Read this article in:
18 January, 2000The ILO is changing. Its structure will be transformed as well, but not necessarily for the better.
The new director-general has introduced some new concepts which are worth discussing, but also questioning, I think.
The fundamental idea of organising the work internally, based on four priorities, sounds good. Fundamental principles and rights at work, employment, social protection, and social dialogue are the four strategic objectives.
No one can or will question that. On the contrary. Ever since the new director-general, Juan Somavía, announced his intentions, the whole international trade union movement endorsed that. We totally share the political orientation of the ILO.
What makes the ILO different from other UN agencies is the fact that it is a tripartite organisation. Without tripartism, the ILO would not exist. The idea of it being a forum for social dialogue is the basis for its work and functioning.
Tripartism must continue to be THE rule, not just one of the rules governing the ILO. Removing or even altering this fundamental principle would change the scope of the ILO, and this will not be accepted by the trade unions without a big fight.
In the new structure, the employers' and workers' groups have been marginalized into a section within the social dialogue. Although we agree with the director-general's four strategic objectives, we do not agree that all areas except "social dialogue" should be staffed primarily by experts and be effectively exempted from tripartism, and that NGOs should be given equal status with workers and employers.
The employers are certainly happy with that. They have been very active in changing the structure of the ILO to be only an organisation for technical assistance without any right to pass conventions or standards which can regulate working conditions.
This remains the employers' long-term strategy.
For the workers' group, the new structure means that trade unions will be cut off from the social dialogue of three of the four priorities. I can hardly see how dialogue can take place when the social partners are excluded from the discussions on workers' rights, employment and ILO standards.
Or does the new Director-General want to involve only technical people and experts issued from what he calls "civil society" in the social dialogue?
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Somavía.
The fundamental idea of organising the work internally, based on four priorities, sounds good. Fundamental principles and rights at work, employment, social protection, and social dialogue are the four strategic objectives.
No one can or will question that. On the contrary. Ever since the new director-general, Juan Somavía, announced his intentions, the whole international trade union movement endorsed that. We totally share the political orientation of the ILO.
What makes the ILO different from other UN agencies is the fact that it is a tripartite organisation. Without tripartism, the ILO would not exist. The idea of it being a forum for social dialogue is the basis for its work and functioning.
Tripartism must continue to be THE rule, not just one of the rules governing the ILO. Removing or even altering this fundamental principle would change the scope of the ILO, and this will not be accepted by the trade unions without a big fight.
In the new structure, the employers' and workers' groups have been marginalized into a section within the social dialogue. Although we agree with the director-general's four strategic objectives, we do not agree that all areas except "social dialogue" should be staffed primarily by experts and be effectively exempted from tripartism, and that NGOs should be given equal status with workers and employers.
The employers are certainly happy with that. They have been very active in changing the structure of the ILO to be only an organisation for technical assistance without any right to pass conventions or standards which can regulate working conditions.
This remains the employers' long-term strategy.
For the workers' group, the new structure means that trade unions will be cut off from the social dialogue of three of the four priorities. I can hardly see how dialogue can take place when the social partners are excluded from the discussions on workers' rights, employment and ILO standards.
Or does the new Director-General want to involve only technical people and experts issued from what he calls "civil society" in the social dialogue?
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Somavía.