*{Fighting for Workers' Human Rights in the Global Economy (ICFTU Website) 
INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS (ICFTU)
 
FIGHTING FOR WORKERS’ HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY} 
 
FOREWORD
At our 1996 ICFTU World Congress, delegate after delegate spoke about the 
fears of working women and men over their jobs. Insecurity in employment, 
worries about pay, increased intensity of work, authoritarian management, 
union busting, discrimination, children at work when they should be at 
school, dangerous and unhealthy conditions, and most of all the difficulty 
in getting workers’ views heard. Although they saw the potential of the 
expanding global market, what they felt from their members was the 
pressure of increased competition undermining basic workers’ rights. Their 
answer to these problems was not a reversal of the process of opening up 
trade and investment but stronger rules to ensure that core labour 
standards are universally observed in the new global economy.
In this booklet you will find the ICFTU’s proposals for linking basic 
workers’ rights to trade liberalization through a workers’ rights clause 
(often referred to also as a "social clause"). We explain their rationale 
and answer the critics, we summarize the history of our campaign and we 
point to the next steps forward. 

The ICFTU Campaign on Labour Standards and Trade focuses on a short list 
of basic human rights at work. Aimed at preventing repression, 
discrimination, forced and child labour, they are enabling rights which 
all countries regardless of their level of development can and should 
apply. With these rights workers have a voice, an opportunity to have 
their say about their working conditions. It is a simple but powerful 
demand that anybody who professes to believe in democracy and human rights 
can accept. But these rights are all too often abused, and as a result 
legitimate grievances and aspirations are suppressed. 
Markets, including the global market do not work without rules. That is 
why the World Trade Organization (WTO)was set up. Its agreements cover an 
impressive range of subjects, but not the fundamental workers’ rights that 
are essential to determining contracts of employment that reflect a 
reasonable balance between the interests of the employed and employers. 
World trade is a complex chain of inter-woven contracts across national 
boundaries, but the first link in that chain is the exchange of work for 
pay. The absence of agreed rules on basic workers’ rights is a gap that 
could threaten the whole elaborate edifice of the global market. Without 
common rules applied by all member states of the WTO, workers can have no 
confidence that their efforts to meet the challenge of competition will 
not be unfairly undermined by unscrupulous employers and governments 
looking for a quick profit.

I hope this booklet will be widely read by trade unionists and all who are 
interested in ensuring that the world economy is founded on co-operation 
as well as competition. Our arguments are making headway, even though a 
lot of work still needs to be done to convince those who have genuine 
doubts about the workability of our ideas. We must build on and strengthen 
the acknowledged competence of the International Labour Organization on 
labour standards. And we must break down the barriers which separate the 
world of commerce from the everyday concerns of working people.
Read this booklet! Use it! Give it to your friends and to all those who 
see the dangers of globalization without a human face! And let us have 
your views.

1998 could be the year when governments start their preparations for the 
Millennium Round of trade negotiations. They will not get far if they do 
not take heed of workers’ fears that globalization is for a rich few and 
promises only more insecurity for working people. This booklet shows how 
the international community can begin to respond to the needs and 
aspirations of hundreds of millions of working people for a say in their 
future.
Bill Jordan
General Secretary
ICFTU
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE:
THE NEED FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
Basic Workers’ Rights in the Global Economy 
Defending Fundamental Trade Union Rights 
Setting a minimum age for employment 
Ending discrimination in employment 
Free trade or slave trade? 
The human rights case for a workers’ rights clause 
__________________________
PART TWO:
THE PROPOSAL FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE 
The workers’ rights clause– how would it help developing countries? 
What would a workers’ rights clause say? 
The myth of an international minimum wage 
Developing countries versus industrialized countries? 
Developing countries versus…developing countries? 
So developing countries can’t use low labour costs to compete…? 
And a great profit went out of the land… 
How would a workers’ rights clause benefit the global economy? 
Who would implement a workers’ rights clause? 
The aim is to help, rather than punish 
What about national sovereignty? 
What about the threat to national culture? 
PART THREE:
THE CAMPAIGN FOR WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
Introduction 
The Havana Charter 
GATT – the provisional ITO 
The WTO – a window of opportunity? 
The UN Social Summit 
From Copenhagen to Singapore 
Other tactics 
The GSP of the United States 
The GSP of the European Union 
Guidelines and declarations 
The NAFTA Side Agreement on Labour 
International Commodity Agreements 
The rise of ethical consumerism 
Do the Codes work? 
PART FOUR: 
THE WAY FORWARD 
The next step 
The right time for workers’ rights 
The message 
Emerging Areas of Consensus 
The Need for Dialogue 
The ILO 
The next WTO Summit: an opportunity to make progress 
Conclusion } 
 
*partie=titre CHAPTER ONE: 
THE NEED FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Basic Workers’ Rights in the Global Economy *partie=nil

According to the world’s leading economic institutions the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF), the OECD and the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
trade, investment and economic growth are all booming. Globalization of 
the world economy is stimulating massive investments by transnational 
corporations (TNCs) which is acting as a dynamo to produce more jobs and 
higher profits worldwide. Somehow, however, the experiences of individual 
workers do not correspond to this rosy view of world developments. Poverty 
and inequality are on the increase in the developing world and growing 
insecurity and mass unemployment scar the industrialized world. 
This contradiction has a simple explanation - we are seeing a worsening of 
the two-tier economy, with the divisions between rich and poor widening as 
income distribution worsens everywhere. The world economy is producing 
wealth and dividends for some but poverty and insecurity for many others. 
Yet the only answer seems to be more of the same. Governments desperate to 
increase their countries’ exports and attract foreign investment are 
finding themselves in a buyers’ market dominated by companies who can name 
their price. And that price all too often includes cheap labour, low 
standards and no trade unions.
 
*partie=titre Defending Fundamental Trade Union Rights*partie=nil  
The most recent edition of the ICFTU’s Annual Survey of Trade Union 
Rights(1) shows that 264 trade unionists were murdered in 1996. There is 
no doubt that many of these murders took place as a result of governments’ 
failure to protect trade union rights and, in some cases, with the tacit 
agreement of certain governments. Trade unionists in Colombia, where 80 of 
their colleagues were killed during the year, say that the security forces 
were implicated in many of the killings. They add that violence against 
union members was never investigated. 

The persecution of trade unionists in Colombia is extreme but not unique. 
It is merely one example of a pattern listed throughout the Survey: 
workers carrying out normal trade union activities are accused of 
threatening the country’s economic progress, and then find themselves the 
victims either of repression by their own governments, or by company 
thugs. In many countries, the trade union movement’s scope of action is 
being steadily curbed by batteries of new laws, special powers, and 
so-called "labour code reforms", with trade unionists being treated as 
criminals and accused of sabotage, subversion, and even terrorism. These 
accusations are used to justify repressive legislation against trade 
unions, or the persecution of individual trade unionists. The Survey 
records over 7,600 cases of harassment, intimidation and death threats 
made against union members in 1996, and lists 4,262 cases of people being 
arrested or questioned for carrying out activities recognized in 
international law and codified by the International Labour Organization.
Some countries will not tolerate free trade unions at all. China is 
becoming a powerful player on the global economic stage, with many experts 
predicting it will have the biggest economy in the world within the next 
25 years. There are 153 million manufacturing workers in southern China 
alone powering an economy unencumbered, as the regime would see it, by any 
kind of independent voice demanding higher standards or fair wages. Many 
factories in China are run by the army, and the country has an extensive 
forced system of labour camps where the labour is unpaid. It is difficult 
to see how any other government could compete with that, no matter how 
tightly it restricted workers’ rights.

Yet that is what many governments seem to be doing, especially those who 
are competing for foreign investment. In Latin America, governments are 
investing heavily in Export Processing Zones, and touting them as sources 
of cheap, mainly female labour where unions are suppressed. Some Asian 
leaders have tried to portray trade unions as alien institutions that are 
threatening Asian culture – though this is not a view their citizens seem 
to agree with, whenever they have the liberty to organize free trade 
unions. In Central and Eastern Europe, there is widespread hostility to 
trade unions, with governments designing labour laws so as to frustrate, 
rather than encourage collective bargaining, and to place limits on trade 
union activity.

An important part of the explanation for this downward pressure on trade 
union rights is the global competition for trade and investment. Rather 
than trade being the well-spring for the improvement of living and working 
conditions through the resources provided by higher exports, it is all too 
often the source of misery as governments actually reduce workers’ rights 
in order to minimize labour costs. This "beggar-thy-neighbour" competition 
has effects on all countries, including the industrialized, but it goes 
without saying that the countries worst affected are those developing 
countries genuinely seeking to protect workers’ human rights and raise 
basic living standards, for these are the countries most vulnerable at the 
margin to being forced out of the world market. 

It’s hurting, but is it working? Ironically, the answer appears to be no. 
According to the OECD(2), countries that suppressed union rights did not 
improve their economic performances, and "concerns expressed by certain 
developing countries that core standards would negatively affect their 
economic performance are unfounded". The OECD also said that "host 
countries may be able to enforce core standards without risking negative 
repercussions on FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] flows".
The conclusion is irresistible: never was so much inflicted on so many for 
so little and so needlessly. A workers’ rights clause as suggested by the 
ICFTU would end this downward spiral in living and working conditions. The 
international labour standards we propose constitute basic human rights 
for workers. We do not advocate global minimum wages and working 
conditions - what we seek to stop is governments trying to gain 
competitive advantage through the repression, discrimination, and 
exploitation of workers, and instead to ensure that globalization does 
result in gains for all workers.

*partie=titre Setting a minimum age for employment*partie=nil 
Almost every country has laws against child labour, and virtually all have 
signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, protecting children 
from exploitation. Many countries respect this Convention as well as ILO 
Convention 138 on the Minimum Age for Employment and an increasing number 
are taking steps to enforce their own child labour laws. Some are not, 
however; a minority of countries is prepared to tolerate child labour in 
the belief that it will give them a competitive edge.
Again, this is simply not true. There is no evidence that child labour 
does anything other than exploit the children and enrich a handful of 
unscrupulous employers. The short term gain will easily be outweighed by 
the long-term damage being done a country’s skills base if it puts its 
children in factories rather than in classrooms. In other words, today’s 
child labourers are tomorrow’s unskilled and unemployed young workers.
Opponents of a workers’ rights clause also deploy the same argument in the 
case of child labour as in the case of free trade unions: they say that 
child labour is a part of the culture of some countries, and that those 
who want to get rid of it are trying to impose "Western values". But child 
labour is a world-wide problem, as a 1996 ICFTU report on child labour(3) 
made clear. It exists throughout Latin America and it exists in North 
America, Africa, Asia and Europe. There is nothing "cultural" about it. 
Loving your children and wanting the best for them is not a "Western 
value". Families put their children out to work because the family needs 
their income to survive. The ICFTU report quotes a study in the UK that 
found a clear link between child labour and the parents’ being unemployed.
The cruelties inflicted on children who work illegally are 
well-documented. In Peru, gold prospectors buy child slaves from 
contractors in the Peruvian Sierra. There are media reports of secret 
graves of unidentified children in the forests, and children who have 
escaped tell of the treatment they have received: girls are raped, boys 
are beaten; they get just one meal a day; there is no medical service and 
no education; all they do is work.

