International labor law is a regulatory body that covers public and private international law concerning the rights and obligations of employees, employers, unions and governments in organizing the workplace. The International Labor Organization and the World Trade Organization have become major international bodies involved in labor market reform. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank have indirectly encouraged changes in labor policy by demanding structural adjustment requirements to receive loans or grants. Conflict of legal issues arises, as determined by national courts, when people work in more than one country, and supra-national bodies, especially in EU law, have an increasingly growing set of rules regarding workers' rights.
International labor standards refer to the conventions agreed upon by international actors, resulting from a series of assessments of value, set out to protect basic workers' rights, improve worker safety, and improve their employment requirements in the world of scale. The purpose of the standard, then, is to establish the minimum level of worldwide protection from inhumane labor practices through the adoption and application of such measures. From a theoretical point of view, it has been maintained, for ethical reasons, that there are certain basic human rights that are universal to mankind. Thus, the objective of international labor standards is to ensure the provision of such rights at work, such as against workplace aggression, intimidation, discrimination and gender inequality on the other side for work diversity, workplace democracy and empowerment.
Although the existence of international labor standards does not necessarily imply enforcement or enforcement mechanisms, most real-world cases have used formal agreements and agreements from international institutions. The main international body assigned to develop work standards is the International Labor Organization (ILO). Founded in 1919, the ILO advocates for international standards as essential to combat labor conditions involving "injustice, hardship and privacy". According to the ILO, international labor standards contribute to the possibility of lasting peace, helping to reduce the adverse impacts of international market competition and fostering the advancement of international development.
Its implementation, however, is not limited to the ILO or is not limited by the legislative model represented by the ILO. Other alternatives include direct trade sanctions, multilateral enforcement, and voluntary standards. In addition to the controversy that emerged over each of these models, greater issues have also been raised about the debate about the need for international labor standards themselves. However, while criticism has emerged, the international community has largely reached a consensus that supports the basic protection of world labor from inhumane practices.
Associated with the development of successful international labor standards is the monitoring and enforcement of appropriate labor standards. Much of the monitoring is conducted through the ILO, but domestic institutions and other NGOs also play a role in successful monitoring of international labor standards.
Video International labour law
History
Since the industrial revolution, the labor movement has noticed how economic globalization will undermine the bargaining power of workers, since their employers may move to recruit workers abroad without the protection of labor standards at home. At the Fourth Annual International Congress in 1869, the following were resolved:
Initial history
The concept of protecting workers from the dangers of working environments dates from Europe to the 14th century. The first example of the modern labor rights movement, though, came in response to the brutal working conditions that accompanied the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In 1802, the Royal Parliament passed what is now known as the UK Factory Law. The law seeks to regulate the working day of apprentices by limiting working hours to 12 per day. Thus, the British Factory Act serves as a precursor to the international labor standards model seen today. Minimum rules similar to those found in English law then became increasingly common among the nineteenth-century industrialized countries. Initial efforts on the provision of labor standards are limited in scope. Such conventions focus primarily on improving working conditions in relation to working hours, women and children workers, and the use of hazardous materials. While it is clear that support for workers' rights is not consistent across international borders, the original activists used only the use of moral force to address differences in labor standards. It was not until the last part of the 19th century that attempts were made to apply uniform standards on an international scale.
Creation of the ILO
In 1919, following the end of the First World War, the agenda on international labor standards reached a prominent new level as a result of the establishment of the International Labor Organization. As mandated by Section XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, the ILO is formed as a branch of the League of Nations to address all aspects of possible labor rights. Preliminary efforts are focused primarily on the eradication of slavery and all forms of forced labor. The agenda was quickly expanded, however, to include the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, non-discrimination in employment, and the abolition of child labor. The creation of the ILO marks the first example of many major international actors united in reaching consensus on universal labor rights. Apart from the lack of formal coercion facilities, the ILO then urges its 44 member states to adopt and ratify the conventions that limit the oppressive job market practices.
