Trade Unions and NGOs
The need for trade union and NGO co-operation
The challenges posed by economic globalisation make it imperative that civil society organisations break down the barriers that have traditionally divided them, in order to ensure that the rights of those who are marginalized or vulnerable are kept firmly on the international agenda. Globalisation brings fresh impetus to the need, in particular, to forge alliances between the trade union movement and NGOs concerned with social and economic development.
While there is plenty of evidence of successful co-operation, there remain major problems, fears, suspicions, and at times hostilities between them. Some of these are substantial and sharp policy differences, but others are the consequence of colliding political or organisational cultures, prejudices, financial competition, and a mutual lack of understanding of respective roles and objectives.
Recent debates surrounding the organisation of workers in the informal economy, culminating in the ILO discussion in June 2002, provide a useful case study.
The basis for co-operation
Both trade unions and NGOs are major global actors in civil society. NGOs are organisations that are voluntary, independent, not-for-profit and not self-serving in aims and related values. Trade unions may be said to be “self-serving” insofar as they are membership organisations, which have a primary responsibility to protect and advance the interests of their members.
Nevertheless, although unions are primarily concerned with conditions in employment and the workplace, they have always had broader social and political concerns over a wide range of national and international issues.
Some would argue that there has been a partial retreat of the labour movement, and in particular trade unions, from this broader social and political commitment in recent decades, creating a vacuum that has been filled by the growth of NGOs . Others, such as Annie Watson of the Commonwealth Trade Union Council, would argue that the trend has been in the opposite direction, as evidenced by trade union campaigns on human rights, women’s’ rights and participation in pro-democracy movements and alliances on the debt issue .
Historically, trade unions have argued that a consistent defence of their members’ interests demands a long-term struggle for a social and political context at national and international levels that is favourable to the well being of people and society as a whole. They legitimately claim to be serving the interests of society in general, as would NGOs, in acting on the desire to advance and improve the human condition.
International development
Many unions in industrialised countries are engaged in international development activities. In many cases, they are financially supported through their government’s international development agencies, providing support for trade union education and organisation programmes in developing countries. They are often organised through international trade union federations – the industrial sector-based Global Union Federations (GUFs), or the federations of national trade union centres, notably the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), for example.
Some development programmes are organised bilaterally between some of the larger national union organisations and counterpart organisations in developing countries, such as those undertaken by UNISON in Britain, the Danish General Workers’ Union SiD, or Bondgenoten FNV in the Netherlands.
In some countries, unions are active members of the national platforms of NGOs engaged in international development, such as SiD, the Commonwealth Trade Union Council, the LO/FTF Council in Denmark, and the metalworkers’ and municipal workers’ unions in Finland.
Internationally, these unions are primarily concerned with support for the development of the trade union movement in developing countries, either bilaterally, or through international union federations, and supporting campaigns on workers’ rights, child labour, HIV-AIDS, women’s development, health, the informal economy, and so on.
In addition to trade unions, international development programmes are also undertaken by specialist organisations established by or with the labour movement. These would include the workers’ aid organisations such as Norwegian People’s Aid, Olof Palme International Centre in Sweden, ISCOD in Spain, and War on Want and One World Action in the UK, represented internationally through SOLIDAR (formerly International Workers’ Aid), and workers’ education organisations such as the British and Nordic WEAs, trade union education departments and institutions, and labour service NGOs in developing countries, represented internationally through the International Federation of Workers’ Education Associations (IFWEA).
The member organisations of these networks vary widely in size, structure and capacity, ranging from national organisations with a multi-million dollar turnover, to small organisations with an annual budget of less than $25,000.
Human Rights
Human rights have always been a central concern of the trade union movement. Apart from reasons of ideological principle, trade unions simply cannot function in an environment where human and democratic rights are not safeguarded (for example in highly repressive dictatorships or in police states), except in the form of illegal cadre groups or proto-unions.
Trade unions, as clandestine organisations when necessary and publicly wherever possible, are often at the forefront of critical battles for democracy. In South Africa, for example, the campaign against apartheid was rigorously supported by trade unions – both inside and outside the country. The strength of the internal democratic trade union movement, itself the product of massive popular protest in the 1970s and 1980s, was a crucial factor in the eventual emergence of a democratic South Africa.
