{"id":84,"date":"2006-12-19T13:00:50","date_gmt":"2006-12-19T13:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2006\/12\/19\/international-framework-agreements-implementing-workers-rights-in-global-corporations-by-dave-spooner\/"},"modified":"2006-12-19T13:00:50","modified_gmt":"2006-12-19T13:00:50","slug":"international-framework-agreements-implementing-workers-rights-in-global-corporations-by-dave-spooner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2006\/12\/19\/international-framework-agreements-implementing-workers-rights-in-global-corporations-by-dave-spooner\/","title":{"rendered":"International Framework Agreements: Implementing Workers\u2019 Rights in Global Corporations – by Dave Spooner"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nThis article appears in the forthcoming 2003 issue of Federation News, published by the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU) and the Institute of Employment Rights www.gftu.org.uk
\nDebate on international labour standards has been necessarily dominated by the need for union intervention at inter-governmental level \u2013 through the WTO, World bank, the ILO etc \u2013 to demand that the benefits of liberalised trade to employers and governments are contingent on respect for the \u2018core\u2019 international labour standards. While this is urgent and necessary, the campaigning and lobbying processes involved can seem remote from the immediate concerns of local union representatives, leaving little room for the practical participation of workplace representatives in securing trade union rights in an international context.
\nThere is no lack of good examples of practical solidarity activity, including many very simple actions that any workplace representative would feel comfortable with, including letter writing, sharing information, participating in Internet discussions, or even taking to the streets in demonstrations. But this has rarely has an impact on the core collective bargaining agenda at the workplace. International solidarity, for the vast majority of British trade unionists, has remained primarily a political or moral act, rather than an essential element of their industrial role, and until the last decade or so, questions of international relations in the British trade union movement were largely regarded as the preserve of \u2018professional\u2019 international officers or senior national representatives.
\nGlobalisation and its consequences have dramatically changed the industrial landscape however, and now international work has become the bread and butter of increasing numbers of trade union representatives \u2013 down to and including those working in local offices and factories. More workers are employed directly or indirectly by transnational corporations; more union representatives are realising that they need to be working alongside their colleagues in other countries; more unions are recognising that campaigns for workers\u2019 rights are directly relevant to them, rather than simply to workers in developing countries.
\nMore specifically, as a result of privatisation and deregulation, there has been a major shift in the structure of collective bargaining, from national wage negotiations with national employers, for example, towards local bargaining with transnational employers. Local workplace representatives, faced with collective bargaining responsibilities directly with international management, increasingly need to exchange experiences and information with unionists in other countries, and seek or respond to practical forms of international solidarity. For many trade unionists, this is nothing new (those in the car industry, for example), but for others, it is a dramatic shift in the industrial relations landscape.
\nIt is of course a global trend, and the Global Union Federations (GUFs)[1]are under increasing demand and pressure from their affiliates to provide international assistance to local bargaining and dispute resolution. No GUF has suggested that all major day-to-day collective bargaining should be handled at an international level. Apart from being almost impossible on practical terms, it would be senseless to take bargaining responsibility away from those with greatest local knowledge, and the most direct accountability to the membership. On the other hand, there is a clear need to address some questions at a global level, directly with global management.
\nCentral to the global collective bargaining agenda are questions of workers\u2019 rights, and in particular, international labour standards. While it may take a very long time (in some cases, forever) to persuade all governments to respect core labour standards, it is meanwhile possible to persuade transnational employers to accept responsibility to ensure respect labour rights for all those in their employment, irrespective of their location.
\nIn recent years, Global Union Federations have been increasingly successful in persuading and encouraging large international corporations to bring questions of international labour standards on to a collective bargaining agenda.
\nCentral to these negotiations are what have come to be known as International Framework Agreements (IFAs). These are negotiated between a transnational company and the trade unions representing its workforce at a global level. They are designed to ensure fundamental workers\u2019 rights in all the target company\u2019s workplaces. The central feature of all IFAs is a clear commitment by the company to respect ILO Core Labour Standards,[2] but \u2013 depending on union negotiating strength and management willingness and competence \u2013 most also include additional agreements around working conditions, the environment, a living wage etc.
\nIFAs also seek to cover workers\u2019 rights within the company\u2019s supply chains, although this can vary depending on the nature of the industry, scale of operations etc.
