|
 
26 and 27 October 1998
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague
Labour Relations in Asia and Europe:
Exchanging Experiences and Perspectives
@04:The seminar was organized by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) and the IIAS-NIAS Strategic Alliance, in collaboration with the Changing Labour Relations in Asia (CLARA). Around 50 participants, consisting of members of employers' associations, trade unionists, labour activitists, researchers, and government representatives attended this seminar. Among the main questions underlying the discussion were: What are the views on core labour standards? Should there be a universalistic view of labour standards? To what extent are they enforceable? What is the role of trades unions and employers' associations regarding the social clause?
Opened by Prof. Stokhof from the IIAS and chaired by Prof T. Koh (ASEF) together with Prof. Th. Svensson (NIAS), the two days of presentations and discussions concentrated on the issue of labour relations and the core labour standards adopted by ILO and how European and Asian trades unions have responded to the issue of conditionality and globalization in general. At the end of the two-day seminar a summary was given by Prof. Marcel van der Linden from CLARA.
The globalization of markets and the need to participate in industrial competitiveness between companies and between states has highlighted the problem of social justice and protective labour legislation at the national level. There is no consensus and this situation has elicited two main contrasting positions regarding these issues. Economists, policy makers, and the business community argue that globalization increases prosperity in much of the world, but trade unionists and critical researchers say that it reduces welfare internationally and undermines every nation's ability to maintain social cohesion.
According to the ILO conventions, all members of the ILO, even if they have not ratified key ILO conventions, are obliged to respect, promote, and realize the principles of the four fundamental rights, known as core labour standards namely: a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; c) the effective abolition of child labour; d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. These standards were selected as the core because, according to the general consensus, there is no relation between them and per capita income. They have a high ratification record. They agree with the ILO's follow-up procedure. They are enabling rights and are blessed with a certain political appeal. The core labour rights are contained in seven key ILO conventions. They are meant to provide the framework for states, workers, employers and their organizations to build new coalitions across enterprise and national borders and shape the nature and dynamics of globalization's emerging labour relations and the governance of these relations among enterprises, nationally, regionally, and internationally. By June 1998, 116 states had ratified five or more of the seven conventions and 34 had ratified all of them. In contrast, 22 countries had ratified less than three of them and five ILO-member states had not ratified any of them.
The problem is that these conventions are viewed by some as impeding economic growth, employment, and the efficiency of markets, and the rights they give workers are seen as unrealistic in extremely poor nations. The conventions' success relies on how well they can be implemented at a time when labour markets are being deregulated, the welfare state is shrinking in industrialized countries, and labour market deregulation is becoming a feature of policy conditionality in structural adjustment programmes in developing countries. The current Western view is that, in the interests of fair competition, entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) system of tariff management and reduction should depend upon ratification and enactment of the core labour standards and any violations of these standards should be punished by trade sanctions. This trade and labour linkage is known as the social clause, linking labour and trade, to be included in international trade agreements. Although social clauses already exist in some international commodity agreements, they have generally met with resistance, especially in developing countries. Developing countries generally argue that the imposition of a social clause would be inappropriate because of their lower development and unfair because it would deprive them of their major competitive advantage, cheap labour. Western governments are in favour of universal standards say a strengthened system of international labour standards is a universal benefit that should lead to improved labour conditions in developing countries and prevent a global race to the bottom in terms of social welfare.
Trades Unions
As the various presentations at the workshop showed, the creation of this legislation is rarely influenced by unions and social organizations except in the Republic of Korea, India, Singapore, the Philippines and a few other Asian countries. The traditional base of union membership is shrinking with changes in composition of the labour market, by sector of activity and skills, and this has not been offset by union initiatives to involve women, youths, people in insecure employment, and new types of worker. Unemployment, new forms of business organizations - which divide internal labour into core and periphery – and closer ties between labour and management and corporate restructuring are also contributing to the decline of unionism. Unlike business unions are failing to expand internationally. Meanwhile, global money and business are gaining greater access to technology and resources which is giving them greater bargaining power over territory-bound states and unions. The financial crisis in Asia, which began in mid-1997, has compounded many of the problems facing Asian workers and their labour organizations.
In developing Asian nations, social protection is laid down by law; the few collective agreements that exist involve only a fraction of the workforce. Most developing Asian countries are emerging from the rule of authoritarian or populist regimes so their people have little experience of social dialogue. Most workers in these countries are employed in the informal sector or small enterprises which makes it difficult for them to form unions. Although Asian workers rely more on legislation and national pacts than industry-wide bargaining for protection, their governments are more reluctant to ratify and implement international agreements on labour standards than Western governments.
The differences between unions in Asia and unions the world over are great, but must be reconciled for unions to play a greater role in future industrial relations. European unions and Asian unions have different perceptions of their roles and labour standards, but are united in being threatened by accelerating technical change, changing business practices and the acceleration of international trade and capital flows.
Which Standards?
Some academics and unionists argue that a full range of labour standards rather than core standards would promote international acceptance of a system of international labour values. There are many advantages to thinking in terms of a full range of standards. They could provide a set of internationally legitimate means for reconciling cultural differences. They would probably be more acceptable in Asia where such diverse standards have proved acceptable to employers in successful Asian economies.The main drawback would be the time it would take to get international consensus on which values to include in the standards. Western unionists tend to believe that the core standards are a good starting point for protecting workers in developing countries. Some Asian unionists agree, while others say the core standards do more to protect Western workers, especially if they are linked to trade sanctions through a social clause. The most contentious part of the core labour standards seems to be the prohibition of child labour, which in countries like Bangladesh is a consequence of poverty rather than abuse. Some academics say that freedom from child labour should be considered an economic right rather than a human right.
Perhaps the discourse on labour rights and social clauses should be extended to include the effects of globalization. Asians generally want help from overseas rather than a social clause that punishes them with trade sanctions. Asian unions generally want a social safety net for their people before a social clause. Some say that a social safety net could be created by a global clause that linked labour standards with investment and other factors of globalization. Calls for a global clause are readily dismissed on the grounds that the clause would require a strong supranational enforcement agency, which does not exist.
Asian developing nations say that protectionism is motivating the campaign for a social clause. They also say the West lacks the moral authority to impose trade sanctions on countries violating core labour rights, which were created by a Western agenda. A new set of universal labour rights may have to be negotiated to satisfy Asian nations. Any negotiation would probably be done through the ILO which, although legalistic and bureaucratic, remains the best available body for establishing instruments to protect workers internationally.
Despite the gains made by unions in recent years, low union densities and the current impotence of ILO conventions mean that most Asian workers will continue relying on state legislation and their own wits for protection from abusive labour practices.
|