Author Archives: Webmaster

Before Versailles: the genesis of the ILO 1 By David A. Morse, Director-General 1948-1970

Let me begin with the Paris Peace Conference, which assembled in January 1919, two months after the armistice, which put an end to hostilities in the First World War.

At one of the first sessions, the Conference set up a Commission on International Labor Legislation, of which Samuel Gompers, the first president of the American Federation of Labor, was chairman.

Some of the delegates may have thought it rather surprising that one of the first acts of the Peace Conference should relate to labor; but there was general recognition that the ferment and instability, which characterized the world of labor and industry in 1918 and 1919, particularly in Europe, called for immediate and constructive action.

The Commission, which was composed of representatives of nine countries2, had to deal with the important question of whether it should propose that there be included in the Peace Treaty a full-fledged Constitution of a Permanent International Labor Organization, or whether it should simply recommend the inclusion of a general declaration of principles, a sort of Labor Charter.

It finally decided to formulate the Constitution of an organization which would be designed to examine new problems of labor and industry as they arose and to assist in finding solutions for them. In addition, but only secondarily, it agreed to approve a list of general principles. The Commission’s report consisted of two parts, one containing the Constitution of the proposed International Labor Organization, including provisions concerning its relations with the League of Nations; the other, the list of general principles on labor matters.

The report was adopted by the Peace Conference during April 1919. Both parts were subsequently embodied in the Treaty of Versailles.

Although the Paris Peace Conference is remembered mainly for its short-lived policies and decisions on political and economic affairs, its main decision in the field of social policy – the establishment of the ILO – continues today to have a far-reaching impact on the world.

Before going on to describe the Constitution of the ILO, I should like to glance for a moment back into history.

By a curious historical coincidence, it was almost exactly a century before the Paris Conference that for the first time proposals for action in each nation to regulate conditions of labor were submitted to an international conference by the Welsh-Scottish industrialist, Robert Owen, at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle. At the time, Owen was a voice crying in the wilderness, but the years that followed other employers’ advocated action to the same end, Hindley in England and Legrand in France.

It was their realization that efforts in the direction of national legislation to regulate conditions of labor would be impeded by the lack of coordinated international action in the field, which led Hindley, and Legrand in the 1830’s and 1840’s to advocate international labor treaties of conventions.

On the side of the workers, the International Working Men’s Association, the First International, formed in 1864, the Second International, formed in 1889, and the International Federation of Trade Unions, which traced its origins to a conference held in 1901 and which was formally constituted in 1913, all voiced in different ways the international aspirations of the workers to improve the lot of working men everywhere.


Berlin Conference 1890

Governments also, influenced by currents of economic and social thought in the nineteenth century, as well as pressures exerted by or on behalf of workers, had taken some action. In 1890, after earlier initiatives by Colonel Frey,
President of the Swiss Confederation, an international conference on conditions of labor was convened in Berlin by Chancellor Bismarck.

Thus, employers, workers, and governments all played a part, though separately, in the evolution of the concept of international action for the promotion of labor standards. All these initiatives had been inspired by men who were genuinely concerned with the hardships, which nineteenth-century industrialization and economic competition inflicted upon workers.

In 1900, very largely as a result of this growing “social conscience” in European countries, the International Association for Labor Legislation, a nongovernmental organization which received financial support from interested governments, was established. This organization, although its work had little immediate effect on national legislation, can be considered a direct forerunner of the ILO.

Near the end of the First World War, when Allied governments were making preparations for the Peace Conference, they had to take due account of the international workers’ conferences, held during the war in Leeds, Stockholm, and Berne, which urged and resolved that the terms of peace should ensure to the workers minimum guarantees in regards to labor legislation and trade union rights, in recognition of the signal services rendered during the war by the workers, both in the factories and on the battlefield.. All this explains why the Commission on International Labor Legislation was set up, at the Paris Peace Conference, and why the report of the Commission was unanimously adopted by the International Labour Conference.

_________________________

1 Extract from his Cornell Lectures, 1969. The complete series of Lectures were published under the title The Origin and Evolution of the ILO and Its Role in the World Community, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1969.
2 Belgium, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Japan, Poland, United Kingdom, United States. See James T. Shotwell, Origins of the International Labour Organisation, vol. 1, pp. 128-129. New York, Colombia 1934



Guinea / Abdoulaye Lélouma Diallo

My participation in the ILO’s activities over the years has allowed me to recall many events that remain forever etched in my memory. They have strengthened my conviction to continue participating in the activities of our tripartite Organization whose fundamental mission is, and will remain, the promotion of decent work and workers, the promotion of peace, solidarity and social justice through dialogue and negotiation in a globalized world. I would like to draw your attention to some of these events below.

“My country, the Republic of Guinea, joined the ILO on 21 January 1959 and has so far ratified 62 Conventions, including eight fundamental ones.

The National Confederation of Workers of Guinea (CNTG), of which I have been a member and now an honorary member, has always participated as a Delegate for Workers at the sessions of the International Labour Conference since Guinea’s accession to the ILO.

Since 1977, I have been fortunate to participate in all International Labour Conferences, either as a Delegate of the OATUU (Organization of African Trade Union Unity) or as Senior Specialist for Africa at ILO-ACTRAV (Bureau Activities for Workers).

Since 2004, I have attended all sessions of the ILO Governing Body as Permanent Representative of OATUU to the ILO and the United Nations Office in Geneva.

I am lucky to have met four Directors General of the ILO: Messrs. Francis Blanchard, Michel Hansenne, Juan Somavia and Guy Ryder.

I was elected President of the Staff Union in 1996. I took my pension in November 2001 and the Director General at that time, Mr. Juan Somavia, attended the reception organized in my honour by ACTRAV on the 6th November 2001. The event looms large among my unforgettable memories.

My participation in conferences and other ILO activities has strengthened my conviction and commitment to continue the trade union struggle to promote the well-being of workers, the unity of trade union action, solidarity and cooperation at the regional, continental and international levels.

I welcome the positive contribution of the ILO to the struggle of the African Workers and their trade union organizations against apartheid in South Africa and for the respect of freedom of association and the right to strike in Africa.