In the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, children are locked into garment 
factories for 10-14 hours at a time. Some of them are not even paid, but 
forced to work for nothing as "apprentices".
A child from a carpet factory in the Indian state of Rajasthan described 
the primitive medical care he and his friends received. The employer would 
put turmeric paste on their fingers if they got cut. Not for any medical 
reason – but to stop blood dripping on the carpets.
In the United Kingdom, children suffer appalling injuries through working 
illegally in unregulated factories.

All these and countless other examples point to a multilateral world 
problem that cannot be solved by unilateral action alone. This is not to 
say that specific initiatives have no value; the ICFTU, the International 
Trade Secretariats, and individual trade unions and national centres are 
all involved in and committed to projects designed to stamp out specific 
instances of child labour. But all these initiatives risk being undermined 
by the few countries who turn a blind eye to child labour for sake of 
short-term competitive advantage. 

The most effective way to protect children would be through a workers’ 
rights clause that would punish these countries by removing that 
advantage. Countries where the abuse and exploitation of children is 
tolerated would become outcasts from the world trading system – no more 
than they deserve - while those who are trying to work their way out of 
poverty and eliminate child labour at the same time would be given help. 
The workers’ rights clause would also help eradicate child labour because 
it would protect and encourage free trade unions. Trade unions have shown 
themselves to be vociferous and effective campaigners against child 
labour, and exploitation of any sort flourishes where organizing rights 
and collective bargaining rights are weak.

Given how effective a workers’ rights clause would be in eradicating child 
labour, it is surprising that it still arouses such virulent opposition.
Ending discrimination in employment
Women workers are the underclass of the global economy. All over the 
world, in both industrialized and developing countries, they have become 
the main victims of unemployment; they are confined to the jobs requiring 
the lowest skills; and most still do not receive equal pay for work of 
equal value, or even equal pay for equal work. And most of the workers in 
the new bastions of the global economy – the informal sector, the export 
processing zones and home working – are women.

A recently-published ICFTU report(4) logs the growing number of women who 
are working. In the USA, Canada and Scandinavia, women now make up nearly 
half of the working population. In Central and Eastern Europe, despite the 
recession brought about in the move towards a free market economy, one in 
two women is working. Their contribution to the economies of developing 
countries may be even higher because of under-reporting. In Africa alone, 
the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) says that women 
produce 70 per cent of the food. 

Yet they have paid a heavy price to get into the labour market. Many 
governments, after pressure from trade unions and women’s groups, have 
tried to remove inequalities. But their efforts have been undermined by 
employers who still see women, especially young women, as a source of 
cheap labour. Many in developing countries rely on labour-intensive 
industries with a predominantly female workforce to boost their exports. 
To keep up with international competition, the average wage paid to these 
women can be half of what men get. Some countries even boast about the 
fact that they employ women workers in advertising aimed at attracting 
foreign investment, pointing out that not only are the women cheap, but 
they are more docile and less likely to become trade union activists. Some 
multinationals, keen to escape high wages, stricter laws and stronger 
unions in the industrialized world, have been only too happy to take 
advantage.

The main culprits are the factories in the export processing zones – 
special zones where foreign companies are offered tax breaks and 
exemptions from labour laws if they invest. On average, 80 per cent of the 
workers in these zones are women. They are subject to a level of abuse, 
exploitation and humiliation which would cause a public scandal if it 
happened in the investor’s home country. Working hours are long and safety 
protection is usually poor. The discipline is harsh and arbitrary, and 
sexual harassment is a common problem. The ICFTU report quotes the case of 
a young Salvadorian woman who died after an attack of gastro-enteritis for 
which her employer refused her treatment. Another woman working at a 
Korean factory in the same country was beaten so badly by a supervisor 
that she suffered a miscarriage. In some countries, young women have to 
take a pregnancy test before they can be hired. If they later become 
pregnant, they are sacked.
 
These women have been forsaken by their own governments. Once they start 
work in the zones, they are beyond the protection of their national laws. 
Nor do they find it easy to protect themselves. Trade unions are denied 
access to the zones, and women who try to join or form unions face at best 
dismissal, and at worst persecution. 

Countries with higher standards cannot hope to compete fairly with the 
export processing zones. Whatever advantage the zones bring is only 
temporary: South Korea, for example, once benefited from its low wages, 
but it soon found itself undercut by workers in countries like Indonesia, 
China, Sri Lanka or Vietnam. They too will find themselves undercut by 
others, perhaps from Africa. The only real winners in this game are the 
transnational corporations who can move from country to country as soon as 
the going gets too expensive.

This is a problem that will have to be tackled internationally by a 
workers’ rights clause. Nearly all the countries in the world have signed 
up to the ILO convention on discrimination in employment. Nearly all of 
them were represented at the United Nations Fourth World Women’s 
Conference in Beijing in 1995. There is a clear international commitment 
to ending the injustices inflicted on women; and a clear need to end the 
unfair competition that is threatening to undermine what has already been 
achieved, and what women in many countries are striving to achieve.
A workers’ rights clause would help women to join together in trade unions 
to protect themselves; and it would make it clear to every country and 
every transnational corporation that exploiting women was no longer 
economically viable.
 
*partie=titre Free trade or slave trade?*partie=nil  
The media image of the global economy is of a technology-driven, 
high-production free market gearing itself up for the 21st century. But 
how free is a market that tolerates forced labour?
Since 1994, Burma’s military dictatorship, the State Law and Order 
Restoration Council (SLORC) has been building a railway line that will 
connect the town of Ye in the southern part of Mon state, to Tavoy. The 
railway will be used to transport troops to and from a pipeline linking 
huge natural gas deposits in the Gulf of Martaban with customers in Burma 
and Thailand.

It has been alleged that 160,000 Mon and Karen people have been forced to 
work on the project. Human rights groups have obtained copies of 
requisition orders issued by SLORC ordering village headmen to provide 
workers. They contain sentences like "If you do not comply with the order, 
you will suffer the most severe consequences", or "if you do not report 
for work, a bullet will come to you".

The workers are supervised by armed guards. They have to forage for their 
own food and firewood. Hundreds have died of cholera, and countless others 
have been beaten and tortured by the guards.
The gas pipeline itself is alleged to have been built under similar 
conditions. Thousands of villagers have been thrown off their land to make 
way for the pipeline, and thousands of others have been press-ganged into 
working on the project. The total value of the project is estimated at 
over $12 billion. Foreign companies involved include the French-based 
TOTAL, and the US-based UNOCAL.

Burma is an extreme case, but it is not the only offender. Forced labour 
exists in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia. In 
1993, the ILO said that "Pakistan is beset with some of the most critical 
problems in the world in terms of forced labour". Forced labour is used in 
several sectors, including carpet-weaving, shoe-making and agriculture. 
The problem is caused by a loan system, known as bonded labour, under 
which outstanding debts bind the creditor to the debtor. The interest is 
so high that the debt is passed on through generations, and in fact, is 
never paid off. The employer gets free labour not just for life but for 
several lives. 

Several of the products made using this kind of labour find their way onto 
world markets, and it is the international connection that enabled the 
trade union movement and human rights groups to take action.
In the cases of Burma and Pakistan, the ICFTU, the relevant International 
Trade Secretariats and the European Trade Union Congress (ETUC) have 
framed complaints about forced labour under the European Union’s 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). This allows preferential access 
to certain goods from developing countries into the EU’s markets, and 
makes such access conditional upon respect for basic workers’ rights as 
set out in ILO conventions. As a result of the trade union complaint, 
Burma was formally suspended from the European Union’s GSP in March 1997. 
There is no doubt that withdrawal or the threat of withdrawal of GSP 
benefits will go a long way to helping eradicate forced labour. But in a 
global economy, any such system has to have global coverage.
Burma’s recent efforts to secure its membership of the Association of 
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) show how international approval does 
matter to repressive regimes. Other ASEAN countries argued that the SLORC 
would modify its behaviour after joining the club. But the opposite has 
happened. The ICFTU says that it has treated its membership as a "license 
to increase repression", sentencing an activist of the Free Trade Unions 
of Burma (FTUB) to life imprisonment on trumped-up charges of terrorism, 
and other pro-democracy activists to long jail terms.
A workers’ rights clause would turn countries like Burma into outlaw 
states. But it would have enough flexibility to help countries that were 
genuinely trying to deal with the problem of bonded labour, while removing 
the economic incentives that make forced labour so attractive to 
unscrupulous employers and foreign buyers.

The human rights case for a workers’ rights clause
The moral case for a workers’ rights clause is unanswerable. Globalization 
promises a great deal, but delivers insecurity and cruelty to millions. 
The world cannot tolerate an economic system that depends on repression 
for profit; that exploits children and young women; and that makes slavery 
a sound business option. A workers’ rights clause would create the 
potential for a different future, one that creates a basis for really 
achieving workers’ rights and economic development and growth on the basis 
of respect for human rights and improvement in living and working 
conditions for all world citizens.

The international community already agrees that the global economy needs 
global regulation. That is the whole basis for the World Trade 
Organization; for international standard-setting; for laws banning the 
manufacture and sale of counterfeit and protecting intellectual copyright; 
and for the environmental initiatives following on from the Earth Summit. 
Many of the mechanisms set up to enforce these regulations are expensive 
for the companies to operate, and operate across the jurisdiction of 
nation-states.

There seems no justification for allowing all this, but for claiming that 
the same type of international regulation cannot operate to protect basic 
human and trade union rights.
But what of the economic case? What of the accusation that a workers’ 
rights clause is a protectionist device designed to safeguard 
featherbedded Western workers from the more competitive and efficient 
developing countries? This is the argument we confront in the next chapter.


