(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Driving rules for groups that operate across borders have been in demand for several decades. The ILO, the OECD and the UN are among those who have tried. The only effective driving instructor so far has been an internationally organized trade union movement. The trend towards ever tougher competition across borders has made international minimum standards increasingly necessary – and at the same time put all such standards, both national and international, under pressure.
The ILO has lasted the longest – for over 80 years.
There are well over 100 ILO conventions, but the most important are the seven so-called core conventions. Convention 29 and 105 prohibit "forced labor", Convention 87 and 98 on organizational and negotiation law, Convention 100 on equal pay, Convention 111 on the prohibition of discrimination in working life and Convention 138 on minimum age in working life.
One problem with ILO conventions is that they bind only those countries that ratify them. The United States, for example, has only ratified two of the seven core conventions – and neither the conventions on organizational and bargaining law nor on equal pay and minimum age in working life. The United States will be free in relation to the ILO conventions both in its workplaces domestically and in connection with US investments abroad.
An equally big problem is that there are no other means of sanction than the ILO's own reports. Every year, violations of ILO conventions are documented – also from countries that have ratified them.
Who can tie everyone?
Therefore, many attempts have been made to develop driving rules that could be more binding in nature. The OECD has set up code of conduct for multinational groups. But the rules are voluntary. They apply to the groups that choose to follow them. And they are neither followed up with surveillance nor sanctions.
Many such attempts have been made by the UN, most recently under the auspices of Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In January 1999, Kofi Annan launched with great fanfare "The Global Compact" – the global pact between some of the world's largest multinational corporations and a number of international organizations – trade unions, environmental organizations and human rights organizations.
The Global Compact obliges the Group to comply with certain minimum requirements for environmental and social standards. In return, they can enjoy the brilliance the UN can give them.
According to this "global pact", the group is required to present a report each year showing what they have done with the environment and social standards. The idea is that the organizations that are part of the "global pact" should be able to submit their comments on these reports.
But as UN Deputy Secretary-General John Ruggie has stated:
"These are not rules of conduct, and the UN has neither the mandate nor the capacity to investigate compliance with the pact."
Sin lists are blessed
An alliance of environmental and human rights organizations has joined forces with the umbrella organization TRAC (The Transnational Resource and Action Center), criticizing this "global pact" for falsely granting UN group blessings.
TRAC shows e.g. to such groups as Shell, BP Amoco, Nike, Rio Tinto, Novartis, Bayer and DuPont are proud of being part of this pact with the UN. This is a group that has a long list of sins in terms of environmental and social standards. TRAC therefore requires the UN to introduce an internationally binding regulatory framework for multinational groups.
But the counterparty is also organized, including in the ICC (The International Chamber of Commerce). From the leadership of the ICC, Kofi Annan has received a clear message that the "global pact" must be as it is – "without monitoring and without implementing measures":
"The business community will look askance at any proposal that involves an external assessment of how a group behaves" – it was stated in a press release from the ICC in July 2000.
Furthermore, the ICC does not set the counterparty high. Prior to the G8 Summit in July 2000, the ICC called on the eight governments to "stand firm in rejecting claims from groups that are without public responsibility and are not representative".
Such a problem does not have ICC. The ICC organizes just about everything in the capital of North America, Europe and East Asia. For them, the UN's "global pact" is, first and foremost, a valuable PR measure for a corporate-controlled globe. After Seattle, the need is great.
When the proletarians unite…
Until now, decent international minimum standards have only been possible to maintain where workers are organized. This has been the case nationally – this is the case to an even greater extent internationally.
It does not help with national or international standards if competition makes it profitable to break them. Where competition is fiercest, well-developed public control systems also fail. The decisive factor is whether there is a trade union movement that is able to defend trade union rights and the standards set by law and agreements.
Therefore, it is perhaps a major breakthrough that in recent years there has been an increasing number of agreements between trade unions and groups at international level.
The large Swedish construction company Skanska, with its 80.000 employees and operations in all corners of the world, in February signed an agreement with IFBWW, the international building workers' federation. The agreement states that Skanska must comply with the most important ILO conventions and national law in all countries where Skanska is active.
Similar agreements have been made by IFBWW with IKEA, Faber-Castell and the German major contractor Hochtief.
Statoil followed up last week. An agreement with NOPEF, the LO association for oil workers, commits Statoil to adhere to the seven core conventions of the ILO throughout the world. The agreement with NOPEF was signed on behalf of ICEM, the international trade union for chemical, energy and mining and construction workers.
ITF as a shining example
Such agreements with individual groups stand and fall with the trade union movement that has entered into them. They are nevertheless the most important way forward towards a globe where corporate power meets effective power.
The ITF, the International Transport Workers' Federation, has shown this for decades. Outside the territorial boundaries, national rules apply at best to the nation's own ships. At the same time, the competition is relentless – so relentless that shipowners flee to where the regulations are weakest. This has led to ships under flags of convenience with partly hair-raising pay and working conditions for the crew. And in countries such as Norway, it has forced so-called "international ship registers" with weakened regulations for ships in foreign trade – so that not all shipowners would move away.
However, when international shipping is not characterized by total anarchy, it is due to the ITF. Where no state has any apparatus for effective control of wage and labor standards, where the ITF has through its network of inspectors and its ability to boycott ship loading and unloading, the latest in collaboration with port workers on all continents, preventing full demolition of the standards of international shipping.
It is at this global level that the class struggle is fought most fiercely. One of the main drivers of a deregulated globe, the Director-General of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Michel Camdessus, is actively pursuing all effective standards, whether they are backed by law or agreement. He seems, for example. that the ILO conventions are too inflexible. Just before the turn of the millennium, Camdessus stated that it was necessary "to create a less rigid framework for international standards in working life" – so that they "better suit the needs of the world economy at the transition to a new millennium".
The UN's "global pact" fits the glove into such a "less rigid framework".
