International labor standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International labor standards refer to conventions agreed upon by international actors, resulting from
a series of value judgments, set forth to protect basic worker rights, enhance workers job security, and
improve their terms of employment on a global scale.
The intent of such standards, then, is to establish a worldwide minimum level of protection from
inhumane labor practices through the adoption and implementation of said measures.
From a theoretical standpoint, it has been maintained, on ethical grounds, that there are certain
basic human rights that are universal to humankind.[1]
Thus, it is the aim of international labor standards to ensure the provision of such rights in
theworkplace, such as against workplace aggression, bullying, discrimination and gender inequality on
the other hands for working diversity, workplace democracy andempowerment.

While the existence of international labor standards does not necessarily imply
implementation or enforcement mechanisms, most real world cases have utilized
formal treaties and agreements stemming from international institutions.[2]
The primary international agency charged with developing working standards is
the International Labour Organization(ILO). Established in 1919, the ILO advocates
international standards as essential for the eradication of labor conditions
involving "injustice, hardship and privation". According to the ILO, international
labor standards contribute to the possibility of lasting peace, help to mitigate
potentially adverse effects of international market competition and help the progress
of international development.
Implementation, however, is not limited to the ILO nor is it constrained to the
legislative model that the ILO represents. Other alternatives include direct trade
sanctions, multilateral enforcement, and voluntary standards.
In addition to controversies that arise over each of these models, greater issues
have also been raised concerning the debate over the need for international labor
standards themselves. However, while critics have arisen, the international

community has largely come to a consensus in favor of basic protection of the

worlds labor force from inhumane practices.[3]
Associated with the development of successful international labor standards is
proper monitoring and enforcement of labor standards. Most monitoring occurs
through the ILO, but domestic agencies and other NGOs also play a role in the
successful monitoring of international labor standards.[4]

History[edit]
Early history[edit]
The concept of protecting workers from the perils of labor environments dates all the way
back to 14th-century Europe.[5] The first example of the modern labor rights movement,
though, came in response to the brutal working conditions that accompanied the onset of
the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries.[5] In 1802, the Parliament of the United
Kingdom passed what is now known as the English Factory Act. The act sought to regulate the
workday of apprentices by restricting work hours to 12 per day.[5] In doing so, the English
Factory Act served as a precursor to the models of international labor standards seen today.
Minimal regulations similar to those found in English legislation subsequently became
increasingly commonplace among 19th century industrializing nations. Early attempts at the
provision of labor standards were limited in scope, though. Such conventions focused
primarily on improving working conditions in relation to hours of work, women's and children's
labor, and the use of hazardous materials.[1] While it was evident that support for workers
rights was inconsistent across international boundaries, activists originally only employed the
use of moral suasion to deal with differences in labor standards. It was not until the latter
parts of the 19th century that efforts were made to implement uniform standards on an
international scale.[5]

Creation of ILO[edit]

Flag of ILO

In 1919, following the end of the First World War, the agenda on international labor standards
reached a new level of prominence as a result of the founding of the International Labour
Organization.[1] As mandated by Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, the ILO was created as a branch
of the League of Nations in order to address all conceivable aspects of labor rights. Preliminary
efforts focused primarily on the eradication of slavery and all forms of forced labor. [1] The
agenda quickly expanded, however, to include the rights to freedom of association and
collective bargaining, nondiscrimination in employment, and the elimination of child labor.
The ILOs creation marked the first instance of multiple major international actors coming
together in an attempt to reach a consensus on universal workers rights. Despite a lack of
any formal means of coercion, the ILO then urged its 44 original member countries to adopt
and ratify conventions limiting oppressive labor market practices.[1]

The early years of the ILO[edit]

In the first two years of the ILOs existence, 22 international labour conventions were
adopted.[6] Some of the topics that the first conventions addressed were hours of work in
industry, unemployment, maternity protection, night work for women, minimum age, and

night work for young persons in industry.[6] In 1930, the ILO adopted the first future
fundamental convention: the Forced Labour Convention (No.29), which prohibited all forms of
forced labour unless exempted by certain conditions.[7] With the onset of the Great Depression,
the United States joined the ILO in 1934 noting that complex labor issues would require an
international response.[8] Throughout the history of the League of Nations, the ILO is the only
League-affiliated organization that the United States joined. With the backdrop of World War
2, the ILO broadened its mandate with the Declaration of Philadelphia, signed during the 26th
general conference session in 1944. The Declaration of Philadelphia, which is attached to the
general constitution of the ILO, foreshadows some of the ILOs earliest future fundamental
conventions including the freedom of expression and association which was adopted in 1948
as Convention 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention.
[9][10]

