The controversial struggle
for labour standards

Asbjørn Wahl

Apart from belonging to the Our World Is Not For Sale network and being the national co-ordinator of the Campaign for the Welfare State in Norway, I am also a national secretary of the biggest trade union in Norway, which organise municipal as well as health sector workers. Together with some other Norwegian unions, my union, as well as the broader Campaign for the Welfare State, have signed on to the political platform of the Our World Is Not For Sale network and has been supporting the work of this broad, global coalition against corporate globalisation and the neo-liberal agenda of the WTO since the battle of Seattle.

Immediately after the breakdown of the WTO 5^th Ministerial in Cancun, there was a national executive meeting of my union. At this meeting, the national executive unanimously adopted a statement on the Cancun meeting which, among other things, stated that it:

“..want to underline the fact that when developing countries now say stop to demands from the US and the EU, this is a victory not only for these countries, but for everybody who fights for more just trade systems and real international democracy. The union will continue its national and international work in the new and strengthened alliances which have come into being against liberalising and market power.”

There was no regret over the breakdown of the 5^th Ministerial in this statement. There are, however, still trade union colleagues who do regret the breakdown of the ministerial and call it ‘a lost opportunity’. This reminds me of a discussion I had with a couple of international trade union representatives some years ago – not long after the breakdown of the negotiations within the OECD on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in 1998. They were, unlike me, sorry for the breakdown, because, as they said, ‘there was a real possibility to get labour standards into the MAI agreement – and that would have represented a breakthrough for the trade union movement’.

This statement illustrates in an excellent way one of the problems that we still have in the trade union movement as well as in the broader trade campaigning coalitions – namely the debate on the question of labour standards, which has been so decisive in the development of a political position on international trade and the WTO in the trade union movement. Although I am quite aware of the fact that the policy on the WTO has developed in the international trade union movement over the last couple of years – and to the better, seen from my point of view – I still think that this question of labour standards symbolises more profound conflicting views in relation to WTO policies – and political analyses in general.

Ever more trade unions realise that the campaign on labour standards in the WTO, on which the trade union movement was so narrowly focusing over so many years, was, and still is, counterproductive. I am now going to explain why I think it is so. I am not going to use the very well known arguments about labour standards being used protectionist against developing countries. Neither am I going to repeat the equally very well known arguments against expanding the WTO mandate. They are both qualified arguments and other participants in this panel debate will probably give them more consideration.

My main argument is from a position within the trade union movement, and my contention is that if we really want to protect and improve working conditions, the very narrowly developed labour standard campaign, which the international trade union bodies have be pursuing for many years towards the WTO, has not only been a failure, it has also been a wrong and misguided campaign on the premises of the trade union movement itself. I take it for granted that we all agree that our final aim is not formal, legal labour standard, but real protection and improvement of working conditions, and that formal labour standard is just a means to that end.

The struggle for trade union and labour rights is, of course, decisive if we are to develop a civilised society. However, in order to achieve better labour standards, in practise, not only in laws and agreements, we must analyse why trade union rights are being undermined in most parts of the world today. There are causes and there are effects, and we must identify and attack the causes if we are going to improve working conditions and by that, the quality of life for working people. It is in this perspective that I find that there is a tendency in parts of the trade union movement to develop a very narrow perspective on the campaign for labour standards.

Violations of trade union and labour rights have been increasing over the last 10-15 years all over the world. Also in my own country, in Norway, trade union and labour rights are being weakened and undermined these days – and this is not happening because there is a lack of formal labour standards. Norway has probably some of the best labour laws in the world. It is happening in spite of relatively strict labour laws and regulations. Formal rules are, in other words, not enough.

We can learn a lot from our own history in this regard. Maybe I will be a little Euro-centric in this representation, but there is a lesson to be learnt for everybody. Let us go 100 years or so back in history. That was the time when workers started to organise. By means of trade union and political struggle, labour and trade union rights were gradually improved and formally institutionalised through labour laws and through agreements between trade unions and employers. What took place was a gradual shift of the balance of power between labour and capital – in favour of labour. Labour market regulation was introduced and enforced as a result of the increasing power of organised labour.

