Klaus Lörcher

The ILO convened a tripartite expert meeting in April 2011 to discuss obstacles to the ratification of Convention No. 158 on termination of employment. This is the most important international treaty on basic principles for the protection of workers against unjustified dismissal and on basic rights in the case of the termination of employment. At the end of the meeting, the employers suggested a simple but totally unacceptable and even unpredictable ‘solution’: abrogating the Convention. 

This incredible demand has to be put into context. It should in particular be clarified whether it reflects the general opinion of employers. An analysis shows that they display a remarkable inconsistency in their approach to this Convention. At the time of adoption, in 1982, the employers’ spokesperson had thrown his weight behind the Convention: “[S]ome employers will abstain or vote against the adoption of the instruments, in particular of the Convention [...]; I nevertheless hope that a great majority will come out in favour of adopting the proposed Convention and Recommendation.” (ILC 68th Session, 1982, Record of Proceedings p. 35/3).

An interview with two labour and trade union activists

A wave of workers’ resistance swept China in 2010, with suicides by some Foxconn workers, and a large workers’ strike at Honda drawing immense social attention, local and global alike. This has compelled the Chinese government to come up with some new policy initiatives to contain the labour unrest, including trade union reform and collective bargaining legislation. Given these labour reforms a few questions arise:

• Where is this labour reform heading to?
• What are the crucial factors that can make workers benefit from this reform?
• Can the party-led state trade unions be transformed to serve workers’ interest?

In an interview conducted on 10th March 2011, Monina Wong, the Director of the International Trade Union Confederation/Global Union Federation Hong Liaison Office[1] (IHLO) and Mr. Parry Leung, the Chairperson of Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior[2] (SACOM), shared their viewpoint on these issues.

Elmar Altvater

Birgit Mahnkopf

Are the member states of the Eurozone responsible for the Euro crisis the ones having problems servicing their debt? The majority of people in Europe believe that this is the case. Therefore, indebted countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland must subject themselves to a brutal austerity program of savage cuts in welfare spending, diminishing public sector wages, and further privatisation measures in education, health care and in the pension system. In short, the social and cultural rights of trade unions and citizens are being trampled upon, triggering on the one hand applause and on the other social protest.