Globalization and changing divisions of labor[edit]

In the first half of the 20th century, global divisions of labor were shaped largely by the practices
of colonialism. Poorer countries exported natural resources to richer countries, which then
manufactured and produced specialized goods.[11] As many colonized nations achieved
independence, developing nations in the global South took on increasinglyprotectionist policies in
attempts to build up the manufacturing sectors of their economies, thus marking a shift in the
global division of labor. However, toward the latter part of the 20th century, a number of
factors saw protectionist measures fall. Such factors included rising labor costs in the north,
advances in transportation and communication technologies, the liberalization of trade, and
the deregulation of markets.[11] In the midst of a changing international labor landscape,
developing nations in the south took on a previously unseen domination of the labor-intensive
manufacturing industry.
With the deregulation of major markets and significant increases in the volume of
international trade, attempts to make manufacturing sectors more attractive to retailers saw
extreme downward pressure placed on the quality of working conditions in lower income
regions of the world.[11] This gave rise to growing concerns about a global Race to the bottom, in
which governments take part in the iterative loosening of labor protections in attempts to aid
the international competitiveness of export-oriented industries. Fears of this nature
consequently produced the notable increases in the discourse on international labor ethics
that characterize the contemporary international human rights arena.[5]

Models[edit]
The traditional model of labor standards regulation has been, for most of history, withincountry or within-jurisdiction legislation and enforcement. [12] However, this model may not be
appropriate when competitors in a product market are located in different countries or
jurisdictions with dissimilar labor standards. This concern opens up the discussion for the
establishment of international labor standards, which, in turn, require international regulation,
particularly in the context of global trade. However, determining an effective method of
implementation of international labor standards has been an area of difficulty and an area
that is highly contested. The following sections outline several existing models for the
regulation of international labor standards based largely on work by Richard N. Block, Karen
Roberts, Cynthia Ozeki and Myron J. Roomkin in their paper titled "Models of International
Labor Standards".[12]

Legislative[edit]
The legislative model for implementing a set of international labor standards is the best
known.[12] This model involves the enactment and enforcement of labor standards by a
legislative body across a union of countries. Social policies regarding employment and labor

typically fall into three areas: free movement of labor, prevention of social dumpingvia low labor
standards, and dialogue between labor and management.[12] This model has been adopted by
the European Community, part of the European Union, and is also the model taken by the International
Labour Organization (ILO). Organizations, such as these, are given the authority, through a series
of procedures, to then issue directives in any of these areas of labor policy. Member states
must comply with these directives; however, what compliance actually means and entails is
left to the discretion of each member state.
European Community (EC)[edit]
The European Community (EC) is a multigovernmental legislative structure that, through the Treaty
of European Union (Maastricht) in 1992, the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, and various other
agreements has promoted full economic integration of its member states. [13] While it has
issued a number of directives in nonlabor areas, the same cannot be said for matters
concerning social policy and labor. However, some restrictions regarding health and safety
have been adopted by the EC in an attempt to mitigate any inhumane practices, involving low
health and safety standards, used for the sake of a competitive advantage.[13]
For those members within the EC who favor the implementation of labor standards, there has
been a push to ease the decision-making barriers to social legislation.[14] On February 7, 1992,
the signing of the Maastricht Treaty made it easier to pass legislation on less controversial issues,
such as health and safety, nondiscrimination, and consultation with workers. [15]
While the EC provides a structure for enacting legislation that applies across counties, the
extent to which it can actually create international labor standards, even within its own
confines, is limited.[12] While these directives allow for labor concerns to be brought above the
national level, the presence of philosophical differences among member states as well as
constraints on state autonomy demonstrate barriers to this model. However, despite these
difficulties and a complex decision-making structure designed to include consultation with the
governments of all member states, the various EC policy-making institutions and the related
parties have succeeded in creating cross-national legislation for labor standards under its
social policy umbrella.[12] Consequently, this model, as demonstrated by the EC, is a viable
one for establishing labor standards on a cross-national basis. The difficulty lies in the
duplication of this model elsewhere, due to the ECs unique, integrated community that is the
only such general multinational standard system in the world today.[12]
ILO[edit]
The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, consisting of
183 member countries, that deals with labor issues. The ILO, by its existence, is the
recognized international vehicle for raising international labor standards issues in a worldwide
forum.[16] No other model in existence is capable of performing this role. This organization
establishes labor standards by means of both conventions and recommendations and has a
tripartite governing structure representing government, employers and workers. [12] While
ILO recommendations take more of the role of providing mere guidance to member states, the
stronger form, ILO conventions, have the status of a treaty, which, in principle, is binding on the
member countries that voluntarily ratify them. These represent benchmarks of strong labor
standards towards which countries can strive by promulgating and enforcing national laws
that comply with the conventions.[17] It is through these means that the organization works to
enforce international labor standards.
In 1998, the ILO International Labour Conference adopted the Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights at Work defining certain rights as fundamental.[18] The Declaration
commits member states to respect and promote these main principles, referred to as the core
conventions, which are grouped into the following four categories (total of eight ILO
conventions): freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective
bargaining, the elimination of forced or compulsory labor, the abolition ofchild labor, and the
elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. The Declaration claims
these rights to be universal, applying to all people in all States regardless of level of