The early years of the ILO
In the first two years of the existence of the ILO, 22 international labor conventions were adopted. Some of the topics that the first convention addressed were "industry hours, unemployment, pregnancy protection, night work for women, minimum age, and night work for young people in industry." In 1930, the ILO adopted the first basic convention in the future: the Forced Labor Convention (No. 29), which prohibits all forms of forced labor unless excluded by certain conditions. With the onset of the Great Depression, the United States joined the ILO in 1934 and noted that complicated labor issues would require an international response. Throughout the history of the League of Nations, the ILO is the only organization affiliated with the League united by the United States. Against the backdrop of World War 2, the ILO expanded its mandate with the Philadelphia Declaration, signed during the 26th general conference session in 1944. The Philadelphia Declaration, attached to the ILO's general constitution, marks some of the ILO's earliest basic future conventions including freedom expression and association adopted in 1948 as Convention 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention.
Globalization and change of work division
In the first half of the 20th century, the division of global labor was shaped largely by the practice of colonialism. Poor countries export natural resources to rich countries, which then produce and produce specialty goods. As many colonized countries achieve independence, developing countries in the global South are taking an increasingly protectionist policy in an effort to build their economic manufacturing sector, thus marking a shift in the global division of labor. However, towards the end of the 20th century, a number of factors saw protectionist measures fall. These factors include rising labor costs in the north, advances in transportation and communications technologies, trade liberalization, and market deregulation. In the midst of a changing international work landscape, southern developing countries took over the dominance of the previously unseen, labor-intensive manufacturing industry.
With major market deregulation and a significant increase in the volume of international trade, efforts to make the manufacturing sector more attractive to retailers see extreme downward pressure placed on quality working conditions in the world's low-income areas. This raises growing concerns about the global Race down, in which the government takes part in the repeated easing of workers protection in an effort to help the international competitiveness of export-oriented industries. These natural concerns result in an important increase in the discourse on international labor ethics that characterizes the contemporary international human rights arena.
Maps International labour law
Model
The traditional model of labor standard regulation is, for the most part, history, within the state or within the jurisdiction of legislation and law enforcement. However, this model may not be appropriate when competitors in the product market are located in different countries or jurisdictions with different labor standards. This concern opens discussions for the establishment of international labor standards, which in turn require international regulation, especially in the context of global trade. However, determining the method of effective implementation of international labor standards is a field of difficulty and a highly contested field. The following sections describe some of the existing models for international labor standard setting, based largely on the work of Richard N. Block, Karen Roberts, Cynthia Ozeki and Myron J. Roomkin in their paper entitled "International Labor Standards Model".
Legislative
The legislative model for applying a set of international labor standards is the best known. This model involves enforcing and enforcing labor standards by legislatures throughout the country. Social policies on employment and labor typically fall into three areas: the free movement of labor, the prevention of social dumping through low labor standards, and dialogue between labor and management. This model has been adopted by the European Community, part of the European Union, as well as the model adopted by the International Labor Organization (ILO). Organizations, like this, are given authority, through a series of procedures, to then issue guidance in one of these areas of labor policy. Member States shall abide by these directives; however, what actually means compliance and requires submission to the wisdom of each member country.
Direct trade sanctions
For more than 25 years, there is a relationship between labor standards and international trade, especially for certain commodities. The earliest and most extensive example of connecting international labor standards with trade found in US law under the 1974 Trade Act, created the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Under the GSP, the United States is allowed to provide nonreciprocal tariff preferences to least developed countries, based on eligibility criteria for specific countries and products, to promote their economic growth and development. Among the country's eligibility criteria is to provide workers in a country, some internationally recognized rights, similar to the four core conventions set by the ILO. If a complaint or petition is filed against a GSP recipient, this is processed through the United States Trade Representative Office. Since 1988, eight countries have been suspended or dismissed from the GSP program: Burma, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Pakistan (some products), Sudan and Syria. Four countries have been suspended but later restored: Central African Republic, Chile, Paraguay and Romania. In addition, Section 2202 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires that the Secretary of State submit to the Congress an annual report on the economic policies and trade practices of each country with which the United States has economic or trade relations.
The model of trade sanctions in the United States, also working as an incentive approach, appears to have succeeded in forcing US officials to encourage targeted countries to address grave breaches of labor standards, as defined in law. This model, however, is not designed to be a guarantee of broad employment standards among trading partners because it is based on external complaints rather than monitoring results. While effective in providing procedural rights, lower percentages of trading partners provide substantive standards, so this measure has mixed success. Some expect that implementation in competing developing countries along with support of complementary domestic policies will allow this model to overall, improve the global social floor.
