Transnational Advocacy Networks
Philippines & Bangladesh – Do the Number of Actors Matter?
LABOR RIGHTS & TANs
Labor rights include the right to safe working
conditions, fair pay, the right to organize into unions, and the right to
strike. While this is not a definitive
list of rights, they are rights that have been recognized by most nations for
decades and are enshrined by United Nations (UN) declarations and
conventions. The United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, states in
Article 23 that everyone “has the right to…just and favourable conditions of
work; …the right to just and favourable remuneration; …the right to form and
join trade unions for the protection of his interests” (UN Declaration). The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), entered into force in 1976, states in
Article 7 that each state which is a party to the covenant recognizes the
rights, “to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which
ensure…fair wages…equal pay for equal work…safe and healthy working conditions”
(UN ICESCR). Furthermore, Article 8
states that everyone has a right to form trade unions and the right to strike,
though strikes are restricted in that they must be “exercised in conformity
with the laws of the particular country.”
It is important to
understand that there are two types of obligations imposed on the signatory
states. The first obligation of the
states is to not act in a manner that deprives workers of those rights. The second obligation of the states is to act
in a manner that protects those rights when threatened by others, such as the
companies employing the workers. The
first obligation costs little in the way of state resources while the second
could cost substantial amounts of money as well as labor hours spent on
enforcement. Furthermore, a state may
believe the best interests of its country will be served most effectively by
not enforcing these labor rights because of the increased economic benefits
realized when companies, especially multi-national corporations, are permitted
to violate these rights, and the government will therefore either ignore
violations or in some cases assist the abusive corporations in committing these
violations.
When it comes to
corporations’ behavior towards employees, not to mention the environment or
indigenous groups, there are two competing ideologies. Milton Friedman espoused what is probably the
most contentious of the two when he said, “There is one and only one social
responsibility of business-to use its resources and engage in activities
designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the
game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception
or fraud” (Friedman 133). This
statement, taken at face value, seems to imply that stakeholder values, if
considered at all, are secondary to the shareholders’ desire for monetary gain
by way of profits. However, corporations
have historically found that some stakeholder values must be accounted for and
given some importance in their operations if they don’t want to alienate their
consumer base by committing egregious violations of human rights, including
labor rights. Nike, Reebok, Dole, and
Nestle are a few companies that have had to deal with consumer pressures as a
result of their business activities being revealed to the public resulting in
demonstrations and boycotts, and eventually a believable distancing statement,
or a change of policy to appease the consumers at large and the various
advocacy groups involved in the campaigns against those companies.
The public receives
information on human rights abuses by states and corporations primarily because
of the efforts of various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), with the NGO’s usually developing the
first story on any given issue at hand and picked up on by the press. These advocacy groups engage in unified
efforts to both bring the activities of the state and the corporations into the
public spotlight in an effort to “shame and blame” governments and companies,
and as a result of the shaming to be forced to change their behaviors. However,
according to Murdie and Davis, shaming by itself is not enough to bring about
change. “Improvements in human rights
practices result from the interaction of shaming by HROs with a domestic
presence of HROs within the targeted state and/or pressure by third-party
states, individuals, and organizations” (Murdie and Davis 2012). These unified NGOs form what are called
Trans-national Advocacy Networks (TANs).
Keck and Sikkink describe TANs as “those actors working internationally
on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and
dense exchanges of information and services” (Keck & Sikkink, 1999). Notable with this definition is the non-exclusion
of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) like the UN and the agencies under
its umbrella, individuals in the press, and even members of legislative bodies
and executives of states.
RESEARCH QUESTION &
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this
paper is to determine if the number of actors involved in any given TAN is a
possible explanation for the degree of success enjoyed by the TAN. Having not been able to find a comprehensive
list of issues and the groups involved in advocating for those issues, I have had
to rely on a qualitative analysis in what will understandably be an inchoate
study. By looking at labor rights issues
in two distinct areas; labor rights abuses in the Philippines and
Bangladesh. I believe the overall event
history that details many if not all of the actors, will develop a picture of
whether the number of actors involved matters at all and, if so, to what
degree. This study will hopefully serve
as a jumping off point for further research into the factors that most
powerfully affect TANs in terms of their effectiveness, pointing out areas
where they are inherently strong or weak depending on the issues being
advocated for and the type of opposition they face. In this analysis I will look at the history
of labor unions and labor issues in question in each country, the various
actors who are involved in those issues and when they come into play, as well
as any verifiable effects that the TANs have on either the corporate behaviors
or the state’s legislative and executive responses. The effects that the TANs have that may lead to
a conclusion of effectiveness are identified by any changes made by the state
or by corporations involved in the issue that benefit those being abused. This
would be true regardless of whether the change is legislative or a shift in
corporate policy and procedures that could be seen to serve as a method of
reduction in the violations of labor rights by either of those parties.
