The Campaign For Trade Union Freedom was established in 2013 following a merger of the Liaison Committee For The Defence Of Trade Unions and the United Campaign To Repeal The Anti Trade Union Laws. The CTUF is a campaigning organisation fighting to defend and enhance trade unionism, oppose all anti-union laws as well as promoting and defending collective bargaining across UK, Europe and the World.

Mexican Senate Approves Freedom Of Association Agreement

Senator Napoleon Gomez, the head of Mexico’s metals and mining union, Los Mineros

USW’s Ben Davis sent this news report to us on September 20th

The plenary session of the Mexican Senate unanimously ratified the Convention 98 of the International Labor Organization on freedom of association.

The document establishes that workers must be protected against any act that seeks to subject a person’s employment to the condition that he or she does not join a union or must cease to be a member of the union.

It also requires that workers ‘and employers’ organizations are protected against any act of interference from one another.

The Convention states that the State must create organisms to stimulate the development of negotiation procedures, as well as guaranteeing the right to organize.

From the rostrum, the mineworkers’ union leader and senator of Morena, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, argued that the approval is a victory for the working class.

After the approval, the legislators of Morena shouted in the Plenary of the Senate: “it is an honour to be with Obrador”.

The provision was discussed without the presence of the PAN senators.

In their absence, the PAN legislators (opposition) asked to register their interventions in the Journal of Debates to record their disagreement about the way in which the approval of the Agreement was processed, without having made a consultation with the sectors involved, including the private sector.

Senator Patricia Mercado, of Movimiento Ciudadano, spoke in favor, but regretted that the consultations with businessmen who have expressed concerns have not been carried out.

In his speech, the senator of the PRI and leader of the CTM, Carlos Aceves, spoke in favor of the Convention, whose ratification was requested by President Enrique Peña Nieto in 2015.

With the ratification of Convention 98 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), the corrupt system of labour relations in Mexico will be destroyed, said Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, senator from Morena.

“With this ratification we are breaking a system of corruption and employer protection treatments that were signed behind the workers’ backs, where they had no ability to elect their leaders, to determine their working conditions or to have a union that represented them, ” he said.

“Today we take a step forward in union democracy.”

In a press conference, he described the endorsement as an act of historical justice.

“It is an act of justice for the working class of Mexico, it is an act by which a historical debt that the Government of Mexico had with the working class of this country is fulfilled,” he said.

The mineworkers’ leader stressed that, as of today, Mexico will no longer be among the 22 countries that had not ratified ILO Convention 98.

The ratification, he said, marks the beginning of a new relationship between labor and capital, in which freedom of association is respected.

“The workers by a free and secret vote can choose the union they want to belong to, can choose the leaders they want to lead them and will also have collective bargaining that gives them security and protection in their jobs,” he said.

Napoleon Gómez Urrutia assured that workers’ wages and security policies will also change.

With information from Evlyn Cervantes

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IER-CTUF At The Labour Party Conference

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, New Generation Of Trade Agreements, Publications & Websites, Research, UK Employment Rights, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mexico’s President-Elect Prepares Labor Overhaul to Empower Workers

Luisa María Alcalde, said to be Mexico’s next labor minister, says new laws will aim to ban the so-called protection agreements that labor lawyers say have long worked to suppress wages in the country.

No more secret agreements between union bosses and employers, future labor minister says

By Juan Montes, The Wall Street Journal, September 11th

Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador is preparing legislation to overhaul the country’s collective-bargaining system to improve wages and help Mexico comply with labor-rights provisions of a recent trade agreement with the U.S., a top aide said Tuesday.

Mr. López Obrador aims to effectively ban so-called protection agreements, or collective contracts signed by union leaders and employers without worker consent, by requiring unions to show they have the backing of at least 30% of workers before signing a contract, said Luisa María Alcalde, who has been tapped to be labor minister when Mr. López Obrador takes office Dec. 1.

“Those contracts are rotten from the outset,” she said in an interview. “It is time for Mexican workers to decide by themselves who should represent them.”

Perhaps as important, Ms. Alcalde said existing protection agreements would also have to be legitimized in coming years by way of secret ballots among workers. Nine out of 10 collective-bargaining contracts signed in Mexico are agreed without the consent, and sometimes without the knowledge, of a company’s workers, experts estimate.