I would like to mention the following events that, among others, will remain etched in my memory forever:

1) The personal participation of the Vice-President of the African National Congress (ANC), the unforgettable hero Nelson Mandela, at the 77th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 1990, to express his gratitude to the tripartite constituents for their solidarity and the support given to the South African people in their struggle against apartheid.

2) The signing of the collective agreement protocol between the Staff Union and the Director General, Mr Juan Somavia, in 2000.

3) The election in 2008 to the vice-presidency of the Conference of Mrs. Rabiatou Sérah DIALLO Secretary General of the National Confederation of Workers of Guinea (CNTG), titular member of the Governing Body of the ILO.

4) The meetings between the African Workers’ Delegates under the leadership of the OATUU with the Director General, Mr. Guy Ryder, and his visit to the headquarters of the OUSA in Accra.

(5) The hearing granted to the Bureau of the Section of Former ILO Officials, of which I am a member, by the Director-General, Mr. Guy Ryder, and the annual receptions for ILO retirees.

As a Guinean, I would like to congratulate the Director-General, Mr. Guy Ryder, for the solidarity shown to Guinea during the EBOLA haemorrhagic fever that afflicted my country in 2014-2015.

In conclusion, I would like to recall that, when the ILO was created in 1919, Africa was represented by only three countries (Ethiopia, Liberia and South Africa) and today 54 countries of our continent are members of this historic Organization, the only tripartite one in the United Nations system. Thanks to the participation of African tripartite constituents in the activities of the ILO and the ratification of the fundamental Conventions by several States, today the recognition of freedom of association and the right to strike appears in the majority of the Constitutions of African countries.

As a member of the Bureau of the Section of Former ILO Officials, I would like to strengthen relations with current ILO staff and promote cooperation with the tripartite constituents of the 187 member states of our Organization to ensure the celebrations of the ILO Centenary are a historic success. I wish every success to the Centenary celebrations of the Organization that values​WORK!.”


SHIF communications – Letter from the Section

Category : Archives

M. le Président du Comité de gestion de la CAPS

Genève, le 26 mars 2019

Monsieur le Président,

Le Bureau de la Section des anciens, très préoccupé par l’accès à l’information des retraités du BIT répartis à travers le monde, souhaite évoquer dans cette lettre la communication de la CAPS avec ses assurés, notamment les retraités.

Notre constat: d’une part, nous savons qu’une majorité de retraités n’accèdent pas ou utilisent très irrégulièrement l’internet soit qu’ils ne possèdent pas d’ordinateur à domicile soit qu’ils en disposent d’un mais ne l’utilisent pas ou très peu. D’autre part, des informations sont diffusées par la CAPS par broadcast via l’intranet au personnel actif du BIT; les retraités exclus de l’intranet n’ont donc pas accès à ces informations. Nous avons aussi été très surpris que la convocation à l’Assemblée générale consultative de la CAPS de décembre 2018 n’ait pas été envoyée aux retraités par vos soins et que vous ayez chargé la Section des anciens de la diffuser, tâche revenant au secrétariat de la CAPS. Comme vous avez pu le constater la grande majorité des participants à cette assemblée était des retraités ce qui démontre leur besoin d’information. Néanmoins la Section des anciens facilite l’accès à l’information à travers les liens établi sur son site (http://www.anciens-bit-ilo.org) avec différents organismes et services dont la CAPS.

Il est donc indispensable que l’information de la CAPS aux retraités continue à être diffusée par voie de courrier papier; les retraités sont de grands bénéficiaires des services de la CAPS vues les pathologies liées à leur âge. Les Statuts et le Règlement administratif de la CAPS ont connu des modifications conséquentes et positives ces dernières années; aussi est-il à présent nécessaire que les retraités disposent d’une édition complète actualisée de ces mises à jour. D’après les informations portées à notre connaissance ce document serait à l’impression. Pour les mêmes raisons qu’évoquées ci-dessus nous demandons que les rapports d’activité de la CAPS ainsi que les bulletins d’information continuent à être diffusés par courrier postal aux retraités.

Enfin nous nous sommes prêts à accompagner toutes les évolutions qui visent à faciliter les services et notamment la saisie en ligne des demandes de remboursement, tout en sachant que tous les retraités ne seront pas en mesure d’utiliser ce nouveau service. Nous pensons à ceux qui vivent dans les pays en développement et aux plus âgées n’utilisant pas ce service ou étant dans l’incapacité de le faire.

Très attachés à leur Caisse de santé les retraités et la Section des anciens sont en permanence disponibles pour évoquer avec le Comité de gestion et le Secrétariat de la CAPS les difficultés rencontrées et trouver des solutions et des améliorations adaptées.

Restant à votre disposition, recevez, Monsieur le Président, l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

François Kientzler
Secrétaire exécutif
Pour le Bureau de la Section des anciens du BIT

Copies : au Syndicat
au Secrétaire exécutif de la CAPS


ILO Centenary: Save the dates! 28 May and 11 July 2019

Category : Archives

28 May 2019: Cocktail to celebrate the ILO Centenary

The Section of Former ILO Officials is organizing a programme of activities commencing at 15.00 in R3 Room II followed by a cocktail at 17.00 in Les Gobelins in celebration of the ILO Centenary on Tuesday 28 May 2019. The Director General, Guy Ryder, will address retirees during the afternoon.

11 July 2019: Centenary Lunch with the Director General

The Director General will be inviting retirees to a lunch to be held on 11 July 2019.

Full information and invitations to these events will be sent later but reserve the dates now in your agendas!

Other events

You may also be interested to know that a visit to the old ILO building, now occupied by the World Trade Organization, is being organized by the ILO for participants of the International Conference noted below which we believe is open to retirees to attend. We understand the visit is planned for 16 April. Anyone wishing to register for this Conference should do so directly with the ILO.

15-17 April: International Conference ILO100: Law for Social Justice, ILO Headquarters, Geneva

The Section of Former Officials is also looking into the possibility of organizing a separate visit to the old ILO buildings in the autumn and further information will be provided if and when available.