This research is limited
in that there is no way to account for the combined resources available to each
individual actor or to the TANs as a whole, whether the resource in question is
monetarily based, or based on political clout.
Furthermore, it is almost impossible to account for the resources spent
by corporations and actors that stand in opposition to the human rights oriented
TANs, which could also include state police forces or armed militias, whether
employed by the state or the corporations directly or indirectly. In addition to this, it is not within the
scope of this research to account for any potential effects arising from the
condition of the global economy and competing human rights issues that also
seek compete for the attention of the public at large and the politicians who
may place those competing issues above the labor issues being explored in this
paper. In short, this study is limited
by a vast number of variable that are not, and as far as I know cannot, be
controlled for at this time.
LABOR RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
There
are eight core labor Conventions from the International Labour Organization
(ILO Core). The Philippines has ratified
all of them. Convention 87 is the
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize. Convention 98 is the Right to Organize and
Collective Bargaining. These two
Conventions have been repeatedly violated for decades, either by the
government, the military forces, rebel military forces, or by the corporations
who do not want union activities to affect their profits. These two conventions were ratified by the
Philippines in 1953 and have been in force in for nearly 60 years. Philippines law also grants workers the right
to organize and bargain collectively, though there are some restrictions on
public sector unionization among other things.
Professor Jorge V. Sibal of the University of the
Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations has identified three major
features of the trade union movement in the Philippines—“communist infiltration
and influence, government intervention, and management domination” (Sibal
2004). The cold war era was a time of
communist repression, though it was also a time of growing collective
bargaining between labor organizations and corporations. During this time, in 1972, martial law was
declared by President Ferdinand Marcos and lasted until 1981. In 1974 the Trade Union Congress of the
Philippines (TUCP) became the primary representative force for labor as part of
a tripartite system between labor, government and industry. That same year the Labor Code of the
Philippines was enacted and served to consolidate all of the labor related laws
of the nation. It promoted unionization
and collective bargaining through the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). However, strikes and other
organizational activities were banned as they were seen as weapons of
communists and other insurgents, and so served to weaken trade unions while
promoting their formation.
In
1986 President Marcos was replaced by Cory Aquino, who supported another labor
center within the country; the Labor Advisory Consultative Council (LACC) along
with the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), or May First Labour Movement, which was
formed May 1st, 1980. The
Marcos rise to power was fueled in large part by socialists, communists,
intellectuals, and in large part will explain some of the issues that surround
labor rights in the country. For
example, the KMU labor organization is seen by some as primarily communistic
and militant in its approach, relying primarily on rhetoric and violence to
stir conflict for its own power. On the
other hand, the TUCP as a competing center of trade unionism is seen by some as
an ally of the state, regardless of the desires of the labor forces within the
country. Research has confirmed this
generally, though there have been circumstances where the two have found common
ground (KMU News 2012). Specifically in
leveling criticism at the government for not doing enough to address the
extrajudicial killings, threats, and abuse leveled against union leaders and
other human rights advocates after having been investigated by a High Level
Mission of the ILO in September of 2009 (ILO HLM 2009). From 2001 to 2010 Gloria Arroyo held the
president’s seat in the Philippines, and during the first portion of her
presidency human rights abuses against labor rights movements were rampant,
though the alleged killings dropped drastically from thirty-three reported in
2006, to a handful per year afterward, with only four in 2011, the most
recently reported year by the International Trade Union Conference (ITUC
Philippines 2012).
Based on research done by the ITUC
between 2006 and 2011; in 2006, 33 union organizers and supporters were
killed. At the end of 2006, there had
not been a single conviction for any of the extrajudicial killings of dozens of
trade union leaders and activists since 2001 (ITUC Philippines 2007). In an effort to try and deflect continued
international pressure, President Arroyo appointed a commission to investigate
the union related killings and provide recommendations to the state. The
commission found evidence to suggest that elements in the military were
involved in a number of the killings. In
2007 there was a significant drop in the number of cases of attacks and
killings according to the independent NGO Karapatan (Karapatan 2010). In February of 2007, Philip Alston, the UN
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, visited
the Philippines. He took the Philippines
commission report one step farther when he found that the Philippines military
was in “a state of almost total denial" about its involvement in the
abductions and killings (BBC 2007).
