommendations for change
and reports to the Governing Body and the annual ILO assembly (the International
Labor Conference). Although the ILO constitution does not provide for
sanctions when governments are found to be at fault, this year's annual
ILO assembly took an unprecedented action when delegates adopted a resolution
barring Burma (Myanmar) from all ILO meetings and technical assistance
until that country signals it is ready to take steps to end forced labor.
The cornerstone of all ILO conventions, No. 87 on freedom of association
and protection of the right to organize, has a special status: The principles
it embodies must be observed by all member states as an obligation of
membership, and a special supervisory body handles the complaints process.
Operating alongside the international conventions is a new instrument,
with its own set of reporting procedures and technical assistance. Adopted
in 1998, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work marks a renewed commitment by the ILO's members to respect, promote
and realize the following principles, even if they have not ratified
the related core conventions:
- freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to
collective bargaining;
- elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor;
- effective abolition of child labor;
- elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation.
The Declaration, the reports and the technical assistance are dynamic
tools to help member states assess the extent to which these principles
are respected, identify areas for improvement, improve performance with
technical help and measure progress.
Unlike the ILO's supervisory mechanisms for dealing with complaints,
which are often viewed as adversarial, the new procedures accompanying
the Declaration are promotional. ILO Director General Juan Somavia stressed
this point in his induction speech to the Governing Body, saying that
to be effective and gain wide support, "there can be no question of
conditionality attached to the Declaration" - an allusion to the fact
that the Declaration and annual reports should not be considered by
other international bodies when they make decisions about economic sanctions
against countries or the withholding of economic assistance.
World leaders expressed their views on the Declaration at this year's
ILO conference. President Clinton called it "a blueprint for the global
economy that honors our values: the dignity of work, an end to discrimination,
an end to forced labor, freedom of association, the right of people
to organize and bargain in a civil and peaceful way." He added, "These
are not just labor rights, they're human rights. They are a charter
for a truly modern economy. We must make them an everyday reality all
across the world."
Swiss Confederation President Dreifuss noted that "the members of
WTO [ World Trade Organization ] have given the ILO a mandate
to promote fundamental social principles, and those members must give
the ILO the legal and financial tools that it needs to fulfill that
mandate." Referring to the WTO meeting in 1996, she cautioned, "The
Singapore compromise can only live up to the hopes it has raised if
the ILO and the other United Nations organizations are given the resources
they need to formulate solutions to the social problems created by globalization."
"The ILO's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
... will enable us to ensure that development cooperation is targeted
on the basis of the most up-to-date knowledge. We hope that the conclusions
of the global report will also influence the work of the World Bank
and that of other international organizations. The aim is to ensure
that in every country, respect for social rights provides a comparative
advantage that testifies to the proper functioning of the national economy,"
President Dreifuss added.
The first set of annual reports will be issued next year. One, a compilation
of country reports, will summarize responses from governments that have
not ratified one or more of the seven ILO core conventions. The 129
countries in this category have received a questionnaire to be completed
and returned by November. Governments must show the completed questionnaire
to national workers' and employers' organizations, who may in turn send
their comments on the national report directly to the ILO.
The first completed questionnaire from each country will serve as
a base report. In following years, governments will be asked to indicate
only those changes in law and practice made since the previous report.
Their replies will become reference data, or a kind of "snapshot" with
which a country's situation in subsequent years can be compared.
The questionnaire also asks countries to define "indicators" which
can be used to measure progress made, with or without technical help
from the ILO, towards full respect of a particular principle of the
Declaration.
The number of members that have not ratified all seven conventions
has declined from 150 states in 1995 - when the ILO launched a campaign
on ratification - to 129 as of February this year. Of the ILO's 174
members, 45 have ratified all seven core conventions. ILO staff will
compile the questionnaire replies, taking into account comments submitted
by national workers' and employers' organizations, and a new "high-level"
group of independent experts will prepare introductory comments to the
document, recommending items for in-depth discussions at the ILO Governing
Body's meeting next March.
In addition to the compilation of country reports, a second survey
will present a worldwide overview of the degree to which the four Declaration
principles is respected around the world. Each year, the report will
cover one of the four principles.
The completed report will be discussed in a special session of the
annual International Labor Conference, and the first principle surveyed
will be freedom of association and collective bargaining. When researching
this "global" report, ILO staff will draw on various information sources,
including the country questionnaires, decisions of ILO supervisory bodies,
findings of other intergovernmental organizations and official gazettes.
A country found to fall short of one of the principles may ask the ILO
for a tailored technical program.
The global report will be the main source of information for the Governing
Body when it sets priorities for technical assistance to member states
and, in later years, when it judges the effectiveness of the services
the ILO provides. The Governing Body will decide which countries will
receive technical aid and which kind they will receive, as well as how
much funding for the work should be requested from donor countries and
international institutions.
