THINKING LOCALLY BUT ACTING GLOBALLY

MORDY BROMBERG*

Paper presented at the Australian Labour Law Association's inaugural National Conference, University of Melbourne, 4-5 October 2002.

ABSTRACT

Without members, trade unions do not exist. Members are found locally. Their workplaces are their neighbourhoods. The world beyond is distant and seemingly irrelevant to the parochial industrial concerns of the local union member. Unions should and must concentrate on addressing the concerns of their members. Those concerns manifest themselves locally but increasingly they emanate from strange, unfamiliar and remote sources. Their origins are not only foreign to the neighbourhood but often they are foreign to Australia itself.

As Justice Kirby recently noted - `the venues of Australia are no longer big enough' for today's industrial relations. The two wild horses of economic profit and industrial justice now `gallop in a global arena sniffing the breeze of global forces1.

In order to deliver locally trade unions must act globally. It is now time to invert the old slogan: “Think Globally, Act Locally”. In the new economy unions must think locally but act globally2.

This paper examines the response of the international trade union movement to global trade liberalisation and the neo-liberal industrial relations policies which have accompanied it. It analyses the elements of globalisation and the largely unsuccessful efforts of the international trade union movement to influence the institutions which promote and control it. It suggests that with time and a changed direction the international trade union movement may yet succeed in bringing a social dimension to globalisation and the new economy.

GLOBALISATION, NEO-LIBERALISM AND THE NEW ECONOMY

Globalisation is a phenomena which has achieved a mythical status. It is said to be the natural order which cannot be resisted. It is everywhere yet not in any one place. It is difficult to see, to touch and slippery of definition. It is promoted as the key to the `brave new world' and accepted across the board as the new common sense3. It is portrayed as contemporary but many of its characteristics have pervaded humanity since Adam and Eve traded apples for sweeter fruit.

Of course the world is getting smaller. But did it not begin to shrink centuries ago? International trade has flourished since at least the commercial and cultural expansion of Europe that began at the end of the fifteenth century. Trade liberalisation is the `new' trend but historically it has rarely been out of fashion. It may have worn different garments, including those of the military in the imperial and colonial eras which preceded us, but fundamentally trade liberalisation has been an enduring objective of capital since economic profit was first discovered.

Multi-nationals are prominent if not dominant participants in the new economy. However, the ascendancy of multi-national corporations has progressed over a century or longer. Even in this far flung corner of the world, they have dominated since the Dutch East India Company ran colonial Indonesia.

During the nineteenth century and at the turn of the last century as Australia became a nation, our Parliaments both State and Federal, were divided between free traders and their protectionist opponents. Trade liberalisation was the political issue of the day.

The political debate between free trade proponents and fair trade proponents seen recently in Australia is but a reflection of a long standing debate with a distinguished history including in international industrial fora. `By the time of the Industrial Revolution the problem of international competition from the importation of cheap foreign goods was found to be an obstacle to the development of humanitarian national legislation in the more economically advanced countries. The trade-labour standards issue first arose in earnest in the nineteenth century in accordance with the increasing concern expressed about the risk of `unfair' trade associated with competition from firms engaging in socially repellent practices. Thus the search was on to try and find a way to dilute unrestricted industrial competition by establishing minimum living conditions throughout the world below which the worker should not be allowed to fall yet leaving the theory of comparative advantage intact' 4. As Chin explains, `The desire to attain fair international competition, that is competition based on production processes which respect and observe universally acknowledged minimum labour standards - was the primary impetus for the establishment of the ILO at the Peace Conference at Versailles at the close of World War I'5.

Many of the same arguments raised at Versailles at the turn of the last century are again prominent today including the observance and enforcement of universally acknowledge minimum labour standards which today take the form of Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”).

Today's context is however somewhat different. Whilst as I have endeavoured to illustrate, many of the characteristics of trade liberalisation are not new, the pace of change is unprecedented. The pace of change is perhaps the defining feature of globalisation. Technological advances over the last 30 years have facilitated the integration of businesses and the movement of capital across national boundaries in a manner never before possible. Culture has also become rapidly integrated so that cultural differences no longer pose the same obstacle to trade.