economic development.[17] The International Labour Conference regards these principles as so

important that all member counties are obligated to comply with them, regardless of
ratification status.
Alongside the fundamental conventions, the ILO has also identified four priority conventions
or governance conventions. Crucial to the running of the international labour standards
systems implemented by the ILO, the ILO recommends that member states ratify the
following priority conventions: the Labour Inspection Convention (1947), the Labour
Inspection (Agriculture) Convention (1969), the Triparte Consultation (International Labour
Standards) Convention (1976), and the Employment Policy Convention (1964). [19]
Issues with the ILOs approach to implementing international labor standards come down to a
question of universality amongst the conventions and member countries, with some arguing
that flexibility is necessary to meet the needs of developing countries. These concerns gather
around the idea that the race to expand exports or attract foreign investment can cause
competition on the basis of labor costs, leading to a decline in international labor standards as
governments either dismantle national laws that protect workers or weaken the enforcement
of these laws.[17] The underlying issue here is the connection between national incomes and
the standards a country can feasibly support while remaining competitive. Other issues
involve enforcement of these standards following ratification. The ILO provides a vehicle for
investigating cases of noncompliance through representations, filed by employer or worker
organizations, or complaints, lodged by another member that also ratified the convention.
[17] These are then sent to a committee that launches an investigation and report. This is
followed by either acceptance of recommendations on steps the government may take to
address the complaint or the request to submit the case to the International Court of Justice. Failure
to comply may result in an incurred sanction from the organization.

Peace Palace, the headquarters for the International Court of Justice

Overall, the ILO structure essentially created a system of voluntary compliance with labor
standards based on ratification of the established conventions. In general the enforcement
system of representation and complaints has been successful success being measured by
the fact that only one representation or complaint has reached the most severe sanction.
[17] On the other hand, due to the absence of strong sanctions, the ILO lacks a strong enough
deterrent factor for countries inclined to violate the standards the ILO upholds. Further, the
flexibility of standards allows too much leeway for adaptation based on independent
circumstances, diminishing the force of the conventions.

Direct trade sanctions[edit]

For over 25 years, there have been links between labor standards and international trade,
particularly for specific commodities.[17] The earliest and broadest-based example of linking
international labor standards with trade is found in U.S. legislation under the Trade Act of 1974,
creating the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Under the GSP, the United States was allowed
to grant nonreciprocal tariffpreference to less developed countries, based on certain country
and product eligibility criteria, in order to promote their economic growth and development.
Among the country eligibility criteria is affording workers in a country certain internationally
recognized rights, similar to the four core conventions established by the ILO. [20] If a complaint
or petition was filed against a GSP beneficiary, these are processed through the Office of the
United States Trade Representative. Since 1988, eight countries have been suspended or terminated
from the GSP program: Burma, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Pakistan (several
products), Sudan and Syria.[21] Four countries have been suspended but subsequently
reinstated: Central African Republic, Chile, Paraguay, and Romania. [21] Additionally, Section
2202 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires that the Secretary of State submit to

Congress an annual report on the economic policy and trade practices of each country with
which the United States has an economic or trade relationship.
The trade sanctions model in the United States, also working as an incentives approach of
sorts, appears to have been successful in forcing U.S. officials to encourage countries that are
the subject of complaints to address severe violations of labor standards, as defined in the
legislation. This model, however, is not designed to be a broad-based guarantee of labor
standards among trading partners because it is based on external complaints not the results
of monitoring.[17] While it is effective in providing procedural rights, a lower percentage of
trading partners provide substantive standards, so this measure has had mixed success.
Some hope that implementation in competitor developing countries along with support by
complementary domestic policies would allow this model to overall, raise the global social floor.
[17]

