12:12 PM Jun 11, 1997

LABOUR: NAM REJECTS HANSENNE SOCIAL-LABEL PROPOSALS

Geneva, 11 June (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Labour Ministers from Non-Aligned countries, after a lengthy discussion, have adopted a common response to the proposals of the ILO Director-General for promotion of core labour standards and the idea of "social labelling" of countries.

The idea of "social labelling", NAM charged, has been raised from the perspective of consumers in developed countries and it would legitimise use of labour standards for protectionism and by implication endorse the social clause with the ILO acting as the monitoring body, the NAM Ministers said in a collective response to ILO Director-General Michael Hansenne's report to the conference on "The ILO Standard Setting and Globalization"

The ILO DG's Report, NAM said, requires further consideration by the ILO Governing Body, taking into account the views expressed in the NAM statement.

The NAM statement, evolved after a week of informal consultations among members, was adopted at the NAM Ministerial meeting -- with South Africa, Chile, Jamaica and Venezuela reserving their positions.

Colombia, as Chair of the NAM, is to present the joint response at the plenary of the Labour Conference Wednesday afternoon.

NAM countries wanted their statement to be circulated as an ILO official document (of the Conference and the Governing Body), but were finding themselves frustrated by the rules of the ILO tripartite system, some of the member-governments said.

The ILO system and its rules, set up in the aftermath of the second world war, assume a commonality of interests among employers, workers and governments - and the machinery provides for the views of the individual sectors to be presented as such.

This has enabled a monolithic view of each constituent to be presented - of the international leaderships of workers, employers, and of the industrialized countries -- publicly.

NAM governments expect Colombia as the Chair would read out the collective response at the plenary if the NAM is frustrated by ILO machinery from circulating the views as an official document of the Conference.

ILO officials, and leading industrialized nations, have been attempting over the past week or more to discourage the joint response, arguing that it was confrontational.

After the NAM adopted its statement, ILO officials privately said that the NAM was divided and the statement was not a cohesive view, and that the ILO expected its proposals for a new ILO declaration to go forward enabling the ILO to move ahead on its ideas for implementing core labour standards.

Hansenne Monday went before the NAM meeting, the separate meeting of the workers group, and the joint meeting between the EU Ministers and some Asia-Pacific countries to explain his report and proposals, emphasising that the central point is mainly on strengthening the ILO machinery and system for setting standards and their monitoring, and in particular the core labour standards.

He told the NAM he was perplexed by the attitude of the developing country governments, and claimed that his proposals were aimed at protecting developing countries from discriminatory actions by the industrial countries using their market-power.

Hansenne, and his officials, have been presenting the proposal for "social labelling" of countries -- with ILO teams visiting countries and observing how core labour standards are implemented, and granting labels to countries (that they could use on their export products) that would be a ILO good-conduct certificate that the governments were ensuring that the benefits of trade liberalisation was accruing to all the sectors of society. Such a label, Hansenne has argued, would protect developing countries against consumer-led movements of labelling products and organized boycotts.

But this has not convinced many governments.

Even within worker groups, at a meeting of workers representatives Monday, Indian trade union groups, called for reopening the whole discussion about a social clause and trade links.

This was supported by African trade unions who noted that the stand of African Trade Union Centre (which groups unions of all tendencies and affiliations) has since been endorsed by the April meeting at Addis Ababa of the OAU's tripartite labour and social affairs commission. The Social clause and the social label proposal, the African workers said, were two sides of the same coin, and Africa has opposed the trade-social clause link.

Leaders of the central trade union organizations, particularly of the ICFTU which has been spear-heading this issue, said the general discussion could take place within the context of the Governing Body where the Hansenne proposals for an ILO declaration on core labour standards is to be taken up.

Many representatives of workers groups from developing world say in private that by bringing up the "social labelling" proposals, Hansenne has probably put back the ILO debate and action on social issues, and has helped to side-track the debate on the crux of the matter, namely prescriptive norms of neo-liberalism to favour TNCs being pushed through the international economic system and instrumentality of Fund/Bank and the WTO.

Privately, some ILO officials agree that the 'social label' idea was a mistake, and that it has aroused fears that have detracted from the important question of labour standards.

ILO officials however are betting that despite the controversies and opposition to the social labelling issue, the move for an ILO Declaration would be accepted by the conference, with the Governing Body left to negotiate the language.

The declaration of the NAM Ministers said they attached great importance to the role of ILO in standard setting and promotion of labour standards and that they reaffirmed their commitment to observe internationally recognized core labour standards. But the ILO must promote labour standards in accordance with its constitution and as an integral part of social progress.

The NAM statement advocated an alternative approach to that of Hansenne and called for measures to promote universal ratification of basic/fundamental labour standards, implementation of these standards through national laws, raising national awareness and national implementation through tripartite consultations, and all this to be buttressed by strengthening the ILO's Supervisory mechanism.

Economic progress, the NAM statement said, is linked to multidimensional aspects of development and is not solely dependent on trade. Economic growth and development could contribute to the improvement of living standards and full observance of labour standards.

The Director-General's report, the NAM said, "is a matter of concern, as its approach and argumentation is inherently flawed and introduces an untenable link between labour standards and trade which we do not accept."

