|
GB.267/10
|
|
TENTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Report of the Committee on
Employment and Social Policy
1. The Committee on Employment and Social Policy met on 12 November 1996. Mr. Palma (Government, Philippines) was elected Chairman. Mr. Katz and Mr. Itoh were elected as Employer and Worker Vice-Chairmen, respectively.
2. The Committee's agenda was as follows:
- Progress in country-level follow-up activities on the Social Summit in the field of employment.
- Recent developments concerning cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions.
- Effect to be given to the resolutions adopted by the Conference at its 83rd Session (June 1996).
- Resolution (and conclusions) concerning tripartite consultation at the national level on economic and social policy;
- Resolution (and conclusions) concerning employment policies in a global context.
- Evaluation of the work and future role of the Committee.
- Other questions.
3. The item entitled "Other questions" gave the opportunity to Mr. Hammar, Assistant Director-General, to inform members of the Committee on the first ILO Enterprise Forum, which was held at ILO headquarters on 8 and 9 November 1996.
Progress in country-level follow-up activities on the
Social Summit in the field of employment
4. In March 1996, the Governing Body had called on the Office to initiate country-level employment reviews as part of ILO activities to follow up on the Copenhagen Declaration adopted by the World Summit for Social Development. The paper before the Committee(1) provided an account of progress made.
5. The representative of the Director-General (Ms. Hagen, Deputy Director-General), introducing the report, recalled that the proposal to conduct country-level employment policy reviews had been considered at several earlier meetings of the Committee. She underlined the high priority of this activity for the ILO, and the significance of the ILO's being called upon by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to chair the Task Force on Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods set up by the ACC. She recalled that the recent major world conferences held in Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, Copenhagen, Beijing and Istanbul had focused on some cross-cutting themes, in all of which the goal of full employment appeared as a significant issue. She thus stressed the crucial role of the inter-agency Task Force. The Task Force had a limited time-frame to carry out country reviews, and would provide a synthesis report to the ACC itself in April 1997. She emphasized that the short time and the inter-agency aspects of the country review exercise needed to be taken into account in considering the Office paper. Seven countries were being reviewed in the ACC framework, selected to represent both different regions and different levels of development. The framework paper for the country reviews was consistent with the earlier ILO proposal on country-level employment policy reviews and fully compatible with the ILO's objectives in the field of employment. The ILO had the lead responsibility in three countries, while the World Bank, UNDP and UNESCO had taken the lead in the others. This was agreed by the Task Force in order to encourage further inter-agency collaboration. However, the ILO retained overall responsibility for coordination. The country reports would be discussed in national seminars and a synthesis report would be prepared by the ILO.
6. The Director of the Department of Employment and Training (Mr. Sengenberger), responsible for implementation of the country-level reviews, added that the framework and modalities of the current country reviews under the Task Force were similar to those proposed for the ILO's other country reviews. These included: the full consent of the government of the country being reviewed; close collaboration with and the participation of the social partners; holding national tripartite seminars to discuss current and possible alternative policy reforms in respect of the goal of full employment; and consideration of recommendations on how the UN system, working together, supported the implementation of the various policies that a country might choose. The country reviews were in full swing, and most reports, in draft form, were expected by the end of November or early December. The proposed national seminars would be held during December 1996 and January 1997. Subject to the approval of the Governing Body, the country employment policy reviews exercise, as described in the Office paper submitted to the Committee at the 265th Session,(2) would be carried out in selected countries during 1998-99, and a high-level tripartite meeting would be held in 1999 to assess country-level initiatives to follow up on the Copenhagen Declaration.
7. The Employer Vice-Chairman (Mr. Katz) noted that the Committee's agenda was heavy, and hoped that the implications of this would be discussed later under the agenda item on the future role of the Committee. Regarding the country-level policy reviews, he pointed out that the Committee had not agreed on the exercise as currently conducted. While the review exercise within the ACC framework was of interest and might yield a synthesis report and some broad sharing of country experiences, this would not correspond to the key purpose of the country-by-country examination proposed by the Employers' group at previous meetings of the Committee. The Employers' group had suggested a review process, as carried out by the OECD, or the WTO, whereby an individual country examination would be prepared by the Office and the review conducted by the Governing Body. In such a process the Committee could learn from the country experience and the country being examined could benefit from the questions and discussions in the Committee. The employers did not agree with the Office's view that the country being examined should "own" the report. It might try to implement it, but the final conclusions must be those of the Organization. He pointed out that the procedures followed within the ACC framework did not correspond to the previous discussions in the Committee. He expressed serious doubts on the generalizations that such a sample of country studies would yield, and was particularly sceptical of the notion of presenting "best practices" as referred to in the last paragraph of the Office document. He expressed concern that the Governing Body and the Committee should not be working in this way in the area of country examinations and hoped that at its next meeting, in March 1997, a substantive discussion of this issue would be possible.
8. The Worker Vice-Chairman (Mr. Itoh) expressed concern at the decision by the ILO to allow other UN agencies to assume lead responsibility for several of the country-level employment reviews. Since under the ACC framework the ILO would be the lead agency in three countries only, he expressed doubt whether the ILO could truly undertake an appropriate coordination role and ensure that its basic principles on freedom of association, collective bargaining and tripartism were adequately reflected in the studies. He pointed out that the Workers' group were particularly concerned about the Indonesian country review, which was being conducted by the World Bank. He was very doubtful that the World Bank could appropriately address the issues pertaining to workers' rights and industrial relations. He also pointed out that UNESCO, which had the lead role to conduct the review in Mozambique, was not fully equipped to deal with employment and related social policies. The ILO had been given responsibility to follow up on the employment aspects of the World Summit for Social Development and must therefore take responsibility for the contents of all country reviews, including those where another agency was playing the lead role. The Workers' group pointed out that, at its March 1996 meeting, the Committee had discussed the modalities of country reviews in detail, and had agreed on the substantive issues to be covered, i.e. tripartite consultations, industrial relations issues, and the social dimensions of structural adjustment, etc. These principles, modalities and contents ought to be adhered to, irrespective of the agency that took the lead role. The Workers' group would have strong reservations, otherwise, on the issue of delegating responsibilities to other agencies. He further pointed out that the ILO's design of employment reviews contained five broad phases: planning, implementation, policy design, a national employment summit and, finally, evaluation, all of which would be carried out over an extended period. He was doubtful whether the review exercises being carried out by the ACC Task Force, within a period of only a few months, could follow the above design. He cautioned that unless these exercises were of a high quality and addressed all the economic, social and industrial relations issues previously agreed, the ILO would lose credibility.
9. Mr. Mansfield (Worker member) reiterated the concerns expressed by the Worker Vice-Chairman that, although the ILO now had the lead responsibility in three of the seven country reviews, the Office had to assume responsibility for the total outcome. The Workers' group would be critical if, say, the report on Indonesia did not adequately cover workers' rights and industrial relations issues. These concerns were heightened by the fact that paragraph 10 of the background paper indicated that the ILO would provide assistance to the World Bank on the question of vulnerable groups, but no mention was made of more fundamental issues such as freedom of association, collective bargaining and tripartism.
