Inner-View

"Fight for basic workers’ rights within WTO"

Carla Coletti

A Worker Member of ILO Governing Body, Carla Coletti is associated with the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL). She was in Kathmandu to attend the Third National Congress of General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) held during May 1-3, 2000. She talked to Editor Madan Lamsal at the sidelines of the GEFONT Congress about the recent trends in trade union movement. Excerpts:

In the context of growing globalization, what specific new trends are emerging in the trade union movement?

We may like it or not but globalization is a trend, a reality going on. So we have to come to terms with it. It basically means that today capital does not know any frontiers, that national sovereignty is reduced remarkably in all countries, both powerful and weak, by predominantly autonomous power of capital, especially financial capital. This means a growing uncertainty and vulnerability for the weaker subjects. Capital can move in a matter of seconds from one country to another, suddenly destabilizing the economies. National policies in such circumstances may easily become meaningless National democratic structure become much weaker in the presence of so big and uncontrollable powers. This is why a collaboration on a sound and healthy basis between social partners and the government is so important. This is why all countries need really sound industrial relations based on recentred unions, based on democratic process. Otherwise the entire population of a country would be in the hands of a few. The specific role trade unions can play in this is that they can be the part of an international, a supranational democratic guarantee. Of course unions in each country represent the interests of their members in that particular country. But, who are the counterparts today? Are they national ones or multi-national companies? What is their nationality, where are they? In such a situation, it is inevitable for unions to look for a new kind of solidarity, which is not of an ideological nature. It must be of a concrete nature. We must think of collective bargain, which goes beyond the national frontiers. About the trend, I think it is still too slow but it is a positive one. It is bringing together organizations, which may have different ideological inspirations. The more diversity we have in our family the richer we are in a way. But again, we need ourselves democratic and transparent procedures. And the only way we are going to see this is when our membership is not politically supported by this or that party. On the contrary we should be strong and autonomous enough to influence the political parties.

That means, globalization has been a blessing in disguise for trade union movement?

I wouldn't go to that extent. Today, globalization implies costs and the burden of these costs is on the weakest ones in all societies, within countries and between countries. It means that unions have got the responsibility of taking care of different needs of different workers, and find a level of compromise, express a kind of synthesis, between the needs of those who are more vulnerable. Take women, for example. In the labour market of any country, they are weaker than their male counterparts. That is a fact of history, a reality. So it is obvious for unions to pay special attention and go for general solidarity in support of the weakest. At international level, who is paying the highest price? Obviously workers in countries which have a less developed democratic system and therefore, a lower level of legal protections. Laws are often in existence but are not respected. So it is of no use having nice bills passed by parliament when employers can easily ignore them because no effective labour inspection system is in place. I have heard from my colleagues here in Nepal that the labour inspection system here has serious weaknesses. The important thing is for unions to be able to have the governments understand that in promoting workers’ rights they are not just expressing partisan or selfish interests. They are representing a proposal for a sound development of a nation. Therefore it should be in the interest of not only the government but even of employers, if they are far-sighted enough not to think of easy and fast profits today but think also of the future. And this is where trade unions from the different countries can help each other. That is what I call complete solidarity.

What new issues are emerging as deserving attention from trade unions?

Some of the issues are not new, they are old ones. But one of the new ones I would say is universal access to basic education and vocational training. And when I say universal access, I don’t think of laws and principles only. I think of schooling not only being available but also affordable for all families. In highly industrialized countries, we experienced that our economies really started developing the day basic education was made universally accessible and compulsory. This is the only way how countries can overcome the problem of child labour. If there is no education really available, obviously poor families would send their children to work. This has been top priority for unions since more than one century. But today this is of new and stronger importance. Together with this, and on the same level, is the right to organize and bargain collectively. Unless this is guaranteed it is of no use talking of any policies for working families. If workers themselves, in all sectors, formal and informal, public and private companies, do not have the rights to organize and bargain freely, there is no future for the economy of a country. The only future is something similar to slavery, though you may call it by a different name.

Trade unions here in Nepal are affiliated to one or the other political party. This is said to pose obstacles in acquiring stable industrial harmony. What is the case in other countries?

It would be difficult for me to talk about other countries than my own. In our experience, trade union autonomy and real independence from any other social actors, is the best condition for a respected trade union movement. Of course, each country has got its own traditions. And it is also important for trade unions to have political allies because we need wider social alliances. We are not only working for the specific interests of our workers. We are basically for the betterment of all citizens. We regard ourselves as actors somehow responsible for basic citizenship rights. Therefore alliances with civil society and political actors is important. But alliances are only possible when the actors of the alliance are independent from each other. To me, it is not wrong that in a country different unions have got different ideological inspirations. This is a part of the story of trade union movement everywhere in the world. In Italy, traditionally we regard trade union pluralism as wealth rather than a difficulty. But, of course, this must not prevent unity of action from taking place. For example when we have to set demands for negotiations, we may well come from slightly different perspectives and positions because of our different inspirations. But we know that the highest duty and responsibility we have is that of unity of workers for their demands to be more powerful. So we manage to find an agreement before we enter together into negotiations with our counterparts. It is difficult and I am not saying we found the wonder recipe. I would tend to say that a higher level of independence or better transformation into a kind of alliance would give the unions a voice which can speak more loudly and also have better continuity in respect to their actions because they would be less vulnerable to the political changes in the national scenario. There is no need to have mergers. I would not accept my organization to merge with another one. But yes, unity of action is important. That is what I can say out of my experience.