Whilst the free traders of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are now the neo-liberals of the modern political age there is another major contextual difference impacting upon the modern era of trade liberalisation and of particular significance to industrial relations. That difference is that the last two decades have for the most part been dominated by neo-liberal economic thinking both at the national level and in influential international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (“the IMF”) and the World Trade Organisation (“the WTO”). Neo-liberal institutions have promoted globalisation. The dominance of neo-liberal theory has meant that globalisation is most often accompanied by policies such as privatisation, labour market de-regulation, reductions in public spending, outsourcing, casualisation and a resistance to the collectivisation of labour in favour of individualised employment relationships.

Neo-liberalism has cleverly utilised globalisation including its mythical inevitability as the spearhead for achieving a broader ideological agenda including the de-regulation of the labour market. Indeed as Biffl and Isaac suggest, support for free trade in some quarters may have been driven partly by a desire for a less regulated and unionised labour market6 and the question may well be asked whether measures to de-regulate the labour market are driven by economic imperatives or by the ideology of market-efficiency and the neo-liberal reform agenda.7 It is not the purpose of this paper to answer that question. However in order to understand the dilemma faced by the trade union movement it is necessary to observe that it is both global competition and neo-liberalism which have and are eroding labour's bargaining strength. Global competition alone poses significant challenges but it is the multiple facets of neo-liberal de-regulation which as Munck concludes `is exposing labour to this new capitalist onslaught'8.

The long history of political contest between free and fair traders suggests that even if the origin of this onslaught be economic, economic imperatives are amenable to political solutions. What has become questionable however is whether in the face of globalisation the nation state can still offer a political resolution which adequately addresses the legitimate needs of its workers. Tilly argues that globalisation has undermined the nation state which in turn now means that the state cannot now fulfil its historical role of guaranteeing workers rights: `No individual state will have the power to enforce workers' rights in the fluid world that is emerging'9.

Whilst initially confronting, Tilly's view has legitimacy and is supported by historical experience. Nation states concerned about the impact upon their workers of international forces have recognised their own limitations by seeking global and/or super-national rules. The very formation of the ILO supports that proposition. As does the recent preparedness of EU members to cede to the EU Commission the power to decide labour policy and create super-national labour laws across the European Union10.

International rules are an obvious means of addressing national limitations in the regulation of globalisation's adverse effect upon working people. The international union response to globalisation has largely concentrated on a global rules agenda. It is to that response which I now turn, beginning as any such analysis must, by identifying the international organisations and international instruments at play.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNIONS

The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (“the ICFTU”) is the world's largest and most influential international trade union organisation. Despite that, it is hardly a household name. Its lack of public profile is explained by Ashwin11 as a reflection of the fact that in the post-Second World War era the international trade union movement was largely pre-occupied by ideological battles structures along its Cold War political divisions.

With the collapse of communism and the decline of the Soviet dominated World Federation of Trade Unions, the Western dominated ICFTU has gained broad based acceptance as the peak international trade union organisation12. Its work has turned from that of an international defender of “free” trade unionism to the leading union advocate responding to the challenges of the global market.

Peak national union centres such as the Australian Council for Trade Unions (“the ACTU”) participate in the work and governance of the ICFTU. The ICFTU has established regional organisations including ICFTU - APRO covering the Asia-Pacific region.

There are 10 International Trade Secretariats (“ITS's”) associated with the ICFTU. These are now more commonly referred to as Global Union Federations (“GUF's”). GUF's represent national unions from a particular industry or sector namely - education, building, energy, journalism, metal work, textiles, transport, agriculture, public sector and media. Each GUF works to co-ordinate international standards referable to its specific industry or sector. National unions participate directly in the GUF relevant to their industry or sector.

Regional trade union federations also exist in Europe - European Trade Union Confederation; Africa - Organisation for African Trade Union Unity, as well as in Asia, Latin America, the Arab World and the Nordic countries. A Commonwealth Trade Union Council was established in 1980.

Labour needs a unified international voice. With the recent ascendency of the ICFTU it now has that potential. If labour's fortunes are to change at the global coal face, the ICFTU must become a respected player in international policy fora. Through its Campaign on Labour Standards and Trade, the ICFTU argues that the global economy needs global rules. As Ashwin suggests: `The ICFTU is thus aiming to take up a position as one of the principal parties in the global rule-making process, in order to challenge the global diktat of neo-liberal institutions and engender a more pluralist approach to international economic decision making. Success in this area would not only give the ICFTU a clear global role for the post-Cold War era, it would also provide a focus for international trade union co-operation and campaigning”13.