In China, workers attempting to form genuine democratic trade unions – notably the Beijing Workers’ Autonomous Federation – were at the forefront of the democracy campaign in 1989, culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre. Despite the massacre itself, and the consistent repression of all subsequent attempts to organise democratic trade union activity, trade unionists continue to risk their lives by demanding democratic reform.
There are numerous further examples, both historic and contemporary, from Spain, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Korea, Zambia, Zimbabwe and elsewhere. The history of democratic development in Britain is inextricably linked with the growth and development of the trade union movement.
More broadly, all “normal” trade union concerns are in fact human rights issues, starting with the most elementary: the rights of unions to exist. Restrictions on the right to freedom of association, the right to strike and trade union recognition are infringements of fundamental human rights.
In recent years, the international trade union movement has explicitly recognised the importance of basic workers’ rights – human rights – as a ‘line in the sand’ from which no retreat is possible. These are encapsulated in the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, adopted in 1998, widely known as the ‘core labour standards’.
Specific Areas of Common Concern
There are numerous specific points of contact between trade unions and NGOs. Some are highly specialised, related to the industrial and employment sectors represented, or through the particular needs of workers in union membership. Nevertheless, it is possible to consider a limited range of commonly shared agenda items within the broad scope of core labour standards, which may have a more general potential for the development of NGO and trade union partnerships.
Defence and organisation of workers in sectors of employment with traditionally low levels of union organisation. In sectors of employment (waged or otherwise) where trade union organisation is traditionally very difficult, national and international unions, by necessity, seek alliances and cooperation with NGOs. This includes sectors of employment such as garment manufacturing, construction, agriculture and subsistence farming; and particularly vulnerable groups of workers: young women, migrant workers, ethnic minorities and so on.
Defence and organisation of workers in countries and regions facing state or para-state repression of trade union organisation. In many countries historically, where trade unions have been forced underground, it has frequently been NGOs that have provided a basis for workers’ organisation and workers’ defence. There are vivid examples from Korea (to the late 1980s), Philippines (under Marcos), Indonesia (to the present day) or South Africa (early 1970s).
Campaigns for the inclusion of core labour standards in international trade agreements. In recent years, unions and NGOs have worked side by side to lobby governments and intergovernmental institutions for the inclusion of basic workers’ rights in international trade agreements (so-called ‘social clauses’).
Campaigns to ensure that employers, particularly transnational corporations, respect and adhere to core labour standards. With slow progress being achieved in the incorporation of workers’ rights into trade agreements through inter-governmental lobbying and negotiation, unions and NGOs are engaged in a range of initiatives to ensure that employers respect those rights. These include negotiations between Global Union Federations, sometimes in alliance with NGOs , and international employers to enshrine workers’ rights in signed and verifiable agreements reached through collective bargaining, known as International Framework Agreements. Where these may not be possible or appropriate, unions and NGOs increasingly work together in the development of ‘codes of conduct’ that employers can sign up to, without necessarily forcing the employer to the negotiating table with union representatives .
Of particular interest, however, is the interaction of unions and NGOs over the defence and organisation of workers in the so-called informal economy.
In the past, the informal economy was regarded as a marginal or temporary phenomenon that will wither away and die with modern industrial growth, as illegal activity with which the trade union movement should have no contact, or as a conspiracy of employers to undermine the rights and conditions of organised workers.
This has dramatically changed in recent years as unions in both industrialised and developing countries are increasingly aware of the need to reach, support, and organise workers in the informal economy. Inevitably, this has brought national and international unions into contact with a wide range of NGOs for whom the informal economy is of central interest, whether from an international development, gender, environment, or human rights perspective. Debates around the informal economy provide a good illustration of key issues in the trade union – NGO relationship.
Obstacles to collaboration
These key areas of common concern, in addition to the general issues of democracy and civil society, represent important points of contact between trade unions and NGOs of different types. It is therefore not surprising that such co-operation does indeed take place. What is surprising is that that there is not far more of it, and that it is not a general and permanent feature of the activities of both unions and NGOs.
To understand the reasons for this, and to understand where difficulties in trade union / NGO relations can arise; it is necessary to examine some of the main obstacles to effective collaboration.