 


The historic role of Germany in the ILO / Werner Sengenberger

There are two motivations for writing this article. The first is the rapidly approaching centennial of the International Labour Organisation which gives us all the more reason to review its history. Being cognizant of its past can be useful for the ongoing debate about its future. The second is the valuable amount of research on the ILO in recent years. This has included the case of Germany which shows in an “extreme situation” the pathways, mechanisms and limits of the internationalization of social policy.[1]

Clearly, Germany played an ambivalent role in the foundation and the subsequent evolution of the ILO. We witness light and darkness in Germany’s relationship with the organization, ideological convergence and divergence, and periods of association and dissociation.

On the positive side, with its concept of “Sozialstaat”[2] – designed to provide social security, social justice, social integration, and individual freedom for all of its citizens – and owing to its professional competence  in the areas of occupational safety and health, labour inspection, labour law and collective bargaining and industrial  relations, Germany made a significant contribution to the creation of the ILO and its central ideas, its system of international standards and its technical cooperation programmes. Germany played a pioneering role in social insurance policy. Beginning in 1883, it was first in Europe to adopt compulsory state insurance relating to old age, illness, invalidity, and industrial accidents.[3] Furthermore, Germany assisted in promoting the substantive agenda of the ILO in areas such as vocational education and technical training, occupational rehabilitation and cooperatives.

In 1890, an “International Conference for the Regulation of Work in Industrial Plants and Mines” was held in Berlin. It adopted resolutions on the introduction of minimum working standards in Europe, including minimum age, weekly rest, and the employment of children, young people and women. It has been regarded by some as the birth of international labour law and a forerunner of the ILO.

Since then, German government officials, trade unionists and academics were among the initiators and supporters of the International Association for Labour Legislation (IVGA), which formed the first International Labour Office in Basel in 1901. It is regarded as a precursor to the ILO. In the same year, a national German section of this Association called the “Gesellschaft für Soziale Reform” was set up in Bonn. Later, together with 25 other national affiliations, the German group participated in the activities of the International Association for Social Reform (1924-1933), whose first president was the ILO Director Albert Thomas.[4]

Although industrialization, and along with it the rise of the status of the employee, started later in Germany than in the United Kingdom and Belgium, the country gradually became one of the leading industrial nations in the second half of the 19th century. It developed strong collective organizations of workers and employers. Next to the UK, it had the largest trade union movement in the decades before World War I. German unionists took up leading positions in the international trade union organisations. From 1903 up to WW one, Carl Legien chaired the International Trade Union Secretariat of European and North American unions and its successor organization, the International Trade Union Federation that was set up in 1913. The German trade union movement, and particularly its largest and most influential social democratic, reformist component, aroused the interest of Albert Thomas. As early as 1902, he established contact with the German labour movement when he was a student at the University of Berlin. In 1903, he wrote his doctoral thesis about the German version of socialism.

Structural affinity between the ILO and Germany is perhaps closest when it comes to tripartism as a model of governance. The involvement of representatives of interest groups of workers and employers in decision-making in social and economic policy has a long tradition in Germany. It has taken various forms and names, such as “social partnership”, “social market economy” (after WW II), and “concerted social action” (1967-77, relating to monetary, fiscal and incomes policy). Tripartite social dialogue at the federal, state and local level has been of vital significance in improving the country’s economic and employment performance. For example, during the recent financial crisis starting in 2008, when Germany’s GDP declined more than in most other EU countries, the loss of jobs and the rise of unemployment were marginal. Adjustment was accomplished largely through reducing working hours instead of layoffs. It helped to stabilize aggregate demand. As the costs of adjustment were shared fairly among workers, employers and the government, it facilitated a broad sense of confidence in the economy.[5]

Particularly in the years of the Weimar Republic of Germany (1918-1933), tripartism in the ILO was inspired by the national German practice of the equal participation of workers and employers (parity).[6] However, it is also evident, that the liberal model of tripartite rule which is congruent with ILO principles of freedom of association and independent interest groups has not been consistently applied in Germany. There were periods of authoritarian corporatism in which civil liberties and conflict resolution through negotiation and genuine social dialogue were suppressed and government ordinances put in their place. It happened most of all under Bismarck’s paternalism and the repressive Socialism Act of 1878, in the National Socialist (Nazi) era (1933-1945), and in the German Democratic Republic in east Germany (1949-1990).

In decisive phases of the development of the ILO in the years after World War I, and even more so after World War II, the German state stood largely outside the ILO, and the international community altogether. The nation’s capacity to contribute to institutionalizing international law was severely hampered by its role as aggressor in the two world wars and the chauvinist and racist posture of the Nazi regime that squarely contradicted the pluralistic spirit of the ILO. The formative years of the Organization in the 1920s were dominated by France and the United Kingdom. In addition to them, Belgium, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Japan, Poland and the United States were part of the Commission on International Labour Legislation of the Peace Conference in 1919 that negotiated the ILO’s first Constitution. As loser of World War I, and charged with the sole responsibility for this war in the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was excluded from the peace talks. It did not take part in the first International Labour Conference in Washington D.C in 1919 but joined the ILO only later that year, following the decision at the Second Sitting on 30 October to admit Germany and Austria as members.19 Granting it membership was demanded by the representatives of the employers and workers in the ILO and some governments, particularly Belgium. While the former were afraid that Germany with its large export sector might gain unfair advantages in international competition if it was not committed to observe the normative standards of the ILO, the latter requested and justified the integration by pointing to the strength of the German labour movement.[7]

Although Germany was not among founding nations of the ILO, it indirectly exerted political pressure on its inauguration. During and shortly after WW I, social unrest, strikes and revolutionary movements sprang up in Europe and even in North America, starting with the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, and followed by the establishment of temporary soviet republics in Hungary and Northern Italy. In Germany, political uprisings, called the November revolution started on November 4, 1918, when groups of workers in the North joined the navy to call for an overthrow of the government and a new political order in the country. The following day, revolts by workers and soldiers spread to Munich, Berlin, and other big cities, leading to the formation of (short lived) worker republics and the foundation of the communist party. In early 1919, the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote to the French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau: “The whole of Europe is filled with the spirit of revolution. There is a deep sense, not only of discontent, but anger and revolt among the workmen, against pre-war conditions. […] The whole existing order in its political, social and economic aspects [is] questioned by the masses of the population from one end of Europe to the other”.[8] Setting up the ILO in this crisis ridden situation may be seen as an attempt by a coalition of the reformist political left and conservative governments to thwart the revolution and stabilize the economic system by securing the loyalty of the labour force trough an international social reform programme.