However, the strength of labour was not only reflected in labour laws and regulations. Probably more important was the general taming of market forces. The power of capital was reduced in favour of politically elected bodies. Competition was dampened through political interventions in the market. Capital control was introduced and financial capital became strictly regulated. Through a strong expansion of the public sector and the welfare state, a great part of the economy was taken out of the market altogether and made subject to political decisions. It was this fundamental shift of power in society which made it possible to improve working conditions and trade union rights. Formal improvement of labour laws went, in other words, hand in hand with real changes in power relations in society and was a result of concrete struggles and confrontations with capitalist interests.

This development culminated in the 1970s. Then, market forces went on the offensive and the current era of neo-liberalism started. What we have been facing over the last twenty years is therefore a reversing of the policies mentioned above. An immense shift in the balance of power between labour and capital has again taken place, but this time in favour of capital. This is the main reason for the brutalisation of work and the undermining of trade union and labour rights and standards that we are now facing in the developed as well as in the developing world. This is first and foremost a question of power, and it cannot be changed only by formally introducing labour standards.

This is exactly the weakness of the narrowly run campaign on labour standards. It has been reduced to a kind of legal formalism, which is developed completely independent of an analysis of the balance of power between labour and capital. It may surely be well-meant, but not very productive when it comes to the improvement of working conditions in the real world.

I often use the following picture to illustrate this problem. To liberalise and deregulate the markets and then think that you can protect the workers by introducing formal labour standards, is like opening the floodgates of the regulated waterfall and then forbid the water to fall. Truly, it is not a very productive exercise.

I often hear colleagues say that they cannot accept a further liberalisation of this or that unless they get labour standards included. This is an illusion. Formal rules cannot balance the forces of increased marked power. The result will be a further deterioration of working conditions. Good intentions represent very little power when they crash with the economic iron laws of market liberalism. It seems to me that it is the entire concept of power which has gone wrong at some stage in great parts of our international trade union movement.

To conclude, the struggle for labour standards, for trade union and labour rights is of course important – not only important, it is decisive – but only as part of a real struggle – a struggle to empower workers and to strengthen trade unions, a struggle which is aimed at shifting the balance of power between labour and capital. This means to fight neo-liberal policies, not to accept them in exchange for formal minimum labour standards.

We can only achieve this by limiting the power of the multinational companies, by regaining and strengthening democratic control of financial capital, by fighting against the neo-liberal policies of the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, the World Bank and our own governments.

There is a very interesting process going on in the international trade union movement on these questions these days. Many trade unions have joined the new movement against corporate globalisation and the struggle against WTO and in particular its services’ agreement, the GATS. At the international level, the role of the Public Service International has been decisive – both within the Our World Is Not For Sale Network and in the trade union movement. The Global Unions took an important step in the same direction, at least in theory, with its political position before the Cancun ministerial – including a strong criticism of the GATS agreement, opposition to the so-called Singapore issues in the WTO and by putting labour standards in a broader context.

The problem is that very few people, even in the trade campaigns, do know about this important political development in the international trade union movement. There are at least two reasons for that. Firstly, the international trade union bodies have a tendency to fall back on the previous, narrowly focused, labour standard policy when the contradictions intensify. Secondly, to be honest, the international trade union movement has not done much in terms of implementing its new and more critical political position – by mobilising its members, building alliances with like-minded movements and openly confronting and attacking the WTO neo-liberal agenda. Global Unions should not be shamed about their more critical position on the WTO. On the contrary, there is still room for improvement and sharpening of the position. There is no reason to whisper and be shy. There is no other way to stop the neo-liberal offensive than to mobilise sufficient social power from below. The policy of the social pact, where it existed, has broken down because the employers have withdrawn from the social contract with labour. They have gone on the offensive, and we had better be prepared to meet them – in relation to the WTO and elsewhere!

(Contribution at the World Social Forum in Mumbai on 16-21 January 2004.)