Diversity of the trade union agenda
It would be a mistake to view the trade union movement agenda as homogeneous or undifferentiated, despite strong historical and cultural commonalities. Unions have very different needs for co-operation with NGOs.
Unions representing agricultural workers, for example, often face problems of a poor organisation base, low levels of unionisation amongst the workers, countless numbers working in little more than subsistence conditions, prevalence of child labour, poor levels of education and literacy, difficult communications and so on. Under these conditions, national or international union organisers have much to gain from alliances and partnerships with NGOs – building campaigns for protective legislation, working alongside organisations representing rural communities, organising and lobbying for basic education, health and development programmes etc.
In contrast, unions representing workers in the automotive manufacturing sector, or segments of the transport sector, such as civil aviation, for example, generally work with comparatively large and well-organised workplaces, with relatively skilled workforces, high levels of unionisation, and a highly developed sense of the global economy in which they work. Pay rates are generally higher than many other workers, reflected in the relative wealth of the national and international unions. Partnerships with NGOs are less essential for their day-to-day activity, although their industrial strength often places individual unions in the front line in defence of the union movement as a whole in the face of state repression. This had lead to alliances with human rights organisations, for example, over South Korea, South Africa and Brazil.
The range of approaches, priorities, policies and traditions of the Global Union Federations when working alongside NGOs – reflecting industrial circumstances, provide a crude indication of this diversity.
National centres and individual unions
It is also important to understand the differences in approach between confederations of national trade union centres (the British TUC for example): the ICFTU, ETUC, CTUC etc, and federations of the individual national unions (UNISON in the UK, the Canadian Auto Workers etc): the Global Union Federations.
National union centres, by and large, are organisations established to represent workers to government and inter-governmental organisations on broad economic, industrial and social policy, whereas the ‘industrial’ union structures deal with employers over wages and conditions, collective bargaining, and union co-ordination. The profile of NGOs that work with national centres is thus somewhat different to that of industrial unions – although there are obvious points that overlap.
North & South, East & West
Many in NGOs, and some in the trade union movement itself, identify north-south and east-west differences between unions as particularly important. There are of course huge differences in the relative resources available to unions, although there are frequent over-generalisations of poor south and rich north.
Among the most sensitive north/south and east/west problems are financial donor-recipient relationships, much like those faced within and between NGOs. There are examples of financial support from unions in the north resulting in unions in the south becoming ‘client’ unions dependant on external finance. There are examples, particularly in the cold war period of such relations being deliberately fostered. More typically however, client-patron relations emerge from ill conceived, badly designed or insensitively managed acts of solidarity.
On the other hand, ‘northern’ unions play an essential role in supporting national or regional organisations of unions in the South, gaining access to government funds, and managing sometimes large-scale programmes of development assistance, without which, union organisation would be substantially weakened.
European or global?
In some European unions (including some in central and Eastern Europe), ‘international’ is virtually synonymous with ‘European’. Over the last decade or more, contact and co-operation between European unions has expanded considerably, but anecdotal evidence suggests that for some unions at least, non-European activity has possibly decreased.
This is of course the result of the growing influence and importance of the EU institutions, and of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) along with its industrial structures, which have provided substantial resources to encourage co-operation within Europe.
It has been further encouraged by the expansion of the EU to include countries of the former communist bloc, and the important role of western European unions in supporting democratic trade union development.
Coupled with the institutional independence of the ETUC from the ICFTU, the development of a ‘Europeanist’ agenda often created considerable problems for the global federations, who are keen to avoid diverging international priorities.
The rise of ‘Europeanism’ is also partly the result of settlement (or decline in fashion) in the ‘big’ international solidarity campaigns that galvanised considerable trade union support in the 1980s, such as the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
As a result, some NGOs claim it has become more difficult to attract European trade union support for activities in developing countries.
“Undemocratic” Trade Unions
Despite the trade union movement’s overall commitment to representative and accountable democracy, there are clearly some examples of trade unions that are not representative or accountable to their members to the standards to which the international movement would aspire. Some are simply not recognised as ‘genuine’ unions by the bulk of the international trade union movement, as represented by the ICFTU, for example.
NGOs working in countries or areas influenced by such unions are understandably discouraged to consider trade unions as reliable partners in development as the result of experience, and indeed can lead to a conclusion that the trade union movement as a whole is not to be trusted.