10. The representative of the Government of Germany expressed strong reservations on such organizations as UNDP and UNESCO taking the lead role in conducting employment studies. These studies obviously had budgetary implications, and the costs had to be borne by the organizations through additional staff, etc. Noting that the ILO had produced a framework document for the participating agencies, he would have liked to see that document attached to the report so that the Committee could see that the fundamental principles of the ILO were properly spelled out. He queried why the ILO had not taken the lead role in all seven countries being reviewed, instead of simply providing support only when other agencies asked for it.
11. The representative of the Government of Japan stated that the ILO had selected a number of countries for employment reviews and that those reviews had to be carried out within the framework of the conclusions of the Social Summit. Procedurally, this was problematical in that the endorsement of the Governing Body was being obtained at a later stage. He pointed out that carrying out reviews with the cooperation of other UN agencies had led to a number of difficulties. First, the duration of these exercises had been shortened. The discussion paper in March had mentioned that reviews would be carried out over a period of two to three years, and in five phases that had been identified and agreed upon. He raised strong doubts about whether any decent reviews could be accomplished within a period of less than six months. Nor had the Committee ever obtained the ACC Framework Paper. If the reviews resulted in a mere collection of already known facts, it would not help the image of the ILO. Although there were often overlaps in the work of UN agencies, it was difficult to imagine an agency in charge of areas in which it had no clear jurisdiction. He stressed, in this regard, that the responsibility for carrying out employment reviews rested solely with the ILO. He suggested that conclusions coming from these reviews ought to be reported to the next meeting of the Committee.
12. The representative of the Government of the Republic of Korea welcomed the document, and also the fact that the ILO was playing the lead role in the employment policy reviews at the national level as follow-up on the Social Summit. He noted that the exercise attempted to enable countries to move towards the goal of full employment. In particular, each report should provide the methods for determining the macroeconomic policies needed to create new jobs. He hoped to see in the country review report more specific policy measures for building appropriate strategies on human resources development. He also suggested that the synthesis report could be examined in the next meeting of the Committee.
13. The representative of the Government of Spain acknowledged that there were bodies within the UN system competent on certain aspects related to employment policies, but doubted whether they were fully competent to deal with the whole range of employment issues. He stressed that the ILO should not delegate this function to other organizations, although they might be able to provide certain expertise or information. He queried whether other organizations were following the same modalities and articulation as the ILO. He fully agreed with the Employer Vice-Chairman that caution should be exercised in making generalizations. He stressed that not only coordination, but also leadership and impetus, should be provided by the ILO.
14. The representative of the Government of Pakistan asked how the countries being reviewed had been selected, and whether reviews were planned for the next biennium. She suggested that comparative studies of employment policies in selected developing countries as well as industrialized countries would be useful and mutually beneficial. She also suggested that the synthesis report, which would be prepared for the ACC meeting, and not individual country studies, could be a subject of discussion at the next Committee meeting. She also wished to see the terms of reference given in the ACC Framework Paper.
15. The representative of the Government of United States noted that it would have been useful to have the Framework Paper so that the Committee could ascertain if indeed there was a broadly similar approach between what had earlier been discussed in the Governing Body, and what was proposed by the ACC Task Force. He queried whether the ILO would provide inputs on macroeconomic policies to all the country reviews, or only in the cases where it was requested. He also questioned whether the synthesis report would have across-the-board standardized elements, or would be differentiated according to specific country characteristics. He also enquired to what extent the ILO would use information existing within the Office in preparing the synthesis report.
16. The representative of the Government of Sweden agreed with the comments regarding the ILO's responsibilities among UN agencies on employment issues. While noting ongoing cooperation within the UN system, she found insufficient information regarding the decisions made by ECOSOC concerning follow-up on the Social Summit. The Commission for Social Development, which would be meeting in February 1997, would begin with a discussion of employment issues. She asked for the Committee to be given information on internal UN follow-up on the Summit within ECOSOC and the Commission for Social Development, and suggested that the ILO should make contributions to and participate actively in the discussions.
17. The representative of the Government of Indonesia welcomed the document prepared by the Office. He recalled that the purpose of the country employment policy reviews, as discussed in March, was to develop modalities based on selective country studies, which could be replicated in other countries. He noted that the ILO was to conduct the reviews in a limited number of countries, given its budget limitations. He also noted that other organizations such as UNDP had conducted extensive studies in many countries. Therefore, it would be logical for the ILO to benefit from the use of these available resources.
18. The representative of the Government of France shared the concerns expressed by the representative of the Government of Germany, particularly over the leadership of other agencies in the field of employment. He noted that the ILO had the institutional mandate in this field, and ought to lead in employment-related activities. The Committee could adjust if kept properly informed of developments.
19. The Chairman summarized three salient points raised in the meeting: first, the current process of the country reviews was not what the Committee had expected; secondly, concerns were raised about the primacy of the ILO in relation to the other agencies over the issue of employment; thirdly, issues had been raised concerning country-specific reviews vis-à-vis a synthesis report, the technical capabilities of other agencies, the uniformity of the approaches taken, and the infusion of ILO social values in those studies.
20. The Worker Vice-Chairman, while agreeing with the summary given by the Chairman, wished to emphasize two further points. First, the issue of the modality of the country report should be again reviewed in the Committee or at an appropriate forum. Some UN agencies mentioned in the Office paper were not appropriate bodies to carry out employment reviews. Secondly, in promoting cooperation with the other agencies carrying out country employment reviews, it was important that the ILO's leadership and basic principles were fully displayed.
21. Mr. Mansfield (Worker member) welcomed the proposal for a major ILO conference in 1999 concerning follow-up on the Social Summit. The Worker members supported the view that the synthesis report proposed by the Office would be a valuable first step to allow the Committee to consider employment, social and industrial relations policy issues. It would be an appropriate way of reporting back to the Committee in relation to the country reports and their outcomes. Disagreeing with the Employer Vice-Chairman, he stated that although there were no standard rules with regard to how full employment could be achieved, the proposal by the Office to identify "best practices" in the synthesis report was a worthwhile objective. He hoped that at the next Governing Body meeting the Committee would be able to obtain a substantial interim report on the outcome of country reviews, emphasizing that the quality of the report should not be sacrificed for the sake of gaining time. He also shared the concerns expressed by the representative of the Government of Germany with regard to the ILO's current association with the reviews being undertaken by the other agencies, and suggested that the ILO should not merely wait for the other agencies to invite input from the ILO; rather, the Office must be pro-active in its interaction.
22. The Employer Vice-Chairman expressed his support for the proposal made by the Worker Vice-Chairman that the Committee should review again the modalities of country reviews after a discussion of the synthesis report in March 1997. He reiterated the Employers' group's position that the ACC exercise was interesting, but did not reflect the ILO's proposed framework considered previously by the Committee, for country examinations and reviews. Expressing his reservations on the delegation of responsibilities to other UN agencies, he stressed the importance of an ILO response. The ILO had long been involved in a broad range of issues concerning the future of employment, labour relations and labour standards in the context of globalization, and not simply in the context of a UN exercise. The Employers' group was just as much opposed to turning the responsibility for country reviews over to other UN agencies as they were to the ILO secretariat handling it exclusively. In this regard, he raised issues concerning the purpose and role of the Committee. Although the proposed review exercise would be a time- and resource-consuming job if it was to be done properly, the individual country reviews ought to be examined by the tripartite Committee so that members could question and learn from the process. He emphasized that the review exercise should be seen not as a secretariat, but as an ILO exercise.