Multilateral enforcement[edit]
Another example of the various methods of implementation of international labor standards is
the multilateral enforcement model. The model, embodied in the North American Agreement on
Labor Cooperation (NAALC), is different from other compulsory methods in that it opposes any
imposition of common standards schemes.[12] Instead, the multilateral enforcement model
requires that signatories to agreements like the NAALC make firm commitments to existing
labor standard structures within their respective domestic spheres. The unique aspect of the
NAALC, however, is that it does not in any way dictate policy. This includes a strong aversion
to uniformly adopted standards on the international level. Rather than encouraging the
inclusion of a baseline set of workers rights, the multilateral enforcement model merely
requires that its members strive to create unbiased administrative bodies that judge whether
or not appropriate measures are being taken to ensure the continued support of domestic
labor standards.[12] In this manner, the multilateral model is not international in its adoption of
a common set of principles, but rather in its level of required commitment to an unspecified
group of standards. In enforcing such commitments, agreements like the NAALC primarily
utilize recommendations and publicity to make decision makers accountable for their actions.
Multilateral enforcement models like the NAALC have experienced mixed results in terms of
effectiveness due to their limited powers of influence.[12]

Voluntary standards[edit]
The voluntary standards model makes reference to a system of implementation for labor
standards based on a corporate code of conduct. Corporate codes of conduct are adopted when
various organizations join together in agreement to operate under a set of socially responsible
labor rules. Therefore, this model generally involves voluntary behavior and self-regulation.
An example of voluntary corporate adoption of labor standards is given by the Sullivan
Principles in South Africa that were taken on by a group of U.S. companies.[22] Additionally, U.S.
apparel retailers, such as Nike, the Gap, and Liz Claiborne, have recently attempted to put in
place a system of regulations to prevent their products from being produced
under sweatshop conditions.[23]
For this model to be successful, there must be incentive for compliance. The problem,
however, is that in the case of labor standards, there are usually high economic incentives to
disregard these standards, which are viewed as rises in production costs. For this reason, the
monitoring system plays a crucial role in the success and effectiveness of such conditions. In
some cases, like the aforementioned Sullivan Principles in South Africa, monitoring has
demonstrated the codes success. In this case, investors rewarded adherence to the code, as
a sign of corporate citizenship. On the other hand, consumers can also punish firms they see as
socially irresponsible by means of boycotts or the individual decision to avoid purchase of
certain products.[24] The main point of these examples being: where there is strong pressure
from investors and consumers to support certain standards, companies may benefit by being
seen as upholding accepted morals.[12]

Now, while this is true, it is also true that where costs of complying with stringent standards
are high and the sources of consumer pressure diffused, codes are likely to be ineffective. It
takes the active involvement and interest of the company, in response to whatever actions
have been taken, for this model to be successful. When they choose to respond to outside
pressures, companies use means such as public announcements, local religious leaders,
human rights activists, university professors, and labor representatives, among others, to
implement compliance and a system of monitoring. Another difficulty has been that, while
pressure has been effectively pressed on individual firms, it has been difficult to find
agreement at an industry level, in terms of corporate codes.
Finally, a variation of the voluntary standards models is one of certification, which began in
October 1997 with the issuance of SA (Social Accountability) 8000 by the Council on Economic
Priorities Accrediting Agency (CEPAA). SA8000 is an example of a corporate certification
process for social responsibility and labor standards.[12] This certification process has the
purpose of identifying corporations that comply with certain criteria based on social
accountability requirements, including criteria for child labor and worker health and safety. The
resulting certification then serves the purpose of assuring customers that goods and services
provided by certified firms have been produced by workers who are offered labor standards
that meet at least a minimally acceptable level.[12]

Monitoring[edit]
A crucial element to the success of international labor standards is proper monitoring and
enforcement. When monitoring international labor standards, agencies rely on three major
types of information: information from international organizations, like the ILO, information
from national agencies, and information from non-governmental organizations. [25] Upon
locating and determining the necessary data, monitoring agencies then need to process and
sift through the results to analyze compliance with certain international labor standards.
Finally after compliance analysis, recommendations and required adjustments are then
communicated to the concerned party.[25]

Data sources[edit]
One of the major sources of data necessary for the monitoring of international labor standards
is the International Labour Organization. According to Article 22 of the ILO Constitution, each
of the members agrees to make an annual report to the International Labour Office on the
measures which it has taken to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which it is a
party.[26] Specifically, countries are mandated to prepare a report every two years for the
Core Labour Standards of the ILO and every five years for all other active conventions that the
country has ratified, which are submitted, to the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee on the Application of
Standards.[27] For conventions that have not yet been ratified by the country, Article 19 of the
ILO Constitution mandates countries to demonstrate on regular intervals steps they have
taken to give effect to any provision of certain conventions or recommendations, and to
indicate any obstacles which have prevented or delayed the ratification of a particular
convention.[26] All of the above combine to form the ILOs regular system of supervision. [28][4]