Foremost among these are state-controlled unions, particularly those established in Communist one-party states as one of the ‘mass organisations’ of the ruling party. They were (and are) entirely controlled by the state and in many cases were created after genuine trade unions, along with other independent civil society organisations, were destroyed. Their function is to assist the state in administering and controlling the workforce. When called upon, some participate in the repression of attempts by workers to develop forms of independent unions. In the countries of the former Soviet Union, these institutions collapsed together with the regime, but continue in surviving Communist one-party states, notably in China with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) .
Although not Communist, there are union federations tightly controlled by the state elsewhere, such as Indonesia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
It is important to make a distinction between unions that are fully state-controlled, such as those mentioned above, and a larger number of union organisations that, while not directly answerable to the state, nevertheless will support the government, even when advocating policies that are clearly restrictive of trade union rights. Some within the NGO community (and indeed within unions) confuse the two, and assume that government-friendly automatically means government-controlled. Reality is far more untidy, with a spectrum of union-state relations ranging from state corruption, through to democratically determined policies which reflect the views – or fears – of union members. There are several unions, whether national centres or individual unions, whose democratic principles are upheld by some, but contested by others.
Aside from state-controlled unions, there are numerous examples of workplace or company-wide unions under the control of employers. These can be organisations specifically created by employers in an attempt to break unions or pre-empt their formation. They can also be unions that have been brought under the control of employers through inducements to leaders, intimidation of members, or – in some cases – outright corruption and election rigging. The most vivid example of such corporatist unions is the Solidarismo movement in Central America.
Finally, there are unions where organised crime has gained a foothold. Serious and sometimes bloody battles have been fought in a number of countries, most famously in the United States, by trade unionists in order to clear their organisations of racketeers and mafia.
These cases are often highly publicised but, without seeking to minimise the problem, over-stated. In 1978, for example, the US Justice Department declared that the number of local unions controlled by organised crime amounted to 300 out of a total of 75,000. Since then, there have been strenuous efforts to eliminate organised crime from the labour movement and, although pockets still survive, its is considerably weaker than it was twenty years ago.
More common are examples of unions autocratically controlled by individuals, cliques, or even families who manipulate union funds, procedures and elections to ensure a monopoly and continuity of power. These could be, for example, individual lawyers developing their commercial practice through legal representation of workers in a number of workplaces (a common practice, for example, in the Philippines, due to the peculiarities of labour law), or small cliques of union leaders who take financial advantage of exploitative employment practices (notoriously within the shipping industry, for example). The problem is generally more common in developing countries where the sheer weight of poverty exacerbates the temptation of union leaders to maintain their income by ensuring continuity of office through corruption or intimidation.
Nevertheless, it is easy to overstate instances of undemocratic or unrepresentative trade unionism – whether the result of state or employer control, organised crime or corruption. Those with experience and knowledge of the international trade union movement strenuously deny that such examples (with the exception of China) represent more than a very small fraction of unions worldwide.
Gender
Like all other social movements, trade unions are variable to the extent that they are responsive and representative to the needs of women workers. Many national and international unions give high priority to the need to encourage women to undertake positions of leadership, to reform organisational structures and cultures to be inclusive of women, and to conduct campaigns and education programmes designed to overcome sexism within unions. Nevertheless there are undoubtedly some unions that continue to be almost entirely dominated by a male leadership, even in some of the industries and countries with an overwhelmingly female workforce.
The relative failure of some unions to adequately address issues faced by women workers creates friction with some NGOs, particularly those created specifically to support international development programmes with women. Some NGOs, Women Working Worldwide, for example, have been established partly because of the perceived failure of unions to address the concerns of women workers.
Gender sensitivities and insensitivities are particularly heightened in relation to the informal economy, which is generally a far larger source of employment for women than for men in the developing world , and where organisations led by women (notably the Self-Employed Women’s Association in India) are at the forefront of informal economy workers’ representation.
Culture, democracy and class
Whether an NGO can easily co-operate with trade union organisations, or not, depends neither on its size, nor its structure or organisational form. It does not even depend on its function, especially where distinctions of function are problematic. Some NGOs will work on several issues at once; many issues are inter-connected (it is difficult to promote sustainable development without at the same time seeking to advance human rights, education, equality or environment issues, all of which are also trade union issues).