During 2008, 218 new cases of trade union and human rights violations
were reported (ITUC Philippines 2009). The figure is 26% higher than in 2007.
In
2009, the ILO sent a special High Level Mission to the Philippines to
investigate the human rights abuses against labor union organizers. In 2010, three trade union officials were
shot and killed by unknown assassins and one died after being interrogated by
state security forces; three other union members were abducted; one former
trade union leader was arrested and charged with murder (ITUC Philippines
2011). Army personnel also harassed and intimated striking workers.
Reacting to the ILO missions' findings, the
government established the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC)
on January 20th, 2010, as a high-level monitoring body on the
application of international labor standards. The NTIPC has been criticized as
inadequate because it lacks adequate funding and a dedicated secretariat that
is staffed by qualified persons (ITUC Philippines 2012). The ILO has responded to this by beginning a
program “Promoting the Effective Recognition and Implementation of the
Fundamental Rights of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining in the
Philippines” which began in March of 2012 and set to be completed September
2013. The program is being funded by the
US State Department and has a budget of almost US$750,000. According to the ILO, the project consists of
three core parts. The first is to
increase the capacities of the Government’s authorities, such as the Department
of Labor and Employment and the Philippine Economic Zone Authority, at the
local and national level. The second
element is the promotion of more effective bargaining and dialogue between the
state, industry, and labor. Thirdly, the
program is intended to assist the Philippines in enforcement actions and the
ability to protect potential victims of union and labor rights violations (ILO
Work Areas).
Because trade unions are, by design,
set up to combat labor rights violations by corporations and by the state, and
are not IGO’s, it seems proper that each union should be classified as a
separate NGO advocacy group. Also, the
combined efforts of each union to effect change at the national level, along
with their affiliated unions, parent unions and outside human rights
organizations, especially those focused on labor rights also involved in
efforts to change state behavior, all need to be included as part of a broad
based if somewhat diffused transnational advocacy network. In the case of the Philippines there are
17,000 registered unions, and three major trade union federations claiming to
represent a combined 3.4 million workers (ISIP 2012). The two largest, the Federation of Free
Workers (FFW) and the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP) are
affiliated internationally with the ITUC international union foundation which
consists of a network of over 175 million workers through an additional 308
affiliate organizations in 155 countries (ITUC About). Based on web searches of press releases
related to labor rights in the Philippines by international NGOs, it was
determined there were approximately two dozen outside human rights advocacy
groups that have been involved in one way or another since 2006. Some of the involved trade related
organizations seeking to make changes in the Philippines are the ASEAN Trade
Council, the KMP (a militant, left leaning labor organization in the
Philippines). Three major IGOs were
found with a similar search. The IGOs
include the UN, the ILO, and the OECD.
As we’ve seen, there are also involved state actors seeking change
within the Philippines. The United
States is funding an ILO program, has made its concerns known directly to the
country, and the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the
impunity with which the Philippines is behaving related to extrajudicial
killings involving labor, the press, and other issues (European Parliament).
A few NGOs to have made some
progress in involving the IGOs and other states such as the US State Department
and bringing a lot of the abuses to the attention of policy centers like the
OECD. Brian Campbell, with the
International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF), formerly the International Labor
Rights Education & Research Fund, has lobbied the US State Department to
reevaluate the amount of aid provided to the Philippines because of the
systematic abuses committed against labor activists and unions (Campbell
2007). The KMU petitioned the ILO
directly for assistance and can be said directly responsible for the ILOs High
Level Mission to investigate (International Labour Office). The ITUC has prepared reports for the WTO
General Council to review its trade policies regarding the Philippines (ITUC
WTO Report). The ILRF has filed a
complaint with the National Contact Point for the OECD regarding alleged abuses
of labor rights by agricultural giant Dole (ILRF Petition). While it is likely that any single letter,
filing, or report from an NGO would have little effect, the combined efforts of
these NGOs have led to increased attention by international legal institutions,
foreign governments and a wide number of human rights NGOs around the
world. As has been shown by the reports
from the ITUC the number of violations has decreased dramatically. Determining whether or not the decrease can
be attributed to the increased attention to the labor issues the advocacy
groups have brought about is problematic.
