|
 |
 |
Labor Rights in China:
The Role of Private Labor Rights Initiatives
By
Auret van Heerden and John Salem Shubash, II
Auret van Heerden
Executive Director
Fair Labor Association
Heerden@fairlabor.org
John Salem Shubash, II
Special Projects Officer
Fair Labor Association
Shubash@fairlabor.org
Labor Rights in China:
The Role of Private Labor Rights Initiatives
In the contemporary global marketplace, competition to produce goods quickly
and inexpensively often leads to morally unacceptable conditions of work, where
labor relations systems and labor rights have been sacrificed in the name of
economic efficiency. A number of scholars have made similar
observations. Sabel, et al argue, “It is a brute fact of
contemporary globalization-unmistakable as activists and journalists catalog
scandal after scandal-that the very transformations making possible higher
quality, cheaper products often lead to unacceptable conditions of work” (Sabel,
et al, 2000). In light of such troubling observations, the role of
private labor rights initiatives, such as the Fair Labor Association (FLA),
become crucial.
This paper is divided into six sections. First, we briefly outline why
labor relations systems are breaking down, and why this is morally and
economically troubling. Second, we discuss a number of theoretical
strategies for coping with the current regulatory vacuum. Next, we argue
that the FLA, along with other private initiatives, plays an important role in
improving international labor rights and we briefly outline how the FLA
complements public regulatory regimes. We then offer a brief discussion of
labor rights in China, and argue that the relocation of global supply-chains to
China has outpaced the government’s ability to enforce labor rights, making
industry self-regulation vital. Finally, we present a case study that
demonstrates the effectiveness and potential of private initiatives in improving
labor rights and in strengthening labor relations systems in China. We
conclude that the FLA has gained a high level of access to factories and workers
in China, and is uniquely placed to affect human and labor rights there.
The Breakdown of Labor Relations Systems
The global economy has witnessed the development of global
supply-chains that have outstripped existing labor market regulations and
enforcement mechanisms. Katherine V. Stone, a professor of industrial
relations at Cornell University argues, “existing regulatory approaches are
inadequate to ensure that the global marketplace will offer adequate labor
standards to its global workforce” (Stone, 1999). Additionally,
competition to reduce costs and the possibility of capital relocation has
resulted in the breakdown of traditional labor relations systems, where labor
and business leaders negotiate collective agreements. The International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions further articulated this finding, arguing,
“Governments, made increasingly desperate to increase their countries’ exports
and attract foreign investment after the Asian crisis, are finding themselves in
a buyers’ market dominated by companies who can name their price. And that
price all too often includes cheap labour, low standards and no trade unions”
(ICFTU, 1999). This process has weakened the enforcement of labor laws and
has allowed labor relations systems to breakdown. This has resulted in
more persistent labor rights violations and more acute labor conflicts around
the globe.
The fact that labor relations systems are breaking down and labor rights
violations continue is troubling for both moral and economic reasons.
Morally unacceptable working conditions, such as child labor, forced labor,
discrimination, overly excessive working hours and the payment of starvation
wages are far too common in global supply chains. The excessive
exploitation of vulnerable members of society, such as children, women and the
poor, for financial gain must be corrected for a morally acceptable global
economy to be created.
A number of recent studies have outlined the positive correlation between
high labor standards, and specifically coordinated labor markets, and
macroeconomic performance. A recent World Bank report entitled Unions
and Collective Bargaining: Economic Effects in a Global Environment found
that countries with highly-coordinated collective bargaining tended to be
associated with lower levels of unemployment, lower earnings inequality, fewer
strikes and generally better levels of macroeconomic performance (Aidt and
Tzannotos, 2003:12). Similarly, a recent OECD study attempted to analyze
the effects of labor standards on macroeconomic performance by comparing the
economic indicators of countries that undertook major labor market reforms
before and after the reform. The report, which studied the effects of
labor market reforms on macroeconomic performance in 17 countries, found that on
average, GDP grew at 3.8 percent per year before the improvement in labor
standards and grew 4.3 percent afterwards. The OECD further argues,
“Countries which strengthen their core labor standards can increase economic
growth and efficiency by creating an environment which encourages innovation and
higher productivity” (OECD, 2000). Maryke Dessing summarized the economic
argument for labor standards, stating, “Labour standards in general can become
the source of competitiveness and economic dynamism as they transform the
production process. Labour standards aim at correcting market failures,
internalizing social externalities associated with firms’ activities, and thus
improve factor allocation consistent with the general good” (2001:3).