23. Ms. Hagen thanked the Committee for its incisive and critical comments. She found it commendable that the tripartite efforts made at the Copenhagen Summit had assured recognition of the ILO's leadership role, both in employment promotion and in fundamental labour standards. This had given the Office a considerable amount of credibility in the international arena above and beyond its own as a separate agency. Carrying forward the commitment of the Copenhagen Declaration necessarily required the Office, as part of the UN system, to take the leadership role in the UN framework. She assured the Committee that the activities of the Task Force on Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods were being conducted under the leadership of the ILO, and would be completed under the ILO's leadership. It was, however, important that other agencies were involved in the process, since they also had contributions to make on employment-related questions: for example, UNESCO on training and human resources development, UNIDO on the industrial environment, UNCTAD on trade and workers' rights, UNICEF on children's issues and child labour, and WHO on occupational safety and health. The ILO had been very thorough in the preparation of the conceptual framework, which was the working document of the Task Force and had been approved by the Task Force, and in which a comprehensive set of guidelines was articulated to show the ILO's leadership in the full range of issues and to guide other agencies participating in the inter-agency effort. Wherever other agencies were involved in the reviews, the ILO had made certain that the parameters of the review were consistent with the conceptual framework and the objectives that had been articulated in all the major UN conferences with regard to employment. Responding to the question of how the countries had been selected, she stated that the selection process included identifying general categories of countries; a survey of the capabilities and readiness of agencies to carry out the reviews; a survey of inter-agency presence in the country; and an approach to governments for approval and clearance. The ILO had been invited to participate actively in the work of the Commission on Social Development in February. The report for the Commission on Social Development would be distinct from the ACC Task Force report, largely because the synthesis report of the ACC Task Force would not then be ready. There would, however, be many inputs from the work of the ACC Task Force to the report for the Commission on Social Development.
24. The representative of the Government of France noted that the Office had not responded to the question raised by the representative of the Government of Sweden as to whether the ILO would be responsible for the organization of the proposed seminar on employment, to take place before the meeting of the Commission for Social Development. Ms. Hagen answered that the ILO would present a progress report on the Task Force on Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods at the meeting and would be fully involved in all activities dealing with employment questions at the February 1997 meeting of the Commission on Social Development.
Recent developments concerning cooperation with
the Bretton Woods institutions
25. Ms. Hagen, presenting the Office paper,(3) stated that it was intended to provide an update on initiatives taken in collaborating with the Bretton Woods institutions and an assessment of the success achieved in the policy dialogue. Focus on this policy dialogue had been triggered by the High-Level Meeting on Structural Adjustment in 1987, which directed the Office towards a more aggressive dialogue on employment and related issues. Historically the ILO had had a close cooperative relationship with the World Bank on technical cooperation, but there had not been the same degree of regular relationship with the IMF. Structural adjustment and its impact on policies had provided the main focus for dialogue from the late 1980s and brought to the forefront ILO concerns regarding the policies of both the Bank and the Fund; however, changes since then had moved the dialogue in additional directions to cover the broader issues of globalization and economic growth and a deeper engagement in labour market and social development issues, as the Bank and the Fund had supplemented their adjustment programmes by becoming more deeply involved in social development, institution building and issues of governance. The October 1996 Declaration of the IMF Interim Committee on "Partnership for Sustainable Global Growth", had articulated new broader-ranging directions for the Fund, which were also relevant for the Bank, including the importance of social development, health care and pension reform, safety nets, labour and product market reforms, and more significantly promoting good governance. This required the ILO to look beyond the impact of structural adjustment and more actively at how, with its knowledge of industrial relations, social dialogue, institution building and basic workers' rights, it could cooperate more effectively in these areas.
26. An overview of the high-level contacts since the visit of the Managing Director of the IMF, Mr. Camdessus, to the Conference in 1992 had included the Director-General's meeting with the Interim Committee in 1995, and a visit by the President of the World Bank, Mr. Wolfensohn, to the ILO in May 1996, as well as other meetings, both bilateral and in the context of ECOSOC. Currently, a strategy was being developed towards enhanced cooperation with the Bank in conjunction with Mr. Wolfensohn's participation at the Conference in 1997, and to follow up further on the commitments arising out of the Director-General's meeting with the Interim Committee. Steps had already been taken to stimulate better policy dialogue reflecting the ILO's strengths in vocational training, employment-intensive enterprise development and public works, labour law and social security reform including the development of models to assist the reform of social security systems, and in micro-credit initiatives in the context of the World Bank-led CGAP donor coordination mechanism. In each area ILO expertise had contributed not only to the policy dialogue but also to substantive results in specific country initiatives which included, inter alia, training in Pakistan and Indonesia; labour intensive works in West Africa, Lesotho, and Burkina Faso; labour law reform in Egypt and Côte d'Ivoire; social security reform in Turkey, Ukraine, the Philippines; enterprise development and micro-credit in Madagascar; and work on the effect of the liberalization of financial institutions on enterprise development in Benin, Ghana, Senegal and Zimbabwe. More substantive results could continue to be expected from the insertion of ILO policy perspectives and expertise into the processes of Bank and Fund initiatives on structural adjustment and social development generally.
27. In the future, more emphasis would be given to industrial relations and to the importance of the social partners in the policy dialogue. Recognition in the Bank's 1995 World Development Report of the importance of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining had been an important achievement; however, differences remained over the extent to which the Bretton Woods institutions could embrace industrial relations systems consistent with ILO standards. There also remained differences concerning the extent to which labour market regulation was appropriate, for example in ensuring non-discrimination in the workplace, and more generally in the nature of the regulatory framework necessary for businesses to operate in a fair and efficient manner in an environment of reduced government spending. Another important future area for dialogue should be the incorporation of basic workers' rights into the operations and programmes of the Bretton Woods institutions and the international financial institutions generally, rather than seeing them treated as political issues in which they could not be involved. The ILO was also aware that the Bank was seriously considering becoming involved in child labour issues. Emphasis would also continue to be placed on promoting the importance of employment promotion as a part of economic growth. Difficulties had sometimes been encountered over the fact that the ILO was working with the World Bank in relation to the execution of technical assistance, while at the same time the ILO acted as a source of direct expertise and policy advice, especially as the Bank looked more to competitive bidding and to private sector resources for technical assistance activities. This issue would continue to receive attention.
28. The Worker Vice-Chairman paid tribute to the efforts of the Office in enhancing contact and cooperation with the Bretton Woods institutions. However, he seriously questioned how successful its efforts had been to increase the ILO's influence and leadership in relation to them. The Office paper gave an excessively optimistic impression of the impact exerted by the ILO over IMF and World Bank policy. Referring to Part IV, paragraphs 24 to 31 of the Office paper, he cited the six themes included and questioned whether the ILO had really provided the leadership necessary to influence the Bretton Woods institutions. The 1996 Conference resolution on employment and globalization had been concerned with dialogue between the ILO and the Bretton Woods institutions, but dialogue was not an end in itself. The real purpose was to ensure that, in the process of structural adjustment, the social aspect was adequately reflected in the design and implementation of policies. In this regard he was not able to share the optimism of the paper. The leaders of the World Bank and the IMF had pledged to cooperate with the ILO and ensure that the policies implemented by their organizations more adequately reflected social concerns, but in actual practice in the field, this was not necessarily the case. These institutions did not fully understand the principles of the ILO. They sometimes placed a positive value on the dismissal of workers and, in the revision of labour legislation, for example, concerning systems for dismissal or the minimum wage, they sometimes made the systems worse, while implementing such programmes without consultation with the ILO.
