Presentation Transcript

1. Trade and Labour Standards

   Lund 2013
2. Relation predates ILO First reform efforts by earlyindustrialists in 18th century Robert Owens inter alia Worriedthatimproving labour conditions in theirownfactorieswould put themat a competitiveadvantage. Increasedproductivityfrombetter conditions did not necessarily offset exploitation advantage.
3. ILO Constitution 1919 “The failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries.” Idea of « levelplayingfield » permeated discussions. E.g., International Labour Review articles frequent in 1930s. Impulse behindadopting standards throughout 1920s and 1930s.Primarily conditions of work instruments.
4. International Trade Organization WTO web site on predecessors: In the period from 1947 to 1986 there were a number of agreements which developed the basis for international trade relations. The original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which incorporated relevant sections of the Havana Charter, was negotiated in 1947 and came into force in 1948. Subsequent years saw a series of eight negotiating rounds under the GATT, until the launch of the Uruguay Round in 1986.
5. 1948 Havana Charter wasmeant to befoundation of ITO. Extensive labour provisions negotiated. “The United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, held in Havana, Cuba, in 1947, adopted the Havana Charter for the International Trade Organization which was meant to establish a multilateral trade organization. For various reasons, the charter never came into force.”
6. For the Purpose of … REALIZING the aims net forth in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the attainment of the higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development, envisaged in Article 55 of that Charter. Art. 2(1): The Members recognize that the avoidance of unemployment or underemployment, through the achievement and maintenance in each country of useful employment opportunities for those able and willing to work and of a large and steadily growing volume of production and effective demand for goods and services, is not of domestic concern alone, but is also a necessary condition for the achievement of the general purpose and the objectives set forth in Article 1, including the expansion of international trade, and thus for the well-being of all other countries.
7. Article 7: Fair Labour Standards 1. The Members recognize that measures relating to employment must take fully into account the rights of workers under inter-governmental declarations, conventions and agreements. They recognize that all countries have a common interest in the achievement and maintenance of fair labour standards related to productivity, and thus in the improvement of wages and working conditions as productivity may permit. The Members recognize that unfair labour conditions, particularly in production for export, create difficulties in international trade, and, accordingly, each Member shall take whatever action may be appropriate and feasible to eliminate such conditions within its territory.
8. Art 7 (cont’d) 2. Members which are also members of the International Labour Organisation shall co-operate with that organization in giving effect to this undertaking. 3. In all matters relating to labour standards that may be referred to the Organization in accordance with the provisions of Articles 94 or 95, it shall consult and co-operate with the International Labour Organisation.
9. But ITO wasneverestablshed General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in 1948 World Trade Organization in 1994 But neitherdealtwith labour standards (Respect for « minimum workers` rights » wasbuiltintoLome Convention in 1975 betweenEuropeanCommunity and ACP (Africa-Caribbean-Pacific) withoutdefiningwhattheywere.)
10. The idea of defining a set of minimum international labour standards to be respected by all in the context of their economic and commercial relations was raised by the United States Secretary of Labor at the International Labour Conference in 1980, and in a Resolution at the Conference in 1977. But was not taken up in earnest.
11. Focus insteadshifted to « core labour standards » and focussed in the international arena on basic humanrights – comingtogether in the Social Summit and 1998 ILO Declaration. In multilateralorganizationswasdetachedfromtradeconsiderations But US, Canada and EU beganinsertingconcerns in differenttermsintobilateraltradeagreements as conditionality
12. Concerns of developed countries orientedaround « Social Dumping » - corresponds to ILO preamble. Fearsthatmanufacturingwillpursue cheap labour (i.e., unregulated labour) in a « race to the bottom » Botheconomicconcernsbased on unfaircompetition, and social concerns about benefitingfrom exploitation. Made more serious by stories of exploitation
13. Developing countries seethis as protectionism pure and simple Undermining comparative advantage of cheap labour in order to protect home markets.
14. The Social Clause Social clause: the obligation to meet specific social standards as a precondition for participation in international trade or access to trade preferences. US, Canada, EU brought up requests for studiesoften in GATT/WTO – pushed by trade unions. But States have always been unwilling to accept externally-imposed binding social constraints, and this was reflected in the original design of the ILO, based on the voluntary ratification of Conventions.