As far as the specific changes go,
there has been little tangible effect on the laborers in the Philippines,
however. New state commissions have been
created and training regimens are being developed and implemented within the
state’s police and military forces.
Corporations operating in the country are starting to operate with a
little more caution. Unfortunately,
there are still issues that will need to be addressed that have not been thus
far. There is increased use of export
processing zones by corporations, the use of which allows the companies to
bypass some of the laws favoring trade unions.
There has been and still is a growing trend toward corporate
flexibilization of the labor force which in large part allows the companies to
use greater and greater numbers of contract workers who are not legally
permitted to organize unions. In
addition to this, there is a huge conflict between the goals of labor rights
advocacy IGOs at the international level, such as the ILO, and the requirements
for aid set by the organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). Various criticisms have been
leveled against these entities for their implicit statements that increased
labor protections are anathema to wealth creation by industry, and that
deregulation of these standards where they exist is in a country’s best
interests financially. The ITUC issued a
news release in October of 2012 which addressed this conflict,
The
2013 edition of the World Bank’s Doing Business report, released today, makes
unfounded claims that weakening labour regulations will stimulate job creation.
It states that countries that reduce dismissal notice periods or severance pay “are
addressing one of the main factors deterring employers from creating jobs in
the formal sector”. (Doing Business 2013, p 100)
This
claim contradicts one of the finding of the Bank’s World Development Report
2013, launched earlier this month, which stated, “New data and more rigorous
methodologies have spurred a wave of empirical studies over the past two
decades on the effects of labor regulation…. Most estimates of the impacts on
employment levels tend to be insignificant or modest” (WDR 2013, p 261) (ITUC
News)
This new development by the World Bank
with its Doing Business report is also contradictory to a position it
took just a year earlier. According to Resilience,
Equity and Opportunity: The World Bank’s Social Protection and Labor Strategy
2012-2022, prepared by Cecilia Costella and Adea
Kryeziu, the World Bank had committed itself to engage in external
consultations for a new “Social Protection and Labour Strategy” (Costella and
Kryeziu 2012)
LABOR
RIGHTS IN BANGLADESH
Like the
Philippines, Bangladesh has signed and ratified the ILO’s core conventions,
including Convention 87, the Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organize, and Convention 98, the Right to Organize and Collective
Bargaining. These rules were ratified by
Bangladesh in June 1972. These rights
are protected under Bangladesh law, though there has been a long history of
failure to protect them. Again, similar
to the situation in the Philippines, for decades there has been systematic
abuse of labor organizers and allies either by the state and its forces or by
the corporations, with either the implicit or explicit support of the
state. At times, some labor protections
regarding unionization and striking have been either completely disallowed
under a state declared emergency, once lasting for two years, while at all
other times the requirements for labor organization and collective bargaining
are excessively onerous and is such that the rules greatly favor the
corporations and the political regime in place.
The spate of fires in the ready-made garment (RMG) sector over the past
several years in Bangladesh necessitate mentioning that ILO Convention 155
(Occupational Safety and Health Convention), which aims in Article IV, “to
prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring
in the course of work, by minimizing, so far as is reasonably practicable, the
causes of hazards inherent in the working environment.” It should be noted, however, that neither the
Philippines nor the US have ratified Convention 155.
Zia Rahman and Tom
Langford explain in some detail the history of labor unions in Bangladesh in
their chapter “Why Labour Unions Have Failed Bangladesh’s Garment Workers” from
the 2012 ILO publication Labour in the Global South: Challenges and
Alternatives for Workers. The labor
movement in Bangladesh is still fighting off the vestiges of the colonial era
that lasted nearly 200 years, until 1947, at which point it became East Bengal;
a part of Pakistan. These early unions
were either nationalist or leftist, and very anti colonial. Because of this focus, and the fact that they
were mostly rural based and dispersed through the region, the unions never
really developed a discrete labor philosophy.
Adding to the problem was the fact that what did exist in the way of unionization
was separated from each other because of their differences, such as caste,
ethnicity, and religion. After
decolonization three large unions stepped up to replace the old British All
India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). The
Bengal National Chamber of Labour (BNCL) was Muslim and pro-government at the
time. The Indian National Trade Union
Congress (INTUC) was formed within seven Hindu provinces, supporting a
different party. The Indian Federation
of Labour (IFL) was created to serve Allied and Western interests.
