Recently, issues relating to international labor standards have climbed to the top of the political agenda. The demonstrations associated with the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in late 1999 were the most recent manifestation of this concern. Other examples include the 1997 refusal of the United States Senate to provide President Clinton with "fast track" authority to negotiate trade agreements, the public concern over low labor standards associated with the manufacture of apparel sold in the United States, and the debate over U.S.-China trade relations.

The debate derives from two factors. The first is that there is no mechanism for creating true enforceable, international labor standards, while, at the same time, there exist systems that focus on international labor standards. The second is an unproven belief that labor standards matter in international trade.

International Labor Standards Systems
There are several international systems that address international labor standards. The largest such system is the International Labor Organization (ILO), created in 1919 as an arm of the League of Nations and continued under the United Nations in 1945. The ILO is a tripartite organization governed by labor representatives, employer representatives, and government representatives from each member country. The ILO proposes labor standards for its members in the form of conventions, which, if ratified by a member country, become comparable to a treaty for that country. Currently, the ILO has adopted 182 conventions, with ratification rates varying. The United States has ratified 12 conventions, while the United Kingdom has ratified 81. In June, 1998, the ILO adopted a Declaration of Fundamental Principles on freedom of association, nondiscrimination, and child labor, which the ILO says should apply to all countries. But neither of these mechanisms constitutes true international labor standards because both permit variation by country depending on circumstances.

The European Community issues directives that come as close as possible to international labor standards. Once the directives are issued, they are binding on all members of the Community. Labor issues, however, have long been among the most controversial in the Community, and directives have been issued only on safety and health, nondiscrimination, restrictions on the movement of labor, and worker consultations. Moreover, the effect of such directives is limited because they apply only to members of the Community.

In 1993, Canada, Mexico, and the United States ratified the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), the labor-side agreement of NAFTA. The NAALC does not create international labor standards. Rather, the NAALC only requires each country to enforce its own labor standards.

The United States, through various pieces of legislation such as the Trade Act of 1974, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, among others, has the right to deny trading partners most favored nation status if the trading partner fails to meet certain labor eligibility requirements, such as permitting workers freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively, a minimum age for employment of children, and the prohibition of forced labor. To date, seven countries have been fully suspended from trading privileges under this legislation.

A fifth mechanism is voluntary standards. The Apparel Industry Partnership, established by industry, human rights, and labor representatives, attempted to establish a code of conduct and a monitoring system for the manufacture of apparel. In November 1998, however, the labor representatives withdrew because an agreement approved by the industry and human rights representatives failed to provide for a living wage, respect for worker rights, and frequent monitoring.

In addition, an organization called the Council on Economic Priorities Accrediting Agency has attempted to establish a certification called SA (Social Accountability) 8000. Firms who receive this certification agree to meet minimum requirements on labor standards. The success of such a certification depends on proper labeling and a willingness of consumers to buy only products with the label, even if the cost is higher than comparable products without the label.

The Belief That Labor Standards Matter
The second main factor underlying the debate over international labor standards is the unproven belief that labor standards matter in international trade, that "low labor standards" give some countries an "unfair" advantage in trade. This belief has manifested itself in a debate in the World Trade Organization with the developed countries, supported by the ILO on one side, and the less developed countries on the other side. The developed countries believe that if a country wishes to avail itself of the benefits of the established world trading system, it has an obligation to adopt minimum labor standards for its workers. The fruits of a country's success in global trade should be distributed throughout the economy, and a requirement of minimum labor standards makes it more likely than otherwise that the benefits of trade will be widespread. Therefore, there should be a linkage between trade privileges and labor standards, a so called "social clause" in trade agreements.

On the other hand, the developing countries have argued that it is inappropriate for one country or an international organization to dictate to another country a matter of domestic policy. If the labor standards in developing countries are low, even such "low standards" employment is superior to the alternative-subsistence either through agriculture or an underground activity. Finally, it is pointed out that workers in less developed countries are often less productive than workers in developed countries; therefore, it is not clear that low labor standards mean an "unfair advantage" for these companies. Somewhat less benignly, the developing countries view an attempt to link international labor standards and trade agreements as an attempt by the developing countries to "unfairly" protect domestic industries and workers.

The WTO continues to side with the developing countries, taking the position that there should be no linkage between trade and labor standards. The WTO position is that labor standards is not a trade issue. As the WTO is concerned with trade, and the ILO with labor standards, labor standards matters should properly be addressed through the ILO.

Conclusion
The debate over international labor standards is likely to intensify. Global trade is expanding, and matters that are thought to affect trade will come under continuing scrutiny. It may be that the what was once thought to be "domestic" policy is now part of "foreign" policy. Global trade has changed the way that firms compete. It may also change the way policy makers govern.

-Richard N. Block, Professor, MSU School of Labor and Industrial Relations

Funded by the National Institutes of Health, IIH has been implementing a research and training program for environmental and occupational health in the Balkans for the last four years. The program coincided with a new initiative of WHO to help the Balkan countries devise and implement National Environmental Health Action Plans (NEHAPs).

Since 1996, IIH and WHO have held joint training and planning workshops in Bulgaria for environmental and occupational health scientists from various countries of the region. These workshops facilitated the development of NEHAPs in many countries, including Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania, and Turkey.

To implement the program, IIH also collaborated with the Department of Environmental and Industrial Health at the University of Michigan-a WHO-collaborating center for some years. As a result of the successful tripartite synergism, WHO extended its recognition to MSU with the formal designation "The University of Michigan-Michigan State University WHO-Collaborating Center for Environmental Safety and Occupational Health."