Mar 16, 1998

 

LABOUR: GOVERNING BODY TO DISCUSS DECLARATION ON WORKERS RIGHTS

Geneva, 12 Mar (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The 56-member tripartite Governing Body of the ILO is due to consider at its meetings 23-27 March, the text of a possible Declaration and followup action on 'fundamental rights' of workers to be adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 86th Session in June.  

The Governing Body and its committees are currently in session, but the subject of a possible declaration is due to come for discussion at meetings on 23-27 March. The Governing Body is also due to vote 23 March on a successor to Michel hanseene as ILO Director-General.  

The election, with two candidates one from the Asean (Ms. Maria Nieves Roldan-Confessor of the Philippines) and the other from Latin America (Mr. Juan Somavia of Chile), appears to be muting the public positions of several of the governments of the regions involved.  

And while the Asia-Pacific group governments are more prominently mentioned as among strong critics, nevertheless the positions formulated to the January non-paper of the ILO, by the Asia-Pacific governments, as by the governments representing the Americas, in some key areas do not appear to be very different.  

All emphasize that the Declaration should be promotional and not create any new legal obligation, or dilute those of the Conventions, nor should it provide (as the position paper of the Americas puts it) any legal basis to link compliance with core labour standards with adoption of trade measures inconsistent with international obligations.  

The document of the ILO Director-general to the Governing Body, suggests that the Governing Body should agree, in the light of further consultations he may hold, to formulate a new or revised draft for the Declaration and for followup action. 

The original ideas that it should command consensus also appears to be now in the process of being given up.  

The document to the governing body uses the phraseology that the document he would place before the conference should be "a basis for discussion leading to a decision which will be as comprehensive and widely acceptable as possible." 

One labour official, who did not want to be identified, noted that "the ILO is the only international body, where the US has now paid up its obligations fully," and is participating actively.  

The official said that the United States continued interest and participation in the ILO depended on the outcome of the Declaration and followup, and if the US administration is not able to get a suitable outcome to satisfy its own constituents, it might lose interest, and might both try to take unilateral actions against developing countries and/or force the issue in the WTO. 

The need to 'accommodate' the US and keep the issue bottled up in the ILO is also weighing with some governments. 

But the wording of the Declaration and followup, as now proposed by Hansenne, might result in developing countries having the worst of both the worlds. And while it may satisfy some of the leadership of the international labour movement in the industrial countries, who argue that it would help to protect the rights of workers in the advanced countries, it would not even help advance the cause of the workers in the South, and ineffective visavis workers of the North -- so long as the underlying neo-liberal theology is not arrested and turned back.  

For, the only instrument of the WTO, is trade sanctions by an individual country - and only the powerful like the US can exercise it against individual weak developing countries.  

No developing country, and for that matter no developed country, is going to take up the cudgels on behalf of the workers in the southern states of the USA, which pride themselves on their socalled 'right to work' laws, meaning right of workers not to join a union. 

The 'fundamental rights' to be covered in the Declaration are those related to the socalled core conventions of the ILO - Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (No. 87 and 98), Forced Labour (No 29 and 105), non-discrimination (No 100 and 111) and Minimum age at work (No. 138).  

The idea of a Declaration and followup action has been promoted by Hansenne whose initial stance of support for a social clause linked to trade ran into opposition, not only from developing countries but many industrialized countries too. 

The idea of trade-linked workers rights, aired from time to time by the United States and France, and the International Confederation of Trade Unions, was brought up strongly by the US and France, after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round accords and the Marrakesh agreement to establish the World Trade Organization.  

It was brought up prominently at the June 1994 International Labour Conference, where the debate brought out some sharply differing views, but was summed by Hansenne as indicating some consensus for action, and brought it up at the Governing Body. 

It also figured in the subsequent World Social Summit at Copenhagen.  

With many governments, and the employers as a group, refusing to consider anything linking 'trade' under the WTO system to labour standards, and with the US itself facing ridicule for promoting observance of conventions which it itself had not ratified, the subject has undergone several transformations.  

It took shape last year as a possible Declaration to be adopted by the Conference, linking these rights to the fundamental objectives of the ILO and the Philadelphia Declaration adopted after the Second World War.  

At the 270th session last November, the Governing Body discussed the issue again, and agreed to place the subject of a Declaration on the agenda of the Conference, and asked the International Labour Office to prepare relevant documents. 