Despite the marginal role of the German government in the ILO in the inter-war period, the country was not without influence in the Organization during that time, thanks to exchanges and collaboration drawn from institutional, personal and technical relationships. Most important among the links was the ILO Branch Office in Berlin set up in 1921, and closed down in 1934. It was headed by Alexander Schlicke (1921-25) and Wilhelm Donau (1925-34), both social democrats. Both promoted the cause of the ILO in Germany and cooperated closely with the Ministry of Labour for that purpose.[9]

Marius Viple, Albert Thomas ahnd Wilhelm Donau in Berlin

In the early 1920s, some German officials of the ILO, working in Geneva and/or at the Branch Office in Berlin, faced a severe conflict of loyalty. They were torn between their duties as international civil servants and the defence of national interests as German citizens. The conflict intensified between 1923 and 1925, when the officials voiced opposition in public to the hardships suffered by workers in the Ruhr and the Saar districts because of reparations imposed on Germany under the Peace Treaty of Versailles. They thought the ILO was wrong to acquiescide to this situation. According to Sandrine Kott[10], these events contributed to the inclusion of the rule in the Staff Regulations of the ILO which requires from the officials to show exclusive loyalty to the Organization, and not to seek or receive instructions from any national authority in regard to the execution of their duties.[11]

Hitler Germany terminated membership in the League of Nations and the ILO. The withdrawal was declared in November of 1933 and became official in 1935. Yet, the disruption of the links between the Third Reich and the ILO was not as abrupt and complete as one might expect in view of the intolerant and racist complexion of the Nazi regime. It progressed step-by-step along with the imposition of full dictatorship. Among the first casualties of the new regime was freedom of association. The German trade unions were disbanded in May 1933. Their premises were occupied and leading unionists sent to concentration camps. A mandatory organization, called the “German Labour Front” (DAF) replaced them with the sole task of implementing the will of the Nazi government. The employers’ organizations were also banned and merged into the DAF as a way of “overcoming class struggle”. At the International Labour Conference in June 1933, Nazi representatives led by Robert Ley, chief of the DAF, demanded the mandate of the unions. However, the ILC refused to issue credentials to the new “worker delegation”, which then left the Conference. To gain legitimacy and acceptance, the Nazi delegation had tried in vain to win over Wilhelm Leuschner, board member of the German General Trade Union Confederation (ADGB), a social democratic politician -and ADGB delegate to the ILC.

Wilhelm Leuschner at the 61st Session of the Governing Body in June 1933

Because of his refusal to collaborate, Leuschner was arrested immediately after his return from Geneva to Germany. Later, he became part of the German resistance movement. He was sentenced to death and executed in September 1944.[12]

From the point of view of ILC delegates and among some ILO staff members (mainly German), there were divergent attitudes towards the maintenance of relations with Nazi Germany. At least until 1935, the ILO under its Director Harold Butler was willing to make compromises with the new regime. The German government demanded and in fact achieved the dismissal of some German experts and ILO staff members seen as being “unreliable”. To some extent, the conciliatory position of the ILO was related to the social policy stance of the Nazis. It put emphasis on (a contrived version of) social peace, the fight against unemployment, paid vacation, the extension of maternity protection, and the provision of recreational opportunities for workers (“Kraft durch Freude”). Like other fascist regimes in Europe, the Nazis tried, not entirely without success, to legitimize internationally their “superior” welfare policy, export it to other countries, and instrumentalize the ILO for these purposes. It was not until 1941 that the International Labour Office finally condemned the social policy of the Nazis as “totalitarian”.[13] By then, it had become entirely clear that the policy had been put at the service of Germany’s imperial ambitions. In May of 1941, Robert Ley of the German Labour Front tried to get the Swiss authorities to occupy the ILO premises in Geneva.[14] By that point, the Office was already installed in Montreal where it had been relocated in 1940.

West Germany, i.e. the Federal Republic of Germany, re-entered the ILO in 1951. In the presence of Director-General David A. Morse, an ILO Branch Office was established in Bonn and the German Government declared acceptance of the 17 ILO Conventions ratified by Germany before it had left the ILO.[15] The German Democratic Republic in the East joined the ILO in 1973, the same year in which each of the two German states became members of the United Nations. Hence, they were not part of the international community when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed in 1948 and the two Covenants in 1966: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both containing provisions of importance for international labour standards.

Francis Blanchard with F.G. Seib at a meeting in Germany

After the World War II, the ILO was one of the first international organizations that helped to pave the way for Germany back into the international community. Two eminent French members of the ILO Governing Body were advocating and helping to achieve Germany’s return to the ILO. On the workers’ side, the trade unionist Léon Jouhaux was a driving force behind the reconciliation between the French and German labour forces and Germany’s re-entry into the ILO. Jouhaux held a leading post in the CGT, before he left to establish the Force Ouvrière and became its president in 1947. He was also vice-president of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1951. On the employers’ side, Pierre Waline, a leading member of the  employers organization in France and president of the International Employers’ Organization (IOE) from 1953 intervened in favour of improved relations between France and Germany. He was awarded the German Great Distinguished Services Cross (“Grosses Bundesverdienstkreuz”.[16]

In the second half of the 20th century, Germany’s role in the ILO became much more constructive. With few exceptions, the German government and the German organizations of employers and workers have been among the staunch supporters of the Organization’s core policies, notably on employment and decent work. They played an important role in shaping the policy of the European Union in relation to the ILO. The German federal government made sizeable financial and staff contributions to the technical cooperation activities of the organization. In 1992, it allocated 50 million Deutschmarks to launch the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), which later on became the largest technical cooperation programme of the Office. Special funding was provided by Germany for ILO projects under the World Employment Programme in Africa, economic and social restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and ILO country programmes for decent work. After the United States and Japan, Germany became the largest financial contributor of the organization.