Given the moral and economic arguments in favor of labor standards, many actors
stand to benefit from their implementation.
Strategies to Improve Labor Standards
A number of strategies for improving labor standards internationally have
been proposed. The strategies outlined in this paper are divided into two
categories: 1) regulatory approaches; and 2) cosmopolitan approaches, which
employ both public and private initiatives to improve labor rights.
Regulatory approaches attempt to find methods to improve the enforcement of
core labor standards internationally. One such approach involves linking
labor rights to trade negotiations. Proponents of this approach argue that
the US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, which has labor and environmental rights
clauses and enforcement via a dispute settlement mechanism, should be a model
for future trade negotiations (Ruebner, 2001). Similarly, others argue
that labor rights should be included in the World Trade Organization
(WTO). They argue that the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) sets a precedent for including legal frameworks for
protecting rights in the WTO, and thus could easily be applied to labor rights
(Wells, 2001). They argue that the dispute settlement mechanism of the
WTO, and the possibility of applying trade sanctions on noncompliant countries,
would be a distinct advantage of using the WTO framework.
Others argue that an enhanced international regulatory regime using the
International Labor Organization (ILO) is the best method for improving labor
standards. They say that the ILO system of ‘sunshine’ (openness and
transparency), ‘carrots’ (assistance and rewards for labor rights compliance),
and ‘sticks’ (penalties for labor rights violations) forms the basis of an
effective labor rights regulatory regime (Wells, 2001). The proponents of
this view argue that the actions taken by member states to punish Burma for the
use of forced labor shows the potential effectiveness of the ILO. Many
critics, however, argue that the ILO is incapable of enforcing labor standards
internationally, and that their ‘punishment’ is often limited to bad
publicity. They argue that much more needs to be done to ensure labor
standards are upheld. As outlined previously, the inability of regulatory
regimes to keep pace with global economic change suggests that some other
approach must be employed to complement the role of the ILO and other regulatory
regimes.
Many intellectuals make the opposite argument, stating that labor standards
in trade agreements are advocated by protectionist groups and by misguided NGOs,
and that labor standards harm developing country workers (Bhagwati, et al,
1999). However, if a truly global approach is taken that improves labor
rights across the globe, the negative competition that fuels labor rights
violations can be altered, and more positive competition can be initiated to
attract investment. Examples of positive competition for attracting
foreign direct investment would include developing a skilled workforce, a strong
infrastructure and more effective government institutions. Positive
competition quickly breaks down with the absence of a globally coordinated
strategy, however.
In an attempt to create such a global strategy, some argue that
‘cosmopolitan’ approaches must be taken to address labor rights violations
internationally. A ‘cosmopolitan’ approach involves coordinating global
responses to international problems and executing them locally, in coordination
with local bodies. David Held articulates this strategy by arguing that
two interrelated sets of transformations must take place to improve labor rights
internationally. First, companies must adopt socially responsible rules,
while public institutions at local, national, regional and global levels must
enhance their regulatory regimes (Held, 2002). A similar sentiment is
echoed by Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics and a leading
development philosopher, who argues, “In dealing with conditions of working
lives, as well as the interests and rights of workers in general, there is a
similar necessity to go beyond the narrow limits of international relations: not
just beyond the national boundaries but even beyond international relations into
global connections” (Sen, 1999). This promising approach, which depends on
building ‘global connections’ and worldwide coalitions, reinforces the need for
‘private’ labor rights initiatives to articulate and advocate the rights of
workers on an international scale.
The Role of Private Labor Rights Initiatives and the FLA
Non-regulatory, or ‘private’ approaches promote corporate social
responsibility by allowing companies to adopt a code of conduct and promote
adherence to that code. Critics argue that voluntary approaches are simply
public-relations activities for the corporations, which do not change their
behavior as a result of voluntary codes of conduct. All voluntary
approaches are not the same, however.
Some voluntary approaches, such as the UN Global Compact, have been referred
to as ‘learning networks’, where companies can exchange ideas about corporate
social responsibility and exchange ideas and ‘best practices’. Although
these networks have no inspection regimes and do not require the remediation of
labor rights violations among their members, the open exchange of ideas has a
number of potential benefits (Ruggie, 2002). Other voluntary mechanisms,
and specifically the FLA, are much more demanding and effectively complement
public labor rights regimes such as the ILO and national labor ministries.
