---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:42:38 -0800 From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Social Clause - Radha D'Souza article (fwd) > LINKING LABOUR RIGHTS TO WORLD TRADE: TRADE OR WORKERS' RIGHTS? > RADHA D'SOUZA > Even as the world globalises, liberalises, and transforms itself into a > level playing field for the unseen hand of the market, many a nook and > corner of the society hitherto thought to be beyond the boundaries of global > playing fields are increasingly brought within its ambit. Labour is one such > issue. Labour has always had two faces. From its inception, capitalist > enterprises have treated labour as a commodity to be bought and sold at the > labour-market. Workers and their representatives on the other hand have > sought to emphasis its human face - that the living and often wilful nature > of this commodity is such that it cannot be reduced to yet another > statistical table that can be monitored through monetarist regimes. The > Philadelphia Declaration, the founding document of the International Labour > Organisation states labour is not a commodity. > > Is labour a commodity to be regulated by international trade regimes? Or, is > it an issue for civil society to determine in accordance with national > mandates? The question is fast becoming another contentious issue of our > times. The WTO Ministerial meeting last December ended another round of > sparring. The issue is should or should not labour standards be linked to > international trade. > > The December round ended in a draw. United States and Norway lead the team > in favour of a trade linked social clause under the WTO regime. The > developing countries had earlier vowed not to allow the issue to be included > on the WTO agenda. The issue did find a place on the agenda at the > ministerial conference, a score in favour of the United States. However the > ministerial declaration did not go beyond stating "The International Labour > Organisation (ILO) is the competent body to set and deal with these > standards, and we affirm our support for its work in supporting them." A > point in favour of the developing countries. With many more matches to watch > in the coming two years leading up to the next ministerial meeting in 1998, > it may be worthwhile to ask are we leveling the playing field or changing > the rules of the game? > > Much before the issue ever featured in the GATT negotiations, the United > States was already imposing unilateral trade sanctions on what it considered > 'social dumping'. Products made under repressive labour conditions amounted > to social dumping. The developing countries cried foul - having agreed to > intellectual property rights, technology clauses, investment liberalization, > matters where the developed countries are stronger, imposing labour > conditions they say is a non-tariff barrier and protectionism. There was no > pretence on the part of governments during the acrimonious debates at the > Ministerial conference. The issue of labour standards was clearly about > trade and not any altruistic concerns about workers. > > However there are many out there who believe something needs to be done if > workers' conditions are to improve in a world increasingly dominated ledger > balances and book keeping. If free trade is what is causing the > deterioration in conditions of workers, something needs to be done to rein > in free trade - and imposing labour standards could do just that according > to them. There is unanimity on the meaning of labour standards, however. > Labour standards are a core set of rights comprising of the right to > organise, right to collective bargaining, non-discrimination in matters of > employment, and abolition of certain gross forms of labour such as child > labour and bonded labour. It does not include wages, and conditions of work. > Wages and working conditions must be determined by markets. Labour rights > are human rights issues and must be enforced by all 'civilised' nations - so > the argument goes. > > This distinction between labour rights and labour standards is based on the > assumption, if labour rights exist, labour standards will follow - for > workers will organise and tame the markets. Yet deregulation of labour > markets has been an important feature of economic reforms everywhere. Trade > union organisations are seen as cartels that dictate monopoly wage prices. > In country after country, amendments to labour laws has been a critical part > of the market deregulation policies. The World Bank thought the subject > important enough to devote the 1996 World Development Report to the theme > "Workers in a Global World". > > Do labour rights then automatically lead to better labour standards? > Conversely are the inhuman conditions of labour in countries a result of > absence of labour rights? > > Consider the present political crisis in S. Korea, caused by 350,000 workers > going on strike. The dispute involves a new labour legislation that permits > employers to lay-off workers more easily and introduces flexibility in > employment. Consider the ECA in NZ which was also about labour market > flexibility in hiring and firing. Did the NZ unions or the workers > precipitate a political crisis as in Korea? Yet, the rights were all there > in the law books - right to strike, right to organise ... > > Consider again Indian labour laws, under which there is a statutory > requirement, that companies employing more than 100 workers must apply to > the government before laying off workers and the government must hear the > workers and other parties before deciding the application; (incidentally a > provision the World Bank has been pressuring the Indian government to do > away with); where it is an 'unfair labour practice' for an employer not to > bargain 'collectively and in good faith' with a trade union. > Consider Taiwan, Singapore, and many Middle Eastern oil states, where > despite repressive labour laws, wages have seen a steady rise. Consider Sri > Lanka, and indeed many developed nations where despite legally recognised > labour rights, workers' conditions have seen steady deterioration. > Surely if ensuring worker rights results in better labour standards, the > Indian worker should be at the top and the New Zealand worker at the bottom. > The reality is quite the opposite. > > The point is wages and working conditions are determined by factors that go > beyond just one sector of national economy targeted under international > trade regimes - export oriented manufacturing - for that is the only sector > a trade related social clause deals with in an international trade regime. > Wages and working conditions are determined by economic clout of nations, of > which workers form one part. The economic clout of nations in turn depend on > numerous factors, history being an important variant. > > For most third world and developing countries their under-development is a > result of the colonisation which altered irreversibly their relationship to > the colonising nations. Such domination and dependency has continued in the > post independence period for most countries through control over technology > and capital. The Structural Adjustment Programs imposed on a number of > countries include clauses requiring governments to cut down fiscal deficits, > to expand export sectors, and to open up subsistence peasant based > agriculture to international capital. Fiscal and monetary conditions strap > governments from spending on social welfare health or education. These and > other conditions drive subsistence farmers from land, technology costs see > domestic industry shutting down and now when people try to survive by > working in sweat shop conditions those too must be closed down due to fear > of WTO trade sanctions. > > The developed countries on the other hand enjoy global political clout to be > able to exercise their domination in international trade and ensure at least > some of the gains are returned to workers in developed societies to secure > political stability. > > Whereas within nations, workers may seek rights vis-a-vis their own national > governments to a greater or lesser extent, at the international arena, the > issue is one of allowing labour to become a tool in trade disputes between > nations. From a democratic rights standpoint, incorporating labour rights > into international trade regimes, limits the scope of labour within nations > to influence their wages and conditions of work. It makes workers more > vulnerable to the vagaries of international trade. > > If the choice is between jobs and rights, people will choose jobs first. If > the choice is between some wages or none at all, they will choose some > wages. People will choose to live first for in their eyes only by living can > they fight. Yet, rights are needed because it is right to have them, trade > or no trade. > > Radha D'Souza is a lawyer currently doing her PhD at the University of > Auckland. As a member of Asia-Pacific Workers' Solidarity Links she is > involved in the ongoing global campaign on the issue of "International > Trade and Workers' Rights". > > >
