skip to main | skip to sidebar
Global Labour Column
  • HOME
    • ABOUT US
    • GLC ANTHOLOGIES
  • LINKS
    • RECOMMENDED SITES
    • DISCLAIMER
  • AUTHORS
  • GLOBAL BOARD
  • CONTACT
  • GLU
  • ICDD
  • Follow Us on Twitter
  • Monday, January 27, 2014

    How to achieve Decent Work?

    Ben Selwyn
    The question of Decent Work (DW) – employment under conditions of freedom, equity, security and dignity – is, fundamentally, a question of human development. The Decent Work Agenda (DWA) has become part of the Millennium Development Goals, many of the world’s governments have signed its core conventions, and international institutions have incorporated the DWA into their development discourses. Despite these achievements the possibilities of achieving Really Decent Work (RDW) for the world’s labouring class appears distant. There are several reasons for this, but one is the limited and conservative nature of the DWA and the ILO’s conceptual inability to link RDW to broader processes of human development. DW’s conceptual weakness stems from its authors’ inability to see beyond labour’s subordinate relation to states and capital. DW does not generate a vision of a fundamentally different world, but an ameliorated version of the present. This accommodation to the present leads to a deep theoretical and conceptual weakness at the heart of the DW concept, so much so that it undermines its own immediate objectives. Put differently, the ILO’s efforts to promote DW are valuable, but their inability to adopt theoretical categories that explain reasons for indecent work undermine their objective and hamstring the efforts of labouring classes as they attempt to ameliorate their conditions.

    This contribution focuses on three weaknesses of DW – the ILO’s inability to enforce its norms and the dangers of co-option of the DW agenda by elite institutions, the ILO’s inability to properly explain reasons for indecent work, and, most fundamentally, its weak conception of class relations under capitalism. The remainder of the contribution uses Better Factories Cambodia as a case study to support the above critique, and then concludes by explicating an alternative agenda for RDW.

    Weak Enforcement and Vulnerability to Elite Co-option

    The first, dual, weakness is the danger of DW’s co-option by elite institutions and the ILO’s inability to enforce its norms. There has been a convergence between the ILO and World Bank recently. In its 2013 World Development Report (World Bank: 2012), entitled ‘Jobs’, the Bank suggests that job creation is a developmental policy, that employment protection legislation and minimum wages contribute to reducing income inequality, that higher trade union densities reduce wage inequality, and that voluntary labour standards are insufficient to protect and enhance the quality of jobs in an economy. The report does not, however, discuss strategies of trade union mobilisation, and discounts the effects of trade unions on poverty reduction. Similarly, the ILO does not conceive of workers’ struggles as either developmental or capable of advancing the implementation of DW. The ILO’s inability to enforce DW enables elite actor co-optation of its principles as strategies of brand image enhancement, whilst negating the ameliorations campaigned for by the ILO.

    Inability to Explain Causes of Decent Work

    The Decent Work Agenda is relatively devoid of analyses of the causes of indecent work and processes contributing to its amelioration. It is assumed that combinations of incorrect policy choices and inappropriate micro-institutional arrangements are the cause of bad work. For example, Frank Hoffer (2011) argues that ‘the violation of workers’ rights does not result in better trade performance’. Patently, this is not the case. Contemporary China offers the prime example of rapid economic growth based upon intense labour exploitation and denial of basic workers’ rights.

    Weak Conception of Class Relations Under Capitalism

    The most fundamental problem in the DWA, is its weak conceptualisation of class relations and its inability to identify the systemic processes of exploitation characteristic of capitalism. This problem derives from its assumption that given the right institutional context, capital does not exploit labour. To cite Hoffer (2011) again, ‘markets need to be governed: otherwise they govern us’. Similarly, as DW’s ‘founder’ Juan Somavia (2010) suggests, it is not capitalism per se, rather its particular neoliberal variant that is at fault. The arguments here are that it is the nature of the governance of markets, rather than their intrinsic properties, that is the target for DW advocates.

    Better Factories Cambodia and the Limits of the Decent Work Agenda

    As a consequence of these three weaknesses, there is often a gulf between the adoption of DW principles and their practice. The example of Cambodia is instructive here.[1] In 1999 the governments of Cambodia and the United States signed a three-year, quota-based trade agreement covering textiles and apparel exports, on the basis of improvements to Cambodian workers’ conditions. Miller (2009: 14) notes that the resultant Better Factories Cambodia project ‘is arguably the most comprehensive and systematic monitoring effort governing any national garment supply base in the world’. Payment of wages became regularised across much of the sector, exports boomed, and employment rose to around 265,000 by the mid-2000s.