The FLA has a workplace code of conduct, based on ILO principles, which
brand-name multinational enterprises sign and agree to implement throughout
their supply chains.[1] The
Participating Companies (PCs), as they are known, agree (inter alia) to:
- inform factory managers and workers of the code,
- train their compliance staff in the code standards,
- internally monitor their production facilities to assess compliance and monitor progress, and
- remediate any non-compliance.
The FLA then conducts independent external monitoring of a random sample of
those facilities to ensure that the PC is implementing its compliance
program. It is important to note that the FLA independent external
monitoring is unannounced and that the results are published. The process
of internal and external monitoring involves consulting knowledgeable local
sources, worker and management interviews, a review of wage and hour records and
an inspection of the factory. In addition to the brand name PCs, there are
175 universities affiliated with the FLA. They require that their licensees join
the FLA and implement compliance programs. There are presently some 4000
facilities in over 80 countries covered by the FLA program.
By consulting and working closely with local groups around the world, the FLA
has participated in the formation of a global network dedicated to improving
labor rights. By working globally and without national allegiances, the
FLA takes steps to ensure that all workers in the PC supply chains, regardless
of their country, experience the benefits of improved labor rights. This
global approach helps prevent a ‘race to the bottom’, and helps creates positive
competitive pressures for suppliers engaged in business relationships with FLA
PCs.
How the FLA Complements Regulatory Regimes
Given the breakdown of labor relations and regulatory regimes and the
national and international levels, ‘private’ initiatives like the FLA attempt to
fill this regulatory vacuum and create the ‘global networks’ necessary to
advocate improved labor rights. The FLA complements regulatory regimes in
three principle ways: 1) because the PCs commit to a stringent monitoring and
remediation process, and because the results of the process are published, they
have strong incentives to correct labor rights violations in their supply
chains; 2) because the FLA works in coordination with PCs and local NGOs, it has
a large physical presence in China, where other efforts to address the human and
labor rights situation have been limited; and 3) because of the economic
leverage of PCs with their suppliers, remediation is negotiated from a position
of relative power.[2] This
process is particularly relevant in China, since the relocation of multinational
enterprises to the country has taken place so quickly that the Chinese
authorities cannot effectively enforce labor laws throughout the
country.
The FLA is a framework for collaboration among different actors to improve
respect for labor rights. By involving the participation of global brands, the
FLA is able to bring attention to violations wherever they occur, and promote
the accountability of brand-name companies for the protection of labor rights in
their supply chains. The FLA also engages local groups in the monitoring
and remediation process. By coordinating with PCs and local NGOs and
targeting compliance efforts at specific factories, the FLA is well placed to
respond to the speed of change in global sourcing. This is particularly
advantageous in China, where the pace of global investment and sourcing has
overwhelmed the regulatory regime.
In 2001, the FLA PCs had 497 factories in China. Of these 497
factories, the FLA conducted independent external monitoring visits at 53
factories, or 10.66% of the total. Although concern about human rights in
China is high in the international community, an alarmingly few number of
organizations have been able to conduct concrete, hands-on human and labor
rights work there. Given the rare experience of the FLA in practicing
human and labor rights work in China, the organization’s various ‘people on the
ground’, and our unique access to factories and workers, the FLA is well placed
to affect human and labor rights in China in a very practical and tangible
way.
Given the economic leverage that FLA PCs have over their contractors, the FLA
can negotiate with labor rights violators from a position of relative
strength. While the FLA encourages PCs to ‘remediate rather than
terminate’, the possibility of losing an important business relationship is a
powerful incentive for factories to work with PCs in order to address labor
rights violations. Regulatory regimes, while possessing a great deal of
moral authority, are seldom able to mobilize the financial resources of the FLA
PCs.
Ensuring respect for international labor standards is a lengthy and complex
process, highlighting the need for systematic efforts to monitor, remediate and
verify compliance. The FLA participates in this process in an era when
regulatory regimes, and particularly the Chinese authorities, cannot do it
alone. While the FLA does not substitute for labor law enforcement and
collective bargaining, the FLA serves as a complement to the efforts of
regulatory regimes.
Labor Rights in China
According to the World Bank, China has a population of 1.272
billion people, a workforce of 706 million people, and is categorized as a
lower-middle-income economy based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita.[3] Given the size of the Chinese
workforce and the relatively low costs of labor, companies have been relocating
to China at an amazing pace; FDI has been flowing into China at an average of
over $40bn for more than a decade, and in 2002, China became the world’s largest
recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) (Economist, Feb. 13, 2003). This
has fuelled a 116.2% growth in GDP since 1991, an average growth of 9.7%
annually, making China the fasting growing large economy in the world (World
Bank, Sept. 14, 2002).