*{(1) ICFTU Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights, 1997
(2) Trade, employment and labour standards a study of core workers' rights 
and internatioanl trade, OECD (1996)
(3) No time to play: child workers in the global econoomy; June 1996
(4) Worlds apart: women and the global eocnomy, March 1996}
 
 
*partie=titre CHAPTER TWO: THE PROPOSAL FOR A WORKERS’ RIGHTS CLAUSE*partie=nil 
The workers’ rights clause– how would it help developing countries?
The accusation most commonly leveled against those campaigning for a 
workers’ rights clause is that it is an attack on the up-and-coming 
developing countries by the hidebound economies of the West. 
A workers’ rights clause, it is alleged, is just part of a protection 
racket run by the industrialized countries. The real aim is to shield 
high-wage Western industries from the competitive, labour intensive 
industries of the developing world. Thereby, it is argued, a workers’ 
rights clause will bring about an international minimum wage that will 
drive the industries in poor countries to bankruptcy; it will split the 
world market into two camps and undermine global free trade; it will 
weaken the national sovereignty of developing countries; and it will 
undermine their national culture by imposing Western values on traditional 
societies.

Some of the people making these accusations are insincere, for they 
represent the repressive governments with everything to lose from a 
workers’ rights clause. But there is no doubt that the idea of a workers’ 
rights clause also arouses genuine concern, especially among developing 
countries. However, much of this concern is the result of a 
misunderstanding about what a workers’ rights clause is and how it would 
work. A workers’ rights clause is protective – it will help protect 
workers and children from exploitation – but it is not protectionist. Its 
aim is not to undermine economic competition, but to enhance it by 
removing unfair advantages. It will not restrict free trade, but will 
bring more people into the global economy. And it will work to close, 
rather than to widen, the gap between the developing and the developed 
world. 

*partie=titre What would a workers’ rights clause say? *partie=nil 
The idea of a workers’ rights clause originated with the ICFTU. We have 
devised the following text which we would like to see in the WTO and 
similar international agreements:
"The contracting parties agree to take steps to ensure the observance 
of the minimum labour standards specified by an advisory committee to 
be established by the WTO and the ILO, and including those on freedom 
of association and the right to collective bargaining, the minimum age 
for employment, discrimination, equal remuneration and forced labour."
The first thing to note is what the clause doesn’t say. There is no 
mention of an international minimum wage; no mention of developing 
countries versus industrialized countries; and no question of imposing any 
"cultural values". 

*partie=titre The myth of an international minimum wage *partie=nil 
The ICFTU has never advocated an international minimum wage. All that a 
workers’ rights clause does is guarantee workers’ right to negotiate their 
own wages. Its significance lies in its emphasis on the right to freedom 
of association and collective bargaining. What is crucial about these 
rights is that they are enabling rights. They give workers and employers 
the means to negotiate improvements in wages and working conditions as 
trade and development expand.

In those negotiations, they would obviously take note of how their 
employer was doing, how much their country could afford etc.; negotiations 
don’t take place in an economic vacuum. Unlike fly-by-night transnationals 
who are only interested in making cheap goods for a quick profit, workers 
have a long-term interest in their country’s prosperity. They would expect 
a fair share when things are going well; and if they were allowed a 
genuine say in economic policy, they would be more likely to accept and 
carry out difficult decisions when there were problems.

In any event, it is not true that low wages will give countries a 
guaranteed competitive edge. Labour costs obviously figure in the final 
price of any product entering the world market. The exact weight of labour 
costs, however, depends on productivity; a poor country with low per 
capita income and low wages may still not have much competitive advantage 
on world markets because of low productivity. Likewise high wages matched 
by high productivity may make the output of rich countries very 
competitive.

The best way for developing countries to guarantee prosperity is to base 
their economies on high productivity and high skills; and the best way to 
do this is to allow workers and employers to set high standards, and fair 
wage levels. It makes sense that as trade and productivity grows, wages 
and other conditions of work also rise as national conditions permit, 
rather than be kept down by exploitation and repression. 
There is plenty of evidence to back this assertion. An ILO report(5) cites 
several studies showing that the economic performance of the East Asian 
newly industrializing countries (NICs) has not been boosted by exploiting 
workers or by keeping wages low. The real power of the Asian Tigers comes 
from the productivity gains brought about by education, and infrastructure 
development, and by restructuring low-wage, labour-intensive markets with 
upgraded value-added and skill-intensive techniques.

Countries that take the high road to development will become more 
efficient, more competitive and more prosperous as long as their efforts 
are not undermined by countries who try to cut corners by exploiting their 
citizens. A workers’ rights clause will help close off the short cuts.
Developing countries versus industrialized countries?

The ICFTU has been leading the campaign for a workers’ rights clause, and 
it is important to note that that campaign did not originate in the 
industrialized countries alone. The ICFTU is a world-wide confederation 
with over 120 million workers in all five continents. Our proposals take 
account of the interests of workers in all countries and are based on the 
democratic decisions of our Congress and Executive Board. How many TNCs 
can say that? How many views do they take into account in developing their 
investment strategies? 

However, trade unions do not have a seat at the trade negotiations and we 
need to seek the support of governments. The ICFTU, its affiliates, and 
its regional organizations are making every effort to get governments to 
examine and discuss our proposals. Some who have done so have been 
convinced.

In March 1995, speaking at the UN World Summit for Social Development in 
Copenhagen, President Nelson Mandela of South Africa announced his support 
for a workers’ rights clause. The proposal for a workers’ rights clause, 
or at the very least for the establishment of a WTO working group to 
examine the case for such a clause, has been supported at various times by 
governments from Argentina, Honduras, Venezuela, Barbados, Nicaragua, 
Panama, Chile, Mauritius, Senegal, Gabon and Tunisia. 

We know that several other government have been having discussions at 
senior level about the merits of a workers’ rights clause. And we know 
that there are some developing countries have never bought in to the model 
of progress through exploitation. Mauritius, which has used its Export 
Processing Zones to develop an impressive industrial base, has emphasized 
the improvement of skills, working conditions and pay of its workforce. A 
Director of a Mauritian promotional agency for the zones has stated: "It 
is not our aim to attract foreign investors with cheap labour. In the long 
term, it is always counter-productive, because unskilled workers produce 
goods with no value added which do not sell well on the export market"(6).
Developing countries versus…developing countries?

This remark underlines the telling point that competition is not simply 
between developing countries and industrialized countries. Low-wage 
economies are in direct competition not with countries producing high 
value-added goods, but with other low-wage countries. And the labour on 
the other side of the border will always be cheaper.

The world’s financiers have developed an investment strategy where out of 
$100 billion for all the developing world, China alone gets $38 billion 
and all of Africa gets just $5 billion. The attractions of China are 
obvious. There, the labour isn’t just cheap; a lot of it is free. The 
country has a vast network of labour camps. Whole factories are being run 
by the army. Who can compete with that? 

Many developing countries aren’t even at the starting gate. Countries in 
sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are still struggling to emerge from 
the economic crisis of the 1980s and have so far been excluded from the 
benefits of globalization. 

Those who have aren’t getting the return they deserve. Around the world, 
income and wage inequalities continue to expand with societies polarized 
between those who have the wealth or skill to gain from global integration 
and those who remain trapped in poverty without productive employment or 
basic labour standards.

Apart from a handful of Asian countries, such as Singapore, Hong Kong and 
Malaysia, the investments made in Export Processing Zones – where cheap 
labour, use of young female workers and lack of union rights are among the 
main selling points – have generally failed to spill over into the rest of 
the economy.

Anyone from a developing country who harbours doubts about a workers’ 
rights clause should look at what has happened in the merchant shipping 
sector since the Flag of Convenience system started. The system allows 
ship-owners to register their vessels in countries where the labour is 
cheapest and the standards are the lowest. It has undermined safety 
standards at sea, and it has kept wages in the industry down. But while it 
has undoubtedly helped the shareholders of many of the world’s shipping 
fleets, it has bought no long-term benefits to the countries that have 
sought to exploit it for obvious reasons: first, European seafarers were 
cheaper than American; then Asians were cheaper than Europeans; now 
Eastern Europeans are cheaper than some Asians, and some Asians are 
cheaper than other Asians.

It shows how unfettered competition can lead to a race to the bottom. 
Without a workers’ rights clause, this is the shape of things to come for 
low-wage economies. 

So developing countries can’t use low labour costs to compete…?
A workers’ rights clause in not about labour costs; it’s about labour 
rights. No-one can seriously suggest that giving workers in the developing 
world the basic rights enshrined in a workers’ rights clause will lead to 
their wage costs spiraling up to European levels overnight. It just won’t 
happen. Developing countries will still be able enjoy comparative 
advantages from their abundant supply of labour. All that will happen is 
that governments will not be able to keep these costs down by oppressing 
their workers; and transnational corporations will not be able to bully 
countries into the kind of competitive repression we’re seeing in the 
world economy now. 

The ICFTU does not accept that cheap labour is all that developing 
countries have to offer the world. Not only is that an insulting picture 
of their economies; it is also inaccurate. To take just one example, India 
turns out 250,000 science graduates a year. Many of the world’s leading 
companies are hiring Indian computer programmers to write their software 
and to process their data. Cost is a factor; but so are skill-levels. This 
is the kind of competition developing countries will have to offer in the 
information age. A workers’ rights clause will give them the space to do 
that by easing the constant downward pressure on standards brought about 
by the present system.

*partie=titre And a great profit went out of the land *partie=nil 
The real beneficiaries of the current world trading system are not the 
developing countries, but the transnational corporations - TNCs.
Of the 100 top economies in the world, only 49 are countries. The rest are 
TNCs.

The combined sales of the world’s top 200 corporations surpass the 
combined economies of 182 countries - every country on earth minus the 
nine biggest. These corporations have almost twice the economic clout of 
the poorest four-fifths of humanity. They control well over a quarter of 
the world’s economic activity. But nobody controls them, except their 
shareholders. 

Many of these increasingly powerful and mobile TNCs can play one country 
off against another in search of the best deal. The long-term value of the 
kind of investment some of them are offering is questionable; they will 
pull out at the slightest economic shock or change in the regulatory 
environment; and are unlikely to develop strong links with the rest of the 
economy. This problem is especially acute in low-skill industries such as 
garments and footwear, where exit costs are low. 

Unchecked and unregulated, the labour market in the global economy will 
become nothing more than a vast shopping mall for the TNCs, with countries 
forced to cut their costs to bargain-basement levels. A workers’ rights 
clause will help bring the TNCs under the rule of law. It will create an 
environment where countries can compete without fear, and where companies 
can invest for the long term.
 
How would a workers’ rights clause benefit the global economy?
For many countries and many companies, it will be business as usual. No 
country which is keeping to its legal obligations under the UN Charter and 
which is applying the core conventions of the ILO has anything to fear 
from a workers’ rights clause. 