29. The October 1996 issue of the IMF World Economic Outlook had highlighted what it described as positive reforms to the New Zealand industrial relations system. This clearly demonstrated that the IMF had not accepted ILO principles on workers' rights and the promotion of collective bargaining. His own personal observation in New Zealand was that the rights of workers were disregarded and the underprivileged had been further marginalized. Over the last ten years the ILO had been trying to influence the IMF, to no effect. The Office report to the Governing Body following the Director General's meeting with the IMF Interim Committee in late 1995 had given the impression that the ILO and the IMF would create an equal cooperative relationship, and the Workers' group was waiting for a report on the implementation of this agreement. The notion of equal cooperation had been based on the conclusions of the Social Summit. The IMF should deepen its understanding of the labour market and social protection, while ILO staff should expand their activities on macroeconomic issues. ILO principles should be reflected more in IMF policy advice. This required greater efforts by ILO staff, but ILO staff resources might not be sufficient, and it would be unacceptable to the Workers if the Bretton Woods institutions were to take advantage of the cooperative relationship and act in instances as though they had the prior consent of the ILO. Two years previously the Workers' group had requested a report on how the ILO had influenced the IMF programme in India, Zimbabwe, and Costa Rica, where it had been decided in 1992 that there would be cooperation on policy at the national level. The Workers' group were still awaiting such a report.
30. Referring to paragraphs 33 to 38, he noted the positive position and stressed the importance of promoting truly joint activities. Quoting from the paragraphs, he emphasized that essentially ad hoc activities were quite different from an institutional framework for systematic cooperation. The ILO should be working towards the goal of a contractual framework whereby the roles and responsibilities of each organization were clearly defined and the opportunity to maintain independent judgement was recognized.
31. The Employer Vice-Chairman also expressed pessimism concerning the Office paper, but for opposite reasons. The paper was more tantalizing than previous ones since the High-Level Meeting, as it gave indications of serious policy differences, without elaboration. It was clear that there were such differences, not over consideration for the social content of a programme, but over the nature of the considerations. An example of this was the apparent perception in the World Bank that the ILO was promoting social policies that protected more privileged groups rather than the underprivileged in countries undergoing structural adjustment. He recalled that, before the establishment of the Committee, ILO philosophy had supported going slow on adjustment and privatization, because some people might get hurt, i.e., the privileged constituents of the Organization. The High-Level Meeting had broken new ground as a genuine tripartite effort that expressed the realization that structural adjustment was going to happen and should not be resisted or slowed, but the ILO had a major role to play in bringing to the attention of countries and the international financial institutions the need for social measures to speed transition, mitigate pain and try to put a human face on adjustment. Structural adjustment had been overtaken by a preoccupation with globalization, but the two issues went together and in both cases implied the rapid adaptation of economies to current realities and the need to participate fully in the world economy through greater competitivity. In the light of this objective the ILO had an enormous role to play to help the process in areas of ILO expertise such as labour codes, as in the case of Côte d'Ivoire where an improved labour code had been supported by the social partners which provided for increased flexibility as well as social protection. Other areas included manpower planning, labour-intensive production, credit schemes, and social security reforms, and the ILO had expertise relevant to social safety nets in conditions of rapid adaptation. The ILO should not present itself as a counterweight to the policies of the international financial institutions, which were only trying to fulfil the expectations of their members and their major donors as well as the objectives of the countries that called on them for help. The latter were not forced to accept World Bank loans or IMF assistance, but were trying to put their economies in order, and the ILO's concern for the protection of privileged groups ran counter to that objective. For the Employers, the New Zealand experience was a model to be emulated; the macroeconomic situation was put right, employment levels were considerably increased, and the situation of the less-privileged was improved. With respect to paragraph 38 of the paper, employment promotion, social protection, social dialogue and the implementation of fundamental workers' rights were the mandate of the ILO, but these priorities should fit in with the objectives of the Bretton Woods institutions to help countries achieve the transition to healthy, competitive economies as quickly as possible. The worse the macro- and microeconomic policies of a country, the harder the transition. This applied not only to developing and transitional countries, but also to prosperous countries which could not overcome the bad policies of the past without substantial pain. The ILO should help in this process rather than encourage resistance to change.
32. Mr. Blondel (Worker member) also shared the pessimism concerning the Office paper. Having participated in the High-Level Meeting of 1987 and having been Worker Vice-Chairman of the Governing Body's former International Organizations Committee, he had had considerable experience of relations with the Bretton Woods institutions, and he stressed the need to proceed with great caution. During the High-Level Meeting it had been clear that the Bretton Woods institutions did not take into account international labour standards in their programmes. The IMF's pre-prepared programme had been introduced into a particular country which was required to accept it. International labour standards, including Convention No. 87, were never included, as the countries were forced back to more classical economic concepts. There were positive aspects to the work of the IMF, and its representatives sometimes talked to trade union representatives at the country level, but they still resisted integrating social concerns into their policies and programmes. Progress would be seen when international labour standards were included in the IMF's recommendations, but until then caution was necessary. The ILO had a particular responsibility because it had the only tripartite structure where trade union representatives and workers could directly intervene, and it was the only organization where their views were taken into account. When others sought to do the ILO's work the danger should be recognized. The ILO should do its work fully, but not the work of others, and vice-versa; but it should not work in isolation and should never shirk its social responsibilities, of which it should constantly remind others. The Office was giving in too much, and should be more assertive and persuasive. The tripartite voice of the ILO should be clearly reflected in its reports which were communicated to the IMF and to the World Bank. In all countries, those holding the purse strings believed themselves to be the most important, but the ILO had to make its voice heard.
33. The representative of the Government of the Congo expressed general agreement with the analysis and conclusions in the Office paper, but stressed that the activities of the ILO and the Bretton Woods institutions would only have an impact if they contributed to the strengthening of technical cooperation. The ILO had made considerable efforts in creating acceptance of its social vision by the Bretton Woods institutions, and therefore it should be clear about its independence and its terms of reference. It should ensure that legal reforms, such as labour codes, as well as social policy, should not be regarded merely in terms of deregulation or social exclusion, but in terms of the improvement of living standards and as a contribution to development. ILO consultations with the social partners and experts were essential, and if the key ILO Conventions were accepted this would certainly contribute to progress in the countries concerned.
