July 2005

International Labor Conference 2005 – Catalyst for Change?

At the ILO’s annual meeting, failure to ratify a key convention may have shown the way toward making the organization more effective

By Antonio Peñalosa

The secretary general of the International Organisation of Employers here looks at the recent developments in the International Labor Organization. The ILO’s annual Conference is the forum in which governments, workers and employers negotiate international labor standards and other policy instruments. The most recent conference in June was the scene of negotiations on a new convention on labor conditions in the fishing sector, as well as discussions on occupational health and safety and youth employment. The U.S. employers delegation was chaired by Ed Potter (Coca-Cola),and included Soma Chengalur (Kodak), Michael Taubitz (General Motors), Tammy French (American Seafoods), Linda Spencer (Coca-Cola) and Ronnie Goldberg (USCIB).

Despite the fact that the agenda for this year’s International Labor Conference (ILC) appeared largely uncontroversial, an overtly restrictive Convention for the fishing sector which failed to garner enough support to be adopted, ensured a dramatic finish. Employers and many governments abstained from voting entailing that the necessary quorum was not reached and as a consequence the Convention fell – something that has not happened in nearly 40 years.

ILO headquarters in Geneva

The most interesting thing about the failure of the Conference to adopt this Convention is that all three groups, workers, employers and governments in their initial positioning were in favor of a Convention. Many were of the view that this years Conference provided an opportunity to correct the mistakes made several decades ago when the ILC adopted five instruments in the fishing sector, none of which have been ratified by more than 16 percent of member States.

The cavalier approach many governments usually take to the Conference remains a key problem. There is no compulsion on governments that voted for a particular Convention to then ratify it. Very often governments, under pressure from workers, vote for a particular instrument without any intention whatsoever of ratifying it. The problem is compounded as Trade Unions regularly try by all possible means to obtain the highest possible standards even if the prospects of ratification are poor. Likewise the views of employers are usually sidelined, the Office becomes too involved and the consequence is un-ratifiable instruments. Could the message from the 2005 ILC be that a number of governments are now beginning to take the process more seriously?

The paradox is that today, a majority of the world’s workers in the developing world work outside the law, in the informal economy. For most, labor legislation does not apply. So for those that work outside the law, is the answer to their problems ‘more law’? Hardly. Furthermore, for those working within the law the outcomes may also be irrelevant if governments do not ratify standards. A key theme pursued by employers and a number of governments in the one “employment” debate during this year’s Conference (youth employment) was that “legislation does not create jobs.” The ILO’s main response to the world of work, international labor standards, clearly needs to be rethought. Is this view now gaining resonance?

Very often governments, under pressure from workers, vote for a particular instrument without any intention whatsoever of ratifying it.

The current debate on UN reform implies the need for reflection on the ILO’s relevance within the multilateral system. The ILO, unique in the international system, can say that it represents a global view. It can make this bold claim because its reach is really global – millions of enterprises and workers fall within its network. It therefore has the ‘infrastructure’ to develop an effective and transparent agenda that could garner genuine global appeal. The issue is then, why is it not getting more support?

Perhaps this is best expressed as follows. The ILO has developed since its creation a laudable body of international law, which has had a direct impact in the creation of labor legislation worldwide. Given the key recognized role of the private sector in national, economic, social and political development, should the ILO not now be a place that sees more the business community as part of the solution and that is perceived as a equal friend and valuable partner to both workers and employers? In a world that has changed dramatically, both teams with a good referee can paradoxically be on the same side!

That will require bold and adventurous thinking, challenging vested interests and some objective strategic thinking that “goes outside the box.” The question is, could the events this June be a sign that such a process has tentatively started?

Antonio Peñalosa is secretary general of the International Organisation of Employers, which represents industry views in the International Labor Organization. This article is reprinted from the July 2005 issue of IOE.net, IOE’s monthly newsletter.

Staff contacts: Ronnie Goldberg and Adam Greene

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Policy Committee