As we have argued, we believe that a workers’ rights clause will reinforce 
the global economy. The universal application of basic labour standards 
will help to ensure a more balanced expansion of world trade and a 
smoother process of adjustment to changes in the global division of 
labour. High-wage countries would still face the challenge of competition 
from low-wage countries. But that competition would at least be based on a 
broader-based expansion of markets and the knowledge that the women and 
men who work in competitor countries were not being exploited or abused, 
and weren’t being forced to subsidize the TNCs.

And a workers’ rights clause would make it impossible for some 
irresponsible TNCs to leap from country to country in search of a 
government prepared to violate workers' rights. If there was no reason to 
move on, they might stick around. This would encourage a more sustainable 
process of foreign investment which would bring increased benefits to the 
host country, and long-term, stable profits to the investor.
So much for the principle. What about in practice? As in all negotiations, 
the devil is in the detail. How will a workers’ rights clause be enforced? 
What is to prevent the rich and powerful countries from exploiting it to 
their own advantage?

These are crucial questions that touch at the heart of what a workers’ 
rights clause is about. If a workers’ rights clause is to command respect, 
it must be open and transparent; and it must be strictly and fairly 
enforced. It must not be seen as a stick with which aggressive countries 
can beat their commercial competitors; but nor must it be seen as simply a 
pious declaration to which countries and corporations need only pay lip 
service.

The ICFTU has devised an enforcement procedure which we believe satisfies 
all these criteria. It will all be done out in the open, so there need be 
no fear of groups of countries ganging up on weaker countries; it will 
give plenty of chances to put things right for countries which transgress 
through negligence rather than malice; the emphasis will be on helping 
countries meet the required standards, rather than on belabouring them for 
falling short; but in the end, it will have teeth that bite and bite hard 
for persistent offenders.

*partie=titre Who would implement a workers’ rights clause? *partie=nil 
The aim behind a workers’ rights clause is to ensure that the promotion of 
free trade goes hand in hand with the improvement of workers' rights. 
Implementation should therefore be a joint operation between the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) and the ILO. The ILO has obvious competence in 
setting standards and in supervising their application; and the WTO would 
make sure that failure to enforce the basic standards does not lead to 
unfair competition. 

Our proposal is that a joint WTO/ILO Advisory Body could be set up to 
oversee the implementation of a workers’ rights clause. This body would 
have the authority to undertake periodic reviews of how countries were 
applying the principles enshrined in a workers’ rights clause; or to step 
in if there was a well-justified complaint.
This side of the operation would be the particular responsibility of the 
ILO team on the joint advisory body; the ILO already does much of this 
anyway, although there would be a need to reinforce its existing 
procedures. 

The reviews would typically show either that the standards were being 
followed – in which case, no further action would be needed – or that the 
country concerned was in breach of its obligations, and certain changes in 
labour law and/or practice were necessary. 

In the latter case, the ILO report would make recommendations to the 
country concerned on these changes and, if necessary, offer technical 
assistance and make additional resources available to help countries put 
things right.

The government of the offending country would then have a period of time 
in which to change its ways. We are suggesting two years, following which 
there would be a second report. This second report would typically reach 
one of three conclusions. It could show that the country was applying the 
standards; or that while the problem had not yet been solved, but progress 
was being made; or that the government had failed to co-operate with the 
ILO and that the standards were still not being met.
Where progress was being made, a further report would be prepared in a 
year or two.

If the government concerned was clearly ignoring the ILO’s 
recommendations, there would be a final warning; if within one year there 
was still no co-operation with the ILO, the matter would then be referred 
to the WTO Council for consideration of possible trade measures.
When it came to deciding on the appropriate sanctions, the WTO should have 
a range of options which could be escalated over time if the government 
carried on offending. A first step might be to suspend the countries' 
right of access to the WTO’s new binding rules for dispute resolution. 
The aim is to help, rather than punish.

The procedure is hardly Draconian. It places the right blend of emphasis 
on opening up markets and enforcing basic rights. The emphasis throughout 
is on helping countries reach the required standard, rather than on 
punishing each and every failure. Trade measures are only used as a last 
resort, and even there, the measure are initially quite mild. We know that 
there are many countries who have been forced into a low-wage, low 
standard economic policy by the present set-up. It would make no sense to 
impose unrealistic targets and timetables on such countries. On the other 
hand, there are countries who are willfully profiting from repression; 
these countries have to know that at some stage, there will be sanctions, 
and those sanctions will hurt. 

It is also important that their people know that the international 
community has recognized their plight, and is prepared to do something to 
help them. In all the talk of committees and advisory bodies and 
macro-economics, we must not forget that a workers’ rights clause is 
designed to help individual workers and their families. There is real 
misery out there, and real money being made out of that misery. 
The step-by-step procedures we have outlined provide just the right blend 
of stick and carrot. It has all the elements of clarity, predictability 
and objectivity that an effective multilateral system requires. 
It builds on the established competence of an existing specialized 
international agency – the ILO. 

It also provides enough time for problems to be solved by dialogue. 
It avoids the danger of the big players trying to dictate terms for market 
access to small countries. 

And it is even-handed; because it refers to universal standards, all 
countries would be subject to equally close scrutiny. Fully transparent 
procedures would be used which would leave no opening for misuse for 
protectionist purposes.

In fact, the opposite would happen; a workers’ rights clause would ease 
protectionist pressures, and strengthen free trade. Many people in the 
industrialized world blame competition from cheap manufactured goods from 
the developing countries for job loses. This is increasing the support for 
populist demands for protection in one form or another. If unemployment 
worsens, there is likely to be increased public pressure to restrict the 
flow of what are perceived to be "unfairly" produced goods. 
Whether these allegations have an economic basis or not, they pose a 
serious threat to the world trading system. In the absence of any 
international curb on goods that are seen as "subsidized" by abuse of 
basic standards, there could an irresistible temptation to rely on 
unilateral protectionist measures. This could result in endless argument 
at international level, and perhaps even political tension between 
countries. A workers’ rights clause could rein in these unilateral 
measures and provide a more open and fair means for settling disputes. It 
could lower rather than raise protectionist tendencies and help keep 
markets open by sharing out the benefits of trade more fairly.
Industrial countries would also benefit from a workers’ rights clause too, 
in the long term. A more balanced development of consumer markets around 
the world would generate further growth for all countries. It would not 
end the need for labour market adjustments in the industrialized 
countries. But such, often painful, adjustments would be easier to justify 
against the background of a common set of core principles for the 
treatment of workers. Further growth of world trade would also open up new 
job opportunities both in industrialized and developing countries.
By guaranteeing fair trade, a workers’ rights clause would protect free 
trade.

*partie=titre What about national sovereignty? *partie=nil 
The notion that a workers’ rights clause would violate national 
sovereignty is simply not true. A workers’ rights clause would not 
infringe any country’s national sovereignty; if anything, it would 
strengthen it. In today’s global economic environment, national 
sovereignty is anyway something of a myth. Many TNCs outgun developing 
countries economically and politically, as they have done for years. The 
famous phrase, "banana republic" just about sums it up. It refers to 
countries so dependent on the export of their banana crop that they had 
surrendered economic and political authority to the companies controlling 
the banana trade. Without a workers’ rights clause, we’re all in danger of 
becoming banana republics. 

How much national sovereignty does a country have when it dare not pass 
laws enforcing its own citizens’ trade union rights for fear that half its 
foreign investors will shut down their factories and pull out? How much 
power does it have when it is forced to put areas of its own territory 
off-limits to its own laws in Export Processing Zones? What’s the point of 
having parliamentary accountability when citizens going into those zones 
have to surrender their rights in order to get a job in their own country?
The reality is that sovereignty has already been surrendered and policy is 
being shaped to an increasing extent by the demands of the global market. 
The issue is not whether but how policy will be determined internationally 
- through the market or through political negotiations. 
A workers’ rights clause would restore sovereignty by allowing policy to 
be determined through negotiations – providing a counterweight to the 
enormous economic muscle of TNCs. Its aim is not to limit power, but to 
limit the abuse of power. 

Both the WTO and the ILO (the organizations which would be charged with 
implementing a workers’ rights clause) proceed by consensus. This can mean 
that they move slowly at times; but it also means that they move very 
surely – and that their legitimacy is unquestionable. The WTO negotiations 
have a timetable designed to take account of the needs of ministers to 
report back to their citizens, and to consult all their constituents. The 
ILO is a United Nations agency made of national representatives of 
governments, employers and workers. Over its 76-year history, it has 
developed standards which are elaborated through a two-year process of 
discussion and adopted by a full Conference of all 179 member-states. 
While there can be no compromise on the principles established by these 
core labour standards, how they are translated into law and practice may 
vary according to the institutions and customs of the country concerned. 
A workers’ rights clause would be based on these core standards, and 
enforced within countries in the same way. The rights it enshrines are 
enabling rights. They would put sovereignty back where it belongs: with 
the people and with their governments, rather than with the TNCs.
A workers’ rights clause will give developing countries a powerful weapon 
with which to assert their economic independence against the invisible 
pressures of international trade and investment.

*partie=titre What about the threat to national culture? *partie=nil 
The argument that a workers’ rights clause would threaten national culture 
is another myth. The real threat to national cultures comes from the 
uncontrolled commercialism of the free market. To take one single, but 
powerful example, how many national cultures embrace compulsory 
contraception, or enforced sterilization? Yet both these are common in 
many export processing zones, where companies want to employ young women, 
but don’t want the inconvenience and expense of granting them maternity 
rights.

It is the TNCs who are undermining national cultures. Because their 
activities are unchecked, they can impose wage levels, patterns of work 
and working conditions without taking any account of the needs or 
interests of anyone. A workers’ rights clause would mean that where 
workers want to form a union of their own choice, companies would have to 
negotiate with trade unions, and shape their activities according to what 
their workers want. It will restore to people the basic human rights that 
globalization has stolen from them.

These basic rights are based on the most highly ratified of the ILO 
conventions. Over 100 States have ratified at least six of the seven. By 
no stretch of the imagination can they be said to embody "Western values".

They contain a built-in flexibility which makes them applicable for all 
countries whatever their level of development. Furthermore, how they are 
translated into law and practice can vary according to the institutions 
and customs of the country concerned, just as already happens with ILO 
conventions. The ILO in its supervision of the standards does not attempt 
to impose a global harmonization of labour laws; it examines whether the 
effect of laws and practice achieve the objective of ensuring that the 
principles are applied.

To argue that the principles themselves are "Western values" is offensive 
and dangerous. It splits the world’s workers into first- and second-class 
citizens. It legitimizes the notion that workers in the "West" are more 
"advanced" than workers in the developing world, while the people in the 
developing world neither need nor deserve any protection of their basic 
rights. That is what this argument is really saying. It is surprising that 
it is being put forward with such fervour by governments in the developing 
world; and it is interesting that this view is not shared by the citizens 
of these countries. Workers in the developing world make up some of the 
most committed members of trade union organizations; their women workers 
are among the most passionate advocates of equal treatment; and the 
campaign against child labour and slave labour has strong roots in the 
developing countries. 

