The International Labor Organization (‘ILO’) adopted in 1998, the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (‘FPRW’) riding on the strength of two premises, among others: that the extension of the fundamental rights would enable the persons in the economic system to claim freely and on the basis of equality of opportunity their fair share of the wealth, and that ILO is the undisputed global organization competent and legitimate to design and promote fundamental principles and labor standards. The FPRW declared that even if the member countries have not ratified the said convention(s), they “have an obligation, arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights…”
The FPRW outlines four fundamental principles, viz. (a) the freedom of association (‘FOA’) and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (‘CB’), (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, (c) the effective abolition of child labor, and (d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. One may wonder as to the exclusion of labor rights like the right to safe workplace (right to life) to enable earnings capacity throughout the workers’ lives, and to minimum wages, below which any wage would constitute ‘exploitative wage’, among others. Of course, there were two grounds for their non-inclusion then. One, the four labor rights that were selected did not impose any direct monetary liabilities to the nations ratifying them. Countries differ in terms of their stages in economic development and standards like occupational safety and health (‘OSH’), and minimum wages could not be brought under the FPRW framework, for they would have differential, if not difficult, economic outcomes for less developed and poor countries. Second, there is no disagreement among any country that forced labor is not permissible. On the other hand, though in agreement in principle with respect to elimination of child labor, poor countries justified the same on grounds of economic poverty. Freedom of association and collective bargaining are two collective labor institutions that provide the basis for social dialogue, both at the micro and macro levels, which could eventually result in better division of income and wealth. In a collective sense, the four labor standards “enable” achievement of decent work. To be sure, the FPRW declaration emphasized that the eight labor standards must not be used for protectionist purposes. At the same time the identification of handful conventions as the core conventions, ILO has created a hierarchy of its own labor standards. It is significant that the core ILO conventions did not include conventions on minimum wages, social security or conditions of work. Thus, the FPRW segmented the rights into universal and core labor rights, and “others” – the bothering of rights included very basic issues concerning the world of work like OSH and minimum wages, among others.
In a critical sense, it also implicitly under-valued the informal economy as freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in a large sense relate to the small formal economy in the vast majority of poor and developing countries – in India, the best estimate of union coverage may not be more than 15 per cent of the total workforce, and if non-agricultural and non-governmental sector is concerned, then it would be somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent.
Moreover, the governments of the developing countries, especially in the Asia and Pacific region, are reluctant to ratify them chiefly on political grounds. As a result, more than 40 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries that have not ratified either freedom of association or collective bargaining ILO Conventions. Even though the FPRW was a valiant statement of reaffirming a set of labor rights as core and undeniable human rights, there existed cracks within the FPRW for reasons stated above.
Trade unions around the world were animated that OSH is not regarded as a core labor right. The COVID-19 pandemic imposed incalculable loss of lives and businesses together across the world. Various estimates showed that human life at work is at great danger and a risk.
You must be logged in to post a comment.