Mr. López Obrador, a leftist who won the July 1st presidential election by a landslide, campaigned on promises to improve the lot of workers in Mexico, where average monthly wages are around $315.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has also insisted that a revamped North American Free Trade Agreement include measures to increase Mexico’s low wages, which Mr. Trump sees as unfair competition.

Mexican government data show manufacturing workers in Mexico earn $2.30 per hour on average, while U.S. factory workers make about $21.50 an hour.

The preliminary trade agreement reached between the U.S. and Mexico in late August, which will serve as the basis for a new Nafta if Canada agrees on terms with the U.S., includes enforceable labor provisions.

One provision would allow the U.S. to impose trade sanctions if Mexico fails to enact labor reforms that ensure basic worker rights such as effective access to collective bargaining, according to two people with knowledge of the deal. Mexico also agreed to approve new labor legislation consistent with the trade deal.

“This is a game-changing reform. Protection contracts are a huge burden for the country, and [worker] representation will bring a better distribution of wealth,” said Álvaro Altamirano, a labor lawyer who has worked for Volkswagen and Audi in Mexico.

A dysfunctional collective-bargaining system in Mexico has kept wages depressed for decades, and labor conditions haven’t significantly improved for millions of workers, experts say.

Current laws don’t require labor unions to prove they represent workers before signing a collective-bargaining contract. The signatures of the employer and the union leader are enough if an agreement is duly registered before labor authorities.

The planned legislation would complement a constitutional amendment that was enacted in February 2017 but which hasn’t gone into effect because of pending secondary laws. Lawmakers say the legislation would be approved before the end of the year. Mr. López Obrador’s Morena party and its allies have a majority in both houses of Congress.

Ms. Alcalde, the 31-year-old daughter of a prominent leftist labor lawyer, has a masters of law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, as well as a Mexican law degree. Aside from unions needing to prove they represent at least 30% of workers to sign a contract under the new law, she said it would require majority approval if two or more unions fight over a contract. Union leaders will also have to be elected through secret ballots.

The proposed laws, if fully implemented, would raise Mexican wages, improve labor conditions and help increase companies’ productivity, Ms. Alcalde said. Some business leaders are concerned, however, that the new model may increase labor conflicts and discourage investment.

The legislation would create an independent body to make sure workers are effectively represented. Copies of contracts will be made available on the internet for the first time.

For years, many companies favored protection agreements because they keep wages low and profit margins high, while avoiding costly strikes. They also help protect companies against strike threats. Such threats, common in Mexico, have often served as a means of extortion by fake unions that don’t represent their workers, labor lawyers say.

Write to Juan Montes at juan.montes@wsj.com

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, International Employment Rights, Publications & Websites, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Collective Agreements: Extending Labour Protection

This new volume published in July 2018 examines the extension of collective agreements and its use as a policy tool to expand the coverage of labour protection, and shore up collective bargaining.

At a time when inequality is on the rise, this volume offers renewed insights on how this tool might be used to advance social justice and inclusive labour markets.

Click here to download the 200+ page volume.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, Publications & Websites, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

CTUF – IER Fringe Meeting At The TUC

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

USA: Missouri becomes the first state to vote to reject “right to work”

Missouri voters overwhelmingly threw out a right-to-work bill, on August 7th – becoming the the first-ever state to reject a right-to-work law.

Right-to-work laws stop unions from collecting compulsory subscriptions in private-sector workplaces where they represent the workers. The Trump administration and along with Republicans have been implementing a state by state strategy to introduce ‘right to work’  laws which have been adopted in 27 states.

Right to work laws seek to limit union strength and power – a 2015 study from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C., found that wages in right-to-work states are 3.1% behind pay in states where unions can collect dues from all employees – union members or not.

Eric Greitens, the former governor of Missouri who resigned in June in the midst of accusations of campaign-finance violations and a criminal investigation into sexual misconduct, signed a bill into law in January 2017, making Missouri the 28th right-to-work state in the U.S.

Unions in the state swiftly opposed the bill, organising a petition that garnered more than 300,000 signatures calling for the issue to be decided via referendum.

The Republican-controlled State House shifted the vote to a primary vote from the general vote in November last year, mistakenly thinking that the lower-turnout election would would swing the vote in favour of ‘right to work’ .

But approximately 67% of the state voted against Greitens’s bill, effectively killing it.

Unions in Missouri and nationwide, according to The Associated Press, spent around $15 million campaigning against right-to-work laws in the state, on the grounds that such policies tend to drive down employee wages.