The cold war era saw
West Pakistan aligning more closely with US interests, while East Pakistan
(Bangladesh) was more ideologically in tune with progressive and communist
goals. From 1947 through 1971 the labor
parties remained politicized, corrupt, rife with nepotism, and influenced
heavily by charismatic labor leaders.
These unions were more interested in state patronage and personal gain
than they were in the lives and conditions of the workers. The late 1950s saw unions under the direct
control of the various political parties, until 1958 when martial law was
declared by General Ayub Khan. At this
time the political actions of unions were banned and union leaders and workers
were arrested, though there were some efforts at reorganization. In 1972 after the “War of Independence”
Bangladesh came under the rule of the Awami League which began a heavily
socialist economic program where over 90% of the nation’s industry was
nationalized. A progressive labor policy
was implemented that incorporated Workers’ Management Councils into the
different industries, though in 1975 the labor organizations were all
consolidated and incorporated into the government as a state union.
Following this, and in
the same year, a coup led by General Ziaur Rahman, was the beginning of a
massive shift away from the progressive policies of the past. General Rahman ordered a ban on all union
activity under martial law. Two years
later he lifted the ban and formed a political front union and a political
party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), implemented a registration
program for new unions which required 30% of all the workers to sign off on
before a union would be allowed to register.
In addition to this, General Rahman made the rule so that a labor union
could only be formed by the labor arm of a political party. The shift from the progressive policies
included massive privatization efforts, based on a policy prescription from the
World Bank and the IMF. The previously
nationalized assets and industries were sold to political allies well below
market value. Rahman was assassinated
during a failed coup attempt and was replaced by General H.M. Ershad who
continued the privatization started under Rahman. General Ershad also sold off companies and
assets at deeply discounted prices (Rahman & Langford 2012).
The ITUC report of 2006
shows a long list of labor rights violations by the government and companies,
including kidnappings, torture, and killings of union activists. In 2006 a worker striking over being cheated
out of wages was killed after factory management called in mercenary thugs to
attack the strikers. When the strikers
fought back, management then called on the police who opened fire on the
workers. The government blamed the
workers for unrest and not the working conditions or pay problems the factories
are responsible for. Police invaded one
of the offices of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers’ Union Federation
(BIGUF) and accused the union officers and staff of starting riots. Three people were arrested and beaten, and
claim they were tortured, and charged for crimes connected to the violence and
unrest caused by protesting and striking workers. Common tactics by employers include
intimidation, use of thugs, harassment, and firing in order to make union
organizing a costly endeavor. Even the
Solidarity Centre, which is an AFL-CIO center, was visited by the government’s
intelligence service and police frequently after publishing a pamphlet that
explained worker rights (ITUC Bangladesh 2007).
In January of 2007 the
military enforced a presidential decreed State of Emergency which prohibited
all union meetings and most labor organization related activities. This resulted in increases in violence,
threats, and labor rights abuses from the year before. One aspect of this was that to participate in
any labor union assembly or event was criminalized and punishable by a two to
five year prison sentence. No new trade
unions would be permitted to register with the Joint Director for Labour (JDL),
and the JDL attempted to de-list the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik
Federation (BGIWF). The US Trade
Representative was to have a hearing in Washington and the AFL-CIO petitioned
to have GSP privileges revoked from Bangladesh.
Labor union leadership of other union federations was contacted by the
Director of Labour and they were also threatened unless they stopped
cooperating with the complaint that brought the petition by the AFL-CIO (ITUC
Bangladesh 2008).
The State of Emergency
was lifted December 17th, 2008 after two years of intensified
exploitation and abuse of labor rights, of which the garment districts and the
export processing zones saw the most and the worst abuses. The 97th ILO Conference report by
the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations
(CEACR) in 2008 is rife with serious criticism bordering on condemnation of
Bangladesh for continuing to permit ILO Convention violations and failing to
provide trade unions their full freedoms (ITUC Bangladesh 2009). The ITUC reported that 2009 saw increased
violations, especially within the garment sector, with the death of six workers
during a protest. In July there was a
parliamentary committee of the Labour and Employment Ministry which made a
recommendation to set up intelligence units in each industrial sector to keep
labor unrest to a minimum. The committee
also determined the key reasons for the labor unrest was the lack of union and
the failure of the garment factories to pay their workers the minimum wage as
set by Bangladesh law (ITUC Bangladesh 2010).
