Search Results

This chapter evaluates the effect of globalization on the extent of a country’s labor regulation and the influence of national and international labor regulations on labor conditions. There is no evidence of an international race to the bottom in labor regulation. Other things considered equally, neither the size of a country's trade sector nor its trade policy appears to influence the extent of labor protection afforded by national labor legislation. The evidence also indicates that the system of international labor standards regulation administered by the International Labor Organization has not significantly improved labor conditions. Countries tend to ratify ILO labor standards that their domestic regulations already satisfy, rather than incurring the political costs of introducing or altering national legislation to meet higher standards. National labor regulations rarely benefit workers generally; instead some groups of workers gain at the expense of other workers.

This chapter traces the prehistory of the SER at the national and international levels, demonstrating its gendered roots. Building on scholarship in women's history illustrating how early attempts to establish minimum conditions of work at the national level centred on ‘protecting women’, it traces the emergence of a parallel emphasis in international labour legislation. The selection of initial subjects for international labour legislation was framed by contestation between and amongst trade unionists, working‐class and liberal feminists, women social reformers, and philanthropists over whether to pursue ‘equal protection’ for men and women or protection for women exclusively. The earliest international labour regulations, devised initially by the International Association for Labour Legislation and developed subsequently by the ILO, nevertheless included sex‐specific regulations on maternity and night work. By cultivating a male breadwinner/female caregiver gender contract, such regulations helped lay the foundation for the SER as a normative model of male employment.

This chapter focuses on those international labour standards identified as being ‘core’ in meetings of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Governing Body, the 1995 Copenhagen World Summit on Social Development, and the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It examines the extent to which the European Union (EU) has actually sought to promote international labour standards and investigates the dynamics of dialogue between the two organizations. It also investigates the extent to which this notion of constructive and disinterested dialogue characterizes the relationship between the EU and the ILO as regards enforcement of international labour standards, suggesting that such a characterization may be naïve in present circumstances. It is also argued here that the enhanced economic power of the EU, when combined with the struggle of the ILO for influence in a post Cold War climate, has allowed the EU to maintain a double standard.

This chapter reviews the application of international labour and human rights standards in national labour law systems. A survey of examples from several countries is followed by a case study focused on the United States. The American labour law system is resistant to international influences, but advocates have found creative ‘soft law’ ways to inject a human rights voice into labour law discourse. Such use of international standards has led to concrete achievement in some workers’ struggles. Still, the human rights framework is contested among labour rights advocates, who debate whether it undermines or promotes workers’ solidarity and collective action.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book's main themes. This book is about the history of the right to refuse unsafe work under international labor standards. It details how workers lost the right to refuse under international labor and human rights norms. It takes an in-depth look at how our global society has decided to resolve—and failed to resolve—the protection of any fundamental human right to refuse unsafe work. Around the world, every society and government must decide how to protect, or not to protect, each worker from retaliation and termination. This involves not just drafting a progressive antidiscrimination law; it also involves the regulating of work and employment relations on a more fundamental level. Ultimately, the right to refuse unsafe work is a moral question for society. If society crafts institutions, laws, and regulations that expose workers to hostile supervisors and managers without effective recourse, a moral choice has been made. Such a moral choice finds it acceptable that workers are forced to choose between their physical health and safety or their economic livelihood and basic subsistence.

This chapter examines the right of migrant workers to non-discrimination and equality in international law. It refers in particular to international labour standards and the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO) supervisory bodies, noting the ILO’s long-standing commitment to equal treatment. The chapter observes that the application of the principle of non-discrimination and equality to non-nationals and migrant workers, while being relatively uncontroversial in the abstract, is increasingly under challenge. Accordingly, attention is drawn to certain categories of migrant workers who remain at greater risk of poor working conditions and exploitative treatment, such as those in an irregular situation, low-skilled temporary workers, and migrant domestic workers.

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book's main themes. This book is about the history of the right to refuse unsafe work under international labor standards. It details how workers lost the right to refuse under international labor and human rights norms. It takes an in-depth look at how our global society has decided to resolve—and failed to resolve—the protection of any fundamental human right to refuse unsafe work. Around the world, every society and government must decide how to protect, or not to protect, each worker from retaliation and termination. This involves not just drafting a progressive antidiscrimination law; it also involves the regulating of work and employment relations on a more fundamental level. Ultimately, the right to refuse unsafe work is a moral question for society. If society crafts institutions, laws, and regulations that expose workers to hostile supervisors and managers without effective recourse, a moral choice has been made. Such a moral choice finds it acceptable that workers are forced to choose between their physical health and safety or their economic livelihood and basic subsistence.