All women are entitled to equal treatment; all children should be 
protected from child labour; all workers must be allowed to join trade 
unions, and must be free from the threat of slavery. To argue that workers 
in developing countries must be treated differently from workers in the 
industrialized countries is to promote global economic apartheid. 
It will divide the world as surely as a workers’ rights clause will unite 
it. 

*{(5) Amsden, A.H. (1989), Asia's next giant: South Korea and late 
industrialization, Oxford University Press, Oxford; Lim, L.Y.C. (1990), 
Singapour, in Herzenberg, S.A. Perez-lopez, J.L. and Tucker, S.K. (eds.) 
(1990), Labour Standards and Development in the Global Economy, US 
Department of Labour, Washington, D.C; and World Bank (1993), The East 
Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy, Washington DC.
(6) op cit., ICFTU (1996), p.25 and 26.*partie=nil} 

*{CHAPTER THREE:} 
*partie=titre THE CAMPAIGN FOR WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS
Introduction*partie=nil 

Ever since world trade began, merchants and manufacturers have dreamt of a 
borderless economy around which goods and capital could flow without let 
or hindrance; a free-market Shangri-La, uncluttered by rules or 
restrictions. Political and technological changes are at last making that 
dream a reality. We are living in the global village with its own global 
market-place. According to the free market acolytes, the role of 
governments and international institutions now is to refine and accelerate 
the process of globalization by removing all the remaining barriers to 
trade. Anything else is irrelevant; it has no place on the world’s 
economic agenda.

That might be how some people like to tell it; but it’s not how it is. In 
fact, the kind of concerns being raised by the trade unions have been 
connected with the whole globalization project from the very beginning. 
They were raised during the attempt to set up the International Trade 
Organization at the end of the Second World War; and while it is true that 
the international business community managed to sideline them during the 
years of the GATT, they have remained central to wider attempts to create 
an international community – as opposed to an international shopping mall. 
The reason our proposals are making such an impact now is that more and 
more people are beginning to see that globalization will fail if it has no 
social dimension. 

*partie=titre The Havana Charter *partie=nil 
Between 1946 and 1948, the United Nations held a conference on Trade and 
Employment. The agenda was ambitious. The aim was to create a third 
institution along with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund 
that would handle international economic co-operation. More than 50 
countries were involved. The new institution was to be a specialist United 
Nations agency known as the International Trade Organization (ITO). Its 
charter would cover employment rules, commodity agreements, restrictive 
business practices, international investments and services. Known as the 
Havana Charter, this draft document included a workers’ rights clause that 
specifically linked economic progress and trade liberalization to fair 
labour standards. The text read as follows:
1. The Members 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 the 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.
2. Members which are also members of the International Labour 
Organization 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....[under dispute settlement provisions of the 
Charter] it shall consult and co-operate with the International Labour 
Organization(7). 

The unions which shortly afterwards became the ICFTU’s founder-members 
backed the ITO, and its Workers’ rights clause. Unfortunately, although 
the draft was approved at the UN Conference on Trade and Employment in 
Havana in 1948, some national legislatures refused to ratify it. 
Opposition by the US Congress proved to be the fatal blow; the US 
government, which had been one of the driving forces behind the ITO, 
announced in 1950 that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the 
Charter. The ITO was dead, and with it died a workers’ rights clause. For 
the time being.

*partie=titre GATT – the provisional ITO *partie=nil 
Even while the ITO talks were going on, 23 out of the 50 participants 
began negotiations on reducing customs tariffs. With the war having just 
ended, they wanted to give an early boost to liberalizing the world 
economy, and to start hacking down all the protectionist barriers that 
were still in place from the 1930s. The first round of these negotiations, 
which took place in Geneva, brought about 45,000 tariff concessions 
affecting $10 billion worth of trade. The participants also agreed that 
they should "provisionally" accept some of the trade rules in the ITO 
Charter to protect some of the tariff concessions they had negotiated. The 
"Geneva 23" became founding members (known officially as "contracting 
parties") to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Even though it was provisional, GATT remained the only multilateral 
instrument governing international trade until the WTO was set up in 1995. 
Its agenda was limited to traditional commercial aspects of trade in goods 
and since it was assumed that the ITO would eventually supersede GATT, the 
ITO chapter on employment and labour (among many others) was not included 
in GATT.

 

Apart from Article XX(e) which permits governments to ban trade in goods 
produced by prison labour, GATT makes no further reference to labour 
standards – though the trade union movement has pressed repeatedly for 
their inclusion. 

The GATT did a great deal to promote the liberalization of trade. During 
the 1950s and the 1960s, it is estimated that tariff reductions alone 
boosted world trade by an average of eight per cent per year. But as time 
passed, problems grew. A series of recessions in the 1970s and the 1980s 
led to factories shutting down, and unemployment soared. Many governments 
sought new protectionist devices to safeguard their industries. They 
sought bilateral deals with competitors and extended subsidies to keep 
their hold on trade. Both these tactics undermined the GATT’s credibility 
and effectiveness.

The ICFTU would not maintain that a workers’ rights clause would have 
eliminated these difficulties and the tensions they caused. But it is 
worth pointing out that such a clause would have provided a potential 
mechanism for dealing with the problem; and that at the very least, it 
would have removed any suspicion of unfair competition on wage costs.
The most recent stage in the evolution of GATT was the mammoth Uruguay 
Round of trade talks, launched in Punta del Este in September 1986. It 
took seven and a half years; involved 125 countries; and covered almost 
every product and service that could be made and traded. It was the 
biggest trade negotiation in history – probably the biggest negotiation of 
any kind. 

The Uruguay Round ended in Marrakech in April 1994. The Marrakech meeting 
was a significant success for the trade union movement. It is true that 
there was no formal declaration referring to the link between trade and 
labour standards; all that came out of the meeting in the way of a text 
was in the chairman’s concluding remarks. But a workers’ rights clause was 
firmly on the agenda, being the single issue that dominated discussions 
all week long. The issue received extensive press coverage, and there were 
at least 20 governments (not all from the industrialized countries) who 
spoke in favour of discussing the need for the clause. Another ten 
governments were receptive to and interested in the idea, but concerned 
about whether the WTO was the proper forum for this debate, and were 
anxious about protectionism. Twenty-two countries spoke out in opposition 
to a workers’ rights clause. 

In January, 1995, the agreements signed in Marrakech began to take effect 
in Geneva with the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). 
The WTO – a window of opportunity?

There is no doubt that the WTO represents a real opportunity for a 
workers’ rights clause campaign. This is partly because of the success we 
have had in arguing our case; but it is also because of the nature of the 
WTO itself. 

The WTO effectively takes the role which the ITO would have had. Unlike 
GATT, which, despite its longevity, was never more than a provisional 
arrangement, the WTO is the legal and institutional foundation for a 
multilateral trading system. It provides a contractual framework which 
determines how governments shape and implement domestic trade laws and 
rules. It is a platform on which trade relations among countries can 
evolve through debate, negotiation and consensus. 

The WTO is a rules-based organization. It is dedicated to maintaining a 
system of rules for open, fair and undistorted competition. Those rules 
will be worked out in "trade rounds" where trade concessions are 
negotiated in a package. This means that concessions which are necessary 
but would otherwise be difficult to defend domestically can be made sold 
within a package which contains other politically and economically 
attractive benefits. 

It is a genuinely global organization. 76 governments became members of 
the WTO on its first day, and by the end of 1997 the WTO had 132 members.
Both the "package deals" and the way the WTO operates as an organization 
mean that the ICFTU and our affiliates can target our lobbying campaigns 
much more clearly. The WTO also has a review mechanism, which sets a 
useful example for a workers’ rights clause, and which means that WTO 
members have already given the organization some policing powers that 
could be said to have implications for national sovereignty. The WTO 
monitors national trade policies through its Trade Policy Review Mechanism 
(TPRM). The purpose of the TPRM reviews are to increase transparency and 
understanding of trade policies, to stimulate public and intergovernmental 
debate on the issues, and to assess the effects of policies on the world 
trading system. 

The reviews are conducted regularly. The four biggest traders - the EU, 
the US, Japan and Canada - are examined approximately once every two 
years. The next 16 countries in terms of their share of world trade are 
examined every four years, and the remaining countries every six years; 
with the possibility of a longer interim period for the least-developed 
countries. The reviews are conducted in the Trade Policy Review Body 
(TPRB) on the basis of two documents; a policy statement prepared by the 
government under review and a detailed report prepared independently by 
the WTO Secretariat. 
 
The TPRM shows that the WTO is an organization that means to monitor its 
members’ activities to make sure they are sticking to the rules. One 
method by which the WTO, in cooperation with the ILO, could reinforce 
internationally recognized core labour standards is through the 
examination of the effects of non-observance in the context of the regular 
country trade policy reviews. The ICFTU would contend that labour 
standards should be considered among the trade-related issues which are 
discussed by the WTO General Council when it undertakes a debate of the 
trade policies of WTO members. Accordingly, over the course of 1997 the 
ICFTU began producing reports on core labour standards in the countries 
subject to TPRs by the World Trade Organization, as a basis for 
encouraging an informed debate on the issue. 

The aim now is to intensify the campaign to convince WTO members that a 
workers’ rights clause should be part of those rules. Twenty already 
agree. The rest must be persuaded to follow. In March 1995, there was yet 
another sign of the way the pendulum is swinging in our direction.

*partie=titre The UN Social Summit *partie=nil 
In March 1995, leaders from 115 countries gathered in Copenhagen for the 
United Nations World Summit for Social Development. Known as the "Social 
Summit", this meeting was the first time that world leaders had sat 
together and held a thorough discussion on how to put social concerns at 
the centre of economic and political developments. It was a massive 
international endorsement of what the trade union movement had been 
arguing since the Havana Charter and before: that the global economy has 
to have a social dimension.

The Summit proved to be more than a talking shop. At the end of the 
Summit, everyone present signed up to a series of commitments(8) that 
entailed not just international obligations, but also action at home.
The extracts below are taken from the commitments which relate to the 
ICFTU campaign for a workers’ rights clause:
"We commit ourselves to create an economic, political, social, cultural 
and legal environment that will enable people to achieve social 
development." (Commitment 1)
Internationally, governments have promised to: 
Promote social development through international co-operation in 
economic policies and agreements on trade, investment, technology, 
debt and development aid; 
Reaffirm and promote all human rights, which are universal, 
indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. 
The national action promised under this commitment includes a promise that 
governments will provide: 
full respect for human rights, freedoms and the rule of law; 
equality and equity between women and men; 
transparent and accountable government; 
and that they will work in partnership with free and representative 
organizations. 