ILO LABOUR STANDARDS

The centrepiece of the ICFTU's global rules campaign has been the Core Labour Standards of the ILO.

The ILO is a tripartite (workers, employers and governments) organisation born of the aspiration that economic justice for working people will engender world peace and stability. As an agency of the United Nations the ILO's charter is to set labour standards and protect the fundamental human rights of working people.

Over 180 Conventions have been made by the ILO. Conventions have a legal status similar to that of international treaties. Once made Conventions are open to ratification by member states of the ILO. By ratification a nation commits to applying the terms of a Convention. Like all treaties, that commitment does not necessarily translate to the Convention becoming part of the domestic law of the ratifying state. Whether it does or not will depend upon the domestic law in question. In Australia and common law countries generally ratification alone is ineffective. Whilst Australia has ratified most ILO Conventions, none are formally part of Australia's domestic law. However, with significant recent exception14, Australia has traditionally had domestic industrial law and practice which has conformed with the requirements of those ILO Conventions Australia has ratified.

Nations that take their international obligations seriously will ensure that their domestic law and practice conforms to the international obligations binding upon them. Unfortunately it is the ILO's experience that non-ratification and non-compliance, by nations who have ratified, is rife among ILO member states. As Chin observed: `The incidence of labour rights abuses is well documented by NGO's such as Amnesty International. The Duffy Report in Australia found significant problems of adherence to core labour rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. In addition, the US State Department's country report on human rights practices for 1996 records a depressing litany of core labour rights abuses throughout the world'..15

Chin argues that contemporary events including globalisation, the emergence of the Asian tiger economies and hegemony of neo-liberal economic theory have brought the ILO to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy.16

Globalisation and the new economy have brought about `a race to the bottom' where globally mobile corporations search the world for cheaper labour costs and fewer restrictions. Bidding wars ensue where workers rights are up for sale to attract or retain international investments. The clearest of examples is provided by the proliferation in many developing countries of Economic Processing Zones (“EPZs”). EPZs are set up as special investor friendly regions where national labour laws do not apply and where unions are often banned or actively discouraged including by violent means. In 1996 some 500 EPZs existed, by 1999 over 850 EPZs were in operation.17

Violations of ILO Conventions are not confined to developing countries. Since the 1980's each of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada have been subjected to widespread criticism by ILO supervisory bodies for enacting legislation inconsistent with core ILO Conventions which they have ratified.18

The USA's record is probably worse. As Biffl and Isaac conclude, USA management has in the period after the 1970's reverted to pre-1930's attitudes of anti-unionism. This has been assisted by pro-employer bias in government industrial relations policy which has been applied to weaken union power and the appeal of unionism to workers in many areas. The US stands out amongst developed countries as not having ratified the core ILO Conventions dealing with Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise and Collectively Bargain (C87 and C98).19

Despite, or perhaps because of the violations, ILO Conventions have come into prominence over the last decade. Gunderson suggests this is so because of pressure from developed countries to promote a `level playing field' and prevent the downward harmonisation of labour standards.20 This is a legitimate view. It is obviously in the interests of complying nations that all nations should comply. It is not however the only reason. Other factors have also brought ILO Conventions into the debate about globalisation and the new economy.

Firstly, the ILO has wisely created a focal point for its objectives by identifying 8 of its Conventions as the ILO's Core Labour Standards (“CLS”). The CLS cover 4 areas recognised by the ILO as addressing fundamental human rights. They are:

The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (C100 and C111);

Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to organise and collectively bargain (C87 and C98);

The abolition of child labour (C138 and C182); and

The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour (C29 and C105).

In 1998, the ILO's highest decision making body, the International Labour Conference, adopted the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. By this Declaration the ILO determined that CLS were so fundamental that their observance ought be regarded a condition of membership of the ILO and thus binding upon all ILO members without ratification.

This newly created focal point has provided a rallying point around which the international trade union movement has concentrated its efforts. Enforcing CLS through a variety of strategies has been the major response of the international trade union movement to globalisation, neo-liberalism and the new economy.

ENFORCING CORE LABOUR STANDARDS

Promoting a Social Clause

The ILO's supervisory system deals with non-complying nations by persuasion and if necessary public admonishment. The ILO has no punitive powers. As Creighton has observed the inescapable reality is that ILO standards can be efficacious only to the extent that national governments are prepared to allow them to be so21.