Flag of the United Nations

The ILO also has a special procedures type of supervisory mechanism where complaints
leveled against member states and freedom of association complaints are dealt with. [4] Under
articles 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution, different groups of people may indicate to the
governing body that a certain state is not complying with an international labor standard that
they have previously ratified.[26][25] Within the ILO framework, the labor standard regarding the
freedom to associate has also received a special priority which allows complaints to be
brought up to the governing body even if the state has not ratified the conventions regarding
the freedom of association.[4]
Other international organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank also monitor
international labor standards.[25] The United Nations largely relies on self-reported data from
member states. These data points are used to determine whether or not member states are
meeting the requirements of international treaties agreed to by the United Nations. Given that
the ILO is a subset of the UN, generally, more detailed labor standards data and compliance
records are located within the realm of the ILO.[25] The World Bank incorporates the
international standards set by the ILO as one of the factors behind assistance to member
states.
National agencies and NGOs also monitor international labor standards. National agencies
generally report on domestic compliance of international labor standards while NGOs are
much more diverse in their scope.[25]

Challenges[edit]
Several challenges, however, exist in the monitoring of international labor standards. The ILO
and other international organizations generally rely on self-reporting data from countries. [25][4]
[27] Some analysts have questioned the quality and neutrality of these sources of data. For
example, definitions of what constitutes unemployment vary from country to country making it
difficult to compare data and to judge data quality.[25] Additionally, despite the large amount
of data, there are still gaps in their coverage. Coverage is greatest in the urban environments
and the formal sector. Conversely, gaps exist in the coverage of rural environments and
informal sectors which can positively skew the labor statistics that countries report. [29][25]
Challenges also exist in the usage of data to assess compliance with various international
labor standards. As interest continues to grow in the monitoring and enforcement of
international labor standards, an assessment, according to the National Research Council,
requires careful analysis of what the core labor standards mean and imply, how to determine
when a country is or is not in compliance, what indicators of compliance and which sources of
information to use, and limitations of the sources of information.[25]Standardization will be
necessary to allow proper and effective monitoring of labor standards.

Violations[edit]
Workplace discrimination[edit]
See also: Employment Discrimination
Workplace discrimination, overt and covert, is an example of violations of international labor
standards. The ILO defines workplace discrimination as treating people differently because of
certain characteristics, such as race, colour, or sex, which results in the impairment of
equality and of opportunity and treatment.[30] An overt example of workplace discrimination
is unequal pay, especially between men and women. Though recognized as an example of
workplace discrimination since 1919, the gender pay gap, often a measurement of unequal pay,
is estimated to be 22.9%, which means that for every dollar earned by a man, a woman, in
the same position would earn 77.1 cents.[31] Despite the fact that the ILO proposes that there
are many benefits to reducing and eliminating the gender pay gap, at the current, slow rates

of gender pay reduction, the ILO estimates that another 75 years will be needed to bridge
this gap.[32]
Job security is another arena where workplace discrimination can be found. In some developing
countries, like Bangladesh, job insecurity reflects patriarchal societies that have diminished
womens options. Currently in Bangladesh, of the 1.8 million workers in garment factories, 1.5
million are women. From the perspective of the factory owners, the advantage of hiring
woman is the docility that comes with disadvantage.[11] Women have fewer opportunities
than men when it comes to decent, respectable employment. For many of these women, if
they were to lose their jobs at the garment factories, they would be forced into poverty or
work in the informal sector, like prostitution.[11]
Other forms of discrimination, outside of gender discrimination, include discrimination based on
race & ethnicity, age, religion, political opinions, social origins, disabilities, sexual
orientations, genetics, and lifestyle. The ILO identifies all these forms of discrimination as
violations of international labor standards.[33]

Child labor[edit]
Main article: Child Labor

Parties to ILO's 1973 Minimum Age Convention, and the minimum ages they have designated: purple, 14
years; green, 15 years; blue, 16 years