34. The representative of the Government of Italy recalled the many occasions when the Committee had emphasized to the Office the importance of collaboration and relations with the Bretton Woods institutions. The Committee's documents gave the impression of being focused always on the future, but past experience was also important. The present document was successful in dealing with both. He recalled the statement made by Mr. Camdessus to the Conference in 1992, when he emphasized the social sensitivity of the Fund. It was understood that there was a similar sensitivity on the side of the World Bank. But the divergent philosophies of the ILO and the Bretton Woods institutions had surfaced more clearly in the mutual effort being undertaken to strengthen relations and come closer together in their respective work. The work of the Office to collaborate with those institutions and to present its institutional position in all its work on technical cooperation and in the field of standards was appreciated, and it was to be expected that difficulties and differences would arise. He did not fully share the pessimism expressed by other speakers concerning the Office paper, which demonstrated that some areas of agreement and cooperation had emerged, and that there was now more sensitivity on the part of the Bretton Woods institutions towards an understanding of the ILO's position regarding regulation. The usefulness of the contributions of the social partners was beginning to be understood, and work should continue to increase their participation. The ILO should continue to pursue its institutional goals with respect to workers' rights through contract clauses and in other ways.
35. The representative of the Government of Germany stated that the Office paper reflected what had been demanded for a long time, both in the preparatory process for the Social Summit in Copenhagen and at the Summit itself. One of the successes of Copenhagen was that almost for the first time in such an official document there was recognition of the necessity for structural adjustment programmes of the Bretton Woods institutions to be coupled with the social aspect. When Mr. Camdessus addressed the Conference in 1992 all had been optimists, but it became clear that at the country level the classical economists of the IMF did not recognize the ILO's role. Parts 3 and 4 of the Office paper now gave specific examples to prove that cooperation was beginning and becoming a practical reality. Referring specifically to paragraphs 28 and 36, he stated that the Office paper did not hide the difficulties in cooperation, particularly in relation to the role of labour market regulations and institutions and the promotion of freedom of association and other workers' rights. Referring to paragraph 37, he drew attention to the difference between projects where the ILO was providing policy advice while the Bretton Woods institutions were the providers of money, and projects where this was not the case. In the former there was a danger of losing one's identity, but both approaches were necessary, especially in times of financial difficulty.
36. The representative of the Government of Malaysia, referring to paragraph 5 of the Office paper, requested further clarification of the relationship between the ILO and WTO.
37. The representative of the Government of Mauritius, referring to paragraph 37 of the Office paper, asked for information either at the current meeting or in March 1997 on whether any machinery was being put into place for consultation and negotiation purposes and for examining and resolving differences.
38. The representative of the Government of France fully supported the previous appeal by Mr. Blondel for caution, stating that there should be no confusion between the respective roles of the ILO and the Bretton Woods institutions; however, he could not easily understand the antagonistic pessimism expressed by the representatives of the Workers and the Employers. The Workers were concerned that their views were not sufficiently taken into account, whereas the Employers were concerned that the Workers' views would be taken too much into account. This was the normal situation in all countries, where ministries of labour and other ministries dealt with the social dialogue, but finance ministries tended to feel they had a monopoly on the truth; nevertheless, the outcome was usually positive. The Office was quite right in launching this dialogue, even though it could be a confrontation in verbal terms. Since 1987 progress had been made, and no comparative advantage would be lost out of respect for freedom of association and the autonomy of the social partners. On the contrary, there would be a gain in comparative advantage in relation to world opinion and the respect for fundamental human rights.
39. Mr. Mansfield (Worker member), building on the comments of Mr. Itoh and Mr. Blondel, referred to the ILO's experience over the last ten years in expanding contacts between the ILO and the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO to promote a better understanding of the social dimension of structural and economic change. The Workers' group could cite case after case where those institutions had dealt with economic adjustment in a totally insensitive way, and had ignored the social consequences of the reforms they were recommending. The ILO sought more than economic change for its own sake, and was striving to achieve better living standards for workers. The Workers' group did not feel that these values were sufficiently appreciated by the other international institutions. It was therefore important for the ILO to use its influence, and work on the basis of its values, in influencing them. The Office paper was overly optimistic and the Workers' group was not convinced that the Bretton Woods institutions had been sufficiently influenced to reflect ILO values in their work. The ILO was not being treated as an equal partner. The problem did not lie at the highest levels of the World Bank and the IMF, but rather with people at the operational levels doing country work. It was at this level that the Bretton Woods institutions failed to take sufficiently into account the social consequences of their recommendations. The ILO needed to be firmer in its dealings with the Bretton Woods institutions and less inclined to adopt the values of the other institutions. The Workers' group feared that the ILO was moving too far in its acceptance of other institutions' economic rationalist positions, and believed it should make more effort to ensure that those institutions moved more in the ILO's direction.
40. Referring to the statement by Mr. Katz, he stressed that the role of unions in the structural adjustment process was an important issue. The Workers were not afraid of structural adjustment, and recognized the need for it to take place continuously in many economies. He cited recommendations made by the IMF to the Government of Australia earlier in 1996 concerning the reduction of workers' benefits in order to reduce unemployment. The Workers would never agree that this was the way to achieve full employment. The Workers' group would not accept the recommendations for reductions in unemployment benefits, sick leave or retirement pensions. An important report issued earlier in 1996 by a highly respected Australian economist and member of the Reserve Bank had stated that it was unlikely that greater relative wage flexibility would reduce Australia's unemployment problem. This did not mean that all labour market reforms should be opposed, as there were many productivity-related reforms that should generate higher incomes without worsening income distribution. This was where the focus should be, rather than on weakening institutions that protected the low paid. The Workers' group would support the sort of reforms that would improve productivity, and was not interested in employment at any cost. With respect to the New Zealand case, that economy had been a sick one that was 20 years out of date, and it could not serve as a case-study on how to make improvements. In conclusion, the Workers' group appreciated and endorsed the views of the representative of the Government of Germany; these were the right values and positions for the ILO to take.
41. The Employer Vice-Chairman observed that Australian labour, employers and Government had agreed that their country should be the first to be examined in the original proposal for country reviews. The New Zealand case continued to be an interesting case for a review from which lessons could be drawn. The reason for his partial pessimism towards the Office paper was that the Office in its relations with the Bretton Woods institutions appeared to be fighting the problem instead of working with them. The ILO did not have the resources to be able to oppose the financial institutions and could not expect to have influence. It was not by accident that some of the financial institutions, with sufficient resources of their own, were building up their human resources and capability and beginning to do things in the labour field by themselves. Contributions to their operations, which were useful and pragmatic, would begin to give the ILO influence, but resistance to the basic policies of the financial institutions would lead to loss of influence. He recommended that the Office re-examine the document that emerged from the High-Level Meeting in 1987, and particularly the section on the potential for joint action by the international organizations, especially the role of the ILO in promoting socially-oriented patterns of dynamic adjustment and growth.
42. The Worker Vice-Chairman stated that the dialogue between the ILO and the Bretton Woods institutions should continue and that the ILO's views should be more forcefully conveyed to the World Bank and IMF. Moreover, the Bretton Woods institutions should be strongly urged to involve the social partners at the planning stage in the countries where structural adjustment was required, as without such involvement protests and strikes would occur and economic reforms would not be sustained.