Labor rights in China are defined in a very particular way, and critics argue
that they have not kept pace with the growth in FDI and GDP. The Chinese
Constitution guarantees Freedom of Association, but this right is subject to the
interests of the State and the Communist Party. Only one trade union, the
ACFTU, is recognized. It has traditionally seen its role as protecting the
interests of the Party, the government, the employer and the worker. The
shift from state-controlled to private enterprise is bringing about a
reevaluation of that role, and many local union officials are adopting Western
trade union techniques and adapting them to their circumstances. According to
the ACFTU, there were 103 million trade union members in China in 2000, and
67,000 unions in foreign-invested enterprises, with a membership of 6 million
workers. However, unofficial estimates of ACFTU presence in foreign-invested
enterprises suggest that less than 10% are organized. It has been government
policy to promote collective bargaining since 1995, and by the end of 2000, some
240,000 agreements had been registered with the Ministry of Labor and Social
Security. Most of these agreements, however, are products of an administrative
process rather than collective bargaining.
Although the right to strike was removed from the Constitution in 1982, more
than 100,000 strikes take place each year, particularly over late or non-payment
of wages, severance payments in cases of bankruptcy and lay-offs resulting from
the downsizing of enterprises. In Freedom of Association Case #2031, the
Committee on FOA noted that while the government of China believes that its laws
guarantee the rights of workers to form and join organizations of their own
choosing, the Committee concluded that many provisions of the Trade Union Act
were contrary to the fundamental principles of FOA. The Committee also recalled
that it had concluded in two previous cases (1652 and 1930) that the Trade Union
Act prevented the establishment of trade union organizations independent of the
Government and the Party.
Additionally, the China Daily reported a number of highly publicized
industrial accidents recently. The latest statistics show that in the first two
months of 2003 there were 1,639 deaths from 1,417 workplace accidents in
industrial and mining enterprises, prompting the government to announce the
formation of a new State Administration of Work Safety to promote safety at
work. According to the paper the problem stemmed from the “prevailing ignorance
among employers of working conditions resulting from irrational pursuit of
profits” but the “main reason is that many local officials have tolerated some
employers' malpractice in a bid to pursue economic development at the cost of
work safety.”
Given the rapid relocation of multinational corporations to China, the
inability of the Chinese authorities to enforce existing labor laws, and the
continued restrictions on freedom of association in China, industry
self-regulation becomes vital. In the following section, two case studies
that detail the positive impact of private labor rights initiatives and codes of
conduct in China are presented.
Case Studies
As mentioned before, China presents a unique set of remediation
challenges for FLA PCs. In an attempt to address persistent health and
safety and freedom of association violations that were reported by FLA
independent external monitors, three FLA PCs, three Taiwan-based footwear
manufacturers, and four Hong Kong-based labor rights non-governmental
organizations (NGO’s) developed a joint project to build the occupational health
and safety (OHS) capacity of local groups in southern China. According to
one of the companies,
“Engaging workers in problem solving with management significantly reduced
the amount of time spent on myriad small, recurring problems (e.g. mistakes made
by factory administrative staff, miscommunications between management and
workers). In a few cases where worker representatives acted in a sophisticated
and professional manner, serious problems have also been attended to and
resolved without Reebok's involvement. This emphasis represents the next
generation of strategies to honor code commitments that respect the rights of
workers to freedom of association.”
Acting on the principle that an organized workforce can create a more
sustainable system of labor relations and can improve a number of labor rights
problems, the stakeholders established plant-wide health and safety committees,
drawn from workers and management, to develop action plans to help correct
workplace health and safety hazards. By organizing the workers into such
groups, the stakeholders have found a way to sustain improved labor relations
and adherence to the FLA Code in China.
The international training team consisted of industrial hygienist Garrett
Brown (from Maquiladora Health and Safety Support Network), health educators Pam
Tau Lee and Betty Szudy (from the Labor Occupational Health Program at the
University of California at Berkeley), as well as professor Dara O'Rourke
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology). The project team worked with
China Working Women’s Network (CWWN), Asia Monitor Resource Center (AMRC), the
Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (HKCIC), and the Association for the
Rights of Industrial Accident Victims to develop the project.
CWWN and the project staff conducted group discussions with participating
organizations prior to the training to assess the needs of the workers.
They also held discussions with the labor practices managers of Adidas and
Reebok in Hong Kong, and visited a 60,000-worker shoe complex in Dongguan
City.