In recent decades, Germany increasingly took part in the governance and leadership of the ILO. Since 1954, it has been a permanent member in the Governing Body. In 1976-77, Winfried Haase from the Federal Government was elected chairman of the GB, the first German in this important post. Gerd Muhr from the German Trade Union Federation was elected chairman of the GB in 1990 and the German government representative, Ambassador Dr Ulrich Seidenberger is chairman of the Body in the present period of 2016-17. The ILO Regional Office for Europe had several German directors. We have not yet seen a German at the helm of the International Labour Office. Presumably because of the heavy responsibility of the nation for the political devastations in the 20th century, the German government has not proposed a national candidate for the post of Director-General so far. Rightly so, I would say, also in view of the disproportionally large number of European citizens who have occupied this position.

To sum up, Germany had its share in the prehistory of the ILO and thereafter. It may be counted as one of the influential reference points for ILO policies and programmes, thanks to its contributions to the emergence and development of international labour legislation, labour inspection and social security policy, and furthermore, the comparatively large and well organized collective organizations of workers and employers and the accommodating relations between them. The concept of tripartism in the governance system of the ILO corresponds to, and has been inspired by, the German tradition of social partnership in labour market and social policy. Nevertheless, Germany was not a leading player in the ILO during the most innovative years of the Organisation, mainly because of the country’s aggresion and defeat in the two world wars and the racism and crimes of the Nazi regime that were incompatible with the universal and humanist orientation of the ILO. Germany was absent from the organization at times when the guiding principles and some of the most important constitutional elements of the organization, including the Declaration of Philadelphia, were adopted. It became a fully committed ILO member in the second half of the 20th century. It has been supportive of the Organization’s policies, generous in its contributions to the technical work of the Office, and largely respectful of inter-national labour standards. Nevertheless, Germany has yet to make considerable efforts to turn the country into a paradise of decent work for all.

[1] Kott, Sandrine : Dynamiques de l’internationalisation: L’Allemagne et l’Organisation internationale du travail (1919-1940), Critique Internationale, 2011/3, No. 52, p. 72

[2] Kott, Sandrine : Der Sozialstaat. In: Deutsche Erinnerungsorte II, Etienne Francois und Hagen Schulze Hrsg., Verlag C.H. Beck, 2009, pp.485-501.

[3] for details, see Kott, 2011/3,   op. cit., pp. 78-79; and the chapter on social protection in Rodgers, G. et al, The ILO and the quest for social justice, 1919-2009, ILO, Geneva, 2009, pp. 141-144

[4] Schewe, Dieter : Initiativen und Unterstützung für die Internationale Arbeitsorganisation durch die Gesellschaften für Soziale Reform/Sozialer Fortschritt 1890-1993, in: Weltfriede durch soziale Gerechtigkeit. 75 Jahre Internationale Arbeitsorganisation. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände, Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (Hrsg.), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 1994, p. 37ff

[5] International Institute for Labour Studies : Germany: A Job-Centred Approach, Studies on Growth with Equity, ILO, Geneva, 2011, pp. 2-3 and chapter 8.

[6] Guerin Denis : op.cit., p.31.

19 J.T. Shortwell, The Origins of the International Labour Organisation, 2 vol., New York 1934, I, pp. 260 ff.

[7] Admission de l’Allemagne et de l’Autriche dans l’Organisation permanente du Travail, Genève, BIT, 1920.

[8] quoted in Rees, J. : “In defence of October” in: International Socialism, 52, Autumn 1991, London, p. 9.

[9] Kott, 2011, op. cit., pp. 74-75.

[10] Ibid., p.77.

[11] see Articles 7 of the ILO Staff Regulations, January 1923.

[12] for a detailed account see Tosstorff, Reiner : Workers’ resistance  against Nazi Germany at the International Labour Conference 1933, ILO, Geneva 2013.

[13] Kott, 2011, op. cit. p. 82; Waelbroeck, P. and Bessling I. : Some Aspects of Social Policy under the National Socialist Regime, In: International Labour Review, February 1941, pp. 127-152.

[14] for details about the relationship between the ILO and the Nazis, see Kott, 2011, op. cit., pp. 72 and 80-83.

[15] for details see Seib, Friedrich Georg : The ILO Office in Germany, In: MESSAGE no. 34, 2003.

[16] see  Erdmann, E.- G. :  Deutschlands Mitgliedschaft in der IAO – Ein Reflex seiner Geschichte 1919 – 1933 –

1951, In: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und

Sozialordnung, et. al., op. cit., pp. 28 and 34.


Ground breaking policies: labour intensive road construction A case study 50 years into the ILO century / Jens Müller

At the outset of the World Employment Programme (WEP) in 1969/70, specific policy initiatives on using labour intensive techniques in infrastructure projects were still in an embryonic stage. The extensive WEP research programme, the country missions and the World Employment Conference still lay ahead. At this time, in 1970, the author shared his experience of how labour intensive techniques came to the rescue of a road construction project that had initially been planned to rely on highly capital intensive material and techniques.* The present text summarizes an article describing the case study in the International Labour Review.

Fifty years later, as the ILO marks its centennial, these lessons remain relevant to the ILO’s policies on employment intensive investments.

The initial project

The Public Works Department of a subtropical African country was tasked to transform a 480 kilometre dirt road into all-weather gravel road. The road was to be complemented with other public works (drainage works, 20 bridge constructions and realignments to eliminate dangerous bends) but the case study focused solely on the provision of a compact gravel road.

A young, inexperienced civil engineer, the author, was put in charge of the project through bilateral funding. Thirteen national technical and inspection staff were planned to assist, but only 6 and a half were actually assigned.

The equipment planned was highly mechanized and sophisticated and had to be imported. It consisted of four construction units composed of over 20 different vehicles/earth moving machines, some of which had hydraulic systems.  It took nine months for most of the equipment to arrive. Some was lost en route due to rough terrain over the 1,000 kilometres from the nearest harbor.

In addition to the above shortcomings, other constraints soon surfaced.  Operators and drivers had to be trained, especially for the hydraulic equipment but there were no trainers. Maintenance and repair were constant issues with long delays for spare parts and qualified personnel. The supply of fuel and lubricants, especially for the hydraulic systems, was uncertain and also frequently delayed. All of this resulted in under-utilization of equipment and long periods of idle time.

Had the project operated according to plans, under ideal circumstances, the direct operational cost of 1 kilometre of road using capital-intensive methods, was calculated at US$ 500. And with a reasonable rate of utilization of the machinery, 1 kilometre could be graveled in approximately 3 days. However, taking into account the idle time of the machines, the theoretical time was reduced from 3 days to 2.3 days.