    Despite these successes, Miller notes that other much-needed ameliorations to workers’ pay and conditions, such as freedom of association, collective bargaining and reduction in excessive working hours, remain distant hopes, with numerous cases of unfair dismissal of workers and harassment of shop stewards, leading to widespread discontent, manifested in strikes, across the sector. He also notes how, despite not being part of the ILO’s objectives in the Better Factories Cambodia project, the demand for a living wage lay at the heart of many of the strikes. This is because ‘[i]n an economy where the monthly living wage is estimated at US$82, garment workers earned an average wage equivalent to US$65 per month in 2005, including overtime and bonuses’ (ibid: 22). Workers’ productivity (or the rate of exploitation) has increased across the sector as it has expanded. The Better Factories Cambodia experience reflects firms’ willingness to use Decent Work and Corporate Social Responsibility-style arrangements as reputational brands to enhance their global market penetration, whilst intensifying their fundamentally exploitative labour practices.

    Really Decent Work

    An alternative conception of RDW would start from an analysis of the capitalist labour process. Because firms relate to each other through constant competition, the labour process is characterised by an endless productivity drive designed to maximise the speed and intensity of the performance of tasks. Capital continually reorganises ‘a system of power relations… to define and enforce the discipline of the labour process’ (Brighton Labour Process Group, 1977: 13). These social relations explain why capital will seek to reduce to a minimum, if not eliminate altogether, activities by labour that might limit its profits. In late developing countries firms need to intensify further the labour process if they are to achieve international competitiveness. The global spread of capitalist social relations has led to the incorporation of billions of workers into global production networks, based on poverty and near-poverty wages. 

    How then, is RDW to be achieved? The enhancement of democracy, establishment of the welfare state and rolling out of workers’ rights in post-war Europe was a result, not of an elite pact around conceptions of decent work, but of the ruling class’s fear of mass struggle from below: ‘'If you don’t give the people social reform, they will give you social revolution,’ the future Lord Hailsham told the UK’s parliament in 1943.

    Mass class struggles in Brazil, South Africa and South Korea in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to the (re)introduction of democracy in these countries, and significant improvements (for a while at least) of workers conditions. Similarly, fear of rebellion and/or struggles from below are the sources of real enhancement to workers’ livelihoods under contemporary global capitalism – from the widespread strikes in China that are slowly pushing up wages and gaining small increases in worker representation within the state-run All China Federation of Trade Unions, to the struggles by workers in Brazilian export agriculture (Selwyn: 2012). Class struggle - by firms from above (to deny RDW) and by workers from below (to achieve it) - is the key conceptual ingredient that DW advocates (purposefully?) exclude from their description of contemporary global labour dynamics.

    For RDW to be achieved, the concept needs to be reformulated through an analysis of the intrinsically exploitative capitalist production process, and rooted in a conception of labour-centred class struggle from below. By analytically prioritising institutional arrangements between states, capital, and itself, over workers’ self-activity, the ILO and advocates of Decent Work contribute to demobilising the very actors that can bring about the kinds of improvement they wish to see. An alternative approach is to analytically prioritise workers’ attempts to ameliorate their conditions and to understand that institutional arrangements between capital, labour and the state are, in part at least, outcomes of these struggles from below. Labour movements need a short, medium, and long-term conception of the struggle for RDW. In the short term, immediate struggles for pay and conditions need to be supported (by organisations such as the ILO) and won. In the medium term, trade unions and labour organisations need to transform themselves into movements capable of formulating and forcing implementation of a human development agenda, nationally and internationally, that incorporates DW principles. In the long term, labouring class organisations need to think of themselves as primary movers in human development, principally through the struggle to expand democracy into the economic sphere and to determine the conditions under which the production, distribution and consumption of wealth occurs.

    [1] See also the excellent work by Dennis Arnold on this subject, e.g. Arnold (2013).
     


    Download this article as pdf

    Ben Selwyn is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Development Studies at the University of Sussex in Brighton and writes about labour and development.

    References:
    Arnold, D. (2013), ‘Better Work or “Ethical Fix”? Lessons from Cambodia’s Apparel Industry’, Global Labour Column. 155. November.

    Brighton Labour Process Group. 1977. The Capitalist Labour Process. Capital & Class (1): 3- 22.

    Hoffer, F. (2011), ‘Decent Work 2.0’, Global Labour Column. 78: November.

    Miller, D. (2009), ‘Business as usual? Governing the supply chain in clothing – Post MFA phase-out: The case of Cambodia’, International Journal of Labour Research. 1(1): 9-33.

    Selwyn, B. (2012), ‘Trade Unions, Class Struggle and Development’, Global Labour Column. 92: March.

    Somavia, J. (2010), ‘Working For Decent Work For All Everywhere’, Global Labour Column. 31: September.