This vote follows the Janus v. AFSCME decision tin late June, in which the Supreme Court ruled that public-sector unions cannot require non-union employees to pay dues to cover collective bargaining, essentially making all government jobs right-to-work.

By barring public-sector unions from collecting dues from all of the employees they represent, the Janus ruling makes it more difficult for unions to effectively lobby on behalf of the workers they support.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2016, the fact that these same voters expressed such unified dissatisfaction with a key  conservative policy is significant, but not the first sign of anti-labour policies falling out of favor in Republican states.

Mike Louis the President of the Missouri AFL – CIO said: “Working families have stood united against this anti-worker legislation since the very beginning. Right to work is a threat to the stability of our families and communities. Stopping the passage of right to work in Missouri helps our momentum to fight this bad legislation nationally.

Our win yesterday proves yet again that working people are fired up and will not relent in our fight for a level economic playing field and the freedom for all workers to collectively bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and a loud, clear voice on the job.

Thank you for standing with us and supporting our work here for Missouri’s workers and the entire labor movement. It would mean a lot to us if you would proudly share this graphic. It is, after all, a win for all working people.”

More coverage click here.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in International Employment Rights, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Beyond parliamentary politics: why trade unions and social movements are key to a Labour victory

Adrian Weir

By Adrian Weir, Campaign for Trade Union Freedom

In this blog I will make three clearly inter-related points (i) the union link with Labour is good for the left (ii) that the link allows the unions’ extra-parliamentary work to permeate the Party, and (iii) attempts to break the link will only benefit the right.

There has been the battle of ideas about the direction the Party should take that has raged for most of the time the Party has existed, sometimes posed as when and if the link with the unions should be broken.

The evidence of history shows that it is important for the left project to maintain the organic link and of course as Calvin Tucker noted in the Morning Star on 30th July arguments about the past are really debates about the present and future.

For example, at the start of the 1970s Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon had been elected as leaders of the T&G and the engineers’ union respectively, both from the left.

Between them – and with the miners – through strike action, the threat of a generalised strike and the mass mobilisation of union members outside of Parliament – they faced down the Conservative government of the early 1970s and effectively forced the General Election of 1974.

I would argue that in the early to mid-1970s it was the unions that were in the leadership of the shift to the left in the labour movement, their extra-parliamentary activity was pulling the Labour Party and the Labour Government to the left with it.

Without the organic link between the unions and the Party the pull on the Party would not have been so profound.

For this reason, the link was not always valued by the right in the Labour leadership.

The Morning Star has reported this week that Callaghan, the Labour Home Secretary and future Prime Minster, plotted with senior civil servants about how they may brief and leak to the press negative stories about Jones and Scanlon that would humiliate them both.

In the 1980s the unions suffered huge demoralising defeats … the miners, Wapping, Stockport Messenger, the dismissal of Derek Robinson … and as is well known 60% of the union vote went against Tony Benn in the Labour deputy leadership election.

During the 1990s, in the depths of this demoralisation and demobilisation, the Blairite right captured the Party and set about marginalising the unions and ignoring them when in Government.

In fact, breaking the link with the unions was an unfulfilled Blairite ambition.

We can track the tide starting to move in our direction again in the early years on the 2000s with the election of what become known as the “awkward squad”, a new crop of general secretaries intent on winning back the Party from New Labour.

These were:

  • Bob Crow – RMT
  • Andy Gilchrist – FBU
  • Billy Hayes – CWU
  • Mick Rix – ASLEF
  • Mark Serwotka – PCS
  • Jeremy Dear – NUJ
  • Paul Mackney – NATFHE

Not all, I acknowledge, affiliated to Labour but able to exert influence nonetheless.

If this was the embryonic move to the left in the unions, what gave this group critical mass was the election in 2004 of Tony Woodley as General Secretary of the T&G, now Unite.

It is this new leadership in the unions also supporting extra-parliamentary activities and mobilising the unions’ membership that created the opportunity for a later move back to the left within the Labour Party.

Andrew Murray made a key point at the rally last night; he said “the anti-war and anti-austerity movements kept the flame burning when parliamentary politics was looking unproductive.” He was speaking of:

  • Stop the War Coalition
  • European Social Forum

and, since the creation of the Coalition Government of 2010

  • Peoples Assembly Against Austerity.