President Clinton requested a $25 million grant to the ILO in his
fiscal year 2000 budget to establish the new technical program. According
to ILO Washington Office Director Anthony G. Freeman, this grant would
help the ILO set the pattern for this work. Prototype planning in at
least two countries is already underway.
Speculation that the Declaration will replace ILO conventions seems
unfounded in light of the organization's two-year plan for 2000-2001
outlined in the Director General's report to this year's conference.
Noting that "most ILO standards [ i.e. conventions and recommendations
] are not well known" and that there is a "need to reinvigorate international
labor standards," Juan Somavia described actions the ILO will take "to
raise the profile and increase the relevance of the ILO's work on standards."
These steps include "enhancing the impact of the supervision of standards
and reasserting the role of ILO standards in the broader world context."
The Worst Forms of Child Labor
The convention defines children as all persons younger than 18 and
describes abuses as:
- all forms of slavery or similar practices;
- the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities,
such as drugs production and trafficking;
- work which is likely to harm a child's health, safety or morals.
"The eyes of the world are on us, and the global community is expecting
us to move quickly," said Director General Somavia the day after this
year's International Labor Conference adopted the long-awaited convention.
At the conference, President Clinton urged all members of the ILO
to "work aggressively to enforce the new treaty" and to go beyond removing
children from abusive labor. "It is simply not enough to close the factories
where the worst child labor practices occur. We must also ensure that
children then have access to schools and their parents have jobs."
On August 9, President Clinton fulfilled his pledge to the conference
for fast follow-up when he sent the convention to the Senate for ratification
just weeks after he returned to the United States. A spokeswoman for
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that the committee's chairman,
Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), plans to hold a hearing on the convention
sometime this fall.
The ILO has launched a global campaign for ratification of 182 and
Director General Somavia has pledged to raise the subject "in all his
meetings with government leaders" and to help member states examine
ratification possibilities. He has also urged closer cooperation between
other UN agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions, noting that the
worst forms of child labor continue to exist in part because international
organizations do not have an integrated approach to deal with the problem.
The new convention borrows the following provision from Article 3
(1) of Convention 138: "The minimum age for admission to any type of
employment or work which by its nature or the circumstances in which
it is carried out is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or morals
of young persons shall not be less than 18 years."
Convention 182 strengthens 138 not only by restating this key provision
of the earlier convention, but also by specifying slavery and other
intolerable kinds of work. In addition, it sets a short time frame for
legislation and enforcement by requiring that "[ e ]ach member
which ratifies this Convention shall take immediate and effective measures
to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child
labor as a matter of urgency."
Since countries ratifying 182 will be subject to the ILO's supervisory
procedures, provisions of the national laws and regulations implementing
the convention will be examined in the complaints procedure. This would
include definitions of harmful work and other decisions left to the
discretion of governments.
Social Protection for Women
A final example of the importance placed on the ILO's conventions
involves a third priority of the ILO: equality for women. Women are
affected more than men by flexible forms of work and are in the least
protected sectors of the economy. With a view to improving protection
of working women who become pregnant, delegates to the 1999 International
Labor Conference agreed to continue their work next year on revising
the ILO's Maternity Protection Convention No. 103, which was adopted
almost half a century ago.
The renewed focus on maternity protection stems from a 1998 ILO study,
Maternity Protection at Work, which found wide variations in the scope
and effectiveness of national laws. According to the study's author,
F. J. Dy-Hammar, "in all parts of the world, working women who become
pregnant are faced with the threat of job loss, suspended earnings and
increased health risks due to inadequate safeguards for their employment."
The worker vice-chair of the conference committee said that the draft
revisions for the maternity convention and recommendation "are ... basic
maternity protection which women need." It is important, she said, "to
create an instrument to help women and children in countries where the
informal sector is very extensive" and where they work in "low-paid
agriculture with high health risks or in small enterprises."
The conference committee has called for extending maternity leave
to at least 16 weeks and for new provisions on maternity benefits, health
care and employment protection for pregnant and nursing mothers.
The new draft text brought strong objection from employers, whose
committee vice-chair said that "in its present form the proposed convention
... is unsustainable." She noted that only 20 percent of the ILO membership
ratified the 1952 convention, and that even they might find it difficult
to ratify the revised convention in its current draft form.
Final negotiations on the revision and a vote by delegates are scheduled
for the ILO conference next year. If it fails to garner enough votes
for adoption, the 1952 convention, No. 103, will remain in effect.
To sign on to this open letter, send the following information to:
Open World Conference,
c/o San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO)
1188 Franklin Street #203
San Francisco, CA
or to owc@igc.org
Name
City & State (or Country if not US)
Union/Organization
Title (for ID purposes only)
Open Letter to All Heads of State Attending the World Trade Organization
Summit in Seattle The Conventions of the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Must Be Ratified, Implemented and Fully Enforced in Every Country!