In Italy, we are completely independent from political parties. When I speak of alliances, all I mean is that our members may well be affiliated to different parties. And this is the case within every organization. In our constitution, we have a very strict rule called the incompatibility rule. It may happen that one of the leaders of trade unions might want to go for a political position, which is absolutely legitimate. It may even be very good for the trade union movement. In that case, the rule says he or she has to leave the elected position in the trade union movement the day he or she stands for election.

Though I’m not in a position to make any judgement on the situation here, I have seen signs of change in this country. And let us not forget that free trade union in this country could start operating only 10 years ago. I respect very much what they have been able to achieve. My organization has got relations with both GEFONT and NTUC. Because, as I said, we blieve in pluralism and we want to be in solidarity with all. We would be happy to see that our contacts may even help in unity. It is not for us to decide but it is certainly our interests to promote this.

What can trade unions in countries like Nepal do in the context of growing globalization?

It is a difficult issue, which we believe must not be regarded in an ideological way. Many say plainly and simply ‘no’ to globalization. It is like saying no to Santa Claus. Globalization is there as is liberalization of world trade. Nither you nor we can decide about it. Certainly not the workers of the most vulnerable countries. Nor the most valnerable workers in the rich, strong countries. So what is the solution? We, the trade unions in Italy, are certainly convinced that the existing rules, in particular of WTO, are absolutely inadequate, to say the least. Because they do not guarantee any transparency and any democratic control in trade exchanges, which affect the lives of people around the world. So the first problem is that of transforming radically that organization into something where all partners can participate on an equal footing, where developing countries in particular are put in a position where their voices can be heard and not just where a few big boys take the decisions behind closed doors. What does that mean in practice? It is clear that if there is a WTO conference, there will be countries that are able to attend it with delegations of 200 people with plenty of legal advisors, and so on. And countries that can only afford to be present with two individuals do not have the expertise to properly defend their interests. We believe that, first of all, it is the responsibility of the most developed countries to provide concretely the kind of expertise and tools which are necessary for developing countries to be present on an equal footing. Another aspect is the question of inclusion of due respect of basic worker’s right within WTO rules. This has been regarded as a kind of protectionist measure in the sight of richer countries. And frankly, it may become this, unless this is done in a fair and appropriate way. What do I mean by that? We, the trade unions in Italy, are strongly against any sanction-based system. Because a sanction-based system may become protectionist, and we do not want that. But based on the existing experiences, we may well think of a system which we would call a promotional one, based on incentives, based on helping countries to meet obligations in terms of respect of worker’s rights so to adhere to common folds. We are not ready to support liberalization of trade, which is paid for by the weakest of our brother and sister workers in poor countries. We do not want to see them exploited, we do not want to see them unemployed. But we do not want also to see various more elites in their countries getting richer thanks to liberalized trade while their (the workers’) rights are still suppressed. This is why we think due respect of basic labour rights should be incorporated in WTO rules, whereby developing countries really have more say in this and have more tools to play the same game. We have been asking our government to put in place a system of genuine regular consultations for social partners - both trade unions and the employers - in all definition and implementation of their policies with regard to WTO. So it is no use saying no to WTO, it is there. But it must be more accountable, more transparent, trade unions must have a say, national parliaments need to be able to control.

How practical do you think is the minimum wage fixed in Nepal in light of the fact that while there is massive unemployment on one hand, on the other foreign workers are readily available at a cheaper wage?

Fixing minimum wage is like granting people the right to organize. It is a tool, an important one, but it is not a goal in itself. When you talk about the minimum wage in relation to the large scale of unemployment, it depends on whether you are looking at things for today and tomorrow morning or a bit further into future. What does Nepal want? A skilled work force, a developed economy, which is able to be self-reliant? An agriculture which is based now on a rather poor output? I understand that Nepal is now on a trend towards imports exceeding exports. It is not anymore self-reliant. What is the way out of this? Developing agriculture. There is no other way out. I understand that there is a big problem in land reforms, there is problem of skills and technological developments in agriculture. Obviously by taking measures to do this, there will be interests that will be touched. Big landowners who enjoy very very cheap labour are certainly going to see their profits decrease. But the question is: Is the government taking care of the country as such and thus trying to make sure the conditions for its development? Which means having a work force, which is not illiterate, which is able to make and manage technological improvements, so that there can be not only self-sufficiency but also exports. Minimum wage, getting rid of any form of forced labour, is a pre-condition. Otherwise you will continue having a shrinking productivity in agriculture, and proverty in the country.

