Arguments

Counterarguments

1) International Conventions are basically useless. Not worth the paper they’re written on.

International Conventions are the minimum level of standards upon which all countries have agreed, whether they are developing countries or industrialised ones. ILO standards lay down that, after a Convention has been ratified, it is to be transposed into national law. So an ILO Convention forms a basis for individual legal protection and legal security. Independent experts monitor national implementation of the ratified Conventions. Trade unions and employers’ associations can have direct recourse to the monitoring bodies anchored in international law.

2) For many people, home work does at least provide an income to survive on. Standards would make home work more expensive, thus destroying jobs and causing even more misery.

The main labour rights are human rights. Every human being has a right to decent work under conditions which ensure that he or she can have a decent life. Labour standards do not lead to poverty. On the contrary, they help to combat poverty. To be against standards is to be for work at any price, including, for example, child labour, forced labour and wages below the living minimum. Often, formal and informal workers are played off against each other. So it is surprising that employers are so massively opposed to limited regulation of home work. The ILO’s campaigns for core labour standards and against the worst forms of child labour show how standards rooted in international law can be meaningfully linked to development policy.

3) Even more international obligations will just mean more bureaucracy. The money could be better spent.

It is true that the ratification of ILO Conventions in particular brings with it a lavish reporting system. But the aim of this is to ensure that, after ratifying a Convention, governments really do breathe life into it. They have to report on how far they have got with it and on the steps that they have taken to implement the content of the Convention. To that extent, the bureaucratic expense does serve to prod governments into action.