Multilateral enforcement
Another example of the various methods of implementing international labor standards is the multilateral enforcement model. The model, embodied in the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), differs from other mandatory methods against the imposition of common standards schemes. In contrast, multilateral enforcement models require that signatories to agreements such as the NAALC make a strong commitment to the existing labor standards structure within their respective domestic spheres. The unique aspect of NAALC, however, is that it does not dictate policy. This includes a strong aversion to standards adopted uniformly at the international level. Rather than encouraging the entry of a basic set of workers rights, the multilateral enforcement model requires only that its members seek to create an unbiased administrative body that assesses whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the continued support of domestic labor standards. In this way, the multilateral model is not international in the adoption of general principles, but rather the level of commitment required for an undefined standard group. In enforcing such commitments, agreements such as the NAALC primarily make use of recommendations and publicity to make decision-makers accountable for their actions. Multilateral enforcement models such as NAALC have experienced mixed results in terms of effectiveness due to their limited influence influence.
Voluntary standards
The voluntary standard model makes reference to the implementation system for labor standards based on the company's code of ethics. Company codes of ethics are adopted when various organizations join together in an agreement to operate under a socially responsible set of labor rules. Therefore, this model generally involves voluntary behavior and self-regulation. An example of voluntary corporate application of labor standards is given by the Sullivan Principles in South Africa taken by a group of US companies. In addition, US clothing retailers, such as Nike, Gap, and Liz Claiborne, have recently tried to implement a regulatory system to prevent their products from being manufactured under sweatshop conditions.
In order for this model to work, there must be an incentive for compliance. The problem, however, is that in the case of labor standards, there is usually a high economic incentive to ignore this standard, which is seen as an increase in production costs. For this reason, monitoring systems play an important role in the success and effectiveness of these conditions. In some cases, such as the Sullivan Principles mentioned earlier in South Africa, monitoring has demonstrated the success of the code. In this case, investors value code compliance, as a sign of corporate citizenship. On the other hand, consumers can also punish companies that they perceive as socially irresponsible by way of boycott or individual decisions to avoid purchasing certain products. The main points of these examples are: where there is strong pressure from investors and consumers to support certain standards, firms can benefit by being seen as upholding accepted morale.
Now, while this is true, it is also true that where the cost to adhere to strict standards is very high and sources of consumer pressure spread, codes tend to be ineffective. It takes active involvement and company interest, in response to whatever action has been taken, in order for this model to be successful. When they choose to respond to outside pressures, companies use tools such as public announcements, local religious leaders, human rights activists, university professors, and worker representatives, inter alia, to implement compliance and monitoring systems. Another difficulty is that, while pressures have been effectively suppressed on each company, it is difficult to find agreement at the industry level, in terms of company code.
Finally, the variation of the voluntary standard model is one of the certifications, which began in October 1997 with the issuance of SA (Social Accountability) 8000 by the Council at the Economic Priority Accreditation Board (CEPAA). SA8000 is an example of a corporate certification process for social responsibility and labor standards. The certification process aims to identify companies that adhere to certain criteria based on social accountability requirements, including criteria for child labor and worker health and safety. The resulting certification then serves the purpose of assuring the customer that the goods and services provided by the certified company have been produced by the employee offered labor standards that at least meet the minimum acceptable level.
International Labor Organization
The International Labor Organization (ILO) is a United Nations specialized agency, consisting of 187 member countries, which deals with labor issues. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles contains the first constitution of the new International Labor Organization founded on the principle that "labor is not a commodity," and for the reason that "peace can be established only if it is based on social justice." The main role of the ILO is to coordinate the principles of international labor law by issuing the Convention, which codifies labor laws on all matters. Members of the ILO may voluntarily adopt and ratify the convention by enforcing the rules in their domestic law. For example, the first Industrial Working Convention, 1919 requires a maximum of 48 hours per week, and has been ratified by 52 out of 185 member countries. Britain has finally refused to ratify the Convention, as many EU member states do today, although the Working Time Guidelines adopt its principles, subject to the absence of individuals. The current ILO Constitution comes from the 1944 Philadelphia Declaration, and under the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 1998 classifies eight conventions as the core. Together this requires the freedom to join trade unions, bargain collectively and take action (Conventions Nos. 87 and 98) abolition of forced labor (29 and 105) abolition work by children before mandatory school ends (138 and 182) and not there is discrimination in the workplace (No. 100 and 111). Compliance with the core Convention is mandatory from the fact of membership, even if the country has not ratified the Convention in question. To ensure compliance, the ILO is limited to collecting evidence and reporting on the progress of member states, so that publicity will put pressure on the public and international to reform the law. A global report on core standards is produced each year, while individual reports of countries that have ratified other Conventions are compiled on a bi-annual basis or may be less frequent.