15. Attempts in early 1990s to establish a social clause defeated by developing countries. Attempt to include in the new WTO opposed by the G-77. In Singapore Ministerial meeting in 1996 opposition wassoharshthat the ILO DG was « uninvited »
16. WTO MinisterialDeclaration 1996 We renew our commitment to the observance of internationally recognized core labour standards. The International Labour Organization (ILO) is the competent body to set and deal with these standards, and we affirm our support for its work in promoting them. We believe that economic growth and development fostered by increased trade and further trade liberalization contribute to the promotion of these standards. We reject the use of labour standards for protectionist purposes, and agree that the comparative advantage of countries, particularly low-wage developing countries, must in no way be put into question.
17. Eventhough WTO is not empowered to discuss labour standards, seeregularsubmissions by ITUC to WTO each time a tradereviewiscarried out Unions continue to maintainthat labour is relevant, even if WTO will not acknowledge.
18. Core labour standards werethuskickedinto the developmentarena and isolatedfromtrade in intergovernmental organisations. Social Summit 1995, et al. ILO tookit up in the 1998 Declarationwhichhad to include art. 5: Stresses that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes, and that nothing in this Declaration and its follow‑up shall be invoked or otherwise used for such purposes; in addition, the comparative advantage of any country should in no way be called into question by this Declaration and its follow‑up.
19. Balanced 10 yearslaterwith Social Justice Declaration: the violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be invoked or otherwise used as a legitimate comparative advantage and that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes.
20. US GSP Bars access to preferentialtrade conditions unless conditions met. From USG Handbook: 7) A GSP beneficiary must have taken or is taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights, including 1) the right of association, 2) the right to organize and bargain collectively, 3) freedom from compulsory labor, 4) a minimum age for the employment of children, and 5) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work and occupational safety and health; and 8) A GSP beneficiary must implement any commitments it makes to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.
21. US GSP status Congressional authorization of the GSP program expired on December 31, 2010, renewed October 2011 – July 2013. Expired again in August 2013 – under review. The last time authorization of the GSP program lapsed was in 2001. Congress subsequently reauthorized the program ten months later. Between 1993 and 2002 the program expired seven times with lapses that varied between one and 15 months. Each renewal during this period was made retroactive to the expiration of the program.
22. EU GSP Addsbenefits to thosewhocomplywith, inter alia: “the incentives for labour rights, … can be granted only to countries which request them in writing and provide proof that they have adopted and applied in their national legislation the substance of the standards elaborated by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions Nos 29 and 105 on forced labour, Nos 87 and 98 concerning the application of the principles of the right to organize and bargain collectively, Nos 100 and 111 on non-discrimination in respect to employment and occupation, and Nos 138 and 182 concerning the minimum age for admission to employment (child labour).”
23. EU GSP revised 2012 Concentrate its import preferences on those developing countries most in need. Limit its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) to approximately 80 countries to take into account the emergence of more advanced developing countries which are now globally competitive. At the same time the Commission seeks to encourage more countries to respect core international conventions on human rights, labour standards, environment and good governance in the GSP+ scheme which grants additional trade concessions for trade-vulnerable countries.
24. The EU has adopted a reformed GSP law on 31 October 2012 - (Regulation No 978/2012). In order to allow ample time for economic operators to adapt to the new scheme, the new preferences will apply as of 1 January 2014. The GSP is subject to WTO law, in particular to the GATT and the so-called "Enabling Clause" which allows for an exception to the WTO "most-favoured nation" principle (i.e. equal treatment should be accorded to all WTO Members).
25. In practice the threat of cutoff has generally been effective – e.g., Georgia Never used by the US (except for Burma, but not really for labour standards - nowbeingwithdrawn) EU has usedit for Burma and for Belarus, the latter explicitly for ILS reasons (freedom of association and C. 87) Cutoff of Myanmar-Burmaremoved in July 2013
26. Fair Trade Agreements Between US, EU and Canada on one side And developing countries on the other Typicallylay down standards or principles to berespected in a « Generalized system of preferences » And balance itwithguarantees to help improve labour standards in developing countries
27. US FreeTradeAgreements Includereferences to ILO standards on coresubjects, usually in annexes Until 2006 omitted discrimination, but isnowthere. But do not explictlyrequirecompliance Insteadprovide for eachside to strivetowardbetter standards … and to respect theirownlaws, whichshouldbe in compliancewith ILS. US cannotrequireadherencebecause has not ratifiedmany conventions. Disputes/examinationsappearweak, but more recentevidenceisthatthey have been invoked in a number of comlaitnsbased on ILS and ILO findings.
28. Currently 20USFTAs The United States is also in negotiations of a regional, Asia-Pacific trade agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact.
