|
PSi-Daily maritime press clippings Page 3
4/21/2005 Seafarers to lose if ITF
walks out of TODAY should mark the start of crucial talks on the
International Labour Organisation's Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention, which would give the global
shipping industry a set of standards relating to employment and working conditions. The world 'should' is used advisedly because an
International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) meeting last week threatened not to attend. The ITF's
Seafarers' Section Conference in that 'unless key provisions on implementation are
included', they will not attend this week's talks at the ILO in In a statement, the ITF 'reaffirmed its commitment
to the convention - regarded by unions as the 'Seafarers' Bill of Rights' - but resolved that
unions would not sign up to a tool for deregulation'. The statement added: 'From the beginning,
negotiations on this convention were based on an agreed package of measures. Part of that package - and
central to the negotiation process - was the securing of effective enforcement and control. The ITF meeting
reaffirmed that this element remained essential.' ITF Seafarers' Section secretary Jon Whitlow rammed
home the message: 'It's a show stopper. We have made concessions on the basis of the overall package
- now some governments and shipowners seem reluctant to deliver.' This pre-negotiation theatre was probably partly
aimed at the employers' representatives, principally the International Shipping Federation (ISF), and also
was for internal consumption. Some on the union side expect to achieve major advances through this
convention and clearly made their voice heard at Janeiro. This week's talks are inter-sessional ones arranged
because last September's Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference finished with significant issues
unresolved. The idea is to have a draft convention ready for adoption early next year. Contradictory provisions The new super-convention is intended to bring the
many existing ILO conventions on seafarers' employment and conditions into one modern
convention. Many of the existing conventions have been only ratified by a few countries and are widely ignored. The problems arise because the process is not quite
as simple as bringing everything from the old conventions into the new text. There is a lot of
weeding of obsolescent and contradictory provisions to be done and, more importantly, some very careful
drafting to ensure precision of meaning is needed. And, controversially, not every provision of every
old convention is going to be incorporated in the new one. The reason for this is simple. The new
convention will be meaningless unless enough governments ratify it. Very few governments have, for example,
ratified the ILO convention relating to seafarers' pensions. That at least is the message the ISF is
trying get over to the union side. Nevertheless, some union diehards regard not trying
to bring in conventions that very few states have ever signed up to as 'deregulation', hence the form of
language in the ITF statement. The ISF has also issued a pre-talks statement. 'The
production of a comprehensive, up-to-date and enforceable international labour standards
convention that clearly sets out seafarers' employment rights and obligations is fully supported by the
shipowners' group. However, this objective will not be achieved unless the convention is widely ratified by all
significant maritime nations, including flag states, port states and labour supply countries. Therefore, a prime test
to be applied to the acceptability of the draft provisions is whether they will encourage or
discourage wide ratification.' The ISF cautioned: 'The draft convention still
contains some obligations that are too detailed, unnecessary and undesirable that will discourage widespread
ratification.' The shipowners' body is also concerned that there
should be a strictly defined definition of 'seafarer'. 'The shipowners' group believes that the scope of
application of the convention relating to ships, their trade and the definition of seafarer must be resolved. Repair
or service personnel sent out by yards, equipment suppliers or other specialists should not be defined
as seafarers even if they perform repairs during a ship's voyage. Pilots, dockers and longshoremen should
likewise not be deemed to be seafarers,' it added. If all sides do get down to serious discussions, the
next few days will see some very intense and difficult bargaining. It is very difficult to see the ITF
going through with its threat to walk out, for one simple reason. It is the only party that really gains
anything from globally accepted standard for seafarers' conditions. The shipowners have put a lot of effort
into this project and would clearly be disappointed if, after all, nothing of came of it. But, objectively, there are very few real benefits
for them in a new convention. The existing ineffectual mish mash suits them well enough. The governments
are generally lukewarm to the idea and would ratify the resulting convention only if it did not pose
difficulties for them, for example, by clashing with national law or policies. Stupid move Threatening to remove oneself from negotiations can
be an effective method of exploiting a strong position. When the negotiating position is
essentially weak, macho talk of a walk-out is stupid. If it is a bluff, it is one that can be easily called. If the ITF really walked out of these talks, the
governments and the owners would shrug and get on with life. They would also probably be very reluctant to
revisit this process for many years to come. That would leave the ITF to explain to the seafarers why it
blew its chance to secure at least a basic set of standards for those working on the global fleet. JALESVEVA YAYAMAHE Yahoo! Groups Links
|