43. Ms. Hagen, responding to the discussion, appreciated the encouragement received from the Committee for the ILO to continue the dialogue. She acknowledged that the ILO still had a long way to go. The Office needed to learn from the Committee's perspectives and to engage it in the process to bring about truly participatory dialogue. She expressed the hope that note would be taken of the accomplishments that had been cited, because the presentation had been developed in order to focus on policy dialogue rather than on an overview of substantive programme results. An effort was being made to connect what the ILO was doing at the policy level to what it was doing at the programme level, and she had given several examples of that in her oral comments. More needed to be done, but in the process of the policy dialogue the Office was learning and developing ways to identify specific programme opportunities in the areas of labour law reform, social security reform, training, and labour-intensive production, which were areas where the ILO was making a difference to its constituents in the field. The learning process was going on everywhere. The Bank and the Fund and international financial institutions generally were becoming increasingly aware of the institutional framework for development and change, and knew that structural adjustment could not be achieved without a base of support for its initiatives. Quoting the Washington Post, she referred to the changes being initiated in the World Bank and the opinion that the Bank's approach to structural adjustment had worked to some extent but was not a magic elixir. The Bank had gone back to the drawing board and was revamping its approach to development yet again, with focus on issues such as institution building and participation. These were the points that the ILO had been trying to make all along with the Bank and the Fund, particularly the importance of participatory dialogue and the engagement of the social partners in the process of change. Real changes could be seen in both institutions concerning the importance of these issues, but this might not have penetrated to all their field activities; however, the ILO was committed to promoting these developments. Some regular mechanisms had also been developed for dialogue with both institutions. The Interim Committee communiqué served as the framework for dialogue with the IMF. In an effort to bring leadership-level policy to the level of field operations, both Mr. Camdessus and Mr. Hansenne had issued instructions to their respective field staff to engage in country-level dialogue, and positive reports had been received from many countries concerning the steps taken. There was a continuing commitment to promoting and monitoring this dialogue, which included a deliberate effort at closer collaboration on specific issues in six or seven specific countries. With respect to the World Bank, several areas had been identified for enhanced collaboration and partnership. Mr. Wolfensohn had said in May that he recognized the need for closer collaboration and partnership with the ILO, and the Office was taking advantage of this opportunity for closer collaboration at a high strategic level. Assertive steps were being taken which encompassed both the basic commitment to employment promotion and a strong statement in support of advancing fundamental workers' rights, as well as the importance of social protection and social dialogue. In conclusion, she thanked the Committee for its helpful observations and for its strong encouragement for the continuation of these efforts in the future.
Effect to be given to the resolutions (and conclusions) adopted
by the Conference at its 83rd Session (June 1996)
(a) Resolution (and conclusions) concerning tripartite consultation
at the national level on economic and social policy
44. The Worker Vice-Chairman welcomed the commitment expressed in paragraph 2 of the Office paper(4) to give high priority to promoting tripartite cooperation in the years to come. In this respect, he stressed a number of specific activities that should receive particular attention: to encourage tripartite involvement in structural adjustment in the ILO's contacts with the Bretton Woods institutions; to promote the ratification and application of Convention No. 144 and its accompanying Recommendation; to strengthen the ILO's industrial relations capacity; to give renewed emphasis to the Active Partnership Policy in tripartite dialogue through the country objective reviews, in particular; and to enhance tripartism through ILO technical cooperation activities.
45. The Employer Vice-Chairman raised no objections to the conclusions in the paper, which relied on the continuing work of the Committee.
46. Ms. Sarfati (Director of the Industrial Relations and Labour Administration Department) supported Mr. Itoh's comments. Tripartite cooperation remained a paramount objective and concern among the ILO's means of action, especially for industrial relations and labour administration programmes. She cited a number of projects and research, ranging from data collection and dissemination to regional seminars dealing with structural adjustment and the impact of globalization. Tripartite consultations were the keystone of the Director-General's report on industrial relations, which should be published in 1997. For the 1998-99 biennium, several action programmes had been proposed which dealt with the role of industrial relations in regional integration. A number of meetings had been anticipated on EPZs, low pay and minimum wage fixing. In addition, there was interest in setting up data collection using an industrial relations clearing house. In concluding, she stressed the importance of dialogue with the World Bank and the advice given to governments on labour law reforms. These topics were also central issues for which tripartite seminars had been planned.
47. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body request the Director-General --
- to bring the conclusions to the attention of member States and employers' and workers' organizations;
- to take account of the conclusions when preparing future activities of the International Labour Organization.
(b) Resolution (and conclusions) concerning employment
policies in a global context
48. The Employer Vice-Chairman agreed with the point for decision in paragraph 10 of the paper.(5) In view of the forthcoming discussion in the Programme, Financial and Administrative Committee, he stressed the importance of paragraph 9, which described two major ongoing ILO activities. The development of labour market information systems and indicators was an area in which the Committee had for some time urged the Office to become very active. In this field, the ILO should generate data on a worldwide basis comparable to those of the OECD for industrialized economies. Concerning the employment effects of globalization and regional integration, he stated that globalization was a fact and that the ILO should not fall into the trap of blaming everything on globalization without defining the term adequately. Efforts should instead be concentrated on the means to help countries, especially the least developed countries, to adapt to changes in the most effective way. He attached particular importance to paragraph 11(h) and paragraph 25(b)(iv) of the conclusions as reforms in the labour market should be the main focus of the Committee in the coming biennium.
49. The Worker Vice-Chairman stated that the Workers' group could support the point for decision in paragraph 10 of the paper, although there was nothing truly new or innovative in the action proposed by the Office. The paper referred to only a limited number of activities, namely, the report on World Employment; the ratification of fundamental rights Conventions; relations with the Bretton Woods institutions; country employment policy reviews; and ongoing work on globalization and regional integration and on labour market information systems. However, the conclusions touched on a much wider range of activities, such as those of the Working Party on the Social Dimensions of the Liberalization of International Trade. Paragraph 7 referred to the call for strengthened dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions. The same call should be made to the WTO, as was mentioned in the conclusions adopted by the Conference.
50. The representative of the Government of Austria found the Office paper particularly interesting as regards the work of the ILO. This was summarized in an effective way, and his Government supported both the present and future activities mentioned. There was probably a link between trade and labour standards, and although this was a contentious issue, it should be discussed in the ILO. With the exceptions of the measures set out in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the paper which obviously could not be implemented by the ILO, he was in full agreement with paragraph 10 of the document.
51. The representative of the Government of the United States observed that the resolution adopted at the Conference in June was the first time that such an ILO consensus had been reached on employment policies in a global context. The conclusions were therefore a valuable step forward in the ILO's work. Given the importance of the conclusions, which should be made widely known, he proposed amending paragraph 10: the paragraph should be expanded by adding the same wording as that used in the point for decision concerning the other Conference resolution: "to bring the conclusions to the attention of member States and employers' and workers' organizations".(6)
52. The representative of the Government of the Republic of Korea remarked that economic globalization implied rapid technological progress and an active flow of trade and capital in order to achieve higher growth and employment. The difficulties associated with this phenomenon should be minimized, and macroeconomic and social policies should be designed to maintain both employment creation and security. To follow up on the conclusions adopted by the International Labour Conference in June, emphasis should be placed on studies on the development of labour market information systems and the employment effects of globalization. This was already the case in the ongoing activities carried out in this field by the ILO. The Office should also develop constructive schemes for the types of activities that could boost employment. To the extent possible, he wished that ways could also be found to better harmonize employment security and employment flexibility.