An Odhikar (a Bangladesh based human rights NGO) report referenced by
the ITUC for 2011 claims that, “135 persons were reported killed and 11,532
injured in political violence. There were 84 extrajudicial killings” (ITUC Bangladesh
2012)
For the same reason each
individual trade union was counted individually, along with its affiliates, for
the Philippine union section, the same thing was done with Bangladesh. Unlike the Philippines, where the country’s
unions can avail themselves of the assistance of three major union federation
groups, Bangladesh has at twelve large umbrella federation groups or national
trade unions. The best count of trade
unions I could find was from the US State Department’s March 8th,
2006 report on Bangladesh for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
“An estimated 15 percent of the approximately 5,450 labor unions were
affiliated with 25 officially registered National Trade Unions (NTU). There were also several unregistered
NTUs. Unions were generally highly
politicized” (US BoD) Memberships of the
six federations affiliated with the ITUC amounted to 876,000, while the other
six, affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) was
unavailable (ITUC Affiliated). Many of
the same non-union, human rights advocacy NGOs dealing with labor rights in
Bangladesh were the same as those covered in the Philippines. The same IGOs were involved to varying
degrees, as well.
Conclusion & Discussion
How effective have these
unions and their allies been at effecting change on a national level to the
benefit of the workers and the labor rights being advocated for? I was not able to find a single reference to
a change made by either government that was attributed to the efforts of the
unions, the NGOs, the IGOs, or the outside states involved in labor issue
advocacy. How effective have these
unions and their allies been at making corporations change their behavior
toward the workers? I found no references
to any company doing anything that would make union organizing or union
activities any more available to the workers.
However, while the focus has been on labor organizing rights, there have
been some very small changes that are obviously being made by the Philippines,
Bangladesh, and corporations in regards to workers suffering under terrible
conditions.
In Bangladesh hundreds of garment workers have been
killed, not by the state and not for union activities, but as the result of
unsafe working conditions. Fires in
facilities with inadequate safety measures and with management that locks exit
doors and bars windows for loss prevention (supposedly) have happened multiple
times. The most recent incident on
November 24th, 2012 in Ashulia killed over 100 and injured at least
200 people, making it “the most deadly factory fire in the history of the
apparel industry in Bangladesh” according to the ILRF (ILRF Fire).
Considering the factory fires have been happening for
over a decade it is obvious that meaningful, widespread changes have not been
made. However, a few companies are
throwing money at the problem in the hopes that either the problems thereby get
solved, or more cynically, they will be able to say they are doing what they
can and then shift blame back to either the Bangladesh government, or more
likely to “disgruntled” workers in the factories. Corporations are also giving the appearance
in many cases of distancing themselves from their suppliers who find themselves
in the public spotlight. For example, in
the most recent fire, CNN has reported that Wal-Mart Stores Inc has already
issued a statement that the factory was no longer authorized to manufacture
merchandise for their stores, but a supplier had contracted to the factory and
upon learning of this the relationship with the supplier was terminated
immediately. The Bangladeshi government
has ordered an investigation into the fire, though a major supplier to the
industry, Li & Fung, based in Hong Kong, stated that it would carry out an
investigation on its own (CNN).
Do numbers matter when
it comes to TANS and labor rights? As
far as getting legislative changes made and acted on accordingly by the state,
the answer appears to be a resounding “no.”
Even if the thousands of trade unions in each country are totally
discounted, what is left is a relatively equal number of NGOs, IGOs, and
interested outside states involved in the issue. There is one caveat to this conclusion,
though. The greater the number of
involved actors, the greater it would seem the likelihood is of having an actor
that happens to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right amount
of leverage to get something good accomplished.
On the other hand, it is possible that the larger the network the more
likely internetwork conflicts, information overload, and road-blocking becomes,
distracting, stifling or otherwise keeping an effective actor from bringing
about the change they would otherwise effect through their efforts.
In terms of labor rights it appears the biggest obstacle
is a combination of corporate power and capital, a state’s self interest in
seeing the capital not going to a competing state, state leaders’ desires to
retain and acquire power, the power and authority of in-state businesses and
their trade organizations, and the power relationships between individual
unions themselves seeking to serve their own particular immediate interests
over the broader interests of workers generally. The high degree of politicization evident in
both the Philippine and Bangladesh unions just exacerbate the effects of the
latter. Furthermore, appearances suggest
there might be an effect based on the pursuit of an economically oriented
neoliberal free-trade ideal, supported in policies by powerful IGOs like the
IMF and the World Bank, and evidenced in the way Structural Adjustment Programs
(SAPs) are designed. This, in addition
to the gains that are made by the more powerful entrepreneurs and industry
leaders who lobby for their interests through their own NGOs, make labor rights
a very difficult issue to address for the human rights NGOs. It may be that the industry oriented TANs are
simply much better funded and organized than the labor oriented TANs.