Far more important are issues related to the governance and management of NGOs and trade unions, which include issues of transparency, accountability, management, evaluation and monitoring, information sharing, networking and alliance building. Behind these lie importance differences in culture and class perspectives.
The cultural gap
Many NGOs, particularly those with a religious background, originate in an 19th Century culture of charitable works and philanthropy. Although even then a number of organisations were formed for political action and advocacy (e.g. the abolition of slavery and child labour, universal political suffrage), these organisations as well as the charitable or welfare organisations were initiated and led by the middle and upper classes.
Trade unions and the labour movement generally organised at the same time on rather different principles. No one invented trade unions: workers spontaneously combined because they realised that they could not improve their situation as individuals, but only by acting together on the basis of solidarity. Inevitably, some within the industrial and political labour movement regarded the middle-class “NGOs” of the time with distrust and hostility. Nevertheless there was considerable co-operation and alliance between middle-class reformers and trade unions.
From the end of the century to World War II, the labour movement built up networks of its own “NGOs” (covering welfare, education, sports, leisure activities, in virtually all areas of social life). These were meant to form a counter-culture of labour, together with the trade unions, co-operatives and the political labour parties, creating “a new society within the shell of the old”.
In the post-World War II period and particularly in recent decades, dramatic world developments seriously affected labour/NGO relationships. The Cold War, decolonisation, the emergence of the “Third World”, the beginnings of globalisation, and the radicalisation of part of the middle classes (in the student movement, the women’s movement, in the churches under the impact of liberation theology etc), led many in the NGO community to adopt a radical agenda for social change.
This did not necessarily lead to a closer relationship with the trade unions. On the contrary, unions were now perceived by many of their middle class critics as conservative, bureaucratic institutions unable, or even unwilling to advance their members’ and society’s true interests. Several politically radical NGOs even became interested in organising workers outside of the trade union framework, in supposedly more democratic forms, thus deliberately entering into direct conflict with trade unions.
A dismissive and hostile attitude to trade unions continues to exist in some NGOs, reciprocated by deep suspicion from some trade union organisations.
Nonetheless, a more positive perception of trade unions has developed in many NGOs. In recent years unions have proved themselves to be irreplaceable in the fight for progressive social change in difficult circumstances (Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Poland). They have increasingly become the targets of repression and of anti-trade union campaigns, including those in industrialised countries, and are thus perceived as “underdogs” rather than part of the establishment.
At the same time, a growing number of trade unions, including international trade union federations, facing worsening conditions and the accelerating impact of globalisation, recognise the importance of developing good relationships with NGOs, especially where the latter are clearly having a strong international impact (e.g. in the environmental movement).
Crudely, there are two reasons for this. Firstly, on a practical level, many unions – particularly GUFs – face problems of capacity in mounting additional international campaigns or education programmes. Trusted NGOs, those with a proven track-record of delivery and respect for trade union democratic principles, can provide a useful ‘sub-contracting’ role in delivering grant-aided projects, without having to increase the core costs of the commissioning unions themselves.
Secondly, there has been, in effect, a failure of the international trade union movement to convince the intergovernmental institutions (particularly the WTO) of the need to formally recognise their responsibilities to uphold basic workers’ rights. Unions have therefore been encouraged to seek alliances with broader social movements, including NGOs, with overlapping agendas for campaign and lobbying activity.
Governance and democracy
For more than a century, the trade union movement had developed its own culture of representative democracy. Examples of autocratically run and bureaucratic trade unions, some well known, exist in many countries. It remains, nevertheless, that the trade union movement as a whole is far and away the most democratic institution in every society and certainly the only major democratic international movement worldwide.
All trade unions have a clearly defined constituency: the membership, to whom the leadership is accountable. All trade unions have a leadership elected at regular intervals by representative governing bodies (such as a congress). This leadership may lose the next election, and is sometimes subject to recall. Union accounts are in the usual case public, audited, and available to the scrutiny of the membership and the general public. The consequences of union policy are immediately felt by the membership (e.g. in the form of good or bad results of collective bargaining); monitoring and evaluating takes place constantly, at the workplace to start with and more formally in elected governing bodies meeting frequently.