Young diamond miners in Sierra Leone

According to the ILO, child labor is work that deprives children of their childhood, their
potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development. [34] The
ILO classifies work conducted by children into three categories: children in employment, child
labor, and hazardous work. The ILO condemns both child labor and hazardous work with the
goal of eliminating hazardous child labor by 2016. In 2012, the ILO estimated that 168 million
children (11% of the worlds children) were engaged in child labor, of which, 85 million
engaged in hazardous work.[35] ILO Convention No. 5 adopted in 1919 and entered into force
in 1921 was the first ILO convention regulating child labor. Specifically, the main provision of
the article stated children under the age of fourteen years shall not be employed or work in
any public or private industrial undertaking.[36] Since its inception in 1919, several other ILO
conventions had been adopted that have modified and expanded the initial 1919 convention.
Today, the C138 Minimum Age Convention, 1973 and C182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention 1999
have replaced all the previous conventions. The Minimum Age Convention defines the
minimum age children are allowed to work. Children, unless under special allowances, are not
allowed to engage in hazardous work until the age of 18. The basic minimum age for child
labor is 15 (14 for developing countries), and the minimum wage for light work, which may
not interfere with education or vocational orientation and training, is 13 (12 for developing
countries).[37] C182 urges all governments to take immediate action to identify and eliminate
the worst forms of child labour. [38] The following are defined as hazardous work according to
the ILO:
Work which exposes children to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse
Work underground, underwater, at dangerous heights, or in confined spaces
Work with dangerous machinery, equipment, and tools, or which involves the manual
handling or transport of heavy loads
Work in an unhealthy environment which may, for example, expose children to hazardous
substances, agents, or processes, or to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations, damaging to
their health

Work under particularly difficult conditions such as work for long hours or during the night or
work where the child is unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer [39]
The majority of UN Member States has ratified both C138 and C182. The Worst Forms of Child
Labour Convention (C182) has been ratified by 177 nations, while 8 countries (Cuba, Eritrea,
India, Marshall Islands, Myammar, Palau, Somalia, Tuvalu) have yet to ratify it. The Minimum
Age Convention (C138) has been ratified by 166 countries, while 19 countries have yet to ratify
it. Notably, Australia, the United States, Canada, Mexico, India, and Bangladesh, are all
member states that have not ratified the Minimum Age Convention (C138). [40][41]

Unsafe labor practices[edit]

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on March 25,1911

Operating under the mantra that decent work is safe work, the ILO Programme on Safety
and Health at Work and the Environment, SafeWork, has the goal of making work safer for all.
According to the ILO, someone dies from a work-related accident or disease every 15
seconds. [42] Unsafe labor practices have a long, sordid history. From the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist
Factory fire to the 2013 fertilizer explosion in West, Texas, industrial disasters negatively affect the
lives of workers and their dependents with high associated economic costs. Since its creation
in 1919, ensuring worker safety has been one of the ILOs fundamental missions. [43] The ILO
has over its history adopted several conventions that have the goal of maximizing worker
safety and health. Currently, there are three fundamental conventions that are in effect: the
Occupation Safety and Health Convention (C155, 1981), the Occupational Health Services
Convention (C161, 1985), and the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health
Convention (C187, 2006). The most recent convention has the stated aim of promoting a
preventative safety and health culture and progressively achieving a safe and healthy
working environment. [44] One challenge that the ILO faces is the low ratification levels of the
fundamental health and safety conventions. C155, C161, and C187 have been ratified by 60,
31, and 25 nations respectively. [45][46][47] From the perspective of the ILO failing to meet the
expectations delineated in the conventions are examples of international labor standards
violations.

Criticisms[edit]
In addition to disagreements about the appropriate method of implementation for
international labor standards, there are dissenting opinions concerning the validity of their
existence at all. The two most common arguments raised against international labor
standards are that they undermine international competitiveness and erode domestic policy.
[citation needed]

Undermines international competitiveness[edit]

A critique of international labor standards historically raised by right-of-center economists is
that they distort market forces, thus inhibiting employment and income. [11] According to rightwing economists, global free trade allows countries to specialize in those activities in which
they have a comparative advantage and to reap mutual gains through exchange. The international
competitiveness of countries with large amounts of unskilled labor depends on their ability to
provide low-cost workers.[11] Therefore, international standards would undermine any
comparative advantage by increasing the cost of labor. According to the conservative
argument, international labor standards leave developing nations with a diminished export
economy.[48]

Supporters of international labor standards often respond by arguing that this critique only
attacks a particular aspect of enforcement rather than the standards themselves.
Furthermore, left-of-center economists suggest that higher labor standards do not necessarily
undermine competitiveness.[2] Empirical evidence provided by Berik and Rodgers (2006)
suggests that any costs of raising labor standards can easily be offset by incentives
encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI) and exports.[2] Following this line of argument, not only
do higher labor standards improve social and political stability, thus encouraging more foreign
investment, but they also provide valuable investments in human capital that can lead to
efficiency gains.[2]