The ILO, by its very existence, is a recognized international vehicle to raise the issue of international labor standards in forums around the world. No other model is capable of performing this role. It establishes labor standards through conventions and recommendations and has a tripartite government structure - representing governments, employers and workers. Although the recommendations of the ILO mostly take the role of providing guidance to member countries, stronger forms, ILO conventions, have contractual status, which in principle bind members of countries that voluntarily ratify it. This is a benchmark of strong employment standards to which countries can seek to declare and enforce national laws consistent with conventions. It is through these ways that organizations work to uphold international labor standards.
In 1998, the ILO International Labor Conference adopted the "Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work" which defines certain rights as "fundamental." The Declaration requires Member States to respect and promote these core principles, referred to as core conventions, grouped into the following four categories (the total of eight ILO conventions): freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of labor forced or compulsory labor, the abolition of child labor, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. The Declaration claims these rights are universal, applicable to all people in all States - regardless of the level of economic development. The International Labor Conference considers these principles to be so important that all member countries shall abide by them, regardless of their status of ratification.
Along with the fundamental conventions, the ILO has also identified four priority governance conventions or conventions. It is important that international ILO labor standards be implemented, the ILO recommends that member states ratify the following priority conventions: the Labor Inspection Convention (1947), the Labor Inspection Convention (1969), Triparte Consultation (International Labor Standards Convention) (1976), and the Employment Policy Convention (1964).
The problem with the ILO's approach to applying international labor standards comes to the issue of universality among conventions and member states, for some reason that flexibility is needed to meet the needs of developing countries. These concerns clustered around the idea that a race to expand exports or attract foreign investment could lead to competition on the basis of labor costs, leading to a decline in international labor standards because the government does not dismantle national laws protecting workers or undermining enforcement of these laws. The basic problem here is the relationship between national income and the standards that a country can support while remaining competitive. Other issues involve enforcing these standards after ratification. The ILO provides the means to investigate cases of non-compliance through representation, filed by employer companies or organizations, or complaints, filed by other members who also ratify the convention. These are then sent to committees that launch investigations and reports. This is followed by acceptance of recommendations on possible measures taken by the government to address complaints or requests to submit the case to the International Court of Justice. Failure to comply may result in sanctions being removed from the organization.
Overall, the structure of the ILO basically creates a system of voluntary compliance with work standards based on the ratification of established conventions. In general, representation and complaint enforcement systems have been successful - success is measured by the fact that only one representative or complaint reaches the most severe sanctions. On the other hand, in the absence of strong sanctions, the ILO does not have a strong deterrent factor for countries that are likely to violate the standards upheld by the ILO. Furthermore, standard "flexibility" allows too much relaxation for adaptation under independent circumstances, reducing the power of conventions.