Using interactive, participatory techniques, the trainings covered topics
such as identifying safety hazards, industrial hygiene controls, chemicals
effects on the body, ergonomics, noise, machine guarding, and fire
evacuation. The trainings also addressed workers' legal rights, and
workplace inspection techniques. All training materials were translated into
Chinese; English-speaking instructors had simultaneous translation for their
presentation and activities. After the training, each factory’s participants
reunited to create a proposal for setting up the health and safety committee in
their respective factories.
This pioneering effort involving cooperative efforts among brands, NGOs and
factories has had a positive impact:
- Factory management have since come together to share their experiences in setting up the Health and Safety committees;
- NGOs have become more knowledgeable about health and safety issues;
- The worker-management committees are young, but they are functioning; and
- A democratically elected union now supports one committee.
In an interview with the AP, Garrett Brown argued, “Clearly the workers,
supervisors and managers who participated learned a great deal and are now able
to put that into real life practice in the plants.” This case demonstrates
the ability to improve labor rights in China, even when regulatory regimes are
incapable of doing so.
Conclusion
Because of the inability of the Chinese authorities to monitor and remediate
labor rights violations in the rapidly expanding industrial zones, labor rights
in China are suffering. Consequently, private labor rights initiatives,
such as the FLA, have attempted to fill the resulting regulatory vacuum.
Although the FLA is no substitute for local, national, regional and global
regulations, it does complement the regulatory process by using the economic
force of PCs, which have committed to the rigorous FLA monitoring and
remediation process in order to improve labor rights worldwide. Given the
unique access of the FLA to factories and workers in China, the organization is
capable of taking concrete steps to improve the human and labor rights situation
in the country.
Bibliography
Aidt, Toke and Zafiris Tzannatos (2003) Unions and Collective Bargaining:
Economic Effects in a Global Environment (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Bhagwati, Jagdish (1999) Third World Intellectuals and NGOs-Statement Against Linkage (http://www.columbia.edu/~jb38/TWIN_SAL.pdf)
Dessing, Maryke (2001) “The Social Clause and Sustainable Development”
ICTSD Resource Paper No. 1 (Verdun: International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development)
Economist (April 6, 2000) “Discrimination against rural migrants is
China’s apartheid” (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=299640)
Economist (Feb. 13, 2003) “China’s Economic Success” (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1576786).
Held, David (2002) “Globalization, Corporate Practice and Cosmopolitan Social
Standards” Contemporary Political Theory vol.1, pp.59-78.
ICFTU (1999) Building Workers’ Human Rights into the Global Trading
System (Brussels: ICFTU).
ICFTU (Nov. 29, 2002) “ICFTU CHINA POLICY” (http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991217172&Language=EN).
OECD (Oct., 2000) International Trade and Core Labor Standards (Paris:
OECD).
Ruggie, John (2002) “The Theory and Practice of Learning Networks: Corporate
Social Responsibility and the Global Compact” Journal of Corporate
Citizenship issue 5, pp.27-36.
Sabel, Charles, Dara O’Rourke and Archon Fung (2000) “Ratcheting Labor
Standards: Regulation for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace”
Faculty Research Working Paper Number:RWP00-010 (Cambridge:
Harvard).
Sen, Amartya (June, 1999) “Globalized Ethics in a Globalized Economy”
Keynote Speakers at the 87th International Labor Conference, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Stone, Katherine V. (1999) “To the Yukon and Beyond: Local Laborers in
a Global Labor Market” Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law vol. 3,
no. 1, p. 93.
Wells, Gary (2001) Trade Agreements: A Pro/Con Analysis of Including Core
Labor Standards (http://fpc.state.gov/6119.htm).
World Bank (Sept. 14, 2003) “China at a Glance” (http://www.worldbank.org/cgi-bin/sendoff.cgi?page=%2Fdata%2Fcountrydata%2Faag%2Fchn_aag.pdf)
World Bank (2001) “China Data Profile” (http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?SelectedCountry=CHN&CCODE=CHN&CNAME=China&PTYPE=CP)
[1] Where there are discrepancies
between the code and national law, the higher standard applies.
[2] There are a number of reasons
why companies sign on to the FLA or other private initiatives, such as improved
brand reputation, improved and more efficient labor relations systems, and a
lower likelihood of crisis following the discovery of a major labor rights
violation.
[3] The World Bank
classifications are: low income, $745 or less; lower middle income, $746-2975;
upper middle income, $2976-9205; high income, $9206 or more. This
calculations is based on GNI per capita. The entire list can be seen at
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/classgroups.htm.
|
 |