\nTo be effective, all IFAs must also include agreement on systems for monitoring, verification, and the handling of complaints and disputes. This can include agreement on the regular dissemination of company information to the unions, the establishment of regular channels of global negotiation between management and unions, social auditing procedures etc.
\nThe first IFA was signed by the International Union of Foodworkers[3] with the Danone group – a French-based company with huge market shares in dairy products, bottled water and biscuits. It is mainly known through its brands Danone, Lu, Galbani, and Evian. Danone employs over 86,000 people worldwide.[4]
\nThe IUF and the Danone group started as early as 1985 to discuss industrial relations at international level. Joint meetings between central management and IUF-affiliated unions representing workers at Danone subsidiaries were organized on an annual basis from 1986 onwards. In 1989, two agreements were signed on economic and social information for staff and their representatives, and on equality at work for men and women. An agreement on skills training was signed in 1992, and an agreement on trade union rights was concluded in 1994. In 1997, the IUF and Danone signed a \u201cjoint understanding\u201d in the event of changes in business activities affecting employment or working conditions.[5]
\nThese negotiated documents, particularly the 1994 trade union rights agreement, became a model that has subsequently been adapted and developed by the IUF and other GUFs \u2013 notably ICEM,[6] IFBWW,[7] UNI and IMF[8] and extended to other employers.
\nThe Development of International Framework Agreements[9]
\nDate signed\tCompany
\nProducts \/ Services
\nGlobal Union Federation
\nApprox Global Workforce
\n1989\tDanone[10]
\nDairy products, bottled water, biscuits
\nIUF
\n86,000
\n1995\tAccor
\nHotels and tourism
\nIUF
\n145,000
\n1998\tIKEA
\nFurniture
\nIFBWW
\n36,000
\n2000\tFreudenberg
\nPlastics and rubber products
\nICEM
\n30,000
\nFaber-Castell
\nWriting, drawing and painting products
\nIFBWW
\n5,500
\nHOCHTIEF
\nConstruction
\nIFBWW
\n37,000
\n2001\tStatoil
\nOil\/ Petrochemicals
\nICEM
\n16,000
\nSkanska
\nBuilding services
\nIFBWW
\n80,000
\nChiquita
\nBananas
\nIUF
\n26,000
\nMerloni
\nDomestic appliances
\nIMF
\n13,700
\nCarrefour
\nRetail
\nUNI
\n383,000
\nOTE Telecom
\nTelecommunications
\nUNI
\n18,500
\nTelefonica
\nTelecommunications
\nUNI
\n157,000
\n2002\tEndesa
\nElectricity
\nICEM
\n28,000
\nNorsk Skog
\nPaper
\nICEM
\n11,000
\nFonterra
\nDairy Products
\nIUF
\n20,000
\nBallast Nedham
\nConstruction
\nIFBWW
\n7,000
\nAngloGold
\nMining
\nICEM
\n78,000
\nEni
\nEnergy
\nICEM
\n70,000
\nDaimlerChrysler
\nAutomotive
\nIMF
\n365,500
\nVolkswagen
\nAutomotive
\nIMF
\n320,000
\nThe numbers of companies that agree to sign formal agreements with GUFs represent just a tip of the iceberg of current negotiations with TNCs. For every company prepared to sign, there are several others who show increasing willingness to \u2018recognise\u2019 GUFs as the legitimate representative voice of their global workforce. Those companies that depend heavily on brand image are particularly sensitive to allegations of child labour, environmental abuse, disrespect for human rights and so on, and many seek forms of help or common agreement \u2013 whether or not formally expressed \u2013 with unions. Negotiations between GUFs and TNCs are becoming more complex and long-term.
\nAs the number of companies involved continues to expand, the GUFs face a major expansion of their workload, and rising expectations from their affiliates. The negotiation and subsequent monitoring and servicing of each IFA require considerable effort and expense, yet the financial and human resources of most GUFs are severely limited. As the work pressure increases, it becomes essential to ensure that the affiliated unions themselves take increasing responsibility for negotiation and implementation of IFAs on behalf of the global workforce. Indeed, many of the IFAs signed have been initiated and developed by individual unions (normally those with relatively high levels of domestic organisation within the company), with the GUF providing advice and guidance.