World Trade Organization
Because ILO enforcement and sanction mechanisms are weak, there has been a significant discussion of the incorporation of labor standards in the World Trade Organization's operations since its formation in 1994. The WTO oversees, in particular, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which is an agreement aimed at reducing customs, tariffs, and other barriers to free import and export of goods, services and capital among its 157 member countries. Unlike for the ILO, if the WTO trade rules are violated, the member states that guarantee an assessment by the Dispute Settlement procedure (effective judicial process) may retaliate through trade sanctions. This may include tariff rejection targeted against non-compliant countries. Proponents of an integrated approach have called for a "social clause" to be included in a GATT agreement, for example by amending section XX, which provides an exception to the general trade reduction rule which allows for the imposition of sanctions for human rights violations. Explicit references to core labor standards may permit actions in which WTO member states are found to be in violation of ILO standards. Opponents argue that such an approach can backfire and undermine labor rights, as a country's industry, and hence its workforce, of course, harmed but without any assurance that labor reform will take place. Furthermore, it was debated in the 1996 Singapore Ministerial Declaration that "the comparative advantage of countries, especially low-income developing countries, should not be questioned." Thus, it is said that countries should be able to take advantage of low wages and poor conditions in the workplace as a comparative advantage to boost their exports. It is also argued that businesses will relocate production to low wage countries from higher wage countries such as the UK, since the choice depends heavily on workers' productivity. The views of many lawyers and labor economists remain that more trade, in the context of a weak bargaining power and mobility for workers, still allows businesses to opportunistically utilize workers by driving production, and that a coordinated multilateral approach with specific targeted measures export is preferred. Although the WTO has not included labor rights in its procedures for dispute resolution, many countries are beginning to make bilateral agreements that protect core labor standards instead. Moreover, in domestic tariff rules that have not been touched by the WTO agreement, countries have chosen other countries that respect the rights of core workers, for example under the EU Tariff Preferential Rule, articles 7 and 8.
Workers in many countries
While the debates on labor standards adopted by the ILO and the WTO seek to balance standards with global capital movements, legal conflicts (or private international law issues) arise when workers move from home to abroad. If an American worker does part of his work in Brazil, China and Denmark (a "moving" worker) or if a worker works in Ecuador to work as an overseas expatriate in France, the employer may seek to characterize the employment contract as governed by law countries where workers' rights are least favorable to workers, or attempt to argue that the most profitable labor rights system does not apply. For example, in the case of labor law in England, Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd Mr Ravat is from England but is employed in Libya by a German company that is part of the American multinational oil conglomerate, Halliburton. He was dismissed by an overseer who lived in Egypt. He was told that he would be employed under the terms and conditions of English law, and this was arranged by the civil service department in Aberdeen. Under the United Kingdom's Manpower Rights Act of 1996 he will have the right to unfair dismissal, but the Act leaves open the scope of its territorial legislation. The Supreme Court of England states that the principle is that for foreign workers, although the general rule is that they will not have the rights of labor law in England, there will be exceptions if workers can show "close ties" to England, and this is established through contractual guarantees given to Mr. Rabat.
This fits within the general framework of the EU. Under the Rome Rome Rule I of article 8, workers shall have the right of employment in the country of employment. But it is very likely they have claims in other countries if they can establish a close relationship with him. The regulation stressed that rules should be applied with the aim of protecting workers.
It is also necessary that the court has jurisdiction to hear claims. Under the Rule of Brussels I article 19, this requires workers to work in places where claims are brought, or involved there.
EU law
The European Community (EC) is a multigovernmental legislative structure which, through the EU Treaty (Maastricht) in 1992, the Amsterdam Agreement in 1997, and various other agreements has promoted full economic integration of its member states. Although it has issued a number of directives in the non-work field, the same can not be said for matters involving social policy and labor. However, some health and safety restrictions have been adopted by the European Commission in an attempt to reduce inhumane practices, involving low standards of health and safety, used for competitive advantage.
The EU, unlike most international organizations, has a broad labor legislation system, but officially excludes (in accordance with the Agreement on the Functioning of the EU) matters concerning direct wage regulations (eg setting minimum wages), equity of dismissal (eg requirements for eligible workers to approve dismissal) and collective bargaining. A series of Directives regulates almost any other issue, for example the Working Time Guarantee guarantees 28 paid days, the Framework of Equality Framework prohibits all forms of discrimination for the person performing the work, and the Collective Redemption Guidelines require that appropriate notice be given and consultation takes place before any decision about economic dismissal resolved.