"We commit ourselves to promoting the goal of full employment as a 
basic priority of our economic and social policies, and to enabling 
all men and women to attain secure and sustainable livelihoods through 
freely chosen productive employment and work." (Commitment 3)
Internationally, governments have promised to:
Ensure that migrant workers are protected against exploitation, in 
line with international instruments on migrant workers; 
Promote sustained economic growth through international co-operation 
on economic policy, trade and investment, and through exchange of 
experiences on successful approaches. 
The national action promised under this commitment includes a promise that 
governments will: 
put job creation at the centre of government policy, with full respect 
for workers' rights and with the participation of employers, workers 
and their organizations, and with special attention to long term 
unemployed people, the disadvantaged and those subject to 
discrimination; 
expand work opportunities, productivity and access to resources in the 
rural and urban sectors, including in the informal sector and small 
and medium enterprises; 
ensure that workers and employers have the education, information and 
training needed to adapt to changing conditions; 
ensure that women have access to employment, protection in the labour 
market and equal treatment, especially equal pay; 
promote quality jobs, and safeguard workers' rights in line with 
relevant ILO Conventions and to this end, freely promote respect for 
relevant ILO Conventions, including on forced and child labour, 
freedom of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively 
and the principle of non-discrimination. 
"We commit ourselves to promoting full respect for human dignity and 
to achieving equality and equity between women and men, and to 
recognizing and enhancing the participation and leadership roles of 
women in political, civil, economic, social and cultural life and in 
development." (Commitment 5) 

*partie=titre WORKERS’ RIGHTS IN THE INFORMAL SECTOR *partie=nil 
In many developing countries, a majority of workers are in the informal 
sector, engaged in production for the domestic economy. Any workers’ 
rights clause should include measures to benefit those workers as well. 
It should simply state that all WTO members would fully respect the 
basic workers' rights included in the workers’ rights clause - not just 
in export production but throughout the economy. 

A workers’ rights clause would therefore lead governments to confront a 
problem which many have so far largely ignored. Governments would have 
to start an effort to apply the basic labour standards covered in the 
workers’ rights clause to all workers in their countries, including 
those in the informal sector. This should be complemented with a range 
of supporting policies to upgrade the living and working conditions of 
people in the informal sector. 

Internationally, governments have promised to 
Promote and protect women's rights and encourage the ratification of 
the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination 
against women and other relevant instruments; 
Recognize the full extent of women's work and all their contributions 
to the national economy, including unpaid and domestic work; 
Assist developing countries to achieve equality and equity and the 
empowerment of women. 

The national action promised under this commitment includes a promise that 
governments will: 
promote gender balance and equity in decision-making and integrate a 
gender perspective in economic and social policies; 
promote equal partnership between women and men and full and equal 
access of women to education; 
work to eliminate all obstacles to human dignity, equality and equity; 

enhance the equality of girls; 
combat and eliminate discrimination, exploitation, abuse and violence 
against women and girls; 
support gender equality in the labour market through positive action, 
legal protection, child care and other support services. 

The trade union movement must campaign and lobby to make sure that 
governments keep their word on these commitments. Many of them are very 
specific and trade union organizations will be working with community 
groups and NGOs on particular issues. But the fact is that the commitments 
governments entered into at the Social Summit will never be fully realized 
without a workers’ rights clause. No country, however much it acknowledges 
the importance of the social dimension, will take initiative which it 
thinks may threaten its economic well-being. No-one will want to be the 
trail blazer. A workers’ rights clause will enable the international 
community to move forward collectively on the commitments made at 
Copenhagen as a community.

*partie=titre From Copenhagen to Singapore *partie=nil 
The Social Summit gave a powerful boost to a workers’ rights clause 
campaign. The UN Fourth World Women’s Conference held in Beijing in 
September 1995 reaffirmed the principles adopted in Copenhagen, especially 
respect for basic workers’ rights including the core ILO labour standards. 
The next key date in the diary was the WTO Ministerial Summit in December, 
1996. 

Singapore was a difficult meeting. But the final Declaration that came out 
of the meeting included a paragraph as follows:
"We renew our commitment to the observance of internationally recognized 
core labour standards. The International Labour Organization 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. In this regard, we note 
that the WTO and ILO secretariats will continue their existing 
collaboration."

Both sides were giving their own views of this text after the meeting. 
There will be plenty of battles ahead over how it is interpreted. But our 
view is that the text is a small, but significant step forward. It is not 
the Havana Charter; but it is the first time in the fifty-year history of 
GATT that a commitment to core labour standards had been made.

We haven’t got a workers’ rights clause yet. But we do have a sound basis 
for the next stage of the campaign, leading up to the WTO ministerial 
meeting from 18-20 May 1998 in Geneva. 

*partie=titre Other tactics *partie=nil 
The trade union movement’s final goal is to get a workers’ rights clause 
enacted within the WTO. But the WTO is not the only show in town, just the 
biggest. The battle to defend workers’ rights is being fought on several 
other fronts.

There are the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) arrangements 
operated by the USA and the European Union. These are deals by which 
certain developing countries get preferential access to US and European 
markets. Both GSPs include references to observance of basic labour 
standards.
 
There are the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, adopted in 
1976; the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning 
Multinationals and Social Policy, adopted in 1977; and a number of codes 
of conduct in particular sectors, an issue that has been given greater 
impetus by the rise of "ethical consumerism".

*partie=titre The GSP of the United States*partie=nil 
The GSP was adopted by the US Congress in 1974. It provides temporary 
duty-free treatment to certain products from developing countries. A 
country cannot get GSP status if it "has not taken or is not taking steps 
to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the 
country". 

Organizations and individuals can petition the government at public 
hearings to review the behaviour of countries benefiting from GSP status. 
The Committee examining these petitions looks at information on workers’ 
rights in the State Department annual Country Reports on Human Right 
Practices, findings of the ILO, reports from US Embassies and Consulates, 
and US International Trade Commission reports on the economic effects of 
GSP decisions. In a number of countries of Central America and the 
Caribbean, and most notably in the Dominican Republic, the threat of US 
GSP sanctions brought about changes to the labour code and improved rights 
to collective bargaining and freedom of association for workers. There is 
no doubt that potentially and in practice, the GSP is a powerful 
instrument for enforcing international labour standards. 
At present six countries are suspended from the US GSP for violating 
workers’ rights: Brunei, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Sudan and Syria. 
Further petitions filed by the AFL-CIO are under investigation including 
Belarus, Swaziland, Pakistan, Indonesia and Thailand. 

*partie=titre The GSP of the European Union*partie=nil 
In 1994, the European Union integrated some workers’ rights into its own 
GSP. Countries which respect core labour standards can get additional GSP 
benefits, while countries denying core labour standards face suspension. 
As from 1 January 1995, countries which tolerate forced labour, or which 
export goods made by prison labour could face trade sanctions in the form 
of temporary suspension from the GSP scheme. Investigation by the European 
Commission can be initiated by member states or any natural or legal 
persons or associations able to demonstrate a bona fide interest in the 
case. Sanctions, if any, cannot be implemented before a year of 
investigation and a decision by the (qualified) majority of the Council. 
In March 1997, the European Union formally suspended Burma’s trade 
privileges on the grounds that Rangoon’s military regime sanctions the use 
of forced labour. This action set a precedent in the Commission’s 
bilateral trade relations by linking trade and core labour standards for 
the first time. 

Starting from 1 January 1998, countries can apply for "special incentive 
arrangements in the form of additional preferences", provided that they 
have adopted and apply the substance of ILO standards concerning freedom 
of association and collective bargaining. 

*partie=titre Guidelines and declarations*partie=nil 
In the 1970's, the international trade union movement was campaigning to 
establish a system of guidelines for multinational corporations. The OECD 
adopted its Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in 1976 and the ILO 
its Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinationals and 
Social Policy in 1977. The OECD Guidelines are voluntary and consequently, 
not legally enforceable. The ILO Declaration is also voluntary and is 
essentially a statement of principles on issues such as basic human 
rights, conditions of work, equality of treatment and industrial 
relations. As it is voluntary, it cannot be enforced in the same way as an 
ILO Convention. Nevertheless it and the OECD Guidelines have been used by 
unions to pressure companies and governments to live up to the standards 
they have adopted.

International negotiations have started at the OECD on a global investment 
instrument (Multilateral Agreement on Investment — MAI) to set rules 
governing the treatment of foreign direct investment. Once ready, non-OECD 
members could also sign the MAI, which could serve as the basis for a 
world-wide investment instrument through the WTO. TUAC is working to 
ensure that the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies are linked to 
the new instrument. The new agreement must contain a clause to stop 
governments promising cheap labour and a union-free environment to attract 
investors. The UN Commission on Trade and Development and the WTO are also 
looking at how a global instrument might be negotiated and the ICFTU is 
following these discussions closely, stressing the need to incorporate the 
ILO declaration on Multinationals and respect for core labour standards.

*partie=titre The NAFTA Side Agreement on Labour*partie=nil 
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a further stage in the 
process of economic integration in North America. There was, and still is 
strong concern that NAFTA could bring downward pressure to bear on wages 
and working conditions. To accommodate this concern, a "side" or 
"parallel" agreement on labour standards was negotiated. The North 
American Agreement on Labor Co-operation (NAALC), also commonly known as 
the NAFTA Side Agreement on Labor, came into force at the same time as 
NAFTA on 1 January 1994.

The NAALC provides for a commitment to uphold existing labour laws in 
basic areas of workers’ rights including freedom of association, the right 
to collective bargaining and the right to strike; prohibition of forced 
labour; discrimination; protection of migrant workers; health and safety; 
child protection; and minimum employment standards. In the areas of 
minimum wages, safety standards and child labour alone, fines of up to $20 
million could be levied on countries that allow their companies to gain a 
competitive advantage by violating labour laws in these areas. Seven 
submissions have so far been filed for review under the NAALC. 
The agreement has shortcomings, however. The procedures are highly complex 
and time consuming. And crucially, it makes no reference to 
internationally recognized labour standards. The focus is on the 
enforcement of each country’s own labour laws.

*partie=titre International Commodity Agreements*partie=nil 
Some international commodity agreements also refer to core labour 
standards: the International Sugar Agreements, the Tin Agreement of 1981, 
the Cocoa Agreement of 1986 and the International Rubber Agreement of 
1987. 

These clauses are essentially statements of intent. They contain no 
special sanctions or control mechanisms. They are therefore of limited 
use, but they do nevertheless add strength to the trade union argument 
that there is nothing unprecedented about linking trade to labour 
standards.