The actual implementation of the project

With equipment missing or under repair soon after the start of the operations, the project team began substituting labour for the equipment.  The supply of labour was abundant as nearby residents, up to one hundred at a time plus on-lookers, would come to the site looking for work.  The project team discovered that most of the operations (opening a quarry, clearing the road, excavating and loading, spreading and shaping and compacting) could be accomplished by labour-intensive methods.  The three operations that did need capital intensive methods were hauling and dumping (trucks), watering (waterbowsers) and finishing with final compaction. For some operations, such as excavating and loading as many as 150 labourers were employed.  Although the quality of the road would be lower, a satisfactory result could be obtained by using heavy equipment (motorgraders, waterbowsers and rollers) to roll over the road one month after completion.

The photos shown here demonstrate how labour was employed to clear the road and spread gravel.  The gravel was hauled from the gravel pits by trucks that had been loaded by hand.

Using a similar analysis as for the “ideal” capital-intensive methods, with the same assumptions, the project manager calculated that the direct operational cost of l kilometer of completed road was $550 using the “hypothetical most labour intensive” methods. It was possible to employ enough people on the different operations to obtain the same speed in gravelling 1 kilometre, ie 2.3 days.

Comparing the two methods: An “optimum balance”

The analysis revealed some striking numbers when the two methods were compared according to input factors and employment created and capital costs:

Input factors

Per cent costs per km of road

Capital intensive method Labour intensive method
Equipment/fuel etc    88 per cent    44 per cent
Labour    12 per cent    56 per cent
Total work days created per km of road     34    428
Capital required tp create 1 work/day per km (US$)     11.25    0.49

It was clear that some operations could adequately be accomplished through labour-intensive methods, while others absolutely required capital-intensive methods. Moreover, comparing the operational costs for certain operations (spreading, watering and compacting) between the two methods, the capital-intensive method was far more economical. The study suggested developing an “optimum balance” method, mixing the two technologies. One advantage of this new method would be to create employment, on the one hand, and eliminate the need for some costly heavy equipment such as a bulldozer and excavator, on the other hand.  The author cautioned, however, that using this method would require careful planning, particularly network planning (critical path) in order to maximize the economic outputs and employment creation.

Labour-intensive methods: new management challenges

Several unforeseen problems were encountered when a large labour force was employed.  As this method was totally unexpected, overall management and supervision was seriously unprepared for ensuring optimal work organization and productivity.  Fortunately, responsibility and authority were delegated to gang leaders and headmen who became the keys to success. A puzzling question related to work organization was the absence of any standard on the amount of output that could be expected from one day of work.  Even with the introduction of work study techniques it became difficult to motivate the workers to produce more, short of increasing pay or introducing bonuses. Yet this was not possible because of government wage regulations based on hours of work, not on output.

On the material side, housing and camp facilities presented few problems as most of the unskilled workers lived nearby in their own homes.  The semi-skilled and skilled workers (about 30 in number) were housed in camps.  The author sensed, however, that living accommodations would be a problem if camps had to be provided for a workforce of over 200 labourers. Food was readily transported from nearby towns. And although some camp dispensaries were established, medical supplies were short and remained a concern.

Finishing the project

Unsurprisingly, given the difficulties encountered, the project was critically behind schedule.  After 10 months of operations, the project had only completed 50% of the work initially planned for 12 months.  A foreign consultant engineering company was requested to help complete the work. The method was highly capital intensive accompanied by foreign staff: more and bigger machinery was used; except for truck drivers, all operators, supervisors and road foremen were European; and spare parts, fuel supplies were independently available. The road was made quickly and the quality was slightly better than the labour-intensive road.

As efficient as this completion was, the author noted several serious shortcomings: no employment was created – even food was imported-; there was virtually no on-the-job training for local peoples; all machinery was removed after the work; the local people did not feel that the road belonged to them, giving them little motivation to maintain and repair it; and the costs, although not known, were presumably financed with scarce foreign exchange.

{It is worth highlighting the significance of local participation and “ownership” in projects before turning to the conclusions.  The author returned to the project site 25 years after his assignment.  He discovered that the labour-intensive parts of the gravel road were better maintained than the other sections.  The local villagers confirmed that they considered this “their” road.}

Conclusions and lessons learned

Rather than preferring one of the two methods, the author concluded that every project must be approached thoroughly to achieve an “optimum balance”. This would make it possible to determine the technology appropriate for different socio-economic conditions.

The issues recommended for review/guidance for the future were extensive.  They focused on the availability of equipment and access to maintenance and repair; planned future use of the equipment; site location; availability of human resources according to skill levels; policies and plans for employment creation; possibilities for on-the-job training; material/logistic facilities; wage regulations; follow-up plans; and advantages and disadvantages of participation by local peoples.

Key lessons learned were highlighted for the future:

  • Project design and planning from the outset were critical to success. Network diagramming and critical path methods were essential.
  • Socio-economic conditions and human resource availability were as important as the technical and administrative considerations.
  • Project management needed to adapt in order to cope with large numbers of workers as opposed to a few skilled machine operators.  A broad project management training programme should include not only general and production management, but financial and human resource management as well as knowledge of employment creation potential of different technologies.
  • Finally and perhaps most importantly the involvement of local people on a project creates a sense of “ownership” and is a motivating factor for maintenance and repair in the medium and long term, even without a formal programme.

 Note:

Jens Müller in The International Labour Review (Vol. 101, no. 4, April 1970), “Labour-intensive methods in low-cost road construction: a case study”. The author was an official of the Management Development Branch, Human Resources Department at the time.


Les dames de ce groupe -pour la fête de retraite de M. Erbüke - représentaient au moins 16 nationalités qui, comme vous pouvez le constater, ont vraiment apprécié la compagnie de l'entourage autour d'eux. Pouvez-vous les no1nmer tous- indice: photo datée de mars 1993.

Faces from the Past / Liz Sommaro

Life in the Financial Services Department or at that time Budget and Control Branch, PAIE (Claims and Central Payroll Unit) and the Treasury and Investments Branch – there have been so many changes in the names of the Branches and Units that one can’t keep track of them all!