However, the European Court recently extended the Agreement through its case law. In addition to having legal protection for workers' rights, the purpose of the union is to organize its members across borders in the same way as multinational corporations manage their production globally. To meet the balance of power derived from the business's ability to fire workers or to move, the union has sought to take action and strike internationally. However, such coordination has recently been challenged in the EU in two controversial decisions. In Laval Ltd v Swedish Builders Union a group of Latvian workers were sent to a construction site in Sweden for a low fee. The local Swedish Union took industrial action to make Laval Ltd. sign a local joint agreement. Under the Diposting Worker Directive, article 3 sets minimum standards for workers repatriated from home so that workers always receive at least the minimum right they will have at home if their workplace has a lower minimum right. Article 3 (7) further states that this "shall not prevent the application of more favorable terms and conditions of employment to workers". Most people think this means that more favorable conditions can be given than the minimum (eg in Latvian law) by host country law or collective agreement. However, in an interpretation seen as surprising by many, the ECJ says that only postal states can raise standards beyond the minimum limit for workers posted, and any attempt by the host country, or collective agreements (unless collective agreements are declared universal below Article 3 (8)) would be a violation of business freedom to provide services under article 56 of the TFEU. This decision was implicitly reversed by the EU legislature in Rule I, which makes it clear in recital 34 that the host country might allow a more favorable standard. However, at The Rosella, the ECJ also stated that the blockade by the International Transportation Workers Federation against businesses using the Estonian comfort flag (ie saying it operates under Estonian law to avoid Finland's labor standards) violates the right of freedom business under TFEU article 49. The ECJ says that it recognizes the right of "workers to strike" in accordance with ILO Convention 87, but says that its use should be proportionate to the right of business establishment. The result is a recent European Court decision creating a significant imbalance between the freedom of international business, and labor, to bargain and take action to defend their interests.
For members of the European Commission who support the adoption of labor standards, there has been a push to ease the barriers to decision-making on social legislation. On February 7, 1992, the signing of the Maastricht Treaty made it easier to pass laws on less controversial issues, such as health and safety, nondiscrimination, and consultation with workers.
While the European Commission provides a structure for enacting legislation applicable throughout the district, the extent to which it can actually create international labor standards, even within its own limits, is limited. While this directive allows for labor concerns to be brought above the national level, the presence of philosophical differences among member states as well as constraints on state autonomy suggests an obstacle to this model. Yet despite these difficulties and complex decision-making structures designed to include consultations with governments of all member states, the various policy-makers of the European Commission and relevant parties have succeeded in creating cross-national legislation for labor standards under the policy social. umbrella. As a result, this model, as demonstrated by the European Commission, is one that deserves to set cross-national employment standards. The difficulty lies in duplicating this model elsewhere, because the unique, integrated EC community is the only common multinational standard system in the world today.
Monitoring
An important element for the success of international labor standards is proper monitoring and enforcement. When monitoring international labor standards, agencies rely on three main types of information: information from international organizations, such as the ILO, information from national agencies, and information from non-governmental organizations. After finding and determining the required data, monitoring agencies then need to process and screen results to analyze compliance with certain international labor standards. Finally after compliance analysis, the recommendations and adjustments required are then communicated to the party concerned.
Data source
One of the primary sources of data required for monitoring international labor standards is the International Labor Organization. According to Article 22 of the ILO Constitution, "each member agrees to make an annual report to the International Labor Office on the measures taken to effect the provisions of the Convention on which it is party." In particular, States are mandated to prepare a report every two years for the ILO's Major Labor Standards and every five years for all other active conventions the country has ratified, submitted to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee on Standard Implementation. For the Convention that has not been ratified by the state, Article 19 of the Constitution of the ILO mandates States to periodically demonstrate the measures "they have taken to influence any provision of certain conventions or recommendations, and to indicate barriers that have been prevented, or delay the ratification of certain conventions. "All of the above are combined to form the regular oversight system of the ILO.
The ILO also has a special type of procedure of monitoring mechanisms in which complaints directed against Member States and freedom of association complaints are addressed. Under articles 24 and 26 of the Constitution of the ILO, different groups of people may point to bodies that state that certain countries do not comply with international labor standards that they have previously ratified. Within the ILO framework, employment standards related to freedom of association have also received special priorities which allow complaints to be submitted to governmental bodies even if the state has not ratified the convention on freedom of association.
Other international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank also monitor international labor standards. The United Nations largely depends on self-reported data from member countries. These data points are used to determine whether member states meet the terms of an international agreement agreed upon by the United Nations. Given that the ILO is part of the UN, generally, more detailed employment standards and compliance records are located within the ILO's territory. The World Bank combines international standards established by the ILO as one of the factors behind assistance to member states.
National agencies and NGOs also monitor international labor standards. National bodies generally report on domestic compliance of international labor standards while NGOs are much more diverse in their scope.