53. The Committee adopted the amendment proposed by the representative of the United States Government.
54. The Committee recommends that the Governing Body request the Director-General --
- to bring the conclusions to the attention of member States and employers' and workers' organizations;
- to bear in mind the requests made in the conclusions in implementing current and future activities.
Evaluation of the work and future role of the Committee
55. The Worker Vice-Chairman noted the contribution that the Committee had made to interdepartmental cooperation within the ILO and to the ILO's integrated approach to standards and related matters. The Committee had identified such challenges as migrant workers and child labour, and had pointed to the priority areas of concern. It had given policy guidance through the annual review of the ILO's relations with the Bretton Woods institutions. He noted that some issues dating back to 1986, such as the need for the ILO to pay attention to macroeconomic factors in employment policies, were still valid in 1996. The Committee should focus on giving policy guidance to the Office, including in its relations with the Bretton Woods institutions. The Office paper gave little direction for its future work, however, which suggested that the Office was uninterested in the Committee's activities. Stronger leadership and more innovative thinking were needed from the Office. He supported the paper's suggestions on future work and agreed that the OECD style of country reviews was unsuitable for the ILO. However, the Committee should consider common issues of employment policy resulting from country employment reviews. The ILO enterprise strategy, the promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises, activities on privatization and follow-up on the Enterprise Forum belonged in the Committee and should be reviewed. The conclusions of the Conference Committee on Employment Policies in June 1996 were a good framework for the Committee's activities. In 1985 the relationship between working hours and employment had been raised, and could still be discussed by the Committee. Finally, he stressed the importance of the problem of child labour and the need for concrete action, such as codes of conduct and labelling programmes to tackle the problem. Cooperation between the Committee and the Committee on Technical Cooperation was desirable, and further budgetary support was needed.
56. Mr. Mansfield (Worker member) agreed that the paper gave the impression that the Office was not supporting the Committee. He mentioned some specific topics for the Committee's future work, including: a review of progress made by the Bretton Woods institutions in including employment targets as a condition in loan programmes, something to which the ILO was committed; major changes in the structure of work away from permanent towards temporary, part-time and precarious employment; issues surrounding working time and employment, including flexible hours and age of retirement; the impact of regional trading blocs and globalization on employment; the future role of enterprise forums and other work in the area of small and medium enterprises (this was something in which the Committee needed to be involved; in particular the Workers' group wished to be involved as an equal partner in future enterprise forums); employability and its implications for vocational training and job changing. He also suggested that seminars could be arranged to allow outside experts to address the Committee before its meetings, and suggested the formation of a working party to consider the Committee's future work before the end of the current Governing Body session.
57. The Employer Vice-Chairman fully agreed that the paper, like the Committee's own performance in the recent past, was unsatisfactory. Contrary to what was said in the paper, it was not more of the same which was needed. The views of the Committee, including the Employers' views on employment policy, needed to be given more consideration by the ILO. Many interesting topics had been raised in the Committee in the past, and a consensus had frequently been reached, but no follow-up by the Office had resulted. The Committee had been marginalized in the past three years, and the Office had espoused its own policies which had not emerged from a tripartite process. The 1987 High-Level Meeting on Employment and Structural Adjustment had been a highlight, and it had recognized that only good national policies could tackle the problem of unemployment. The 1987 meeting had given injunctions to all countries, both industrialized and developing, and had agreed on what the international financial institutions could do in collaboration with the ILO. The Committee's primary purpose was to influence national policy. Its members should be able to take useful lessons home to their countries based on the consensus achieved or on a clarification of the tripartite position. The ILO should also disseminate the policy conclusions of the Committee through publications or other means at its disposal. But very little of that process had happened, and the Committee often spoke only to itself. It was supposed to influence the action taken by the Office. As the paper pointed out, World Employment 1995 had not been discussed in the Committee, but this had been the Director-General's decision and indicated that the Office wanted to keep the Committee at arm's length. He considered it necessary to build up the ILO's capability to play the same role for the world as the OECD played in the OECD countries. This especially required good statistical data for inclusion in the reports on world employment. The Committee now had responsibility for employment and also for other aspects of social policy, and needed techniques to deal with a broad range of issues in a short time. On child labour, he noted that a responsibility had been assigned to the Committee, and he regretted the absence of any further discussion in the previous two years. He urged the Committee to discuss follow-up on the broad policy aspects of the earlier discussions on technical aspects of the subject and to make a policy input to the work of IPEC. Turning to the Committee's future work, he noted the need for the Committee to take a broader perspective on its future role than that of the internal workings of the ILO, and cited the major issue of trade liberalization and labour rights, which was being discussed everywhere, and not just in the ILO and WTO. The ILO had to restructure itself to deal adequately with that issue, or there was the danger of the increasing use of unilateral measures. In his view, a country review procedure in the Committee would help bring all aspects of employment and social policy into focus. Employment growth and the quality of employment needed to be linked to fundamental principles of workers' rights and could best be analysed in a country context. The Committee had many future agenda items such as the report, World Employment 1996; the synthesis report to the ACC Task Force on Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods; the 1997 report on industrial relations; issues relating to employability emerging from the Enterprise Forum; child labour and IPEC; and the ILO's tripartite country review process. In his view, the Committee would continue to be marginalized if it could not have time to develop a policy input to the work of the Organization. In his view, the Committee should meet for two working days three times a year. He realized this would pose difficulties, but a radical change in the ILO's time management was needed.
58. The representative of the Government of Germany considered that the Committee should reproach only itself if it found the paper lacked new ideas. In relation to the Committee's future work he found the idea of applying the OECD model to the world to be utopian, requiring a complete restructuring of the Office. Nor should the OECD procedure of country reports be copied, as OECD member countries could certainly never accept such a proposal. Many interesting issues had been proposed, but some, such as trade liberalization or child labour, were being dealt with elsewhere in the ILO, the latter under the issue of labour standards. He found it easier in a sense to advise on what the Committee should not be doing than to make positive suggestions.
59. The representative of the Government of France felt that, had the Committee never been formed, the ILO would be unchanged. The problem of employment had imposed itself over the past ten years. However, he noted two important events: the World Summit for Social Development, which had reaffirmed the ILO's role concerning both employment and the value of its instruments and the publication of the report, World Employment 1995, which had wide-ranging repercussions. Those two events, more than the Committee's discussions, had forged the ILO's position. He rejected any possibility of abolishing the Committee, partly because such an act would be misunderstood outside the ILO. He favoured the continuation of the reports on world employment, and the ILO should keep its experts. The 1995 report had been discussed at the ministerial-level meeting on employment, and the record of proceedings was available. The Committee's main activity should be to discuss the reports on world employment of the preceding year and examine whether they reflected the commitments of the Governing Body as enunciated by the Committee itself.
60. The representative of the Government of Austria supported the paper's proposals on the Committee's future work. To these he added the problem of youth unemployment, not just of those losing a job, but also those who were unemployed after completing vocational training. The problems arising from a fast rationalization and reduction of jobs should also be studied. He also agreed with the proposals by the Workers' group, and queried whether issues of concern to the Working Party on the Social Dimensions of the Liberalization of Trade belonged in the Committee.