    World Bank, 2012, World Development Report 2013: Jobs, Washington, DC: World Bank.

    If readers cannot get access to the articles cited in this column, they can write to the author at b.selwyn@sussex.ac.uk

    Posted in: Decent Work,Globalisation
    Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook
    Newer Post Older Post Home

    2 Comments:

    Frank Hoffer says:
    January 28, 2014 at 11:03 AM Reply

    Ben Selwyn criticises that the Decent Work concept advocates for better capitalism instead of the end of capitalism.

    Surprisingly Ben seems to be surprised that a tripartite UN organisation is not basing its policies on a revolutionary manifesto.

    One might think that better capitalism is illusionary by definition and revolution is the option of the day, but criticizing the ILO – the arch-organisation of social dialogue – for its reformist political agenda is just missing the point.

    However even in this respect Ben slightly underestimates the radicalism of Decent Work. To my knowledge the ILO is the only UN-Organisation that puts the enabling rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining at the core of its policy concept. Or in more traditional language the ILO argues that “an organized working class” is indispensable for achieving Decent Work. This is very different to any top down elite model.

    In my view the really critical point is the lack of policy prescriptions the ILO derives from its Decent Work concept. This has little to do with the lack of class analysis and a lot with the balance of forces in societies and in the decision making institutions of the ILO.

    In order to protect our societies from the irresponsible radicalism of unfettered markets the vision of Decent Work needs to be underpinned by policies that inter alia

    - guarantee all workers the rights and the practical possibility to organize and argain collectively. This must include labour market institutions that are not neutral vis-a-vis the power imbalances between capital and labour, but level the playing field.

    - establishing a living minimum wage in all countries

    - protecting workers against unfair dismissal globally
    - enforce sufficiently progressive taxation as outlined in the ILO Recommendation 202 to provide at least basic social security for all
    - generate the fiscal space for public services and public investment.

    To mention just a few.

    I fully agree with the author that the strike wave of desperate textile workers in Cambodia shows that the ILOs “Better Work “ programme strategy of advocating voluntary improvements by enlightened employers is clearly insufficient in delivering Decent Work. Here it is probably time to discuss how the ILO core value of independent self-organisation of workers should also become an indispensable pillar of this programme.

    ben selwyn says:
    January 28, 2014 at 1:56 PM Reply

    Dear Frank,

    Thanks for your comment. Whilst I would like to see a post-capitalist society, I am all in favour, just like you, of a better, reformed capitalism. So I'm not simply criticising the ILO's lack of anti-capitalism.

    One of my problems is that the ILO lacks a solid conception of exploitation under capitalism. This then means that it seeks institutional means to eliminate what it considers to be exploitation (poor pay, bad conditions etc). The latter do need combatting, to be sure, and the ILO does a good job in highlighting them. But even if they were eliminated, exploitation would still constitute the core social relationship of capitalism.

    so, we need a theory of exploitation, we need the language of exploitation (i.e. using terms like 'class struggle), and we need means for labouring classes to combat exploitation in the here an now and in the future.

    there are other issues about Decent Work (what does it say about precarious labourers?) that I'm sure other people will comment upon.

    All the best,

    Ben

    Post a Comment

    Share

    Twitter Facebook Stumbleupon Favorites More

    Subscribe to the Mailing List

    If you want to subscribe to the GLC mailing list, please click here or send an empty email to "List-GLColumn-subscribe@global-labour-university.org"

    Contribute to the GLC

    If you want to contribute to the Global Labour Column, please read here the Guidelines for Contributions

    Languages






    Donations

    More Info

    Popular Posts

      T-Shirt Economics: Labour in the Imperialist World Economy
      Ruskin, the trade union college, is under siege
      Chinese Construction Companies in Africa: A Challenge for Trade Unions