The link allows the unions to bring these extra-parliamentary issues directly into the heart of the Party.

If the unions identified with the “awkward squad” have been constant in supporting extra-parliamentary work, the other constant in all of this has been Jeremy Corbyn who has supported from the inception all of these initiatives and more.

In other words, there has been an alliance between the left in the unions and Jeremy Corbyn for most of this century and before.

An outcome of this alliance, as far as the unions are concerned, is the 20 point plan to reform labour rights as set in the manifesto ‘For the Many, Not the Few’.

Blair and Mandelson ignored the unions’ call for reform; Jeremy and John McDonnell know that free trade unions and sector wide collective bargaining are the vehicles for raising working class living standards and realising many working class aspirations in the future.

The unions are an essential component of the Corbyn project; any attempt to break the link must necessarily be an attempt to unseat Jeremy Corbyn as Leader and should be resisted.

This blog is based on the contribution that Adrian Weir made at a session with the same title at Arise: A Festival Of Labour’s Left Ideas on 28th July.

 

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment

PCS’s latest ballot result shows that e-voting is long overdue

By Lynn Anderson, PCS National Officer for Scotland and Ireland.

James didn’t vote. Let me call him James, although he could be John, Robert or Paul. He told me that he has been a union member for 27 years and this was the first time he hasn’t voted in a national union ballot.

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) national ballot was in response to the government’s pay remit for civil servants.Unlike all other parts of the public sector, the British government plans once again to cap the pay of its own workforce at 1 per cent.A further 0.5 per cent can be made available by departments but only at the expense of cutting jobs and services.

Our union’s national pay claim is for 5 per cent for all civil servants. It is a modest and realistic demand to begin a journey of pay restoration for civil servants like James.

As a low-paid Job Centre worker in a rural part of Scotland, James’s salary has not really increased by more than a few hundred pounds a year since he joined the Civil Service.
Once he reached the top of the progression scale, James has depended for years on the rate for the job increases negotiated by his union.

Over the past decade, this has been frozen and capped by successive governments to below-inflation levels.

James, like hundreds of thousands of civil servants, has been robbed of thousands of pounds of potential take-home pay.

Under the new Tory anti-union law — the Trade Union Act that came into force last year — James was denied participation in the important ballot on industrial action to fight for the future of his pay.

This is because the Act insists that statutory trade union ballots can only be returned by post. In the super-connected electronic age, the deliberate restriction on trade union members’ democratic participation is an ideologically driven denial of trade union freedoms.

From June 18th to July 23rd, the PCS national ballot on pay asked members whether they were prepared to take industrial action to force the government to consider our 5 per cent pay claim.

This was the biggest trade union ballot under the new Act. Over 120,000 PCS members in more than 600 workplaces throughout the UK were balloted.

Over the five-week campaign we trained hundreds of reps in Saturday schools, leafleted almost every workplace, held countless car park meetings.

The current British government is a hostile employer. Our reps therefore had restricted access to the workplace.

They were denied desk-dropping of ballot materials or displaying posters. Email correspondence from official government addresses could not contain the words “ballot,” “strike” or “vote.”

Our only real widespread access to members then was through personal email and phone calls. We phone banked over 50,000 members to encourage them to vote. That’s how I encountered James.

When he answered my call, James said he was pleased to speak to someone from the union, as he wanted to report that he could not vote.

James had received numerous emails, text reminders and phone blast recordings from Mark Serwotka, our general secretary.

I was the first person to speak to him about the ballot. James lives alone in the countryside, with no near family or neighbours. He received his ballot paper in the post. It was sat in the pile of correspondence to be dealt with on his kitchen table. But then he was taken to hospital, and with no visitors, he had no access to his ballot paper. James was apologising to me that he couldn’t vote.

James’s story has stayed with me. He wanted to vote Yes, but was denied because of the restriction to postal voting. James’s vote, along with all other non-voters under the Trade Union Act therefore count as an effective No vote.

The Act requires a minimum of 50 per cent of eligible members participating in a statutory ballot before it can be valid.

The PCS ballot returned the largest percentage vote for industrial action in a statutory ballot in the union’s history, the turnout at 41.6 per cent. It clearly shows the level of anger among PCS members about their treatment by the Cabinet Office and Treasury over pay.

It is also a tribute to the commitment and dedication of PCS reps in our workplaces across the UK.