The WTO Singapore Ministerial Conference (SMC), NAM said, had "reaffirmed" the commitment of governments to observance of internationally recognized core labour standards and reiterated that the ILO, and not the WTO, was the competent body to deal with such standards.

But the SMC rejected "use of labour standards for protectionist purposes" and had stipulated that "the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-wage developing countries, must in no way be put into question."

"Contrary to this affirmation, the (DG's) Report appears to embrace the protectionist approaches that link trade with labour standards," NAM said.

"The SMC did not give the ILO a new mandate to take a further initiative on trade and labour standards nor did it have the authority to do so.

"There is no empirical evidence to support the view that there is a link between trade liberalisation and labour standards. The thesis that low wages in developing countries is responsible for loss of jobs and lower wages in the developed countries has been refuted by many authoritative analyses, including the ILO's 'World Employment Report 1996/97' and the IMF's 'World Economic Outlook 1997'. The ILO should help correct the misperceptions generated in some countries on this issue."

The diversity in implementation of labour standards basically reflects differences in levels of economic development and, in any case, low labour standards are not the primary source of the comparative advantage of developing countries. Moreover, there is no evidence that lower levels of social protection affect trade patterns. Seeking to equalise remuneration of workers worldwide would question the comparative advantage of developing countries. The principle of 'equal remuneration for equal work' in the ILO constitution was not meant to be a universally applicable standard and cannot be extended to the global level where units of comparison are States at different levels of economic development and with varying circumstances.

ILO instruments, the NAM pointed out, has been voluntarily ratified by States and "any proposal for a declaration on core labour standards should not be legally binding." The most effective means to ensure respect for improved labour standards is universal ratification of core labour standards.

"The proposal for an ILO report on social progress flows from flawed premises and linkages," NAM pointed out. "The implication is that the ILO would determine what is the 'acceptable' level of comparative advantage and which countries are converting the benefits of liberalisation into social progress.

"ILO's analytical reports must continue to focus on the overall examination of labour trends, bearing in mind that social progress is inextricably linked to development. Labour standards should be seen as benchmarks in this process. 'Social Labelling ' has been raised from the perspective of consumers in developed countries and such labelling would legitimise use of labour standards for protectionism and by implication endorse the social clause with the ILO acting as the monitoring body.

"Commitments in respect of labour standards constitute obligations freely entered into in the context of ILO Conventions. We cannot therefore accept the proposal for 'reliable and legally independent' international inspection by the ILO. Any such inspections can only be carried out nationally and are beyond the legal and financial capacities of the ILO."

The ILO, NAM said, should play an active role in helping workers as well as countries against protectionist measures and demands of non-governmental actors. Whenever such instances arise, the ILO should respond to requests from States to clarify their commitment to uphold labour standards in conformity with their obligations and respective levels of development. The ILO should engage in advocacy and awareness raising against protectionist measures that undermine the welfare of workers in both the developed and developing countries.

The NAM statement also asked the ILO to make a more comprehensive and equitable endeavour to promote social justice and, inter alia, improve the implementation of labour standards by addressing such issues as protectionism, marginalization, terms of trade, conspicuous consumption, financial resources for development, debt burden, investment etc.

NAM put forward in its statement what it called an alternative strategy:

* promoting universal ratification of basic/fundamental labour standards.

The most effective means to ensure respect for improved labour standards is the universal ratification of core labour Conventions, some of which may need to be reviewed and updated. Ratification must be vigorously promoted through both technical cooperation and advocacy. States encountering difficulties in promoting core labour standards must be assisted by the ILO and international community, inter alia through technical assistance and promotion of economic development which is the best means to achieve higher standards of social justice.

* implementation of basic/fundamental labour standards through national legislation; raising national awareness through campaigns involving all concerned actors; national enforcement measures, including through a system of tripartite consultations at the national level; implementation procedures as currently extent and in conformity with ILO constitution; and technical cooperation by the ILO.

* through ILO supervisory mechanism.

An effective use of the ILO supervisory system requires an evaluation of existing mechanisms. Objectivity, impartiality and transparency in the existing supervisory system needs to be ensured by relevant procedures guaranteeing fair, non-selective and credible treatment of each case. The supervisory system should not be open for complaints or representations that may serve commercial or political interests;

Treatment of representations, jurisdiction and terms of reference of the supervisory organs need to be addressed in line with the ILO constitution. Clear and explicit criteria for the content, sources and reliability of representations and criteria for access to the mechanisms need to be elaborated.

Consideration should be given to economic and social realities in each member state and the constraints imposed by such realities as well as full respect for legal and administrative frameworks in member states.

* International action to promnote standards must be based primarily on existing mechanisms and procedures of the ILO as contained in Art. 19 of the Constitution. The ILO must ensure labour standards in all countries are promoted for the betterment of workers and it should engage in advocacy and awareness raising campaigns. And developing countries should be able to call upon the ILO whenever they are targeted by protectionist lobbies. And instead of suggesting trade-related response mechanisms like social-labelling which basically legitimise the social clause, the ILO should provide pro-active help to developing countries facing protectionist pressures in the context of labour standards.