Documents international labour standard 194 results

"This article examines the existing quasi-legal means by which international labour standards may be protected. This article considers the nature of the challenge that global capital creates for labour, the development of the International Labour Organizations (ILO's) labour standards, and the consequences of its shift towards promotional principles, the growth of corporate voluntary initiatives by multinational corporations (MNCs), and finally the associated debates around the inclusion of social clauses in trade agreements. The analysis suggests that the ILO's shift to ‘promotional principles' and the formal acceptance of voluntary self-regulation from the late 1990s has not significantly improved the situation for workers but was a pragmatic response driven in part by US policy and the increasing marginalization of the ILO within the global system of economic governance. It is argued that even if the many political obstacles could be overcome, the result of including social clauses in World Trade Organization (WTO) trade agreements may not be straightforward. In conclusion, it is argued that in some respects the existing system has ‘privatized' labour rights."

"In describing the rights companies should respect, the UN Global Compact and the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights refer to the ILO's 1998 Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Company codes of conduct, and various certification, audit and reporting entities use language that is identical or similar to that found in the ILO Declaration. For years the International Labour Organization (ILO) was viewed as the authority on what certain human rights mean in the work context. This certainty was challenged in June 2012 when the Employers Group at the International Labour Conference (ILC) attacked the ILO's Committee of Experts (CEACR) for discussing the right to strike as part of its commentary on Convention No. 87, Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise. Underlying this criticism was the Employers' awareness that others were using the General Survey of the CEACR to comprehend the scope of certain human rights found in statements such as the UN Global Compact. The Employers identified 'the critical issue' as the fact that the CEACR's 'observations were being viewed by the outside world as a form of soft law labour standards jurisprudence.'This article will set out the 1998 ILO Declaration and will then discuss the two major UN pronouncements on human rights at work. It will review the standards used by other entities active in this space. This article will conclude that companies must accept that society has placed certain responsibilities on them to apply human rights in their sphere of control. It will also argue that for the post-World War II concept of universal human rights to remain valid and effective, there must be agreement on what specific rights mean in practice and that, in turn, requires acceptance of an international body's legitimacy in making these determinations."

"Les entreprises européennes qui proclament respecter les principes du droit international du travail oublient trop souvent les engagements qui en découlent lorsque leurs salariés employés aux États-Unis exercent leur droit de liberté syndicale. En raison notamment des lacunes du droit américain et de son application, les employeurs européens implantés aux États-Unis lancent des campagnes agressives d'ingérence, d'intimidation et de coercition, en vue de briser les tentatives salariales d'organisation et de négociation collective. C'est notamment le cas de deux entreprises françaises Saint-Gobain et Sodexo qui feront l'objet de notre étude."