61. The representative of the Government of Japan considered that, as employment was a priority issue for the ILO, so the Committee had to be regarded as a core committee. It needed a global perspective to take into account the global employment situation, where it was heading and what national policies were forthcoming. The Committee should examine each report on world employment and discuss its basic points in order to develop a common understanding. The Committee should also look at progress made in employment policies at the national level and discuss how the OECD viewed employment policies. Country employment reviews were starting as well as other technical cooperation activities. The Committee should be kept in close touch with developments in OECD. He referred to the decision of the G7 Conferences in Lille and Lyon to hold an international employment meeting in Japan in late 1997. This was to be attended by ministers of employment and of trade, and would consider such subjects as youth employment, older workers and the challenges faced by enterprises in structural adjustment. The ILO and OECD were both expected to participate actively.
62. The representative of the Government of the United States felt that the ILO needed both a vision of itself as the pre-eminent authority on employment in the United Nations system, and the high-quality work to support that vision. The Enterprise Forum was relevant to that vision: it had given the ILO exposure to enterprise thinking, which lent impetus to the agenda of the Committee, which itself should be given priority within the ILO.
63. The representative of the Government of Finland felt that a common understanding of the urgency of tackling unemployment was emerging in the United Nations system, and referred to the Copenhagen Summit. However, the ILO and its constituents seemed unable to develop the global atmosphere needed to overcome unemployment. Much could be done to remedy the unemployment situation, but nothing was being done. He feared a day when even the improvement of conditions for those in work would be threatened. There would be serious consequences for the ILO's mission if competition based on the worsening of working conditions were to become universal. His Government attached great importance to the Committee, and had no fear of overlap with any other forum. In broad terms, he supported proposals for the Committee's future work. Country employment reviews deserved to be discussed. In addition, he thought it important to prepare a study on those properties of work or work organization that could generate more employment. Data on enterprise-level achievements or failures would be useful, especially in relation to the organization of working time.
64. The representative of the Government of China gave positive recognition to the work of the Committee since, especially after the Copenhagen Summit, employment was the most important issue for the ILO and the Committee's role could not be challenged. However, there were flaws in the Committee's terms of reference since, for example, the report, World Employment 1995, and the question of international trade and social issues, had been discussed elsewhere. The work of the Committee could be improved if it were given greater time and overlapping was avoided.
65. The representative of the Government of Italy agreed with many of the views of the Employers' Vice-Chairman and of the representative of the Government of France. The Committee's work should be based on the reports on world employment, and it should discuss the key problems of employment. To avoid marginalization, it should become more action-oriented and make proposals to the Governing Body on key issues.
66. The representative of the Government of Panama considered that the discussion was going in the right direction for the ILO to fulfil its mandate. One element earlier lacking in promoting the work of the Committee was tripartite participation. The Committee should continue and its work should receive greater prominence.
67. Summarizing the discussion, the Chairman noted that no one doubted the importance of the Committee or of the employment issue. However, the Committee had many topics to discuss and was subject to a time constraint. The Committee was supposed to advise the Governing Body, and it should take a more active role. He also saw some frustration expressed in asking what the Committee had achieved. For the future, he noted support for an examination of the reports on world employment and of a synthesis of country employment reviews. He wondered whether a working group of the Committee could meet before its next meeting in order to consider its future work.
68. After a discussion with the two Vice-Chairmen in which the Employers' Vice-Chairman emphasized his view that the Committee could consider issues of child labour in conjunction with the Committee on Technical Cooperation, it was agreed that an informal group would discuss the agenda for the Committee's next meeting.
Other questions
ILO Enterprise Forum, Geneva 8-9 November 1996
69. Mr. Hammar (Assistant Director-General) described the main results of the first ILO Enterprise Forum. If the Committee wished, a more substantial report on the event could be prepared for the next meeting of the Committee in March 1997. Some 550 participants had attended the Forum, which saw lively debates on several panels. In the context of a worldwide unemployment crisis, it was necessary to bring entrepreneurs and senior managers of major enterprises together with the constituents of the Organization to discuss possible solutions in the ILO. As the Director-General had stated in his report to the Conference in June, in an increasingly globalized economy, quality jobs could be created and sustained only by viable and competitive enterprises. The main theme of the Forum was the promotion of social progress and enterprise competitivity in a global economy. Introductory speeches were delivered by the Director-General of the ILO, Mr. Maître (Conseiller d'Etat, République et Canton de Genève) and Mr. Smadja (Managing Director, World Economic Forum). Four panels were set up on the following topics: implications for enterprises and the ILO of a changing world economy; enterprises and jobs; social initiatives by enterprises; and the future role of the social partners at the enterprise level. In addition, a number of simultaneous workshops had been held and enterprise exhibitions had been organized in the ILO colonnade. Informative background papers were also presented, as was the ILO's Enterprise Strategy.
70. Beyond the obvious value of the exchange of ideas and new contacts made between the Office, its constituents and enterprises, each of the four major panels came to very substantial conclusions. The main trend should be underlined: the need to situate both the enterprise and the human being at the centre of any action. First, there was an urgent appeal from entrepreneurs to governments, workers' and employers' organizations and the ILO to foster an enabling environment for enterprises to create jobs. Investment, fiscal training and labour market policies must be adapted to enterprises' needs if they were to create more job opportunities. To put it succinctly: what convinces an entrepreneur to employ one additional worker? Secondly, a strong appeal was made to enhance the central focus on the human being. This was discussed intensively in the panel on social initiatives by enterprises and emphasized in strong statements from several speakers, such as the Presidents of the Mexican and Japanese employers' organizations and Mr. Smadja. In his introductory remarks Mr. Smadja had stated that the social responsibility of the corporation today was greater, not lesser than before. The Enterprise Forum had expressed great respect for the ILO's fundamental human rights Conventions. In conclusion, Mr. Hammar outlined what could ensue after this first ILO Enterprise Forum, which constituted a step forward from the World Summit for Social Development of March 1995: such action would include discussions under the item on its agenda concerning general conditions to stimulate job creation in small and medium-sized enterprises at the forthcoming sessions of the International Labour Conference in 1997 and 1998; a strengthening of the ILO Enterprise Strategy for more and better jobs; the possible organization of a second Forum and of regional enterprise fora; the development of existing ILO technical cooperation projects on "Improve Your Business (IYB)" and "Start Your Business (SYB)" and, finally, the implementation of a number of enterprise-related action programmes during the next biennium.
* * *
71. The representative of the Government of India referred to the information note on voluntary labelling programmes and child labour, mentioned in the document distributed as the detailed agenda.
72. Speaking on a point of order, the Worker Vice-Chairman questioned the appropriateness of opening for discussion a document circulated as an information note.
73. The Chairman observed that, if a document had been officially circulated in the Committee and members were not allowed to give their views on it, this would be inappropriate, since there was the danger that the document may be deemed to have been ratified by implication.
74. In the course of a statement by the Employer Vice-Chairman in response to that by the Chairman, the Worker members reiterated their point of order.
75. Following internal consultations, the Chairman ruled that the point was valid. At the same time, he apologized to the representative of the Government of India for having had to make such a ruling.
Geneva, 15 November 1996.
(Signed) L. Palma, Chairman.
Points for decision:
Paragraph 47;
Paragraph 54.