In a democratic (i.e. typical) trade union, members are the “citizens” of their organisations. There are few NGOs with a membership that has a sense of “citizenship” and ownership of their organisation. In many cases, NGOs are perceived by unions to have a self-appointed and co-opted leadership, with no accountability to a constituency other than public opinion and funding agencies.
For such reasons, relations between trade union and NGOs in general can be problematic, even when the motivations on either side are not in doubt. The first questions trade unions are likely to ask are about the credentials and legitimacy of their potential partners: Who elected you? Who are you accountable to? Who finances you and why?
This need not be interpreted as a form of rejection before the discussion has even started. The questions are genuine. Trade unions need to be sure that their partners are reliable. With limited resources and under constant pressure from employers and sometimes from governments, many unions lead precarious and dangerous lives and cannot afford to make mistakes. In some cases, the record of an NGO will speak for itself and establish credibility. In other cases, credibility remains to be demonstrated through action and experience. Therefore cooperation between trade unions and NGOs requires clear and mutually accepted ground rules as a basis for building a relationship of trust.
Unions, NGOs, and the informal economy debate
“The issue of NGO relations frequently crops up when the subject of trade union efforts to organise the informal sector is mentioned. Indeed, NGOs obtain considerable funds earmarked for the informal sector. They also find it much easier to obtain co-operation from informal workers since they address the immediate concerns of these workers… Trade unions and NGOs have entered into a sort of competitive relationship, which often turns out in NGOs favour… It is essential for trade unions to ‘recapture lost territory’. This has become even more important in light of the fact that the number of informal workers is constantly increasing.”
In June 2002, the International Labour Conference held a special discussion on the informal economy. Debates and discussions within the trade union movement, and between trade unions and NGOs, leading up to, and during the ILO discussion revealed and illustrated many of the points of tension between the two.
Many unions and NGOs were involved in these discussions, but perhaps the crucial debates were broadly between the ICFTU, its Secretariat in Brussels, and the ICFTU Task Force on Informal and Unprotected Work, established after its Congress in 2000, and on the other hand, those participating in Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO).
WIEGO, based at Harvard University, was established in 1997 as a “coalition of institutions and individuals concerned with improving the status of women in the economy’s informal sector”. It was created from the conviction that:
“Women workers – particularly those from low-income households – are concentrated in the informal sector. Although the informal sector contributes to both poverty alleviation and economic growth it remains largely invisible in official statistics and policies. Thus WIEGO strives to improve the status of the informal sector through compiling better statistics, conducting research and developing programmes and policies.”
Financially supported by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, WIEGO’s core activity is undertaken through five programme areas, concerned with urban policy, global markets and trade liberalisation, social protection for informal economy workers, statistics, and most importantly in the context of this discussion, the organisation and representation of informal economy workers.
Although WIEGO would certainly be described as an NGO, its board contains academics and researchers, ILO and World Bank personnel, NGO activists, and trade unionists. At the heart of WIEGO, and its inspiration, is the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) – itself a trade union, as well as a women’s organisation, a co-operative, and many other things beside – along with StreetNet and HomeNet, the international networks of street vendors / market workers and homeworkers respectively.
The “Informal Economy” as a Trojan horse?
First and foremost, the debate was dominated from the outset, right through to the formal ILO discussion, on whether there should be a discussion on the “informal economy” at all. The term itself was (and remains) highly problematic for the trade union movement, only slightly less unpalatable than the term “informal sector”.
“The use of the term ‘informal sector’ as the ILO is now employing it, must be countered. The word ‘sector’ is misleading because it is confused with the use of the same word to indicate an area of economic activity. The word ‘informal’ is misleading because it is a euphemism and because it does not suggest what the work or workers being described have in common”
Underlying these concerns are a fear that ‘informality’, as a form of economic activity in itself, could become almost acceptable, when in fact it is a description of workers who are “insufficiently protected by law and excluded from various forms of social protection” .
Still worse, is the notion that the informal economy should be actively promoted as part of a strategy for development. From the union perspective, the problem is thus not properly understood or presented as government and intergovernmental failure to recognise and uphold workers’ rights and welfare, but rather to remove obstacles to the further development of an informal economy.
The unions, as represented by the ICFTU, feared that the ‘informal economy’ discussion was a Trojan horse, concealing an employers’ (and neo-liberal government) agenda of weakening labour standards: if the informal economy cannot be formalised to bring it into compliance with the internationally agreed standards, then the standards themselves must be amended (i.e. weakened) to accommodate the informal economy.
