YUFA

External

   Home

   Feedback

   Archive

“Workers’ Rights, Human Rights: Making the Connection” Conference Report (16-17 November 2007)

by Linda Briskin, Professor –School Of Women Studies, Division of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts

30 Nov 07 - “Workers’ Rights, Human Rights: Making the Connection” was the focus of a conference in November 2007 organized by the Centre for Research on Work and Society (York University). The theme of the conference was that ‘freedom of association’ which is guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution, should include collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, then, should be understood as a human right (rather than a narrow economic right). It should be promoted by the state, and be part of the international human rights regime. By extension, employers should no longer be able to oppose unions. To advance this agenda, human rights and labour activists should work together.

At the conference, considerable attention was paid to the 2007 Supreme Court decision which ruled on the long-awaited Charter challenge to Gordon Campbell's legislation which had taken away fundamental rights to collective bargaining in the healthcare sector in British Columbia.  Passed in January 2002, Bill 29 allowed healthcare employers to refuse to bargain on key terms of employment, and prohibited collective agreement language on certain fundamental aspects of employment. The Supreme Court ruled that this breached freedom of association, that collective bargaining is constitutionally protected, and that earlier decisions that rejected the right to collective bargaining as a Charter value were incorrect and failed to take into account the history of collective bargaining in Canada. Although some speakers disagreed, most saw this decision as groundbreaking, especially in the constitutionalization of labour rights, and the integration of International Labour Organization (ILO) principles into the Canadian Charter.

The campaign to defend free collective bargaining mounted jointly by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) was also highlighted. It points to the fact that, since 1982, the federal and provincial governments have passed 170 pieces of legislation that have restricted, suspended, or denied collective bargaining rights.[1] 

In his discussion of four American campaigns – at Smithfield, Mersk, First Group Ltd, and the British Embassy in the US, Lance Compa (Cornell University) vividly illustrated the potential of human rights discourse to advance workers’ rights. For example, Mersk (the largest sea shipping company in the world) had classified its 50,000 truck drivers in the US as independent contractors. When the truckers tried to organize with the Teamsters, Mersk retaliated by refusing to re-contract with these workers, a move legal in the US where there is no union protection for contractors. The Teamsters prepared a human rights report drawing on ILO discourse and took it to a shareholders’ meeting in Denmark where Mersk has a reputation as a good company. This put Mersk on the defensive and the company is now negotiating with the Teamsters.  

Using the example of Walmart, Carol Pier from Human Rights Watch outlined US labour law, the weaknesses of which make certification difficult and worker protection almost non-existent. However, in the context of new trade agreements, an emerging discourse is highlighting how US labour laws do not meet international ILO standards. Although the American business community has suggested that other countries, but not the US, should be required to uphold international labour laws, “on May 10, 2007, the Bush Administration and Democrats struck a bipartisan deal on U.S. trade policy. Coined the ‘New Trade Policy Template,’ the bipartisan deal largely reflects many Democrats’ long-standing position on trade, such as strengthening labor and environmental standards. The template will apply not only to future free trade agreements (FTAs) to which the U.S. is a party but also to the currently pending four trade deals with Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea”. Click here for more information.

Five break up workshops took up a variety of issues: corporate accountability and codes of conduct; organizing outside the statute; the global integration of labour markets and workers’ rights; the Supreme Court decision; and combating ‘illegal’ back-to-work legislation (which highlighted the resistance and militancy of Canadian teachers and nurses).

The final panel considered various models for institutes which aim to advance labour rights. Kimberly Freeman spoke about American Rights@Work and Keith Ewing about the Institute of Employment Rights in the UK. The conference considered whether a workers’ institute was an appropriate strategy for Canada. Although no consensus was reached, a group is convening to pursue this idea.

Although this conference was very interesting, discussions of how equity constituencies, equity organizing and the equity agenda should be situated within this newly-emerging discourse linking workers’ rights and human rights were a significant absence. Over the last three decades,  the movements of union women and other equity-seeking groups have successfully challenged the notion of the generic worker (read ‘male’ and ‘white’). This struggle has made visible how union policies, the institutional culture and daily practice of unions and collective bargaining agendas have been shaped by a narrow, normalizing and overly-universalistic understanding of what constitutes and who is considered to be a worker. Equity organizing has highlighted the specific needs of women and racialized workers, young workers, part-time and precarious workers, workers with disabilities, Aboriginal workers, and members of sexual minorities. Engaging with diversity and specificity has strengthened Canadian unions and their ability to resist the impact of globalization, restructuring, and corporate and state attacks on union rights.  Conference panelists (11/13 of whom were white men) utilized unproblematized notions of ‘universality’ and were largely silent on an equity approach to rights. Given the important inroads that equity analysis has made into both human rights and workers’ rights discourses, this silence was significant, surprising and discouraging. History suggests that, without attention to equity issues, the campaign to build a movement to bring together human rights and workers’ rights will not be successful.

Other Delegates from this Conference:
Hyun Ok Park
Mark Thomas + Steven Tufts