A serious problem in
looking at trade unions and labor rights NGOs in relation to TANs is that it is
entirely possible that there is really no such thing as a labor rights TAN, or
that the cases I looked at did not deal with any TAN, as it was defined
earlier. To revisit the definition
provided by Keck & Sikkink at the beginning of this paper, a TAN is “actors
working internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a
common discourse, and dense exchanges of information and services.” While all of the involved actors dealt with
shared a common discourse, worked in varying degrees on the issue at the
international level whether directly or indirectly, and at least give lip
service to sharing the values of labor rights, the dense sharing of information
between all of them did not, and probably could not exist due to the sheer
numbers of actors involved. Furthermore,
measuring the density of the exchange of information and services was not done
as part of this research, and there may not be a way to quantify or qualify
this particular component of the definition.
Works Cited
BBC 2007. BBC NEWS |
Asia-Pacific | Philippines army is 'in denial'. (2007, February 21). BBC
News - Home. November 23, 2012.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6381291.stm>.
Campbell, B. (2007, June 22). GSP
Philippines Petition | International Labor Rights Forum. International Labor
Rights Forum. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from
http://www.laborrights.org/end-violence-against-trade-unions/philippines/resources/10624
CNN.
(2012, November 27). Retailers and suppliers hit by fallout from deadly
Bangladesh factory fire - CNN.com. CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World,
Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Retrieved November 27, 2012, from
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/bangladesh-fire-mourning/
Costella, Cecilia and Kryeziu,
Adea. Resilience, Equity and Opportunity: The World Bank's Social Protection
and Labor Strategy 2012-2022. Social Protection and Labor, March,
4. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/280558-1274453001167/7089867-1279223745454/7253917-1291314603217/spl_strategy_summary_consultations_rep
European Parliament. Human
rights: Sahel, Philippines and Iran . (2012, June 15). European Parliament.
Retrieved November 23, 2012, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120613IPR46792/html/Human-rights-Sahel-Philippines-and-Iran
Friedman,
Milton. "Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business and
Labor." Capitalism and Freedom Fortieth Anniversary Edition..
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. P. 133. Print.
ILO
Core. List of ILO Core Conventions . (n.d.). International Labour
Organization . November 18, 2012,
<http://www.ilo.org/asia/decentwork/dwcp/WCMS_143046/lang--en/index.htm>.
ILO HLM 2009. High Level ILO
mission to the Philippines on Convention No. 87 Freedom of Association and
Right to Organize . (2009, September 17). International Labour Organization .
November 20, 2012. http://www.ilo.org/asia/info/public/pr/WCMS_114072/lang--en/index.htm>.
ILO Work Areas. Promoting the
Effective Recognition and Implementation of the Fundamental Rights of Freedom
of Association and Collective Bargaining in the Philippines . (n.d.). International
Labour Organization . Retrieved November 23, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/manila/areasofwork/WCMS_180137/lang--en/index.htm
ILRF Fire. Labor Rights Group
Calls on Brands to Join Fire Safety Program Following Deadly Fire at Factory
Supplying US and European Brands | International Labor Rights Forum. (n.d.). International
Labor Rights Forum. Retrieved November 6, 2012, from
http://laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world/news/walmart-supplier-factory-burns-fire-death-toll-highest-in-bangladesh
ILRF Petition for Review of
Dole’s failure to adhere to OECD General Guidelines | International Labor
Rights Forum. (2010, October 11). International Labor Rights Forum.
Retrieved November 24, 2012, from
http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world/changing-global-trade-rules/resources/12442
International Labour Office
(2012). 364th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. Reports of
the Committee on Freedom of Association, Third Item on the Agenda(Case
No. 2528 & 2745), 246-281. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_183430.pdf
ISIP, I. (2012, April 25).
Malaya Business News Online - Philippine Business News | Online News
Philippines - ILO wants unions; Ecop says no. Malaya Business News Online -
Philippine Business News | Online News Philippines - World and Business News.