    TAGS

    Trade Unions Financial Crisis Workers' rights Globalisation Neoliberalism Labour Market Collective Bargaining Decent Work Inequality Labour Standards Wage Social Movements Europe Development Strategies Struggle Labour Progressive alliances Labour rights Strike Growth Financial Market Tax Financial Regulation Social Democracy Social Security Public Investment South Africa Economic Democracy Fiscal Space Germany Informal Economy Corporate Governance Freedom of Association Human Rights ILO Minimum Wage Unemployment United States Austerity Competitiveness Greece Labour Movements Trade Union Brexit Central Bank Employment Environment France Free Trade Free Trade Agreement Labour Movement Labour Statistics Migration Social Protection Solidarity State Funding Transnational Solidarity Vietnam Workers’ Rights Brazil Crisis Crowd Work Domestic Workers Economic Alternatives Economic Crisis Education Forced Labour Global Warming Labour Market Flexibility National Minimum Wage Nationalism Occupational Health Organising Public Works Programmes Regulation Supply Chains Trade Union Divisions Workers' unity Agriculture Care Work Climate Change Construction Sector Cooperatives Democracy Economic Reform Elections Farmworkers Financialisation Gig economy Globalization Indonesia Just Transition Labour Process Labour Reform Liberalisation Macroeconomic Policy NUM Outsourcing Portugal Precariousness Privatisation Protests Refugees Reserve Army of Labour Right to strike Sex Work Social Dialogue Social Justice Tax Evasion Welfare State Women Workers Workers Rights Workers’ Organisations AI AMCU Academic Labour Africa Algorithms Alliances Alternative Sources of Power Anti-privatisation Anti-union Violence Automobiles Banking Bolivia Brazilian Institutions Britain Business and Human Rights Canada Capital Flight Capitalism Cavite EPZ Chinese Investment Climate Jobs Collectivity Colombia Community Monitoring Conference Corporate Accountability Corporate Responsibility Corporate Transparency Coup Cuba Data Debt Restructuring Decriminalisation Demand Developed and Developing Countries Development Digital Imperialism Digital labour Digitisation Disciplining of the superfluous labour force Domestic Work Drug Dealing E-commerce Economic Development Economy Egypt Entrepreneurship Ergonomics Eurozone Crisis Executive Compensation Export Processing Zones Factory Occupations Fair Trade Farm Workers Feminism Fertility Markets Finance Financial Crises Financial Innovation Financial crisis. Fiscal Austerity Food Sovereignty Future of work G20 Gender Gentrification German Social Democratic Party Global Health Global Multiplier Grassroots Organising Great Depression Great Recession Hawkers Health Hong Kong Hotel Housekeepers Housing Human Rights due Diligence Immigrants India Industrial Impact Industrial Relations Informal Employment Informality Institutions International Aid Policy International Framework Agreements Investment Partnership (TTIP) Investment Partnerships Iran Israel Korean Shipbuilding Industry Kuznets Labor Labour Broking Labour Income Share Labour Law Labour Markets Labour Party Labour Relations Leadership Left Legislation Loi Travail Macroeconomic Performance Management Manufacturing Marshall Plan Metal Workers Migrant Domestic Workers Militarised Capitalism Mineworkers Morales NASVI National Health Service Neolibaralism Networking New Progressive Consensus Online Campaigning Options for the Euro Area Paternalism Patriarchy Pension Reform Pensions Performance Standards Political Alliances Poverty Reduction Precarity Prison Labour Prisoners Private Plantations Progressive Tax Reform Protectionism Public Policy Quebec Racism Rank-and-File Member Redistribution Regulation of Labour Renewables Rent Seeking Reproductive Labour Resistance Rural Development Ruskin SEWA Securitization Shadow Banking Shaft Stewards Social Audit Social Development Social Movement Social Transformation Solidarity Economy Spain Sportswear Industry State Stellenbosch Street Trading Street Vendors Strike Ban Strikes Structural Changes Surrogacy Swedish Model Syriza Technology Tenants' Union Tertiary Education Top Income Shares Tourism Trade Liberalisation Trade Misinvoicing Transatlantic Trade Transformation Transnational Unionism Transparency Transport Trump Tunsia Turkey Unfree Labour Union Union 4.0 Union Strategy Unions Unite the Union Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Voluntary Initiatives Wage Employment Wage Inequality Wage Share West Africa Wild Cat Strike Winelands Women Women’s Movement Work Schedules Work and Family Workers` Organization World Economic Forum Youth

    PUBLICATIONS

    Click here to view more

    Blog Archive

    • ►  2019 (10)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (1)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  April (1)
    • ►  2018 (18)
      • ►  December (1)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (1)
      • ►  July (1)
      • ►  June (2)
      • ►  May (2)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2017 (40)
      • ►  December (4)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (5)
      • ►  July (4)
      • ►  June (6)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ►  2016 (34)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (2)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (4)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2015 (32)
      • ►  December (2)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (5)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (2)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ▼  2014 (32)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (3)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (3)
      • ►  June (6)
      • ►  May (2)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (2)
      • ▼  January (2)
        • How to achieve Decent Work?
        • Democratic Global Keynesianism: a long-overdue Vis...
    • ►  2013 (41)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (5)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (4)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (4)
    • ►  2012 (35)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (4)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (2)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (3)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2011 (39)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (4)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (3)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2010 (39)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (3)
      • ►  June (4)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ►  2009 (5)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)

     
    Copyright © 2011 Global Labour Column | Powered by Blogger
    Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | 100 WP Themes