How is the experience of trade union movement in Italy?

I think the most important aspect and probably the one of which we are really proud is that we have been able to establish a really sound system of industrial relations where the consultation with social partners is well-established practice and where negotiation is the crucial tool. Obviously we see that our legal system improves continuously and we pay a lot of attention to this. But what we rely upon most is our collective bargaining capacity. In Italy we have a system of double level of collective bargaining. The most import one takes place at industry level nationwide. The national collective agreement by industry applies to all workers of that industry. And this is for us a major instrument of general solidarity and also to address the imbalance we have between regions in our country - imbalance in employment opportunities, social services. Then we have a second level of negotiations. It is not a duplication of the first one. The National Collective Agreement is to guarantee minimum benefits in terms of wages, and individual as well as collective rights of all workers. But there also are issues, which have to do with company productivity or specific problems in management, working hours etc. And that is the second level of negotiation, which is developed at company level or territorial level so to reach all small and middle-sized companies. This as a whole makes a very sound system of industrial relations. This does not mean that conflict is not a part of it. We are never afraid of going into conflicts. Italian trade union movement has got a rather combative kind of tradition. But this never develops into social unrest, which is a guarantee for democracy. And for us it is important to influence political parties rather than the other way round. We believe that we are an important voice in society especially in setting lines of development in the country.

What do you think of the problem of child labour?

The problem of child labour is not one that is going to be solved within a few weeks. We are all aware of this problem. As we are aware of the fact that all those countries which are today rich and developed started their development the day they made child labour illegal and they provided universal education to all. That is the pre-condition for development and for wealth. This is something that history shows. Obviously poverty is one of the main reasons for child labour. What we should be working for is employment for adults at conditions which make life possible and at decent conditions. And education for children so that when they come to the legal age of work, they can have a decent work and a decent income. This is the ideal scenario. How can we get there? Today we might ask: "Why employers are giving jobs to children instead of an adult?" So there should be employment available for the adults at decent conditions and there should be schools for children. Now the solution apparently could be improving the working conditions for children. What does this mean? Providing them with a below level kind of education, which they can attend perhaps in the evenings after they come back from working the whole day? Again, my question is why? And the only answer is because they are not protected, because they are not legally employed. Therefore these have to be seen in conjunction with what we have said earlier about the right to organize and the right to minimum wage. Unless you put the two together, you are not going to solve the problem of child labour. There are many projects, which talk about rehabilitating children. Again this is a very sensitive issue which needs to be treated in an appropriate way. If we talk, for instance, of children of 12 or 13 years, we are aware that they have never received proper formal education and that in one or two years time they will be of the legal age for work. Obviously the best thing you can do is provide them with some education and vocational training. Because it wouldn’t be of much use withdrawing them from work and giving them nothing knowing that in one year’s time they would be illiterate workers ready to be exploited in the labour market. But since we are also talking of children much much younger, some being only five, they can only be sent to school. Conditions can be guaranteed by organising a kind of special temporary non-formal schools in areas where formal schools are not available. That again needs to be done in a very cautious way. Because we must not create a situation where the first and second class citizen - the ones who can go for formal education and have a future and the other who can just have a little of education and thus guaranteed for future exploitation.

Whose responsibility is it to train workers?

I think the primary responsibility and the interest is in the government. Because a skilled work force is essential in the development of a country’s economy. And it is a responsibility towards the citizens because the right to education and training is the right of citizens. Having said this, I think employers who say that this is not their business are being very stupid. Because they must be aware that the work force of this country is not skilled enough. And unless they are small business, people who go for low profile kind of business, they must understand that it is in their interest to provide some vocational training. If you ask me if it is the role for trade unions, in principle it shouldn’t be. But, of course, if trade unions are so far-sighted as to understand that in order to strengthen the possibility of their membership, trying to provide education is a good policy. The ideal, but not abstract, situation would be one where the government develops a vocational training policy which is very well oriented. I heard from my colleagues here that a lot of vocational training is being planned and implemented without any carefully studied connection with employment opportunities and the need. What the government should do in any country is have a clear idea of priorities in terms of sectors it wants to develop, where the best opportunities should be. Vocational training should be planned with that purpose. Also, vocational training should have, from the viewpoint of the government, a priority so to solve the problems of the most critical sectors. Agriculture must be mentioned here. If the government is aware that that is an area where there is highest rate of illiteracy, this is the most backward kind of productive sector, that is where the government should plan investments in technological improvements, market policy initiatives which would open prospects for development and employment. But again, this would also be the responsibility of employers. And hopefully, vocational training, as in many countries, would be jointly planned and implemented by employers, workers and trade unions. In doing so, all things would be taken into account - the legitimate interests of business and also good prospects for the workers.

Corporate | Cover Features | Opinion Poll | Economy & Policy | Column
World Briefs | Sectoral | 91 days Treasury Bills | Tourism | Marketing | Inner-view
Entertainment | Stock Market| Management | Business News |  Main