Challenges
Some challenges, however, exist in the monitoring of international labor standards. ILO and other international organizations generally rely on self-reporting data from countries. Some analysts question the quality and neutrality of this data source. For example, the definition of what constitutes unemployment varies from country to country making it difficult to compare data and assess the quality of data. In addition, although there is a lot of data, there is still a gap in the scope. The greatest coverage occurs in urban and formal sectors. Conversely, there are gaps in the scope of the rural and informal environments that can positively alter labor statistics reported by countries.
Challenges also exist in the use of data to assess compliance with international labor standards. As interest continues to grow in the monitoring and enforcement of international labor standards, the assessment, according to the National Research Council, "requires careful analysis of what core standards mean and their implications, how to determine when a country is or is not in compliance, what compliance indicators and which sources of information used, and limited sources of information. "Standardization will be needed to enable appropriate and effective monitoring of labor standards.
Violation
Discrimination at work
Workplace discrimination, openly and covertly, is an example of violation of international labor standards. The ILO defines discrimination in the workplace as "treating people differently due to certain characteristics, such as race, color, or sex, resulting in decreased equality and opportunity and treatment." A real example of discrimination in the workplace is unequal wages, especially between men and women. Although recognized as an example of discrimination in the workplace since 1919, the gender disparity gap, often an unequal salary measurement, is estimated at 22.9%, which means that for every dollar received by a man, a woman, in the same position will yielding 77.1 cents. Despite the fact that the ILO proposes that there are many benefits to reducing and eliminating the gender disbursement gap, at this point, the slow rate of pay cuts, the ILO estimates that "another 75 years will be needed to bridge this gap."
Job security is another arena where workplace discrimination can be found. In some developing countries, like Bangladesh, job insecurity reflects patriarchal society that has reduced women's choices. Currently in Bangladesh, out of 1.8 million workers in garment factories, 1.5 million are women. From a factory owner's perspective, the advantage of hiring women is "the ability that comes with loss." Women have fewer opportunities than men in respect of decent and honorable work. For many of these women, if they lose their jobs in the garment factory, they will be forced to become poor or work in the informal sector, such as prostitution.
Other forms of discrimination, excluding gender discrimination, including racial & amp; ethnicity, age, religion, political opinion, social origin, disability, sexual orientation, genetics, and lifestyle. The ILO identifies all forms of discrimination as a violation of international labor standards.
Child labor
According to the ILO, child labor is "a job that robs children of childhood, the potential and dignity of their children, and it is harmful to physical and mental development." The ILO classifies work done by children into three categories: children in employment, child labor, and hazardous work. The ILO condemned child labor and hazardous work in order to eliminate hazardous child labor by 2016. By 2012, the ILO estimates that 168 million children (11% of the world's children) are engaged in child labor, of which, 85 million people are involved in dangerous work. ILO Convention No. 5 adopted in 1919 and enacted in 1921 is the first ILO convention to regulate child labor. In particular, the main provision of the article states "children under the age of fourteen will not be employed or work in the public or private industry." Since its founding in 1919, several other ILO conventions have been adopted that have modified and expanded the early 1919 convention. Today, the Minimum Age Convention of the C138, 1973 and C182 Conventions on the Worst Forms of Child Labor 1999 has replaced all previous conventions. The Minimum Age Convention sets the minimum age for children to be allowed to work. Children, except under special allowances, are not allowed to engage in hazardous work until the age of 18 years. The basic minimum age for child labor is 15 (14 for developing countries), and the minimum wage for light work, which may not interfere with education or orientation and vocational training, is 13 (12 for developing countries). C182 urges all governments to take immediate action to identify and eliminate the worst forms of child labor. The following is defined as hazardous work according to the ILO:
- "Jobs that expose children to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse
- Works underground, under water, at dangerous altitudes, or in confined spaces
- Works with malicious machines, equipment, and equipment, or which involves manual handling or heavy load transport
- Work in unhealthy environments that can, for example, expose children to hazardous substances, agents, or processes, or temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations, damage their health
- Working under very difficult conditions such as working long hours or at night or working where the child is unreasonably confined in the employer's premises "
The majority of Member States of the United Nations have ratified C138 and C182. The Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention (C182) has been ratified by 177 countries, while 8 countries (Cuba, Eritrea, India, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Palau, Somalia, Tuvalu) have not ratified it. The Minimum Age Convention (C138) has been ratified by 166 countries, while 19 countries have not ratified it. Specifically, Australia, the United States, Canada, Mexico, India, and Bangladesh, are all Member States that have not ratified the Minimum Age Convention (C138).