Retrieved November 24, 2012, from
http://www.malaya.com.ph/index.php/business/business-news/2040-ilo-wants-unions-ecop-says-no
ITUC About. ITUC-CSI-IGB.
(n.d.). ITUC-CSI-IGB. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from
http://www.ituc-csi.org/about-us.html
ITUC Affiliated. List of
Affiliated Organizations. (2011, October 18). ITUC-CSI-IGB. Retrieved
November 25, 2012, from
www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/no_08_-_list_affiliates_09gc_-_201211-2.pdf
ITUC Bangladesh 2007. UNHCR |
Refworld | 2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Bangladesh.
(2012, October 23). UNHCR Welcome. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,ITUC,,BGD,,4c52ca44c,0.html
ITUC Bangladesh 2008. UNHCR |
Refworld | 2008 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Bangladesh.
(2008, November 20). UNHCR Welcome. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,ITUC,,BGD,,4c52caa6c,0.html
ITUC Bangladesh 2009. UNHCR |
Refworld | 2009 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Bangladesh.
(2009, June 11). UNHCR Welcome. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,ITUC,,BGD,,4c52cb021e,0.html
ITUC Bangladesh 2010. UNHCR |
Refworld | 2010 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Bangladesh.
(2010, June 9). UNHCR Welcome. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ITUC,,BGD,4c4fec90c,0.html
ITUC Bangladesh 2012. UNHCR |
Refworld | 2012 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights - Bangladesh.
(2012, June 6). UNHCR Welcome. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ITUC,,BGD,4fd88965c,0.html
ITUC News. World Bank’s Doing
Business 2013: Unfounded claims about deregulation - ITUC-CSI-IGB. (2012,
October 23). ITUC-CSI-IGB. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from
http://www.ituc-csi.org/world-bank-s-doing-business-2013.html
ITUC
Philippines 2009. UNHCR | Refworld | 2009 Annual Survey of violations of trade
union rights - Philippines. (2009, June 11). International
Trade Union Confederation. November 23, 2012.
<http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ITUC,,PHL,4c52cacf28,0.html>.
ITUC
Philippines 2011. UNHCR | Refworld | 2011 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade
Union Rights - Philippines. (2011, June 8). International
Trade Union Confederation. November 23, 2012. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ITUC,,PHL,4fd8892dc,0.html>.
ITUC
Philippines 2012. UNHCR | Refworld | 2012 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade
Union Rights - Philippines. (2012, June 6). International
Trade Union Confederation. November 23, 2012. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ITUC,,PHL,4fd8892dc,0.html>.
ITUC WTO Report. Report for the
WTO General Council Review of the Trade Policies of Philippines. Internationally
Recognized Core Labour Standards in Philippines, Geneva (22 and 24
November). Retrieved November 23, 2012, from
http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/wto_review.pdf
Karapatan
2010. 2008 Karapatan HR Report (Updated). (2010, May 4). Scribd.
November 23, 2012.
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/30881396/2008-Karapatan-HR-Report-Updated>.
Keck,
Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. "Transnational Advocacy Networks in
International and Regional Politics." International Social Science
Journal 51.159 (1999): 89-101. Print.
KMU News 2012. KMU dares TUCP:
Let’s build alliance for significant wage hike. (11 March 2012). Kilusang Mayo
Uno. Kilusang Mayo Uno. Tunay,
Palaban at Makabayang Unyonismo. November 22, 2012. <http://www.kilusangmayouno.org/news/2012/03/kmu-dares-tucp-let%E2%80%99s-build-alliance-significant-wage-hike>.
Murdie,
A. M., & Davis, D. R. (2012). Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to
Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs1. International Studies Quarterly.
56.1 (2012): 1-16. Print.
Rahman, Z., & Langford, T.
(2012). Why Labour Unions Have Failed Bangladesh's Garment Workers. Labour
in the Global South: Challenges and Alternatives for Workers (pp. 87-106).
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Sibal, Jorge V., A Century of
the Philippine Labor Movement, Illawarra Unity - Journal of the Illawarra Branch
of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, 4(1), 2004,
29-41.
UN
Declaration. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Welcome
to the United Nations: It's Your World. United Nations, n.d. Web. 22 Nov.
2012. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.
UN
ICESCR. "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights." OHCHR Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm>.
US BoD. US Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor. (2006, March 8). Bangladesh. U.S. Department of
State. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61705.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your feedback!