Who can possibly say Finance and Accounting is boring and tedious work?  Those were the days where we enjoyed our daily contacts and our differences, and made our working life easier because we helped each other out. We were very loyal to our Organisation and valued our lives as international civil servants.

Who can forget the incident when, after a very heavy rainfall, water was dripping from the ceiling near the R.3 delegates bar, a colleague put a huge baking tray (from the ILO kitchen) filled it half way with water and put plastic fish and a lobster in with a caption “Donations to the Fund for the Renovation of the Roof ”. We were working at the time on an umpteenth version of a PFAC paper concerning the renovation work to be done and we still don’t know to this day who took the money or the lobster!

But what does make daily life and contacts easier to handle between officials of so many different nationalities with their own languages and cultures? Well there are many photographs of the gatherings for lunches, promotions and farewell parties, enjoyed by finance “workers”.

The Canadian brunches (the Treasury Branch initiated these gatherings), where all the invitees clerks and bosses alike  brought a dish or regional drinks they prepared, were very successful  as we had so many diverse cultures in the Branch. Everyone lent a hand, and as you can see from one photograph Barbara Farrish-Walker one of the bosses helped out with the washing up whilst others cleared up the locale which we had borrowed.

The atmosphere was always joyful; by getting to know each other better in a harmonious atmosphere it made for good working relationships in our daily life. The farewell parties included the invitees the retired person wished to have present, but always included the bosses of course not just for the speeches and presents, but out of the mutual respect earned on both sides. It was also a means of thanking colleagues in other branches and departments for their support and assistance over the years because without them the work could not be completed and finalized – a true Team Work to get a job done.

Most of us still keep in touch even through retirement and talk about the “good old days” and are very proud that the ILO has made it to be 100 years old and that we contributed, albeit perhaps in a small way, to its continued existence. For those in the pictures which appears on page 94 who didn’t make it to see this anniversary, or will not be able to come to Geneva for the celebrations next year, you are and will be forever in my/our heart(s).


Bureau Suva, mars 1989 Devant de gauche à droite : Dirk Jena, Violet Whippy, Mere Sakitoro, Raagini Prasad, Alette van Leur, Laisa Levula, Ilispaci Jiuta, Meli Tunisau ; derrière de gauche à droite : Moira McDonald, Nisha Azimullaj, Arthurleen Lilo, Nelien Haspels, Christine Cornewell, Merry Johnson, Harry Hatton

ILO field offices: coping with political change, civil strife and coups d’état The sub-regional office for the South Pacific in 1987 / Sally Christine Cornwell, Mary Johnson

During the ILO’s 100 year history many ILO field offices have witnessed sudden changes of governments – many by force, others by unexpected swings in electoral majorities. Representing the ILO in such situations has posed specific dilemmas for the ILO staff as they have striven to maintain a functional office worthy of the ILO’s highest principles.

This short account highlights the main issues the ILO Office in Suva faced from late 1986 to late 1987. This period included a surprising election victory by an opposition labour political party, followed by a military coup d’etat, a period of conciliation and finally a more definitive and harsher coup d’etat.

Suva: a hub for programmes in the South Pacific

In 1986/87 the ILO had three Member states (Fiji, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea) and a very large and diversified technical cooperation programme, spread across the South Pacific in more than 12 other smaller island states. The geographical expanse was daunting.  Programmes ranged from rural development, vocational training in basic trades, women’s rights and incomes, hotel and tourism management, occupational safety and health in forestry, population and development, workers’ education, maritime training and labour intensive employment techniques to shorter consultancies on enterprise development, employment policies, social security policies and advice on international labour standards.

Support from the ILO Office in Suva to these programmes depended heavily on reliable and regular means of communication and travel over the vast distances between Fiji and the island states, covering approximately one-third of the “watery” globe. The challenges were somewhat unique: it was a time before fax machines became widely available; before the internet and before full access to direct dial phone systems; and the number of airlines was limited, not to mention the frequency of flights. The means that were available (phones through a central Suva exchange, telex messages and wire transfers of funds and scheduled flights) were critical for liaising with the tripartite partners and ILO expert staff outside of Fiji.

Fiji: A balancing act

Each of the South Pacific island states has its own history, cultural identity and political and economic systems. However, because the ILO Office for the South Pacific was (and is) based in Fiji, ILO staff was particularly attentive to the history, ethnic diversity and special measures of governance in the country. The population is composed of a mix of indigenous Fijian peoples, other Pacific Islanders, Indian descendants of indentured workers to harvest crops and Chinese and European descendants of early settlers. Upon obtaining independence from the UK, laws regulating land ownership as well as the Constitution were carefully crafted to protect the rights of the different groups and to ensure harmony.  It was more or less a successful balancing act, until 1987.

Political winds unsettle the ILO Office

For many years prior to the 1986/87 period, the Alliance Party, with indigenous Fijian leadership, held the reins of government. Relations with the ILO were excellent, dating back to the ILO Office opening in 1975.

In the early 1980s two developments cast a cloud over the relations between the ILO Office and the Fiji Government.  One concerned the use of community labour in Fijian village life, which was viewed by the opposition party of the day as not respecting the ILO’s Forced Labour Conventions. This, in turn, led the Fijian nationalist members of the Alliance Party (the Taukei) to consider denouncing the Convention.  The second development was the grave concern of the government that the ILO’s workers’ education project was being used to strengthen the Labour Party. In early 1986 the ILO Office in Suva was requested to close the project unless it could exercise tighter control over the trade union activities. The strain in relations was grave enough that an ILO Deputy Director General from Headquarters undertook a mission to Suva and had extensive discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, as well as with the employers’ and workers’ organisations. This calmed the atmosphere for a time.

In late 1986, surprisingly the ethnically mixed Fiji Labour Party, a coaltion of the Labour Party and the Indo-Fijian National Federation Party, won a majority in Parliamentary elections.

The Governor-General swore in the new government a few months later in the first quarter of 1987. The new Prime Minister was an ethnic Fijian and founder of the Fiji Labour Party. The ceremonial speeches specifically highlighted the important role that the ILO had played in Fiji, citing international labour standards and development cooperation. The Director of the ILO Office was present and received a friendly jab in the ribs from the UNDP Resident Coordinator with a comment that the ILO was all set.