Much of the ICFTU’s efforts were therefore concerned to shift the discussion entirely away from the ‘informal economy’, back towards the main concern that “workers in a wide variety of occupations lack legal and social protection and an effective representative voice. The many different forms that this lack of protection takes need to be clearly identified so they can be specifically addressed” .
An NGO such as WIEGO (or a union for that matter) that is specifically attempting to highlight the ‘informal economy’ is therefore certain to find itself at variance with the ICFTU.
The ICFTU questions the commonality of ‘informal economy’ workers, pointing out that ‘all workers are workers’ (all agricultural workers are agricultural workers, all transport workers are transport workers, etc), and it is simply that some of these workers are unprotected within the law, are deprived of their rights and so on. The commonality (and therefore solidarity) is in the industry or the occupation, not in their relation to the law.
WIEGO however seeks to highlight the commonality of workers in the informal economy and, in essence, argues that while they need organisation and representation in particular industries or sectors of employment, they also need organisation and representation specific to their position as unprotected and unregistered workers.
At one stage during the run-up to the ILO discussion, the WIEGO Organisation and Representation Working Party proposed the creation of a new international federation of unions and associations representing informal economy workers. This was fiercely resisted by the ICFTU and some of the GUFs, who argued that it was dangerous to abandon “a sectoral approach to organising and representing workers”, and that such a federation might “promote divisions between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ workers at national and even international level” .
Some union leaders, representing workers in countries or industries where the informal economy is particularly prevalent, are more sympathetic however. They recognise that despite policies and frequent discussions to address the growing problem of informal work, their own unions simply do not have the capacity – when their slim resources may be by necessity prioritised elsewhere – to seriously undertake the task of organising informal economy workers. To these leaders, an organisation working in partnership with trade unions, but specifically dedicated to assist the organisation of these workers – nationally or internationally – would be welcomed.
This reflects a broader dilemma in union-NGO relations. Unions are democratically bound to the interests and priorities of their members, while – to the ILO at least – they represent the interests of all workers, some or most of who are not members of a union at all.
The International Transportworkers Union (ITF), for example, recognises that there is a responsibility and need to organise the many thousands of workers in the informal transport economy (in some parts of the world, the vast majority of transport workers), but the day-to-day priorities of their members in formal employment must and should take precedence. Responding to the world crisis in civil aviation after September 11th, or co-ordinating solidarity with the west coast dockworkers’ strike in the USA, cannot be put on hold while they organise half a million minibus drivers scattered across towns and cities throughout Africa.
An NGO, on the other hand, can choose which themes, sectors, or locations it wants to concentrate on without reference to the priorities determined by a membership, and respond to issues that generate particular ethical or political interest. Or indeed, respond to the fluctuating priorities of funding agencies.
It is this freedom to act independently of specific constituencies of members that enables NGOs to concentrate on informal economy workers and, if there is mutual respect for the work of trade unions, can lead to fruitful partnerships with unions without the capacity to do so. The ITF, for example:
“Notes the efforts of NGOs and other community organisations to assist the organisation of informal workers, and supports any such efforts which are carried out in full cooperation with the trade union movement”
Representation of informal economy workers
Tensions between unions and NGOs are underpinned by trade union nervousness towards arguments being developed within the ILO and elsewhere that call for the revision of the tripartite nature of the ILO itself. The ILO is constructed to represent the three ‘stakeholders’ in labour standards and legislation: governments, employers, and trade unions. Trade unions have – in effect – exclusive rights to represent the interests of workers.
Some within the ILO argue that the rise of NGOs in recent years, and the expansion of their representation within other inter-governmental institutions and events, should be reflected within the ILO. Thus the ILO would become ‘quadripartite’, with NGOs as the fourth actor with a seat at the table.
This is fiercely resisted by most in the international trade union movement, and many regard any NGO engagement in the ILO as a dangerous step towards the dilution of trade union influence.
The ICFTU Congress declared in 2000 that:
“Trade unions should extend their activities with NGOs on areas of common agreement, such as human and trade union rights, equality and gender issues, development, health and the environment, as a means of furthering trade union goals and enriching public debate. Joint activities with NGOs are expected to expand as trade union centres, regional organisations and ITSs become more familiar with this way of working” .
