Social clauses: the Indian case
* Social clauses The governments of the "developing countries" have deferred the imposition of social clauses in international trade agreements. But these same governments have done little else to safeguard the rights of labour. by Sharit K. Bhowmik INDIA IS ONE OF THE FEW COUNTRIES WHERE there is near unanimity between the government, the employers and the trade unions on opposition to linking the social clause with international trade. But most developing countries fear that whatever competitive edge they have in the world market will be offset by the imposition of the social clause. By unfairly highlighting the provisions in the social clause, the developed countries can create trade obstacles through issues like human rights and unfair labour practices. There is a lurking fear among the developing countries that in the present unipolar world these measures will be used by the developed countries, especially the US, to intervene in the internal affairs of the developing countries, thus eroding their political sovereignty.
These fears are without doubt well-founded. The US especially has linked trade with developing countries with human rights in a selective manner. For example, the US is spearheading the economic blockade of Cuba in the name of human rights, even thought there is no concrete evidence of any major violation. At the same time, China is given the status of Most Favoured Nation, despite the fact that it has unabashedly curbed democratic opposition. Such examples of double standards are very common. Which makes one doubt the genuineness of the concerns voiced by many of the developed countries about the sad plight of labour in the developing countries. Are these countries taking up the issue of the social clause because they sincerely believe that this would enable a better deal to labour in the developing world or are they using it as a ploy for their own interests by raising non-tariff barriers to international trade and in the process causing greater harm to labour in these countries? 20 International Viewpoint
Reactions of developing countries towards the imposition of the social clause have been quite strong. They have unanimously rejected its linkage with international trade. The fifth conference of labour ministers of non-aligned and other developing countries held in Delhi on January 18-23 1995 rejected what it termed as the "westsponsored" move seeking to link international trade and labour enforcement standards. The conference, which was attended by labour ministers of 57 countries, decided to oppose all international fora any attempt to link ILO conventions with international trade. Speaking at the valedictory function of the conference, India's commerce minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the social clause was a means of depriving developing coun tries of all the opportunities provided to them by globalisation and free trade following the GATT agreement. This united opposition of developing countries has had some effect on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It has temporarily decided to delink the social clause from international trade.
An immediate fall-out of the aggressive attitude of the developed countries in this matter is that the developing countries are becoming increasingly war of any attempt by international bodies to grant protection to labour. This could be clearly seen in their attitudes towards a proposed convention on home-based workers by the ILO recently. While the international trade union movement was unanimous in supporting the move for a convention, most of the governments of countries with large home-based workers thought otherwise. Some, such as India and China, favoured a recommendation rather than a convention, while most others opposed both. Interestingly, countries like the US and Britain, which have been at the forefront on the issue of the social clause, opposed both convention and recommendation on home-based work. Perhaps they were worried that this protection would result in higher wages to the large section of informal sector workers (mainly immigrants who work in sweat-shops) in these counties. Here too, we can see double standards at work. Issues raised
The developing countries have for the present been able to defer the adverse effects of the social clause on international trade. Nonetheless, it is necessary to take an objective look at the basic issues raised by the controversy, namely, the sad plight of labour in the developing countries and to view the social clause from this aspect, rather than as a tool of the developing countries to suppress the developing world, which it has, unfortunately, become, due to its linkage with trade.
The six ILO conventions comprising the social clause have been passed at various times. Some have been in existence for at least two decades. Governments in most of the developing countries have endorsed these conventions. Yet, most of the provisions are not yet fully implemented in these countries.
Most developing countries, including India, have passed laws on the issues condemning the social clause, but these have made no significant difference on the actual conditions of work. In India, the Equal Remuneration Act was passed by the government in 1976, and the Child Labour Act was modified in 1985. Yet women in the unorganised sector still get wages lower than those of men, and children below 15 are widely employed in all types of hazardous work. Similarly, the right to freedom of association has been granted long since, but the overwhelming majority of India's workers, especially those in the unorganised sector, are yet to know what trade unions are. The Constitution of India abolishes all forms of discrimination based on caste, religion and race, but we find that in public sector undertakings, the job quotas for scheduled ["low"] castes and scheduled tribes are never filled
DONT BUY
CHILDREN'S
----- photo credits and running heads -----
BLOOD
up. Is it so difficult to find workers or Class
Four employees belonging to these categories, or is it because the largely upper cast officers who dominate these services refuse to do so?
These are some of the issues which should have been discussed earlier by the government and the trade unions. Unfortunately, they crop up only when there is a threat to international trade. Hence it is ironic that while some countries in the developed world attempt to use the social clause to better their own position in world trade, developing countries are counteracting these manoeuvres by opposing any attempts to protect their workers. They now tend to view any move to improve conditions of workers as external threats. How else can one explain the government's opposition to the ILO convention on home-based workers?