Unlike the institution charged with promoting labour standards, the institution charged with promoting trade liberalisation - the WTO, does have teeth. Thus the modern concept of a social clause developed from the idea that the punitive sanctions available to the WTO could be utilised to foster the observance of labour standards. This is not a new concept. The idea of inserting a clause in multi-lateral trade agreements which would require observance of fundamental labour standards has been supported and promoted by the international labour movement since the late 1940's. The Havana Charter of 1948 was to establish the International Trade Organisation. The ICFTU was vigorous in the debate over the Havana Charter and the Charter did include a commitment by signatory countries to eliminate sub-standard conditions of labour.22

During the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations, which started in 1986 and ultimately lead to the creation of the WTO in 1994, the ICFTU proposed the inclusion in the WTO of a worker's rights clause based on the CLS.23

That proposal did gain support including from the United States and some European nations who strongly supported an incorporation of labour issues in the GATT. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the USA has attempted to set up a Working Party to consider the issue of a possible relationship between internationally recognised labour standards and the international trading system.24 Debate on a social clause during the GATT Uruguay Round was deferred on the basis that when established the WTO should examine the matter further.

The most commonly promoted type of social clause proffered for WTO consideration has been a provision which would be regulated jointly through an ILO/WTO advisory body combining the labour expertise of the ILO with the punitive trades measures of the WTO. It was proposed that the WTO would make the ultimate decision as to whether penalties should be imposed.

With the establishment of the WTO and the support shown from a number of influential governments, union activists were hopeful that there was a strong chance of getting a social clause adopted. With an effective social clause in place it was expected that enforceable global rules would finally be established to `civilise globalisation' including by ensuring that multi-nationals could no longer force labour standards below the human rights floor required to be observed by CLS. The ICFU believed, as it still does, that the social clause is an important objective. Accordingly, the ICFTU widely promoted its acceptance.

Despite these efforts and the earlier optimism, the social clause concept has been stalled if not quashed by strong opposition especially from developing countries.25

After the WTO's establishment at Marrakesh in 1994, the WTO first came under pressure to address labour issues at the Ministerial Meeting of the WTO held in Singapore in December 1996. Whilst the Singapore Ministerial Declaration affirmed a commitment to the CLS it resolutely stated that the ILO (and inferentially not the WTO) was `the competent body to set and deal with these standards”.

Opposition from developing countries has continued. The WTO Ministerial Meeting in Seattle of 1999 discussed the issue before the meeting collapsed as riots ensued outside. The 2001 meeting at Doha reaffirmed the commitment to CLS but declined to take any steps in implementation.26 A minimalist two sentences, which it was hoped would give the WTO a sufficient mandate to engage in discussions with the ILO about the social impact of globalisation, was fiercely opposed by India and Pakistan amongst others.

Governments of many developing countries, particularly many Asian governments, argue that linking trade and CLS is a ploy by developed countries designed to undermine the comparative advantage of labour costs in the developing world. 27 The social clause is thus dismissed as a form of protectionism.

Many might regard these fears as legitimate. Others argue that empirical research of the OECD has found no real link between abuses of CLS and trade advantage. Indeed OECD research suggests that observance of core standards would strengthen the long-term economic performance of all countries.28 This debate tends to miss the crucial point. Even if the comparative advantage of developing countries is threatened by the social clause, no nation should ever be permitted to found its competitive advantage on the back of human rights abuses.

It seems at present that the debate in international fora on the social dimensions of globalisation has successfully been isolated to the ILO alone. The ILO in November of 2001 set up a World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalisation. A number of meetings have already been held including consultations with unions, corporations and other interested groups. The Commission is due to report in August 2003.

Strategies Beyond the Social Clause

No comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the international trade union movement in its response to globalisation and neo-liberalism has been carried out. No such evaluation is here attempted. There is much other work being carried out by the international movement not here examined. For instance the fostering of national and independent trade unions in developing nations.

The enormity of the task for the union movement is however apparent and the impact of globalisation and neo-liberal industrial relations policies suggests that rather than industrial justice catching up and riding in harness, the wild horse of economic profit has bolted.