Erodes domestic policy[edit]

Another prominent argument against international labor standards is the notion that any
attempt to harmonize set benchmarks for acceptable working conditions disregards, to some
extent, the current state of an individual countrys unique economic and social climates. [1] It is
suggested that rather than adopting an internationally agreed upon group of labor standards,
sovereign states are better off leaving labor market regulation to domestic policy. [1] In this
way, it is argued, a country can tailor a standard such as a minimum wage to the specific
situation in that area of the world rather than trying to implement an ill-fitting uniform wage.
[1] In a 1996 study, Drusilla Brown, Alan Deardorff and Robert Stern use a variety of theoretical
labor models to test the effectiveness of the harmonization of international labor standards.
[49] The study concludes that in theoretical cases, market failures that allow a breakdown in
working environment conditions are most adequately remedied by labor standards.
[49] However, market failures are not uniform across countries and so it stands to reason that
labor standards should not be constructed in an international way.[citation needed]
An example of this critique can be seen by looking at the issue of child labor practices. The
case against harmonized international labor rights makes the point that the amount of child
labor in a country is directly dependent on its level of economic development. [5] Following this
line of reasoning, poorer countries have a better chance at abolishing child labor through
economic development rather than minimum age requirements. In fact, one study found that
children 14 years and younger are not completely withdrawn from the labor force until GDP
approaches $5000 per capita.[50] Additionally, it is also argued that international consensuses
that disparage child labor practices can actually reduce the likelihood of eradicating child
labor altogether by weakening incentives for adult workers to support a ban.[51]

See also[edit]
Labor law
International Labour Organization
International law
Capability approach
Human rights
Work Intensity
International Labour Organization conventions
Social inequality

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Brown, Drusilla K., Alan V. Deardorff and Robert M. Stern. "International Labor
Standards and Trade: A Theoretical Analysis", Fair trade and harmonization: Prerequisites for free
trade? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. 227272.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Berik, Gnseli and Yana Rodgers. 2006. "Asia's race to capture post-MFA markets: a
snapshot of labor standards, compliance, and impacts on competitiveness",Asian Development Review 23(1):
5586.
3. Jump up^ Maskus, Keith E. "Should core labor standards be imposed through international trade policy?" The World Bank: The
Policy Working Paper Series 1 (1999), accessed March 20, 2011.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Applying and promoting International Labour Standards". International Labour Organization.
Retrieved 4 November 2013.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Brown, Drusilla K. "Labor standards: Where do they belong on the international trade agenda?" The
Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, no. 3 (2001): 89-112, accessed March 20, 2011.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b "Origins and History". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 4 November2013.
7. Jump up^ "ILO between the two world wars 1930". International Labour Organization. Retrieved4 November 2013.
8. Jump up^ "Brief History and Timeline". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 4 November2013.
9. Jump up^ "Declaration of Philadelphia" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved4 November 2013.
10.
Jump up^ "C087 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)".
International Labour Organization. Retrieved 4 November 2013.
11.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Kabeer, Naila. "Globalization, labor standards, and women's rights: dilemmas of collective
(in)action in an interdependent world", Feminist Economics 10, no. 1 (2004): 3-35, accessed March 18, 2011.
12.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Block, Richard N., Karen Roberts, Cynthia Ozeki and Myron J. Roomkin.
"Models of international labor standards", Industrial Relations 40, no. 2 (2001): 258292.
13.
^ Jump up to:a b Springer, Beverly. 1994. The European Union and Its Citizens: The Social Agenda,
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
14.
Jump up^ Liebfried, Stephan and Paul Pierson (eds.). 1995. "Semisovereign Welfare States: Social
Policy in a Multitiered Europe", European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration, pp. 43-77.
Washington: The Brookings Institution.
15.
Jump up^ European Union. 1998a. Glossary: The Reform of the European Union. At European Union
Internet resources: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/GSSI/eu.html linked tohttp://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/en/g4000s.htm#s1.
16.
Jump up^ "Alphabetical list of ILO member countries", International Labour Organization, accessed April 3,
2011.
17.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Berik, Gnseli and Yana Van der Meulen Rodgers. "Options for enforcing labour
standards: Lessons from Bangladesh and Cambodia", Journal of International Development 22 (2008): 56-85,
www.interscience.wiley.com, accessed March 20, 2011.
18.
Jump up^ "Declaration: Home page", International Labour Organization, accessed April 3, 2011.
19.
Jump up^ "Conventions and Recommendations". International Labour Organization. Retrieved4
November 2013.
20.
Jump up^ U.S. International Trade Commission. 1997. Advice on Providing Additional GSP Benefits for
Least Developed Countries. Investigation No. 332-370, Publication 3023, February.
Athttp://www.usitc.go:80/wais/reports/arc/W3023.HTM
21.
^ Jump up to:a b "Countries Suspended from the GSP Program for Failure to Enforce Internationally
Recognized Worker Rights", 1998, Correspondence with Jon Rosenbaum of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative.
22.
Jump up^ Dordrecht, Jan, Karen Paul and Steven D. Lyndenberg. 1992. "Applications of Corporate
Social Monitoring Systems", Journal of Business Ethics 11(1):1-11.
23.
Jump up^ Green, Paula. 1998a. U.S. Apparel Industry to Monitor World Shops. Journal of Commerce,
October 19, p. 1A.
24.
Jump up^ Freeman, Richard B. 1994. A Hard-Headed Look at Labour Standards. In International
Labour Standards and Economic Interdependence, edited by Werner Sengenberger and Duncan Campbell, pp.
79-91. Geneva: ILO>
25.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j Monitoring international labor standards techniques and sources of
information ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2004.|first1= missing |
last1= in Authors list (help)
26.
^ Jump up to:a b c "Constitution of the International Labour Organization" (PDF). International Labour Organization.
Retrieved 4 November 2013.
27.
^ Jump up to:a b "Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations". International Labour
Organization. Retrieved 4 November 2013.
28.
Jump up^ "General Surveys". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 4 November 2013.
29.
Jump up^ Monitoring international labor standards international perspectives : summary of regional
forums. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 2004. ISBN 0-309-52986-7.|first1= missing |last1= in
Authors list (help)
30.
Jump up^ "Workplace Discrimination". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October2013.
31.
Jump up^ Oelz, Martin &Olney, Shauna & Tomei, Manuela. "Equal Pay: An Introductory Guide". International
Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
32.
Jump up^ "A New Era of Social Justice" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved20 October 2013.
33.
Jump up^ "Equality at work: The continuing challenge" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20
October 2013.

