skip to main |
skip to sidebar
 |
| Jeffrey Vogt |
Background
At the commencement of the 2012 International Labour Conference (ILC), the spokespersons of the Employers’ Group and the Workers’ Group met to finalize a “short list” of 25 cases drawn from the Annual Report of the ILO Committee of Experts which would be discussed by the tripartite constituents the following week in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS). Without warning, the Employers’ Group refused to agree to a negotiated final short list that included any case where the Committee of Experts’ Report contained observations regarding the right to strike. The Employers’ Group (EG) also sought a “disclaimer” on the Committee of Experts’ General Survey.[1] The purpose of this disclaimer was two–fold – to diminish the persuasive authority of the Committee of Experts’ observations outside of the ILO and to attempt to establish a (non-existent) hierarchy of the political, tripartite body - the CAS - over the independent Committee of Experts.
The Employers’ Group makes three central claims. First, the mandate of the Committee of Experts is limited to commenting on the application of conventions, not to “interpret” them. They also argue that the General Survey and the Annual Report of the Committee of Experts are not agreed or authoritative texts of the ILO tripartite constituents. Specifically, they argue that the Committee of Experts does not supervise labour standards but rather the ILO tripartite constituents and thus the tripartite constituents ultimately decide upon the meaning of the ILO conventions. Finally, they argue that given the absence of any reference to a right to strike in the actual text of ILO Convention 87, the internationally accepted rules of interpretation require Convention 87 to be interpreted without a right to strike. As such, the right to strike is not an issue upon which the Committee of Experts should express an opinion.
 |
| Jörg Nowak |
The new plant of India´s biggest passenger car producer, Maruti Suzuki, saw two illegal strikes and wide-scale rioting in 2012. The causes of the conflict included the extension of contract labour, a higher work speed accompanied by real wage losses of 25 %, since the early 2000’s, and a harsh work regime. Despite the events getting widespread attention they did not lead to a considerable change of labour relations in India.
The industrial city of Gurgaon, south of New Delhi, has seen an upswing of factory struggles since 2005. In that same year, workers at a Honda factory occupied their plant. In 2007, both the contract workers at Honda and India´s biggest motorcycle producer, Hero, saw major strike movements.
Maruti Suzuki: New workforce, new conflicts
Initially, Maruti Suzuki was established as a state-run company but went on to be controlled by the Japanese company, Suzuki, since mid-2000. Maruti’s main plant is also located in Gurgaon and 20 kilometres further south, in Manesar. In 2011, 75 % of labour in this factory consisted of contract workers from 60 different contractors, and at the time totalled to 2700 contract workers but only 1000 permanent workers. The contract workers earned about half of the wage (9000 Euros – 100 Euro) of permanent workers in 2011 (18000 Rupees).
 |
| John Cody |
Advocates of neoliberal policy believe that flexible workforces, looser regulations and less government will lead to stronger economies and a better environment for business. Within the US, many such policies have been put into effect with disastrous consequences for the labor market and industry. Even beyond the US, there are claims that all countries are converging into one homogeneous neoliberal set of actors due to globalization pressures. However, in contrast to such assertions is the case of Germany, which features a relatively secure and well-paid manufacturing workforce that fuels one of the largest export surpluses in the world.
Germany’s automobile manufacturing sector provides a pertinent example as to how workers can have both fair wages and decent work while sustaining companies that generate far more profit than US automobile producers since the 2008 crisis. Germany’s comparative advantage in automobile manufacturing has much to do with its institutional arrangements, all markedly different from those in the US. These institutional arrangements touch on a broad range of areas, including worker training, union power, co-determination and social welfare provisions. Due to labor's position as an institutional stakeholder, Germany has ultimately seen reduced conflict between employers and employees and fostered a competitive workforce to produce in-demand vehicles.
 |
| Paul Rechsteiner |
 |
| Renzo Ambrosetti |
 |
| Andreas Rieger |
On 9 February a narrow majority of Swiss voters voted in favour of an initiative by the Swiss People's Party (SVP) calling for the reintroduction of quotas for immigrants from the EU. This decision is a huge setback for immigrants to Switzerland, for trade unions and for all progressive forces, and leads Switzerland unavoidably up a blind alley.
The background
Switzerland has been a country of immigration since the beginning of the 20th century. Already in the 1970s, people with other passports accounted for more than 20% of the population. At that time, immigration was governed by a system of quotas and special statuses which left migrants completely without rights: Seasonal workers were only entitled to fixed-term residence permits which in addition were valid only for a specific employer. Moreover, migrants’ families were not permitted to join them under any circumstances. In the late 1980s, however, the statute governing seasonal workers came under increased pressure from Swiss trade unions that succeeded in organising a very large number of migrant workers.
In 1992 Switzerland's accession to the European Economic Area (EEA) came up for discussion. The aim was to introduce free movement of people as defined by the European Community at that time, i.e. to abolish quotas and discriminating regulations. Swiss trade unions supported this. But in 1992 50.3% of Swiss voters voted against the EEA. One of the main reasons behind this was the desire of national conservative right-wing parties to keep their distance from the European Community. But another reason was the fact that blue- and white-collar workers feared that free movement of workers would undermine the Swiss wages and labour standards.
 |
| Chris Bonner |
 |
| Barbro Budin |
 |
| Karin Pape |
“Yes we did it!”[1], a statement that best captures the jubilant mood on the last day of the Founding Congress of the International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF) in 2013. It is also the title of a new book launched at that Congress, which tells the story of how domestic workers organised to win the Domestic Workers Convention, C189, at the International Labour Conference (ILC) of the ILO on 16 June 2011.
Just over two years later, domestic workers have done it again. Another milestone has been achieved through the formation of a fully constituted, democratic federation of 48 membership-based domestic workers’ organisations representing around 300 000 domestic workers globally. This will ensure that the Convention is not forgotten, and that the struggle for “decent work for domestic workers’ continues in a coordinated and sustained manner.
The launching of the IDWF has wider implications because it marks an important moment in the history of the Labour Movement. For the first time a global union organisation has been formed by women from the poorest sections of society, with an all-women elected leadership. The transformation from a network to a global federation was decided upon by representatives of 48 domestic workers’ organisations, from 42 countries.