Whilst globalisation may have created great wealth, the international trade union movement argues that its been shared by few and a come at a savage cost to many. As the ICFTU submission29 to the first meeting of the ILO World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalisation points out:

The gap in incomes both inside and between countries is expanding;

The ratio of average incomes in the worlds 20 richest countries to the worlds poorest has risen from a ratio of 20 to 1 in 1960 to about 40 to 1 today;

Some 66 countries ranging across every corner of the globe are poorer now than a decade ago;

More than 10 million children in developing countries still die every year from preventable diseases;

At least 15 million children are working in export production in a range of sectors;

Tens of millions of workers are currently engaged in forced labour.

More than 1.3 million worker deaths occur each year (3,300 per day), nearly double the deaths due to war and more than those due to HIV/AIDS. Of these deaths 12,000 are children, 335,000 are due to occupational accidents and 325,000 are due to occupational diseases, mostly because of hazardous substances.30 To the high level of work related deaths should be added the tens of thousands of trade unionists who are murdered, injured, beaten or otherwise discriminated against in their efforts to exercise their freedom of association. In the year 2001, 209 trade unionists were killed or disappeared (a 50% increase over the previous year), 8,500 were arrested, 3,000 more injured and almost 20,000 were dismissed for exercising their trade union rights.31

Whilst a correlation between a reduction in labour rights and the processes of globalisation is apparent, it is not suggested that globalisation, neo-liberalism or the new economy are in themselves responsible for the injustices chronicled above. It is however disappointing that though the world has grown smaller its problems loom larger.

A number of strategies have been suggested in efforts to renew and advance the union movement's struggle to uphold labour rights in the new economy. Chin suggests that a piece-meal regional approach to winning a global social clause should be pursued. Thus if a social clause in regional trading blocks such as APEC was achieved, the dominoes would begin to fall and a global social clause would inevitably follow. Chin argues that APEC is the appropriate starting point given that Asian governments have been the most significant opponents and are thus the `key to the future success of the social clause'.32 There is legitimacy to this concept, although APEC as a starting point is challenging and the union movement's attempts to raise labour issues within APEC have borne no fruit.33

An encouraging development in a different trading block, is the proclamation by the European Union of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in December 2000. Under the Charter, the EU is required to promote the application of CLS. The enforcement power of the European Court of Justice is available to ensure compliance by member states. Accordingly in the EU, CLSs are now both binding and enforceable.

The Generalised System of Preferences (“GSP”) of the EU provides for preferential market access for developing countries who observe CLS. US trade legislation also refers to internationally recognised workers' rights. The North American Agreement on Labour Co-Operation, a side agreement to the North American Fee Trade Agreement, endorses the CLS and some other standards. In 1998 the MERCOSUR countries of South America adopted a “Protocolo Socialaboral” which endorses the CLS and some other labour standards and provides for a tripartite supervisory mechanism.34

A number of hopeful statements have recently emerged from the World Bank including that `the principles embedded in the core labour standards can contribute to the World Bank's development mission'. (2001) and that `the Bank supports the promotion of all four core labour standards' (2002).35 The real challenge here is to have the World Bank make observance of CLS a condition of its lending. That is not currently the case and as Bakvis demonstrates the conduct in the field of the World Bank and the IMF differs from their stated commitments.36 Bakvis also notes that `some official development agencies have begun examining how to integrate respect of CLS into their project financing criteria and one, Germany's GTZ has actually done so. Two World Bank agencies that deal with private sector investors, the IFC and MIGA, require as a standard loan condition that projects funded by the agencies abide by two of the CLS, namely the prohibition of child labour and forced labour'.37

The United Nations is encouraging dialogue through the Global Compact launched in 2000 by UN General Secretary Kofi Annan in which he invited corporations to support 9 principles in the area of human rights, worker rights and the environment based on existing international standards.

Fair trade and ethical trading initiatives are on the increase as are consumer boycotts and other campaigns.38 By example, a successful trade union campaign has been conducted to end the use of child labour in the manufacture of surgical instruments in Pakistan.39

Shareholder activist campaigns are being waged by trade unions with some success. The best example is the campaign within Rio Tinto, a mining company with substantial holdings around the world including in Australia. Rio Tinto is notorious in Australia for having spearheaded a neo-liberal industrial agenda which has championed individual rather than collective relations with employees. A labour movement coalition organised by one of the GUFs, the International Union of Chemical, Energy and Mine Workers has undertaken extensive campaigning at Rio Tinto's AGMs in Australia and in the United Kingdom. At these meetings union activists sought to present evidence that Rio Tinto had sacrificed fundamental human rights in favour of higher profits. In mid-2000 Rio Tinto issued a statement acknowledging a new commitment to respect the collective rights of its employees and to seek reconciliation with trade unions. The campaign achieved the support of more than 20% of Rio Tinto's shareholders who supported a resolution urging compliance with core ILO labour standards.40

The Global Union Federations have since the mid 1990s negotiated and concluded some 18 framework agreements with multi-nationals.41 These agreements include commitments to observe CLS throughout the global operations of the corporation concerned.