However, the turnout figure failed to meet the 50 per cent threshold that the Trade Union Act requires for the ballot result does not provide a legal basis for strike action.

It is a huge disappointment for the tens of thousands of PCS members who voted to fight for higher pay this year.

Despite the ballot result, the issue of pay remains vital to our members and our NEC has vowed to continue the campaign in 2018 and 2019. With 85.6 per cent of our members voting for strikes over pay, we are conveying this to the Cabinet Office as a show of strength and demanding urgent talks.

Huge amounts of data have been collected throughout the ballot, from members, branches and groups. We have a rich source of data on which to concentrate our organising and agitational resources.

While the ballot result means that we cannot take industrial action across our public-sector members, at delegated level our industrial departmental groups may consider taking strike action over departmental pay negotiations, where agreement is not reached.
PCS has received tremendous solidarity and support from across the trade union movement following this ballot result.

During the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 the government agreed to a review of the use of electronic balloting in trade union ballots for industrial action.
On March 1 2017, when the government introduced the ballot threshold, it announced that Sir Ken Knight would lead a review into the use of electronic balloting.

This review reported on December 18 2017 and recommended that electronic balloting pilots take place. The government has taken no further action in relation to these recommendations.

The PCS ballot clearly shows that the use of electronic balloting can be effective in increasing turnouts in ballots.
Since the government proposed the introduction of ballot thresholds, PCS, alongside a number of other unions, called for the introduction of both electronic and secure workplace balloting.

In the October 2017 PCS consultative ballot, 50 per cent of members voted online.
Anecdotal evidence from phone-banking and leafletting demonstrated that a large number of PCS members expected to vote online.

It is clear to me that if online voting (and secure workplace balloting) had been available, the PCS turnout would have been above 50 per cent.

Workers like James have been denied a vote that he could easily have participated in electronically. I am certain that we would have smashed the 50 per cent threshold if our members weren’t restricted to postal voting.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star on July 31st.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Biggest Attack On Workers In Austria For Decades

Austrian unions are mobilising against an attempt by the the governing coalition of ÖVP and FPÖ to impose longer working hours and flexible working  having quietly submitted a motion in Parliament on 14th June to extend existing maximum working time regulations. Regular working hours in Austria involve an eight-hour working day (within a 24-hour period) and a 40-hour working week (working hours from Monday to Sunday).

Federal Government has proposed ‘flexible working time’ bringing the working day to 12 hours and introducing a 60-hour work week for many workers as ‘standard’, depending on the employer’s decision without the involvement of works councils and social partnership agreement.

The extension of weekly working time in Austria is possible under specific conditions. On request for more overtime, the work week can go up to 60 hours, and daily working time up to 12 hours provided that it is not more than 24 weeks a year.

If working time is extended on that basis, for eight consecutive weeks, any such overtime shall be inadmissible for the next two weeks. The working time extensions have to be permitted by the Labour Inspectorate and agreed in a plant-level agreement with the works council and the individual employer.

Under the Government’s plans, it will now be possible for employers to demand 12 hours a day and 60 hours a week, at any time and without conditions. The overtime payments will be decreased while, in the case of flextime, they will even be completely cut. As these extensions of working time will no longer be regulated in a company-level agreement with the involvement of works councils, benefits for employees such as higher bonuses or extra compensatory free time can no longer be negotiated. The governing parties argue that the individual worker may retain the right to refuse the proposed overtime.

When the Government was faced with the criticism that the initiative for extending working time is unfounded and was not agreed with the social partners, they referred to the social partner paper from 2017 which included long-standing employers´ demands for working time flexibilisation. To this day, trade unions have rejected this paper.

The proposed change constitutes the biggest attack on workers, their health and income for decades and cannot go ahead. IndustriAll Europe stands alongside its Austrian affiliate PRO-GE in refuting the proposal.

The Austrian act on organising working time is actually a law to protect workers. Now it has been converted by the government into an exploitative law to increase the profits of companies and it was decided upon in a fast-track manner without proper assessment,” Rainer Wimmer, Chairman of industriAll Europe affiliate PRO-GE, explained and continued: “About a hundred years ago, the 8-hour day was introduced. Now it’s supposed to be 12 hours a day in the 21st century. That’s a betrayal of our workers.