\nIn effect, the development of IFAs is becoming devolved to the national unions concerned, or even to representatives at individual workplaces. This process, known as \u201cflattening the pyramid\u201d is drawing increasing numbers of union representatives into an awareness of the need for international labour rights, and the development of communication and practical solidarity with unions in other countries. It also requires increasing flexibility by international and national union officials to adjust long-standing, but sometimes over-bureaucratic, democratic procedures to ensure that international union communications are not bogged down in unnecessary protocol.
\nThis devolution of international organisation comes with its own dangers and problems however. An inexperienced union or individual representative can unwittingly stray into major political or organisational minefields, or can be manipulated by unscrupulous management. There are also dangers that enthusiastic unions can enter negotiations with TNCs for IFAs without the necessary consultation with the other unions affected. For IFAs to be effective, all the unions concerned need to have \u2018ownership\u2019 of the negotiation and implementation processes, but this can be expensive and time consuming. In the larger TNCs in particular, simply organising an annual international meeting of union delegates from within the company (a world company council) can be a major financial drain on resources.
\nIt is becoming increasingly clear to many of the GUFs that the effective engagement of their affiliates in the IFA process requires support, particularly in the provision of trade union education programmes designed for senior workplace representatives in TNCs. Such education programmes are essential for union representatives to feel confident enough to place global questions of workers\u2019 rights on to the collective bargaining agenda, and to recognise the importance of their contribution to the GUFs.
\nThe Transport & General Workers\u2019 Union in the UK for example, in partnership with the WEA, has been investing heavily into intensive residential shop-steward courses on globalisation and development. Financially assisted by the Department for International Development, these courses focus on the development of IFAs as a practical instrument for the defence of workers\u2019 rights.
\nEach course concentrates on a particular sector (food and agriculture, textiles and garments, automotive industry etc) and is designed in close consultation with the appropriate GUF. Every course also invites two or three participants from abroad to bring their first-hand experience of workers\u2019 rights and union organisation into the classroom. Although there is naturally broad discussion on the impact of globalisation on the workforce, and the ethical and moral need to introduce international governmental action to prevent the worst abuses of workers, the emphasis is firmly on the practical steps that can be taken at the workplace to help build a global approach to collective bargaining, and to expand the number of employers prepared to negotiate IFAs. The T&G has also developed an extensive web site to accompany the courses, available through www.tgwu.org.uk.
\nSimilar education programmes are being introduced by other unions, federations (including the GFTU), and GUFs themselves. In September 2002, supported by the GFTU, the WEA and the AFL-CIO\u2019s[11] George Meany Center, the International Federation of Workers’ Education Associations organised the first international seminar of unions, GUFs and NGOs to explore how trade union education on globalisation can be developed, with a strong strand of discussion on workers\u2019 rights and IFAs. There are plans for this to become a regular biennial event.
\nThe scale of power wielded by TNCs, the speed of change within the global economy, and the sheer numbers of workers around the world who are denied even their basic rights can lead to an overwhelming sense of powerlessness for trade unionists on the shop floor. The development of IFAs \u2013 albeit still in its infancy, and fraught with difficult problems \u2013 offers a practical strategy for building an international trade union movement in which workplace representatives feel they have direct roles, benefits and responsibilities in advancing international labour standards.
\n[1] Formerly known as International Trade Secretariats (ITSs), GUFs are sector-based international trade union federations. There are currently 10 GUFs, covering unions representing workers in metal, transport, food, education, and so on (see www.global-unions.org)
\n[2] Freedom of association, collective bargaining, elimination of forced and child labour, and freedom from discrimination.
\n[3] The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), based in Geneva.
\n[4] As of December 31, 2000
\n[5] For a detailed analysis of one of the IUF\u2019s agreements, see Jane Wills, \u201cBargaining for the space to organise in the global economy: A review of the Accor- IUF trade union rights agreement\u201d, available at
\nwww.global-labour.org\/accor_iuf_agreement.htm.
\n[6] International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers\u2019 Unions
\n[7] International Federation of Building & Wood Workers
\n[8] International Metalworkers\u2019 Federation
\n[9] This does not claim to be a definitive list of all agreements. New agreements are being signed all the time. All information from relevant GUF web sites, accessed February 2003.
\n[10] Subsequent to the original agreement in 1989 covering information rights and equality, Danone and IUF went on to sign further agreements in 1992 (skills training), 1994 (trade union rights) and 1997 (changes in employment).
\n[11] The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the equivalent of the TUC in the USA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}