Codes of conduct promoted by both unions and NGOs and adopted by multi-nationals have also proliferated since the early 1990's. Codes of conduct are a form of self-regulation by which multi-nationals typically commit to respect labour rights for their own employees and for other workers in their supply chain. These are effective when accompanied by rigorous and independent verification processes. They have proven to be counter-productive when driven purely by a corporation's public relations considerations.

Legal pressure has also been applied on multi-nationals in relation to their activities in developing countries. A number of legal actions brought in the country of origin of the multi-national concerned have sought to make multi-nationals accountable for labour rights abuses. There are now encouraging signs that it may be possible to sue a multi-national based in one country for violations of workers rights carried out in another country. The following litigation exemplifies this growing trend.

Burmese People v UNOCAL. Proceedings have been brought in California with the support of the International Labour Rights Fund against this giant oil and gas corporation for its alleged use of forced labour in Burma;

Lubbe v Cape Plc concerns litigation brought by South African miners to the House of Lords against a British-based mining corporation that allegedly exposed its workforce to asbestos; and

In July 2001 the United Steel Workers of America announced that they would initiate litigation against Coca Cola for the alleged kidnap, torture and murder of Columbian trade unionists in Coca Cola's Columbian bottling facilities.42

Sections of the labour movement have also called for the establishment of a World Labour Court which would operate in a similar way to the World Crimes Tribunal or the International Criminal Court. It is suggested that multi-nationals would be brought before such a court and dealt with for serious breaches of fundamental workers rights. Others suggest that a solution needs to be found through the ILO rather than creating a new tribunal. As Ewing has observed, the ILO's supervisory mechanisms are addressed to nation states rather than multi-national corporations. Ewing suggests that new processes be developed within the ILO which would enable sanctions to be taken against corporations who are persistent offenders of core ILO Conventions.43

Whilst this catalogue of achievements gives rise to some hope, the landscape is generally barren and without the assistance of more significant measures, the clear felling is likely to continue. Many commentators suggest we are witnessing the death of the labour movement. Touraine concludes that: `Movements such as unionism have a life history, infancy, youth, maturity, old age and death'.44 Munck despairs at the pessimism and legitimately argues that `as with capitalism, labour would seem to have a great ability to re-generate and transform itself, adopting to new situations, mutating organisational forms and strategies and living to fight another day….indeed we find that labour's low points have also been periods of re-orientation and re-newal'.45

Taking an historical perspective and looking back to the previous period of global financial expansion in the late nineteenth century, Arrigihi suggests that with more defeats than victories, it took 25 years `before the ideological and organisational contours of the world labour movement began to crystallize and be discernible, and yet another 25 before the movement became powerful enough to impose some of its objectives on world capitalism'.46 Munck forecast that this time round, given our current era of `time-space compression' 50 years will not be required. For Munck there are already very definite signs of renewal: `The first reaction of fear and insecurity in the face of the forces unleased by globalisation has given way to a new more settled and even confident mood. Whilst still weakened by the ravages of the last 20 years, the international labour movement has begun a process of recomposition in most of its key sectors'.47

A significant indication of renewal at the international level is the new found unity of the labour movement. East and West divisions fell with the end of the Cold War and whilst it has taken some time, this internal conflict seems now dead and buried. Unions of the North and those of the South have never had more in common. In the past the labour internationalism of the North has suffered from paternalism and neo-colonial sponsorship. As O'Brien maintains, in labour's response to the globalisation of neo-liberal industrial relations the North's need for Southern co-operation is far greater than in the past.48 In this respect the ills of globalisation and neo-liberalism, as common enemy, have served to unify the international trade union movement.

Globalisation has also introduced the trade union movement to novel strategies for organising and advancing its objective. The modern has witnessed the rise of sophisticated social movements in environment, development and in human rights advocacy. There are many lessons to be learned by trade unionists from the strategies utilised by Greenpeace, Amnesty International and others.