Hansenne in January issued a non-Paper on a Declaration and follow-up mechanism, and held consultations with governments and employers and workers. He has now issued a new draft which is to be the basis for further discussions at the Governing Body. 

In his paper to the Governing Body, Hansenne has said that due to the number of diversity of observations of the governments, employers and workers consulted, it has not been possible in the latest draft to retain all the ideas originally proposed. 

Several developing ountry governments, particularly those from Asia-Pacific who have been consulting among themselves, say privately that most of their concerns, ideas and proposals are among those "not retained", and the new draft has tilted the balance towards the view of the United States.  

At a meeting Thursday, governments in the Asia-Pacific group, appear to have voiced this view, and are expected now to formulate specific changes to the draft.

One of the points emphasized by several governments during the earlier consideration of the issue at last year's conference and the governing body in November was that a Declaration should not create any new obligations, nor reduce the drive to secure greater adherence to the actual conventions and the ILO supervisory mechanism on them.

Also emphasized repeatedly was that the ILO should be acknowledged as the sole international body with competence to set and decide on labour standards, and workers rights and labour standards should not be used for trade protectionism. 

At the Asia-Pacific government group meetings this week, as well as in other informal consultations among interested governments, there have been complaints that these two elements have been weakened.  

Several of the governments say that though the mandate to the Office to draw up documents required it to take account of the views expressed in the Governing Body, these were not done in the non-paper, and the views and concerns expressed in the consultations have been ignored, while wording has been imported to accommodate principally the US. 

As a result, they say, the ILO draft of the proposed Declaration has some weaker language than the non-paper on the ILO being the sole international body competent to deal with and set labour standards.  

In an operative part, the Declaration has spoken of the core conventions having been recognized as fundamental in the ILO as well as outside -- presumably a reference to the WTO and the Singapore Ministerial Conference -- thus opening the way for a discussion of the issue at the WTO.  

The explanation of the ILO, in the document before the Governing Body, is that the ILO is not competent on trade matters and thus it is not for the ILO to directly engage on removal of barriers to international trade. 

However, it says if the approach that the ILO is entitled to proclaim that the Declaration should not serve as a basis or pretext to anyone to fail to comply with obligations of the multilateral trading system, "it should be relatively easy to incorporate it" in the appropriate place in an operative part.  

The general view at the governing body that the Declaration should create no new obligation has been diluted by wording in the operative part that governments, irrespective of their levels of development (an important point in the Philadelphia Declaration), and even when they are not yet able to become parties to the (core) conventions, by joining the ILO and accepting the constitution, are nevertheless bound by the fundamental principles and objectives.  

This is seen as importing by the backdoor so to say a new legal obligation.  

As for followup, the ILO office document says that some of it fall within the competence of the governing body, and thus need no enumeration. At the same time the governing body should not be given a carte blanche to finalize the followup, and should be set out by the Conference.  

The ILO framework envisages governments parties to conventions to periodically submit reports and these are examined and reported upon to the Conference by a Committee of Experts, a body of eminent jurists and experts on labour matters. 

This committee from time to time also undertakes a general survey relating to particular issues formulated in convention, and responses from countries are examined under Article 19 and a report is prepared, which goes to the Conference and is discussed there. 

The ILO secretariat paper to the governing body is seeking to essentially create a third mechanism. It argues that the essential reason leading to a drafting of the Declaration has been to ensure that States not parties to the conventions nevertheless to submit reports on the situation in their countries and their efforts to achieve the principles and objectives of the convention. 

If the Declaration is adopted, the ILO would ask the members, not parties to the convention, nevertheless submit reports -- providing general information on any changes made to their laws and the position of its laws and practice in regard to matters set out in the Convention concerned. 

This information from governments, supplemented by views from employers and workers, as in respect of general surveys carried out under Article 19 of the ILO, could be discussed by the Committee of Experts or by the Governing Body itself examining such reports, with however a possible filtering mechanism or a tripartite committee to examine them in the first instance.  

In addition, the Director-general will also prepare a "global follow-up report", providing an overall view of progress achieved in observing the core conventions, both in States parties to the Conventions and those that have not ratified it, and assessing developments in member States as a whole.  

While the office paper is silent on some details on this issue of global report, several of the developing country governments are voicing their concern that in effect there will be a "double scrutiny" -- one by the established machinery for the conventions under Articles 19 and 22, and the other in the Global Report which will be discussed both in the Governing Body and the Conference.