Within a week of the new government assuming office, the new Minister of Finance, a trade union leader of Indian descent and key figure in the Labour Party, convoked the ILO to his office.  He requested the ILO act very quickly to obtain funding to launch projects in employment creation and enterprise development.  Time was of the essence.

Up until 12 May 1987, the ILO Office in Suva was riding high.

The coups d’etat

On 13 May Lt. Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka led a coup d’etat. He followed a text book pattern, and it was said that his dissertation on graduating from the Australian military college Duntroon had been on models of coups d’etat. The Labour Party parliamentarians were rounded up and locked up as were other trade unionists. Radio and telecommunications were taken over by the military. Airlines and shipping were disrupted, key suppliers and industries were put on hold.

Roadblocks and curfews kept the population subdued.

Tension remained high for the next several months while the different national political entities and the Governor General sought to find some acceptable compromises and solutions. Restrictions remained, but the curfew was eased and travel was possible. However the conciliation efforts failed.  In September 1987, a second military coup took place, this time with much harsher measures, including strict curfews, imprisonment of trade unionists and other activists and journalists. The UN Resident Coordinator set up a security committee and declared an emergency situation, limiting UN related travel to Fiji.

The impact on the economy was devastating over the next several months. Tourism declined. In the absence of trust and the rule of law, businesses closed and qualified people starting leaving the country.  In short order the Constitution was revoked and Fiji left the Commonwealth.  Some embassies withdrew their ambassadors and High Commissioners were replaced.

Dilemmas for the ILO Office

From the first coup d‘état through the months following the second one, the ILO Office in Suva faced a number of dilemmas.  The immediate concern was security:  for international technical experts, spread around the Pacific; for local technical cooperation staff; and for local office staff who were from different ethnic groups. Communications with the Regional Office and Headquarters, within Fiji and with the other island states constituted a second dilemma as the normal means had been cut off or were carefully monitored. Another concern was how to obtain information about the political situation and the safety of ILO social partners and how to defend ILO fundamental principles in this hostile environment. Finally within the Office every effort was made to avoid political discussions, but it quickly became apparent that staff of Indian origin felt it was better to migrate. In the months that followed there was considerable staff turnover and it was difficult to maintain an ethnic balance in recruitment.

We found a few solutions for some of these dilemmas. Immediately after the first coup, the ILO Office benefited from the satellite communications facilities of foreign embassies to send messages to HQ and the Regional Office. It was a delicate decision as we strived to maintain our international status and tripartite character.

As it was not fair to ask local staff to carry out tasks that might put them in jeopardy, driving to the airport through the roadblocks became a job for an associate expert brandishing her laissez passer with the ILO flag flying on our cumbersome Toyota Crown. Telephoning, typing and transmitting certain telexes, using languages other than English devolved to senior management. The important contacts we had developed with the social partners were difficult to maintain during office hours and equally difficult during the evening curfew, but by walking across gardens and through hedges after sunset to people’s homes, we stayed in touch and were given information on their well- being. During peaceful periods even golf course encounters provided useful information on political developments.

The UN Security Committee was responsible for advising and guiding UN staff should an emergency arise.  There was constant tension in this committee around the definition of what action could be taken that would not aggravate the military government. The ILO decided for its own part that when we heard through our good contacts that there could be some civil unrest in the city, we would send our office staff home in the big white van left to our use by the recently completed regional trade union project.  We would ring up UNDP to inform them we were closing the office and offer any of their staff a ride home in our van.  We became very glad to have that van!

This was a very sad time for all of us who loved the islands and their peoples. With the two coups d’etats something very serious had been broken.  Many expectations were crushed and life in the Pacific was changed dramatically and for a long time.* At a certain point after the coup, the Director and deputy Director of the ILO Office in Suva were invited to meet the by now Brigadier General running the country, Sitiveni Rabuka.  He asked us to explain the ILO’s principles and operations. We had to avoid some very rocky ground; trade unionists and feminists were being held in custody, the ICFTU was sending a fact finding mission into Fiji, the implications of tripartism and the application of the ILO standards on forced labour continued to be a source of debate and confusion.  We played it straight and left shaking hands.

If one can find a silver lining in this cloud of upheaval it would be that the challenges and crises brought us together as ILO colleagues.  We formed strong friendships that have lasted to this day.  A reunion in Fiji among some of us in the office at that time, including the international and national staff, is being planned.

June, 2018       Sally Christine Cornwell, Mary Johnson

____________

Political uncertainty reigned for a number of ears after the two coups d’état in 1987. Enough calm was restored to enable the ILO to continue its work during that time. The attached photograph of the ILO Suva staff was taken in 1989.  History repeated itself, however, several years later when another coup d’état took place in 2000, again replacing an elected government headed by a multiracial coalition.  The 2000-2006 period was highly unstable leading to yet another coup in 2006.  A constitutional crisis occurred in 2009 resulting in another abrupt take-over of power.  After being suspended for several years, parliamentary elections were held in 2014. The current Prime Minister, who had been instrumental in the 2006 coup d’état, was elected at that time.


Labour joke / J.C. Alexim

In the world of work there is a limitless wealth of human relations. An episode that I’d like to recount here shows how the mood at a given time helps to make the workplace an evocative and creative environment. I participated in a meeting of ILO directors in the South American region, held in Lima, Peru. Elimane Kane, Deputy Director at headquarters, headed the meeting. Among other directors, Carlos Alberto de Brito, Director of the Brasilia Office, was present.

It was the month of January, near to the Carnival in Rio, one of the most famous festivals in the country. In casual conversation I commented that I would certainly spend time at the Rio Carnival.

When I arrived in Montevideo, my secretary reluctantly told me that I was officially unable to go to the Carnival in Rio. We discussed it first, and eventually she showed me a telegram (it was not yet the time of digital communication) that Elimane Kane had sent. Elimane argued that the Carnival was a party perpetrating abuses of all sorts against human beings, and was incompatible with the character of an international official. He recommended that I didn’t attend.

Maria Elisa, a dedicated and perceptive desk officer, was very upset about the situation, because she knew that this went clearly against my wishes. She was relieved when I laughed, with good-natured ribbing of Mr. Elimane Kane.                                            

J.C. Alexim