Dear Heads of State and Government:
We, the undersigned trade union leaders, union activists and supporters
of labor rights the world over, address you this Open Letter on the
occasion of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Summit in Seattle in
November 1999.
In recent months, U.S. President Bill Clinton and the heads of state
of the G8 countries have issued countless declarations professing
the need to uphold workers' rights in all "free trade" pacts and to
put a "human face on the global economy."
As trade unionists and supporters of labor rights, we have reached
the conclusion (based on years of bitter experience) that the "free
trade" agreements and Structural Adjustment Programs promoted by the
WTO, as well as by the IMF and World Bank:
- are an assault upon our rights and upon our working and living
conditions, and stand as barriers to social progress and democracy,
- elevate the multinational corporations and their interests above
those of the peoples of each country,
- have, at their core, the aim of destroying our public services,
collective bargaining agreements and national labor codes,
- are an assault on our right to employment, insofar as they destroy
jobs for the many while creating work for only a few,
- are a means through which the governments and employers seek to
undermine the independence of trade unions that stand for the defense
of working people and our interests.
As trade unionists and activists, we consider that any government
leader that today professes to uphold and defend workers' rights must
begin by ensuring that his or her own country ratifies, implements
and fully enforces the Conventions of the International Labor Organization
(ILO). The ILO, which was founded in 1919, has codified into 176 ILO
Conventions the gains won through struggle by the workers' movement
over the past century. When a country ratifies a Convention of the
ILO, it must bring its own national legislation into conformity with
the ILO Convention. The substance of the ILO Convention therefore
becomes the law of the land. These ILO Conventions have set the standard
for labor rights worldwide. On every continent they have laid the
basis for national labor legislation and labor codes (all which are
under assault today in the name of "globalization").
In June 1998 (under pressure from the WTO and IMF to create a "less
constraining framework for ensuring international labor standards")
the ILO adopted a new "Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work." The principles and rights promoted in this declaration correspond
to seven of the existing ILO Conventions. On June 20, 1999, the G8
Summit in Cologne, Germany, issued a communique pledging to "promote
effective implementation" of this new ILO Declaration.
We, the undersigned, state categorically: If this ILO "Declaration
on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work" is to be of any value
to working people the world over, the seven corresponding Conventions
of the ILO must be ratified, implemented and enforced fully by every
government participating in the WTO Summit in Seattle!
These seven core ILO Conventions are: 1. ILO Convention 87 concerning
freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize
(1948), 2. ILO Convention 98 concerning the right to organize and
to bargain collectively (1949), 3. ILO Convention 29 on forced labor
(1930), 4. ILO Convention 105 banning forced labor (1957), 5. ILO
Convention 100 on equal wages for work of equal value (1951), 6. ILO
Convention 111 on discrimination in employment (1958), 7. ILO Convention
138 on the abolition of child labor (1973).
We will not accept any substitutes for the existing Conventions
of the ILO. We will not accept support for hollow principles and rights
at work detached from concrete implementation in national labor legislation.
We will not accept any watered-down agreements.
Finally, we wish to issue a special appeal to the government that
is hosting the November 1999 WTO Summit (that is, the U.S. government):
U.S. officials proclaim loudly in every international arena that
the United States is a staunch defender of workers' rights. Bill Clinton
addressed the yearly assembly of the ILO in June 1999, where he trumpeted
his support for the new ILO "Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work."
But the truth of the matter is that the U.S. record on workers'
rights is abysmal. On July 14, 1999, the International Confederation
of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) issued a 15-page report that fully documents
the "massive, ongoing, and appalling violations in the United States
of the right to freedom of association and the right to organize."
"The United States," the report continues, "has ratified only one
of the seven core labor standards (ILO Convention 105 opposing forced
labor). ... This is one of the worst ratification records in the world."
The ICFTU report reviews in great detail how the core ILO Conventions
(including those on child labor, forced labor, discrimination in the
workplace and the right to strike) are violated daily in the United
States. The ICFTU report concludes with these words:
"The United States needs to take a series of far-reaching measures
to establish genuine respect for core labor standards in the United
States. In areas of compelling violations, ILO Conventions 87 (Freedom
of Association) and 98 (Right To Organize) should be ratified and
the country's laws brought into conformity with these Conventions,
because major reforms are needed to protect workers who try to organize
and bargain collectively from employer interference and intimidation.
"The United States should also ratify Conventions 100 and 111 against
Discrimination, Convention 138 on Child Labor, and Convention 29 on
Forced Labor, and work to put these Conventions into full effect."
We, the undersigned, fully concur with this ICFTU report and its
conclusions. Any government that pretends to uphold workers' rights
must begin by ratifying the Conventions of the ILO!
|