General Secretary of industriAll Europe, Luc Triangle, commented; “The decision of the new Austrian government to impose the extension of working time without prior negotiations with the work Council is a major attack on workers’ and trade union’ rights. We all know that it is impossible for individual workers to refuse to work overtime without the protection of collective guarantees. This will lead to more mental and physical illness and increase the risk of accident at work.

A mobilisation against the planned deterioration of working time is in full swing in Austria. The Austrian Trade Union Federation with all its 7 affiliates (PRO-GE included) took part in an 80,000 strong mass demonstration on 30th June. The information campaign in companies has already started with more than 100 staff meetings nationwide.

Thanks to Marlene Roth and Wolfgang Lemb of IG Metall in Germany.

Martina Schneller writes: Thanks for publishing our article. We are fighting against the implementation of 12 Hours daily working time by our rightwing government in Austria.

The law was adopted on 5th july by the rightwing partiesˋ majority.

The Austrian Trade Union movement has responede with mass mobilisation, we had a mass demonstration in Vienna at the End of June (See the picture) and 2000 assemblies in companies to inform about the conséquences of the law and get the opinion of our workers to continue the resistance against anti workers legislation in Austria and dismantlement of social insurance and health system in Austria.

Such attacks are unprecedented in Austrian history since 1945.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TiSA Trade Deal – A Serious Threat To Workers Rights

By Rosa Crawford, Policy Officer, TUC EU and International Relations

Rosa Crawford of the TUC.

The trade in service agreement (TiSA) might sound like something technical but don’t be fooled, it poses serious threats to workers’ rights, our public services and sovereignty.

TiSA is a trade agreement that is being negotiated between 50 countries including all those countries in the EU.

The UK has been one of the major cheerleaders for the deal while in the EU and the government white paper released in July made clear that the UK was eager to sign up to TiSA after Brexit.

In fact trade minister Liam Fox is so keen on TiSA, he’s said it should set the model for other trade deals in services.

This is worrying news for workers – and a little strange for someone so insistent that he wants to bring sovereignty back to the UK.

TiSA would impose serious restrictions on government’s ability to pass laws and regulations, particularly on workers’ rights and other social regulations.

That’s because, unlike traditional trade agreements that only cover trade in goods (like cars) TiSA covers trade in services (eg. a pharmaceutical company doing business in another country). TiSA aims to make this trade in services easier by removing obstacles that might get in companies’ way.

However, because of the way TiSA is drawn up, the kind of ‘obstacles’ it could strike down include national minimum wage laws, requirements to respect collective bargaining and freedom of association or laws for environmental protection.

TiSA will also restrict government’s ability to run public services for the public good. That’s because the majority of the UK’s health, education, transport and other public services are included in TiSA which means the regulations for these services – such as drug safety rules or agreements on pay for nurses – could be challenged as ‘obstacles’ to trade (in this case their ability to win contracts to run privatised parts of our public services).

TiSA also contains what is known as a ‘ratchet’ clause that prevents privatised parts of the public sector being renationalised.

So it isn’t just Liam Fox’s great friend Donald Trump that poses a threat to our health services but TiSA – and all trade in services deals like it that he has recently was talking up at his recent visit to Washington.

Workers are also under threat through TiSA as it fails to recognise workers as people with fundamental rights.

Instead TiSA regards workers in service sectors as ‘service providers’, merely factors of production, without any reference in the deal to International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards or means for workers to claim these rights through TiSA. As services make up the overriding majority of the UK economy – and TiSA and the WTO are vague on the definition of jobs in the service sector – the number of workers that could be affected is huge.

The scope for exploitation is huge, particularly for migrant workers brought in through TiSA who are particularly liable to be paid less and forced into poor conditions by unscrupulous employers. Such undercutting of course lowers conditions and pay for all workers.

Trade unions in the UK and across the world are clear: TiSA and all deals like it that seek to liberalise trade in services without guarantees for workers’ rights, social and environmental regulations or deliver quality public services must be dropped.

If services are included in trade deals there must be legally enforceable guarantees workers can claim their rights, social regulations will be upheld and governments have the ability to provide quality public services that are in public control. The single market is the only trade deal in services in the world to provide these guarantees which is why the TUC is campaigning for single market membership for any Brexit deal.

 

Facebook Twitter Plusone Linkedin Pinterest Email
Posted in Campaign For Trade Union Freedom News, European Employment Rights, International Employment Rights, New Generation Of Trade Agreements, UK Employment Rights | Leave a comment