*partie=titre The rise of ethical consumerism*partie=nil  
Ethical consumerism really began with the campaign against apartheid. It 
now encompasses a range of issues from environmental protection to concern 
about workers’ rights. Trade unions have formed alliances with consumer’s 
organizations and human rights groups to ride the tide of ethical 
consumerism by drawing attention to abuses of workers’ rights, child 
labour and exploitation of women, especially in labour-intensive 
industries like clothing and sports goods. Unions have campaigned to force 
transnational companies to adopt Codes of Conduct on the treatment of 
workers that will apply right down the whole production chain. Typically, 
the brand owners of such goods use a chain of suppliers and 
sub-contractors, and deny responsibility for any maltreatment of workers 
they do not employ directly.

UNICEF’s 1997 State of the World’s Children report further called on TNCs 
to adopt codes of conduct banning the use of child labour by their 
suppliers in developing countries. 

Among the companies to adopt codes of conduct have been clothing makers 
Levi-Strauss and Phillips-Van Heusen, athletic footwear makers Nike and 
Reebok and retailers Eddie Bauer, The Gap, Nordstrum, JC Penney, Sears 
Roebuck and Co. and Wal-Mart. All of these retailers are heavily involved 
in organizing the production of clothing and footwear internationally 
through outsourcing. In 1996, the US clothing giant The Gap went even 
further, by reaching agreement with a coalition of trade union, human 
rights and religious organizations to establish a system of independent 
monitoring of the observance of this company's code of conduct by its 
subcontractor in El Salvador. Levi’s has terms of engagement with its 600 
contract manufacturers around the world in which it states that it will 
not do business with companies who use child or prison labour. 
Fifa, soccer’s world governing body, has agreed to a code of conduct for 
manufacturers of soccer balls, after a trade union campaign by the ICFTU, 
the ITGLWF and FIET revealed that souvenir balls for the Euro’ 96 
championship had been produced by child labourers in Pakistan.
The Fifa code will set labour standards for suppliers of Fifa-approved 
balls, covering the minimum working age, hours and conditions, and union 
representation. 

*partie=titre Do the Codes work?*partie=nil 
Codes of conduct have obvious drawbacks. To date, they have been entirely 
voluntary; firms are not legally bound to follow them. There are usually 
few if any satisfactory monitoring and enforcement procedures, despite 
constant calls from unions and pressure groups for independent monitoring 
and verification mechanisms. For many companies, the problem is simply one 
of public relations; they will do enough to get the campaigners off their 
back, but no more. 

But despite these problems, there is no doubt that codes of conduct do 
make a difference. Even if all they are worried about is getting a bad 
press, many companies, especially those who invest heavily in their brand 
image, are very sensitive to public opinion, and will go to great lengths 
to avoid adverse publicity. They can be shamed into improving their labour 
practices. And if respecting labour standards improves a firm’s image, and 
its sales, other firms may start to see labour rights as a bankable 
commodity.

Campaigning on labour codes also raises public awareness of the way 
workers’ rights are abused, and of the role of trade unions in defending 
workers. Through these campaigns, trade unions have forged powerful 
alliances with NGOs, women’s groups, consumer groups and human rights 
organizations that may prove useful in the campaign for a workers’ rights 
clause.

A recent report by the NGO Human Rights Watch claims that public action 
and serious insistence on human rights can work. Public pressure on 
conditions of work faced by textile workers have forced large importing 
companies to source their goods from companies that respect labour rights. 
Major manufacturers from GAP to Nike have been forced to own up to myriad 
abuses of workers in a number of developing countries. 

Codes of conduct and GSP systems have helped raise public awareness of the 
reality of globalization; of just why certain goods are so cheap; and of 
who really pays the full price. They have also blown away the myth that 
the mighty TNCs are omnipotent and invincible, and given a powerful boost 
to the confidence of the trade union movement and other campaigners. As 
well as the substantial publicity these campaigns have attracted, they 
have made a profound impact in many sectors, especially child labour. 
People are now much more aware of how extensive and complex a problem this 
is. 

But however many examples one can find of their working, voluntary codes 
of conduct are no substitute for a workers’ rights clause. 
That is not to say that the trade union movement will be sidelining its 
work on developing and strengthening codes of conduct, or on pressing for 
links between trade and workers’ rights to be included in regional trade 
arrangements. But these campaigns are part of the global campaign for a 
workers’ rights clause.

*{(7) Havana Charter for an International Trade Organisation, Department of 
State Pub. No. 3117, Commercial Policy Series 113 (1948)
(8) The ICFTU has published a "Users' Guide to the Social Summit". 
Available from the ICFTU, or on our World Wide Web site at 
http://www.icftu.org
CHAPTER FOUR:
THE WAY FORWARD
The next step} 

The campaign for a workers’ rights clause is now at a critical phase. The 
trade union movement made significant gains from the Marrakech meeting and 
the Singapore meeting. These gains were the result of careful planning, a 
lot of media work and intensive lobbying during the negotiations. The next 
WTO Ministerial Summit will be held in Geneva from 18-20 May 1998. The 
planning for this meeting has already started, and will intensify over the 
intervening months. Our aim is keep up the pressure for labour standards 
and trade nationally and at world level, and to create and use 
opportunities to keep the issue in the headlines.

*partie=titre The right time for workers’ rights*partie=nil 
Time is now on the side of the workers’ rights clause campaign. Public 
awareness of international social issues is high. The growth in media and 
communications technology has shrunk the distance between countries. 
Everyone sees more, knows more, and seems to care more. 
The political climate has also changed in many parts of the world. 
Alongside the growing awareness that everything connects has come a 
recognition that the free market cannot simply be left to operate 
unchecked and ungoverned. As we have argued earlier, the international 
business community itself campaigns vigorously for global regulation when 
it comes to matters like copyright control, or the manufacture of 
counterfeit goods that affect corporate profits. This sits rather uneasily 
alongside their opposition to a workers’ rights clause. 

Women’s organizations have become aware of the way the global economy 
exploits and discriminates against women and girls, especially in 
employment. There have been a number of campaigns to raise awareness about 
equal wages and treatment for women workers, improving their working 
conditions and organization into trade unions, including the ICFTU’s 
international campaign on the rights of working women and the campaigns of 
the ICFTU Asian and Pacific Regional Organization, ICFTU/APRO on "Women 
Know Your Rights" and "1 + 1 = Women Power". Women trade unionists and 
women’s organizations were vocal and effective at the United Nations 
Fourth World Women’s Conference in Beijing in 1995, particularly in 
ensuring that the final declaration included a strong reference to the 
importance of guaranteeing workers’ rights, including rights to protection 
against discrimination, in international trade agreements. 

Ethical consumerism, fired in part by energetic and imaginative 
campaigning from the trade union movement and other civic groups has also 
helped dispel the image of the all-powerful, all-conquering TNC. People 
are beginning to see that these juggernauts can be brought under control; 
all it takes is the determined activism to generate the political will. 
All this has created a fertile environment for the campaign for a workers’ 
rights clause. 

*partie=titre The message*partie=nil 
One reason that the message on a workers’ rights clause has got through is 
that it is a very simple message. Despite (or, perhaps, because of) the 
vehemence of the opposition, few people doubt that trade and labour 
standards are connected in just the way that the trade unions maintain – 
that unscrupulous employers and governments are paying low wages and 
oppressing workers to maximize profit. It sounds like common sense - and 
it matches people’s experience. 

All of the abuses that the trade union movement has targeted during the 
workers’ rights clause take place behind closed doors and barbed wire. The 
abusers are always on the defensive; ministerial pronouncements about 
"traditional culture" ring hollow when set against images of young 
children toiling their childhood away in sweatshops and factories; and 
claims by the big companies that they have no control over what happens 
all the way down the production chain rarely convince. TNCs cannot at the 
same time boast to their customers about the rigors of their quality 
control, while maintaining they have no jurisdiction over what goes on in 
their sub-contractors’ factories. The two propositions are inconsistent. 

*partie=titre Emerging Areas of Consensus*partie=nil 
As this document has shown, the debate about whether and, if so, how to 
encourage the parallel improvement of basic workers rights and the opening 
up of global markets is not new. It was a major topic of discussion and 
agreement in 1947 in Havana at the first post-war international conference 
on trade. It gained significance since the signing of the Uruguay Round 
agreements in 1994 in Marrakech. The ILO, UNCTAD, the World Bank, the 
OECD, and the G7 Summit have discussed the issue extensively and a number 
of serious studies have been produced. There are some signs of an 
emerging, if partial, consensus upon which trade ministers can build. 
Firstly, there is widespread agreement on the ICFTU’s proposals for the 
following seven core ILO standards, supported by the Copenhagen UN Social 
Summit, the Beijing UN 4th World Women’s Conference and in the Singapore 
Declaration by WTO trade ministers, as points of reference: 
· Conventions 29 and 105 on the abolition of forced labour;
· Conventions 87 and 98 on the rights to freedom of association and to 
bargain collectively;
· Conventions 111 and 100 on the prevention of discrimination in 
employment and equal pay for work of equal value; and
· Convention 138 on the minimum age for employment (child labour).
These standards are amongst the most highly ratified of the ILO. Over 100 
states have ratified at least six of the seven. They are not 
industrialised country standards; they constitute the most accepted 
standards in the world for the following reasons:
· they assert the right of workers to form and join unions and to 
negotiate conditions of employment that are fair and appropriate for 
their country's level of development; 
· they outlaw forced labour or slave labour, which prevent workers from 
having any say in where they work or in the terms of their employment;
· they seek to end discrimination in employment which stops particular 
groups of workers such as women or migrant workers, from benefiting from 
trade growth; and 
· they seek to end the commercial exploitation of children, and will lay 
the foundation for a programme of aid aimed at communities and families 
who presently depend on child labour to survive.
Adherence to the seven basic ILO standards would prevent the most extreme 
forms of exploitation and cut-throat competition. It would not end 
developing countries' comparative advantage, but it would establish a 
process by which conditions of employment could gradually be improved as 
trade increases. This would encourage the growth of consumer markets, 
stimulating both domestic and foreign investment and, most importantly, 
jobs.

This would help to ensure a more balanced expansion of world trade and a 
smoother process of adjustment to changes in the global division of 
labour. At the Copenhagen Social Development Summit in 1995 there was a 
very broad consensus that these are core labour rights to which all 
countries should and can commit themselves. Furthermore, as stated in the 
Programme of Action adopted at the Summit (paragraph 6), "...social 
progress will not be realized simply through the free interaction of 
market forces. Public policies are necessary to correct market failures, 
to complement market mechanisms, to maintain social stability and to 
create a national and international environment that promotes sustainable 
growth on a global scale."