Whilst these new social movements have successfully portrayed themselves as outside the polity and for and with civil society, trade unions are often not perceived as being for the greater good. The perception has been that their aims are limited to the narrow pursuit of the economic interests of their members including by their integration with the prevailing political system. Thus whilst trade unions will work tirelessly assisting their low paid members they are accused of doing nothing for the worst off unemployed or the agrarian poor.

At a local and at the international level, labour needs to win back the hearts and minds of working people by doing more than being a bargaining agent for the increasingly contracting category of workers who, under neo-liberal work arrangements, remain able to claim the status of employee. As Herzenberg argues, unions need to end their current identity crisis within society and move to `post-industrial unionism' by providing a post-industrial solution to the basic dilemma of the union movement being `the need to serve the interests of their members whilst simultaneously being seen to serve the interests of society as a whole. At the moment, institutional self-interest is too transparently the motivation for many labour actions, large and small. Paradoxically, only transcending the view that labour is just another special interest, and acting to make the world a better place can restore labour's power.' 49

Social movement unionism is gaining acceptability including at the ICFTU. As Ashwin explains: `The most novel element in the ICFTU's current strategy is its emphasis on organising new types of workers, and co-operating with NGOs in campaigns for workers' rights. The recognition of the need to organise workers in the informal sector including women and young workers, is not new, but it is being treated increasingly seriously: rather than being part of a ritual incantation of good intentions such issues are now central to ICFTU campaigning'.50

This is a substantial departure facilitated by the new post-Cold War climate. During the Cold War era the ICFTU was dubious to involve itself with NGOs as a consequence of the anti-communist obsession of some of its major affiliates.51 The ICFTU now recognises that the new social movements are `powerful lobbyists nationally and internationally' and that the ICFTU should build relationships and alliances with NGOs whose principles and practice do not conflict with trade unionism.52 Making common cause with other social movements opposed to globalisation, the international trade union movement is now focussing more of its attention upon the fora of the United Nations. The ICFTU submission to the World Summit on Sustainable Development recently held in Johannesburg, is an impressive testimony to its new direction. The submission seeks the integration of `The Social Dimension' into all aspects of sustainable development and calls for:

Eradication of poverty and social exclusion through employment and related measures (“Trade unionists believe that there is no greater problem facing the world at the beginning of the 21st century than that of world poverty”);

Equal access for all to basic resources and services including food, energy, shelter, water, sanitation, health, welfare, education and transportation;

Basic security of living through social and employment transition;

Freedom of association and other core labour standards set out in ILO instruments;

Protection of human and economic freedoms in international agreements; and

Means to address social barriers based on gender, sex, age and physical attributes.

Perhaps this is not so much a new direction as it is a re-discovery of the heroic traditions of trade unionism as a social movement. Having held out its hand of social partnership to the WTO and being rejected, the international trade union movement is now mounting a new offensive, which seeks to impose pressure upon the WTO from every direction. It is calling for a strengthened United Nations to take a key role in the management of global economic integration53 and by its campaign to promote a social dimension to globalisation it seeks to bring about a collapse of public confidence in the continuance without change, of the existing multi-lateral trading and financial system.

1 Justice Michael Kirby, “Human Rights and Industrial Relations”, Kingsley Laffer Lecture, University of Sydney, 2002

2 As suggested by R. Munck, “Labour in the Global”, in R. Cohen and F. M. Rai (Eds) Global Social Movements, the Athlone Press, London, 2000 at p.100

3 R. Munck, note 2 above, at p.84

4 D. Chin “A Social Cause for Labour's Cause: Global Trade and Labour Standards - A Challenge for the New Millennium” Institute of Employment Rights, London, 1998, at pp.1-2 citing Follows and Alcock.

5 D. Chin, note 4 above, at p.2 citing Vaticos and Shotwell

6 G. Biffl and J. Isaac, “How Effective are the ILO's Labour Standards Under Globalisation?” a paper presented at the IIRA/CIRA 4th Regional Congress of the Americas Centre for Industrial Relations, University of Toronto, June 25 to 29, 2002, at p.10 citing Gunderson.