29. Labour Provisions in US FTAs US-Bahrain; DRCAFTA Refers to ILO 1998 Declaration plus C No. 182 Scope and content of labour provisions: “Strive to ensure” Core labour standards (except non-discrimination) and minimum working conditions - Enforcement of labour laws in these areas in so far as affect trade - No encouragement of trade or investment through weakening of labour law in contravention of the labour principles contained in the agreement. Enforcement: Fines up to US$ 15 million in the case of non-application of national labour law
30. More recent FTAs include more extensive references (including discrimination) either to specific ILO standards or to the 1998 Declaration (Ironic that the US has ratified so few of these …) Include not just sanctions, but assistance in order to avoid sanctions.
31. Complaints under US FTAs Have been a certain number, filed by trade unions or individuals. Guatemala: Collective bargaining, Freedom of Association, Acceptable conditions of work Bahrain: Discrimination Peru: Collective bargaining Dominican Republic: (filed by a priest – others by TUs): Right of association; Collective bargaining; Forced or compulsory labor; Child labor; Acceptable conditions of work.
32. The labour provisions establish official processes for receiving complaints, or “submissions” from interested organizations that believe a trading partner is not fulfilling the labor commitments it made. Submissions are made to US Office of Trade and Labour Affairs to follow up Often an Arbitration Panel convened These plus examinations under US GSP usually leads to assistance rather than to the impositions of penalties.
33. Effect of Free Trade Agreements and GSP ILO Study 2013: In the case of the EU GSP, two investigations have led to the withdrawal of trade preferences under the sanction-based labour provisions. The two cases pertained to systematic use of forced labour in Myanmar and systematic violations of workers’ freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in Belarus. … EU’s withdrawal of Belarus tariff preferences in 2007 was mainly based on the report of the ILO Commission of Inquiry and the failure of Belarus to implement the relevant recommendations
34. Results of complaints under US Agreements: The first such complaint, filed in 2008 CAFTA–DR FTAs concerned the alleged failure of Guatemala to enforce its labour laws effectively, in particular regarding trade union rights. This case led to formal consultations in 2010 and a request to establish an arbitral panel in 2011. A second case under the CAFTA–DR was filed against Costa Rica in 2010 relating to state interference in union affairs, but was withdrawn after the issue had been partly resolved. Further complaints pending. All complaints appear to be based on ILO supervisory comments, and are followed up in function of these comments.
35. US claims that assistance in thiscontext has been veryfruitful (usuallythrough ILO): USDOL/ILO Declaration projects have contributed to the ratification of the ILO core conventions. Examples of countries that have ratified Core Conventions as a result of these project are: Uganda: C87 and C100 & C111 in 2005; Kenya: C100 in 2001; Tanzania: C111 in 2002; Nigeria: C111 in 2002. Also more recent examples .... The following are some examples of countries that have adopted new legislation as a result of technical assistance provided by USDOL/ILO Declaration projects: Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Jordan, Oman and Indonesia.
36. … quantifiable impact can be observed through the hundreds of inspectors who were comprehensively trained by the ILO and as a result, there was a significant improvement in the quality and coverage of inspections, as reported by trade unionists and employers. For example, training of both labour inspectors and mobile inspection units in Brazil helped contribute to an increase in the number of people rescued by the authorities from 583 in 2000 to 4,879 in 2003. Between 2004 and 2006 over 10,000 workers were freed from forced labour. In Tanzania and Uganda, technical assistance has resulted in an increase of the number of inspections on working conditions by 43% and 59% respectively. In Oman, a labour inspectorate was established almost from scratch and more than 110 newly recruited labour inspectors were trained. Moreover, USDOL/ILO Declaration projects have also improved the access of labour inspectors to the technology necessary to implement a more effective system of enforcement and monitoring of labour conditions (computerization of inspection systems). This was possible in countries like Ukraine, Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho.
37. EU carries out certification investigations Beforeallowing GSP+, EU requires an investigation and report on compliancewith labour conditionality
38. EU Free Trade Agreements So far concluded with Chile, Korea, Mexico, South Africa. Under negotiation with ASEAN, Canada, Gulf Cooperation Council, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Ukraine. The EU approach in its regional and bilateral arrangements is to focus more generally on social development objectives within a cooperative framework. EU agreements recognise and promote social rights and cooperation, including specific issues such as gender and health. The EU, however, does not pursue a trade sanctions-based approach to social and labour standards. Instead, it offers additional tariff preferences to countries which have signed and are effectively implementing the core UN/ILO human/labour rights international conventions (GSP system and GSP +).