A second point of consensus is that all countries should aim for 
progressively more and more open trade. The global market is thus set to 
enlarge and affect significantly an ever increasing number of workers. The 
intensification of competition is already causing trade tensions to rise 
between states. This calls for a much closer interaction between trade 
policy and policies in such fields as the environment, foreign direct 
investment, business practices and labour. The WTO therefore must adapt to 
these pressures and increase its collaboration with other agencies, such 
as the ILO.

The third area of consensus is that the international community should 
exert pressure on countries that violate basic standards not only out of 
concern for basic human rights but also because such violations call into 
question the legitimacy of a trading system that allows unscrupulous 
companies to gain short-term competitive advantage by abusing fundamental 
workers’ freedoms. Already a number of governments and some socially aware 
companies and trade associations are responding to such concerns by 
introducing workers’ rights provisions into national or regional trade 
laws and codes of conduct. However such actions cannot provide a general 
solution. It is high time for the WTO, together with the ILO, to create a 
pro-active multilateral framework to stave off the danger that even well 
intentioned unilateral measures could be used for protectionist purposes.
A fourth area of common ground is that fears that core labour standards 
could negatively affect economic performance are unfounded. Studies of the 
relationship between trade liberalisation and labour standards show a 
positive two-way relationship over time in which improved observance of 
basic workers’ rights acts as an incentive to raise productivity through 
investment, especially in education and training, and helps to create a 
more stable social framework attractive to foreign direct investment. 
Nevertheless efforts to extend basic labour standards can be undermined by 
governments which seek to gain a short-term advantage by suppressing 
labour rights, typically in Export Processing Zones. The countries most at 
risk from such behaviour are typically developing countries with similar 
levels of labour productivity and which are consequently under pressure to 
weaken established workers’ rights. International action is therefore 
needed to promote adherence to basic standards and prevent destructive 
competition which is damaging both for the country and the workers 
concerned as well as the international system.

*partie=titre The Need for Dialogue*partie=nil 
There is clearly a need for further dialogue. The ICFTU and its affiliates 
have had extensive discussions with governments, international 
organizations, employers and many other interested experts and 
non-governmental organizations. These have revealed widespread recognition 
that a problem exists and that practical solutions need to be found which 
reinforce the integrity of the open trading system and improve the 
observance of basic workers’ rights. We are convinced that the elements of 
consensus that are emerging could be enlarged through a deeper and more 
considered examination of the options and in particular the procedural 
mechanisms for cooperation between the ILO and the WTO.

Developing countries working to improve the rights of their citizens at 
work at the same time as increasing their participation in the global 
market have most to gain from a reinforcement of basic workers’ rights. 
Responsible business, that recognises that the security and productivity 
of their investments ultimately depends on the degree to which the system 
in which they operate produces social justice, would also benefit. Support 
could also be expected from industrial country governments that are trying 
to adapt to a new global world economy and stave off the dangers of a 
protectionist backlash. And workers everywhere would be able to face rapid 
and sometimes intimidating changes with a greater degree of confidence. 
The potential consensus includes all the major social and political 
adherents of what is known as the free world. This basis of support was 
and remains vital to the GATT system and for the future of the WTO.
The ICFTU, for its part, is more than ready to participate in an open 
dialogue with all concerned. What is needed is an organized forum for such 
discussions so that by the time ministers or heads of state and government 
meet to agree on the agenda for the WTO for the 21st century, they can 
examine specific policy options for the international community. A WTO 
Working Party should therefore be set up with a remit to study and report 
on how the Organization can contribute to furthering the observance of 
basic international labour standards in an open trading system with 
well-defined non-discriminatory mechanisms for action.

The promotion of trade and enabling workers to exercise their basic rights 
are mutually reinforcing. There is no evidence that respect for workers’ 
rights weakens the competitive position of developing countries, indeed by 
laying the foundations for cooperation between workers and employers, core 
labour standards contribute positively to trade and development. A 
workers’ rights provision would strengthen the political authority of the 
WTO and break, rather than build, barriers to world trade. It would 
provide a means of solving disputes that, if allowed to persist, might 
increase pressures for protectionism. And it would serve to reinforce the 
case for enlarged access for developing countries to world export markets. 
A workers’ rights provision in the WTO would need to be backed up, where 
necessary, by international financial and technical assistance through the 
ILO, particularly to fund programmes designed to eliminate child labour 
through the expansion of education facilities and increased 
income-generating opportunities of the poorest families. 

The Geneva Trade Ministers Meeting of the WTO in May 1998 is an 
opportunity to move on the process of finding a way forward on a issue 
which threatens to provoke serious disagreement. What is required is a 
cool objective examination of how the WTO, working closely with the ILO, 
can take action to improve the likelihood that the benefits of trade 
growth will be more broadly spread within and between countries, thus 
widening the constituency of support for trade liberalisation. Such an 
initiative is vital to ensuring a non-protectionist means for securing 
basic workers’ rights in an increasingly competitive world market.


The link between the ILO and the WTO is crucial to the success of a 
workers’ rights clause. The final declaration of the Singapore meeting 
clearly gives the WTO a mandate to co-operate with the ILO. 
The ILO’s pre-Geneva work programme will therefore provide some vital 
occasions to follow-up on the gains made in Marrakech and Singapore. The 
ILO Governing Body Working Party on the social dimensions of globalization 
meets regularly. The priority at the ILO Governing Body will be to 
continue the pressure to enhance ILO supervision of the core conventions. 


The ILO Conference itself brings together representatives from all the 
main players in the workers’ rights clause debate – governments, big 
business, and unions. It will be a perfect platform from which to 
highlight the link between trade liberalization and labour standards. The 
main focus of attention in 1998 is likely to be the debate on 
strengthening the supervisory mechanisms for the core Conventions. This is 
already being discussed in the ILO Governing Body and was a major theme of 
the Director-General’s report to the 1997 Conference. The debate has 
developed around the idea of the adoption by the ILO Conference of a 
Declaration on fundamental rights, and of new supervisory mechanisms which 
would give the ILO significant new capacities to examine the situation in 
respect of those rights in countries which have not ratified the relevant 
conventions.

Paradoxically, both sides of the workers’ rights clause argument have 
reasons to back a stronger ILO: those who want labour rights issue to be 
solely an ILO matter have an interest in its being seen to have a more 
effective machinery; while those, like the ICFTU, who are looking for an 
eventual linkage want new procedures in place so as to highlight the need 
for WTO action on cases of persistent and gross abuse of core standards.
The ICFTU and the whole union movement is further gearing up for the new 
ILO Convention on child labour, which is on the agenda for the 1998 and 
1999 ILO conferences. Our principal objectives for the new standards are 
to retain the age benchmarks set in Convention 138, to maintain a strong 
connection between C138 and the proposed new Convention, and to include 
strong references in the new Convention to the "intolerable" nature of 
commercial exploitation of children and to work that interferes with the 
education and development of children, along with other criteria already 
contained in the text circulated by the ILO. This will be an perfect 
opportunity to raise the profile of what is already a headline issue. And 
it will be another area where the ILO will be better equipped to set the 
standards that will underpin a workers’ rights clause.

Public attention to this issue is expected to increase early in 1998 with 
the holding of the Global March Against Child Labour, an international 
event over several months, organized by NGOs and trade unions, culminating 
at the International Labour Conference in Geneva in June.
 
*partie=titre The next WTO Summit: an opportunity to make progress*partie=nil 
The dates of the next WTO ministerial meeting have been announced as 
Monday 18 May to Wednesday 20 May 1998 in Geneva. The opening on 18 May is 
likely to be a short ceremony to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 
GATT. The format of the following two days is still under discussion. It 
is envisaged that the meeting will provide an occasion for ministers to 
review progress since Singapore and prepare itself for a new "Millenium 
Round" of multilateral negotiations to be launched in 1999 or 2000. 
Endorsed by the United Nations Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen 
1995), the universal observance of core labour standards would mark a 
major step forward in ensuring that all workers have the opportunity to 
benefit from the potential that an open trading system offers for growth 
and improved living standards. At their meeting in Geneva, trade ministers 
should therefore consider the following proposals:
the establishment of a Working Party on International Labour Standards 
and Trade to examine how the WTO, in collaboration with the ILO, can 
contribute to improving the observance of core labour standards; 
including core labour standards as one of the subjects for discussion 
in the next round of WTO trade negotiations; 
strengthening cooperation between the ILO and the WTO in line with the 
agreement in paragraph 4 of the Singapore Declaration; 
that the WTO should in future receive regular reports from the ILO on 
what countries are doing to respect core labour standards. 

*partie=titre Conclusion*partie=nil 
The campaign for a workers’ rights clause is probably the most 
wide-ranging in the history of the trade union movement. It is a campaign 
that goes a long way beyond the confines of that movement. It touches 
every aspect of the global economy at every level.

In this campaign, the trade unions are asking governments and corporations 
whether the global economy as it stands now really represents the kind of 
a world they want to create; or whether they have the courage to face a 
different vision; and whether they have the courage to face the facts 
about the global economy, rather than the fantasies; to look behind the 
sound-bites and the buzz words at the reality of globalization that our 
members - their citizens and their employees - live out every day.

The global economy is asking people too many people to make too high a 
sacrifice for too uncertain a reward. The injustice of all the trappings 
of the global economy - the export processing zones, child labour, 
discrimination, persecution of trade union activists - could not be 
plainer. We have to confront the international community with those 
injustices, and we have to ask them to choose between that vision and 
between ours; between looking backwards and facing the future.
The global economy needs global rules. In an era when multinational 
corporations have more money, better technology, and more raw power than 
many nation-states, it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

There is a wide consensus that they should apply to tariffs, standards, 
and all the practical paraphernalia of getting goods and services across 
borders and into as many market places as possible; there is broad, if 
grudging agreement that they need to cover the environment - no country 
can keep its own air pure, and few can keep their own water clean; and 
there is passionate agreement (especially among the multinationals) that 
they should cover copyright and the protection of intellectual property.
Why should these rules not cover workers’ rights?

The ICFTU is focusing its efforts now on the Geneva meeting. That meeting 
is likely to be a staging post in a journey that began even long before 
the Havana declaration of 1948. We may not get a workers’ rights clause in 
Geneva. What we are certain of, however, is that the tide is now flowing 
in our favour. And we intend to achieve a commitment that workers’ rights 
are important and should be discussed in the next round of WTO trade 
negotiations. With all our resources, and all our strength behind our 
message, we intend to succeed in what will rank as the greatest project 
ever mounted by the trade union movement - saving the global economy; and 
creating a true global society.