The policy statement immediately went on however to reassert the importance of tripartism, and warned that “any moves to weaken tripartite social dialogue, for example through the establishment of ‘quadripartism’ should be rejected”.
This is not simply the trade union movement attempting to defend its turf to the exclusion of NGOs. There is concern that a growing number of so-called NGOs are in effect employers’ organisations, supported financially and/or staffed by transnational corporations or employers’ associations. Other NGOs are signing partnership arrangements with employers, with particular alarm expressed by unions at those involved in social auditing of employment practices.
If NGOs were allowed seats at the table, it would not just weaken trade union representation, but could shift the fundamental historic balance between capital and labour at the ILO.
Any suggestion therefore that NGOs could ‘represent’ the interests of informal economy workers is fundamentally opposed by the unions, sensing a potential dangerous precedent for ILO reorganisation.
On the other hand, it was widely argued – including by many within the ILO Workers’ Group – that it would be indefensible if the representation of informal economy workers were to be left to (male) delegates of union organisations with no democratic mandate from informal economy workers themselves.
There are a relatively small, yet increasing, number of unions, particularly from developing countries, who are successfully organising informal economy workers. There is a considerable variety of organisational models in evidence, including new informal economy unions sponsored by national centres (e.g. Mozambique), direct recruitment of informal economy workers into individual unions (e.g. Ghana), alliance-building with ‘associations’ of informal economy workers (e.g. Zambia), new unions of women workers (e.g. South Africa).
The most well-established and celebrated organisation is SEWA, representing over 300,000 women employed in the informal economy. SEWA is a union – and indeed had to overcome considerable suspicion and hostility from some trade unionists to be accepted and recognised as such.
Most, if not all, of these union organisations work with NGOs. They are all clearly identifiable as unions: with democratic accountability to mass membership, affiliation to national and international trade union structures, and so on; yet they exhibit many characteristics associated with NGOs, and are perceived by many more traditional unions as belonging to the ‘NGO culture’. Because of the legal and economic position of the workers concerned, their particular vulnerability, the nature of the workplace (the streets, the home, the land…), and so on, the organising agenda for such unions frequently requires alliances with NGOs, and adoption or adaptation of NGO organisational tactics.
There are now sufficient numbers of unions, parts of unions, ‘associations’ (not necessarily affiliated to the trade union movement), and other democratic organisations representing informal economy workers, to consider the development of an ‘international movement’ of informal economy workers. Compared to the trade union movement itself however, which has well-established democratic structures, organisational rules, procedures and criteria for membership etc, this movement of informal economy workers is ill-defined, with a variety of regional and international focal points, a multitude of democratic (and less than democratic) organisational forms, and a wide range of philosophical and political traditions. It consists of a set of overlapping alliances, ‘platforms’, federations and networks. It is, in a word, untidy.
References
Gallin, Dan (2000) Trade Unions and NGOs in Social Development – a Necessary Partnership, Geneva: UNRISD, available at www.unrisd.org (accessed 10 October 2002)
Gallin, Dan (2002) ‘Organising in the informal economy’, Labour Education 127, Geneva: ILO.
Global Labour Institute (2002) Workers in the Informal Economy: Platform of Issues, Geneva: GLI.
International Labour Conference (2002) ‘Report of the Committee on the Informal Economy’ available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc90/pdf/pr-25.pdf (accessed 8 November 2002).
Justice, Dwight (2002) ‘Work, law and the “informality concept”’, Labour Education 127, Geneva: ILO.
Spooner, Dave (2000) A view of Trade Unions as part of Civil Society, Social Development Publications, DFID, UK.
WIEGO (2002) A Policy Response to the Informal Economy, Cambridge, MA: WIEGO.
The author
Dave Spooner is the International Programmes Officer of the Workers’ Educational Association (England & Scotland), working with a wide range of national and international trade unions and NGOs, and has considerable work experience in Asia, Africa and Europe. Recent work has included education consultancy on NGOs and unions in the context of the informal economy for the ILO, DFID and WIEGO. Contact details: WEA International Programmes, C/o GMB College, College Road, Manchester, M16 8BP, UK. dspooner@wea.org.uk