Establishing Stability through Promoting Fundamental Rights at Work - PDF document

Establishing Stability through Promoting Fundamental Rights at Work and Enhancing Inclusive Social Dialogue By Mr. Mohamed Trabelsi By looking up the meaning of the term ‘stability’ in a dictionary or a glossary, whether in the Arabic, French or Engli sh language, it becomes clear that the word ‘stability’ carries three different meanings: 1 st Meaning Stability is the state or quality of an object established or placed on a solid base; thus reflecting the ability to resist collapse, deterioration or displacement (e.g. stability of a solid construction) 2 nd Meaning Stability is the constancy of a character or purpose; thus reflecting steadfastness, reliability and dependability against potential fluctuations and other variables (e.g. stability of currency). 3 rd Meaning Stability is the ability of an object or a character to maintain equilibrium or insurance and to resume its original, upright position (i.e. a stable person). By describing or labelling a society to be ‘stable’, this society should reasonably combine all the characteristics and qualities mentioned above, so as to be able to create a continuous state of steadfastness and equilibrium; thus achieving security and cohesiveness for all, while ensuring full utilization of the potentials and resources at the societal level. Eventually, this will contribute to the progress and prosperity of the society at large. To achieve this end, there is a need to put in place a set of guidelines and rules for community consensus and buy-in. The experiences of the peoples of this region, as well as other regions around the world, provide further affirmations that stability is not synonymous with fait accompli. Stability may not involve any use of force or creation of a culture of fear or intimidation. Rather, stability is at odds with all forms of hegemony, inequity, exclusion and discrimination. Ultimately, stability is an outcome of a social contract between all the societal forces and actors; a contract that is premised on a rights-based, well-balanced framework, to be maintained by specific laws and institutions. 1

In the eighteenth century, both John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, placed an emphasis on the fact that both security and stability will only be achieved if a social contract is established to secure the natural rights of man; including the right to freedom, democracy and collective action for a common good. The human rights framework evolved over time. It has been extended to include all political, social, economic, and cultural rights, which are both inter-dependant and cross-related. Milton Friedman contended that there is a complementary relationship between economic freedoms and political and civil rights. According to Friedman, they should be viewed as complementary rather than competing objectives. The American Economist argues that an expanded and improved access to such freedoms is likely to promote the economic rights, and will eventually ensure further growth. Democracy does not acknowledge or accept any form of exclusion of a certain group of citizens from the market. This will require government intervention, especially to empower the poor and the vulnerable and enable them to survive and live by introducing a solid process for re-distribution of income and wealth, combined with a set of fair work-related conditions to be established in well-balanced, widely-accepted legislation. In this context, the International Labour Standards (ILS) are considered to be the mainstay of the system of social and economic rights and a key driving force in the creation of stable, well-balanced, and cohesive societies. If the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights is a measure of social progress and human development, it also serves as an indicator of how far a society is democratic and of the extent to which a society is engaged in determining the country’s prospects and options and in developing its national development plans. From this premise, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has positioned social dialogue at the centre of its fields of work; as a basis of its mandate and work program; and, a pre-requisite for improving the labour market, in line with the International Labour Organization. There can be no controversy that social dialogue is the cornerstone of the democratic construction process and a substantive indicator to assess and measure the establishment and fulfilment of democratic freedoms in a country. No real social dialogue can be fairly fostered in a dictatorship, where the State dominates and rules over the society and where the state’s practices tend to abusive and oppressive of human freedoms. Even in such instances where such dialogue exists in some of those countries, it is only a cosmetic dialogue that negates even the least intricate requirements of credibility. A social dialogue is worthless if not properly fostered by and between autonomous and broadly-representative parties; if not properly cherished by enforceable legislation; and if not anchored in democratic institutions and within a context of individual and public freedoms. In rotation, it has been proven true that those countries that can consistently establish a successful social dialogue, within a fully inclusive and institutionalized framework, including the whole range of development issues, have been able to maintain equilibrium and stability of its societies; to surpass the crises it undergoes with the least 2

possible damage; and, to pull the rug out from under the feet of those who advocate extremism and violence. Contrary to certain premature speculations, many researchers and economists, even those known to hold liberal views, as well as several international organizations including the World Bank and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have placed an emphasis on the correlation between increased productivity and the application of the International Labour Standards, as well as the extent to which this strong correlative relationship bears positively on the output of both the worker and the institution. This clear correlation can be equally extended to other aspects, such as increased access to freedoms of association, abolition of all forms of forced labour and child labour, and elimination of all forms of discrimination (which constitute the totality of the rights enshrined in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; 1998) on one hand, and the increased productivity on the other hand. The right to freedom of association, established under Convention No. 87, enables workers to get their voices heard and to communicate their opinion about the future of their organization, as well as engage in resolving problems through dialogue and negotiation. The presence of labour unions is likely to reduce the high and rapid turnover among workers and the resultant losses and gains in the labour force, thus exacerbating instability in the labour market. By addressing these adverse trends in the labour market, workers will be enabled to improve their capabilities and skills at work. In addition, this will provide an impetus for investors to increase and expand their long- term investments in labour training and capacity building. As a result to these two combined factors, output per worker is expected to increase. For instance, Zafris Tzannatos, an expert, emphasizes that collective bargaining is an instrument that that helps facilitate the relationship across the various players in a certain production setting. As noted in the reports of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), these countries that have adopted a certain framework of collective bargaining, have successfully achieved further constructive economic outcomes, as opposed to the countries that only adopts such frameworks to a lesser degree or that have failed to adopt any of them altogether. This conclusion is not just a spur of the moment. It is not a brand-new innovation. Levine and D’Andrea Tyson in a book published in 1995, and which compiled 43 research studies on the relationship between increased productivity and engagement of workers, arrived for the most part at a conclusion that attests to the constructive impact of workers’ engagement, through their representative body, on their increased output and productivity. This provides recognition of the need to apply the Collective Bargaining Convention (Convention No. 98), which provides the possibility of fostering communication across the different components of production, while at the same time ensuring that the voices of workers get heard. This is in addition to ensuring that workers are provided with an opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with their employers, whereby they can provide proposals and solutions to address the problems associated with their organization. Regarding the issue of eliminating all forms of discrimination, as spelled 3