Had the conventions embodied in the social clause been sincerely implemented by the government, the position of labour in India might not have been as helpless as it is now. In this respect, the support of trade unions, together with employers and the government, for opposition to the social clauses seems somewhat incongruous with the objectives of trade unionism. The trade unions have opposed the social clause in order to uphold the national interest. However, had the provisions of the social clause been implemented, the quality of life of the workers would have improved, and this too would have served the national interest.
The major trade unions in India have largely ignored the problems of workers in the unorganised sector. This sector covers 92% of all workers in India. It is by far the major employer of women and children. The problems of these workers have largely remained invisible to the policy-makers. Hence, it is not at all surprising that the sad plight of child labour in the country became an issue only after international exposure. The pressure for eliminating child labour was built up only after it became an international issue.
As a result, the labour ministers of the developing countries who met in Delhi gave sufficient importance to the elimination of child labour. The government of India too has announced an ambitions scheme for the elimination of child labour. The question now is, were not the government and the trade unions aware of the gross exploitation of children earlier? If yes, then why was it necessary for international pressure to mount before any substantive step could be taken towards its elimination? Why have the national trade unions not given enough importance to the question of child labour in the past? The high incidence of child labour is not merely a reflection of poverty in the countryside. It also implies that hundreds and elementary education, which in turn will affect the quality of the population in the future.
The unorganised sector
Perhaps one of the reasons for the indifference towards implementing the provisions of the social clause was that they were relevant to the unorganised sector which has remained largely outside the interest of the national trade unions. The organised sector has implemented the provisions to a large extent. Here too the exception is the tea plantation industry which, with nearly one million permanent workers, happens to be the largest employer in the organised manufacturing sector. In the tea plantations of West Bengal and Assam, which eollectively employ about 750,00 permanent workers, wages are abnormally low, and child labour is officially permitted, through the Plantation Labour Act. The figures provided by the Tea Board indicate that these two states employ around 60,000 children (aged 12-15) as permanent workers. Though there is a high degree of unionisation among tea workers, these basic issues have never been on the agenda of any of the national trade unions, including the more radical ones like AITUC and CITU.
It is mainly in the unorganised sector that there have been violations of the ILO conventions. Because of the absence of trade unions in this sector, the meagre legal protection provided by government is hardly ever enforced. The workers are not organised in order to ensure that the legislation can be enforced. Their protection is left to the good offices of the bureaucrats in the government (the officials in the labour department).
At the same time, it can be seen that wherever agricultural workers or workers in the informal sector have been unionised, they have been able to improve their living conditions. Trade Unions like the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA), National Federation of Construction Labour, National Forum of Fishworkers and some of the unions of agricultural workers have been
Social clauses * fairly successful in making some gains for the workers in this sector. These attempts are limited, and are restricted to the areas of operations of these unions. They are also disparate and they seek to make sectional claims for the specific workers. These unions are unable to focus on the problems of the myriad occupations comprising the unorganised/informal sector. The national trade unions on the other hand are able to take up the problems of workers in the organised sector at the national level and thus force government to pass legislation in their favour. The recent move of the major unions in the unorganised sector to come together to form a national federation, the National Federation for Labour (NCL) is a promising development. The NCL has been formed precisely because the unorganised sector workers have no forum to raise their issues at the national level. This move will hopefully gain visibility to this large section of underpaid, unprotected workers. However, this move also exposes the failure, or more likely the indifference of the national trade unions in taking up issues confronting the majority of the working class in India. One can therefore hope that, with a national level union of unorganised workers, the issue of implementing the social clause with sincerity will be brought to the forefront. The point to be stressed here is that only the organisations of the working class can be effective in solving workers' problems. Neither the bureaucracy nor any other organisation can fill in this need.
The manner in which the developed countries (especially the US) have been using (or misusing) the social clause cannot be supported by any self-respecting people. The way in which some of these countries have utilise this issue will lead to worsening of conditions of labour in developing countries rather than improving them. At the same time, while opposing these moves should we oppose the social clause itself, for reasons of national interest?
Moreover, why should the working class alone make sacrifices for the nation? Reduction in costs can be achieved by lowering the profit rates of industrialists and not merely by cutting down wage rates but how come nobody sets this on the agenda? While on the question of national interest, it should be borne in mind that any move to improve the living and working conditions of the cast majority of unprotected labour should serve the national interest as these people too are a part of our country. * This article first appeared in India's Economic and Political Weekly, vol.30 nº50
#280, September 1996 21