7 G. Biffl and J. Isaac, note 6 above, at p. 10

8 R. Munck, note 2 above, at p.88

9 As cited in R. Munck, note 2 above, at p.84.

10 G. Biffl and J. Isaac, note 6 above, at pp.29-34.

11 S. Ashwin `International Labour Solidarity After the Cold War”, in R. C. Cohen and S. M. Rai (Eds), Global Social Movements, Athlone Press, London, 2000, at p.101.

12 In May 2001, 221 national trade union centres were affiliated to the ICFTU with a total membership of approximately 158 million workers in 148 countries.

13 Ashwin, note 11 above, at p.110.

14 The Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the WRA”) does not conform with ILO Conventions particularly in relation to the right to strike and the primacy which is given to individual agreements (AWAs) at the expense of collective bargaining. Together with s.45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974, the WRA has been the subject of consistent criticism by ILO supervisory bodies. These are summarised by G. Biffl and J Isaac, note 6 above, at pp15-23.

15 D. Chin, note 4 above, at p.36.

16 D. Chin, note 4 above, at pp 23-24.

17 OECD “International Trade and Core Labour Standards” , 2000.

18 G. Biffl and J. Isaac, note 6 above, at pp10-23 where a useful summary is provided.

19 G. Biffl and J. Isaac, note 6 above, at p.12.

20 As cited in G. Biffl and J. Isaac, note 6 above, at p.6.

21 As cited in D. Chin, note 4 above, at p.37.

22 P. Bakvis, “Labour Standards and Development”, ICFTU - GUF presentation to World Bank Conference on Development Economics, Oslo, 25 June 2002, at p.7 and see also T. Harcourt, “Labour Issues in APEC” Australian APEC Study Centre 1996, at pp 5-6.

23 P. Bakvis, note 22 above, at p. 7.

24 T. Harcourt, note 22 above, at pp.5-7.

25 OECD, note 17 above.

26 P. Barvis, note 22 above, at p.8.

27 It has been generally assumed by both academic literature and NGOs that this perspective is shared by workers of the developing nations. The validity of that proposition has been shown to be ill-founded. Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, the evidence shows that Southern unionists are strong supporters of linking trade and labour standards. See G. Griffin, C. Nyland and A. O'Rourke, `Labour Standards and Trade: A North - South Union Divide?”, yet to be published, 2002.

28 D. Chin, note 4 above, at pp 40-42.

29 ICFTU, “The Social Dimensions of Globalisation”, 2002.

30 ICFTU, GUFs and TUAC, “Fashioning a New Deal: Workers and Trade Unions at the World Summit for Sustainable Development”, 2002 at p.31.

31 ICFTU, GUFs and TUAC, note 30 above, at p.32.

32 D. Chin, note 4 above, at p. 53.

33 ACTU, “Trade Unions and APEC” , 1997.

34 P. Bakvis, note 22 above, at p.8.

35 P. Bakvis, note 22 above, at p.1.

36 P. Bakvis, note 22 above, at p. 9.

37 P. Bakvis, note 22 above, at pp 8-9.

38 ICTUR and War on Want, “The Global Workshop” , 2001, at pp.121-128.

39 ICFTU, GFU and TUAC, note 30 above, at p.30.

40 ICTUR and War on Want, note 37 above, at p.128.

41 P. Bakvis, note 22 above, at p. 8.

42 ICTUR and War on Want, note 38 above, at pp.131-132.

43 ICTUR and War on Want, note 38 above, at p.132.

44 As cited by R. Munck, note 2 above, at pp 89-90.

45 R. Munck, note 2 above, at p. 90.

46 As cited by R. Munck, note 2 above, at p. 90.

47 R. Munck, note 2 above, at p. 90.

48 As cited in R. Munck, note 2 above, at p. 98.

49 S. Herzenberg, “Reinventing the US Labour Movement, Inventing Post Industrial Prosperity: a Progress Report” in A. V. Jose, Organised Labour in the 21st Century, International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva, 2002.

50 Ashwin, note 11 above, at p.113.

51 Ashwin, note 11 above, at p.113.

52 ICFTU, “The Global Market, Trade Unionism's Greatest Challenge” 1996 at p.70.

53 ICFTU, note 30 above, at pp 9-10.

1

2

________________________________________________

* An Australian Labour Lawyer practicing at the Victorian Bar and the Australian National President and an International Vice-President of the International Centre for Trade Union Rights (ICTUR), an organisation promoting the observance of ILO Conventions and Recommendations. The views expressed are those of the author.