Workforce Practice unsafe
Operating with the mantra that "decent work is a safe job," the ILO Workplace Safety and Health and Environment Program, SafeWork, has the goal of making work safer for all. According to the ILO, a person dies from an accident or occupational illness every 15 seconds. Unsafe work practices have a long, dirty history. From the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire at the 2013 fertilizer blast in West, Texas, industrial disaster negatively affected the lives of workers and their dependents with high associated economic costs. Since its founding in 1919, ensuring the safety of workers has become one of the fundamental missions of the ILO. The ILO has more than historically adopted several conventions that aim to maximize worker safety and health. Currently, there are three fundamental conventions in force: the Occupational Safety and Health Convention (C155, 1981), the Occupational Health Services Convention (C161, 1985), and the Promotion Framework for the Occupational Health and Safety Convention (C187, 2006). The latest convention has the aim of stating "promoting a safety culture and preventive health and gradually achieving a safe and healthy working environment." One of the challenges facing the ILO is the low level of ratification of basic health and safety conventions. C155, C161, and C187 have been ratified respectively by 60, 31, and 25 countries. From an ILO perspective that fails to meet the expectations described in the convention is an example of violation of international labor standards.
Criticism
In addition to disagreements about appropriate methods of application for international labor standards, there are differences of opinion regarding the validity of their existence altogether. The two most common arguments proposed against international labor standards are that they undermine international competitiveness and undermine domestic policies.
Degrading international competitiveness
The criticism of international labor standards historically raised by middle-right economists is that they distort market forces, hampering work and income. According to right-wing economists, global free trade allows countries to specialize in activities where they have comparative advantages and reap the benefits together through exchange. The international competitiveness of countries with large numbers of unskilled labor depends on their ability to provide low-cost workers. Therefore, international standards will undermine comparative advantage by increasing labor costs. According to the conservative argument, international labor standards leave developing countries with reduced export economies.
International labor standards supporters often respond by stating that this criticism only attacks certain aspects of enforcement rather than the standard itself. Furthermore, middle-left economists suggest that higher labor standards do not necessarily undermine competitiveness. Empirical evidence provided by Berik and Rodgers (2006) suggests that any cost to raise labor standards can easily be offset by incentives that encourage foreign direct investment (FDI) and exports. Following this argument, not only does higher labor standards promote social and political stability, thus encouraging more foreign investment, but they also provide valuable investments in human resources that can lead to increased efficiency.
Scrape domestic policy
Another prominent argument against international labor standards is the notion that any attempt to align the benchmarks set for acceptable working conditions ignores, to some extent, the current state of the country's unique economic and social state. It is suggested that instead of adopting internationally agreed labor standards groups, sovereign nations should better abandon labor market regulations for domestic policies. In this way, it can be said that a country can adapt standards such as minimum wages to specific situations in that region of the world rather than trying to impose unequal uniform wages. In a 1996 study, Drusilla Brown, Alan Deardorff and Robert Stern used various models of theoretical workforce to test the effectiveness of harmonizing international labor standards. This study concludes that in theoretical cases, market failures that allow damage to the most adequate working environment conditions are improved by labor standards. However, market failures are not uniform across the country and therefore it makes sense that labor standards should not be built internationally.
An example of this criticism can be seen by looking at the issue of child labor practices. The case against harmonious international labor rights makes the point that the number of child laborers in a country is directly dependent on the level of economic development. Following this line of thinking, poorer countries have a better chance of eliminating child labor through economic development than the minimum age requirement. In fact, one study found that children aged 14 years and younger were not fully withdrawn from the workforce until the GDP was close to $ 5000 per capita. It is also argued that international consensus underestimating the practice of child labor can actually reduce the likelihood of elimination of child labor altogether by the weakening of incentives for adult workers to support prohibition.
See also
- Decent work
- Labor law
- The International Labor Organization
- International law
- Capability approach
- Human Rights
- Right to work
- Work Intensity
- International Labor Organization Convention
- Social inequality
- British labor law
Notes and References
External links
- The official website of the International Labor Organization
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments