Forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 17:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jagdish Parikh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], union-d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LABOUR: Separate Corporate Standards Not The Answer, Experts Say
/* Written 4:18 PM May 17, 1997 by newsdesk in igc:ips.english */
/* ---------- "LABOUR: Separate Corporate Standard" ---------- */
Copyright 1997 InterPress Service, all rights reserved.
Worldwide distribution via the APC networks.
*** 14-May-97 ***
Title: LABOUR: Separate Corporate Standards Not The Answer, Experts Say
by Yvette Collymore
WASHINGTON, May 14 (IPS) - The move by some manufacturer and
consumer groups to develop special labels and codes of conduct for
the production of internationally traded goods will not protect
the rights of all workers and will be difficult to enforce,
according to labour experts.
While these initiatives may be well-meaning, there remains no
system to ensure that corporations which are fuelling the
integration of the global economy respect international labour
rights, says the Director-General of the International Labour
Organisation (ILO).
Michel Hansenne, the chief of the Geneva-based U.N. agency, is
here promoting his proposal for a ''global social label'' to tag
goods that meet core labour standards, including the abolition of
forced and child labour, freedom of association, and collective
bargaining.
While consistent with the ILO's own objectives, existing
initiatives ''raise a number of questions,'' according to
Hansenne. ''One wonders, for example, whether a system of self-
enforcement can be said to offer all the guarantees that one would
expect.''
For one thing, Hansenne told a Congressional forum Wednesday,
the initiatives would likely protect only workers in export
industries.
In many developing countries, the percentage of workers dealing
with export goods is ''very small,'' compared to that of workers
in domestic production. ''That's why we have to federate our
efforts to make sure all workers are protected,'' he told U.S.
government, business, and labour representatives at a public
policy forum.
As grassroots campaigns focus attention on sweatshops, child
labour, forced labour, and environmental accidents, corporations
and citizens' groups are proposing their own labour and
environment standards.
The issue has achieved some urgency as trans-boundary trade
expands in an increasingly global economy. Without proper
enforcement of ground rules, corporations, some of whose yearly
sales figures greatly exceed the gross domestic products of many
countries, will trample all over workers' rights and environment
standards, analysts warn.
In one of the latest efforts to codify standards, a U.S. task
force set up by the White House last year following publicity
about sweatshop conditions in apparel and footwear plants owned or
contracted by major U.S. corporations, has produced a voluntary
code of conduct to protect worker rights in these facilities.
When the accord between leading U.S. apparel makers and labour,
human rights, and consumer groups was unveiled last month,
President Bill Clinton said it promised to improve the lives of
millions of garment workers around the world.
It requires companies which get on board to observe local
minimum wage and child labour laws and sets a work-week limit of
60 hours for employees. It also mandates the creation of a new
association to implement the code and approve independent agencies
to monitor compliance.
If companies are found to comply with the accord, they will be
permitted by the association to attach a ''No Sweat'' label to
their products. Some labour rights groups have denounced the
accord as too weak, and some companies have reservations about the
idea.
Clothing manufacturer Liz Claiborne says it supports the move,
but many issues need to be worked out. For instance, ''external
monitoring also presents a serious challenge,'' says Roberta
Schuhalter Karp, the company's vice president of corporate
affairs. She says monitoring must be both ''credible and
economically feasible'' for companies that adhere to its
standards. ''Otherwise businesses that comply will be at an
economic disadvantage vis-a-vis their competitors that do not.''
A study released by the U.S. Department of Labour late last
year issued a warning against corporate codes of conduct, saying
they will not by themselves end the exploitation of child workers.
Codes of conduct have created a ''potential downward trend in
the use of children'' in apparel manufacturing worldwide, but the
codes are only as effective as the enforcement mechanisms, says
the report, 'The Apparel Industry and Codes of Conduct: A Solution
to the International Labour Problem'. Its findings were based on a
survey of 45 U.S. importers, as well as on-site visits to 70
plants in six countries that make clothing for U.S. firms.
''Private industry now recognises that it can take steps to
make sure boys and girls are not robbed of their childhoods. But
codes are not a panacea,'' U.S. Secretary of Labour Robert Reich
said last October when the report was released. ''No code is worth
the paper it's printed on without strict enforcement of its
requirements.''
Labour activists say that corporations will not step up code
enforcement unless consumers apply more pressure, because their
executives are driven more by the fear of adverse publicity than
by social consciousness.
''The real challenge is not defining labour standards but how
to enforce them,'' says Jonathan Hiatt, general counsel of the
major U.S. labour federation, the AFL-CIO.
The proposal for a global social label is to be formally put
forward when the ILO's 174 member countries meet for their annual
conference in June. The ministerial meeting of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) in Singapore designated the ILO as ''the
competent body to deal with these issues''. But the links made
between trade and labour at that meeting caused divisions among
countries.
The ILO's Hansenne says the system he is proposing would allow
a country to apply an overall social label to all goods it
produces, provided it accepts the obligations inherent in the ILO
convention and agrees to have no-notice spot inspections by
independent monitoring agencies.(end/ips/yjc/jl/97)
Origin: Washington/LABOUR/
----
[c] 1997, InterPress Third World News Agency (IPS)
All rights reserved
May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or
service outside of the APC networks, without specific
permission from IPS. This limitation includes distribution
via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists,
print media and broadcast. For information about cross-
posting, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. For
information about print or broadcast reproduction please
contact the IPS coordinator at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