34.
Jump up^ "What is child labour". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
35.
Jump up^ "Making progress against child labour" (PDF). International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20
October 2013.
36.
Jump up^ "C005 - Minimum Age (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 5)". International Labour Organization.
Retrieved 20 October 2013.
37.
Jump up^ "C138 - Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20
October 2013.
38.
Jump up^ "C182 - Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)". International Labour Organization.
Retrieved 20 October 2013.
39.
Jump up^ "Eliminating the worst forms of child labour: A practical guide to ILO Convention No. 182 - Handbook for
parliamentarians No. 3, 2002". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
40.
Jump up^ "Ratifications of C138 - Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)". International Labour Organization.
Retrieved 20 October 2013.
41.
Jump up^ "Ratifications of C182 - Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)". International Labour
Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
42.
Jump up^ "Safety and health at work". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October2013.
43.
Jump up^ "Global strategy on occupational safety and health: Conclusions adopted by the International Labour Conference at
its 91st Session, 2003". International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
44.
Jump up^ "International Labour Standards on Occupational safety and health". International Labour Organization.
Retrieved 20 October 2013.
45.
Jump up^ "Ratifications of C155 - Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155)". International Labour
Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
46.
Jump up^ "Ratifications of C161 - Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161)". International Labour
Organization. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
47.
Jump up^ "Ratifications of C187 - Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)".
International Labour Organization. Retrieved 20 October2013.
48.
Jump up^ Tsogas, George (January 1, 1999). "Labour standards in international trade agreements: an assessment of the
arguments". The International Journal of Human Resource Management 10 (2): 351
375. doi:10.1080/095851999340594. ISSN 0958-5192. Retrieved 2015-04-24.
49.
^ Jump up to:a b Brown, Drusilla K., Alan V. Deardorff and Robert M.
Stern.fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/ppp.html "International labor standards and trade: A theoretical analysis", Research
Seminar in International Economics 3 (1996), accessed March 20, 2011.
50.
Jump up^ Edmonds, E. V.; Pavcnik, N. (2005). "Child Labor in the Global Economy". Journal of Economic
Perspectives 19: 199. doi:10.1257/0895330053147895. edit
51.
Jump up^ Doepke, M.; Zilibotti, F. (2009). "Do international labor standards contribute to the
persistence of the child-labor problem?". Journal of Economic Growth 15: 1.doi:10.1007/s10887-009-9048-8. edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_labor_standards