We the undersigned, workers, militants, trade union and political representatives, meeting in Geneva on 11 June  at the invitation of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples, at the very moment when the 88th Session of the ILO is being held, we launch this appeal:

Throughout the world, workers and youth are facing policies of deregulation which threaten in every area the collective rights and guaranties won by the workers and their organisations during decades of struggle.

Throughout the world, workers and youth are facing policies aimed at replacing collective rights with individual rights, in other words, aimed at destroying collective rights altogether.

In the framework of the 88th Session of the ILO being held at this moment in Geneva, we note that the same offensive is being carried out. What is being presented as a reform of the ILO actually involves , purely and simply, the integration of the ILO into the WTO, as a cog in the WTO machine.

Even the mechanism for adopting and implementing ILO Conventions is under threat.

We have learned of the “ resolution concerning international labour standards ” , put forward to this ILO session by the employers’ delegates. Under the pretext of “ facing the new realities ” and “ adapting the international labour standards ... to the rapid evolution of the international social and technological environment ”, this resolution makes the following proposal:

“ Considering that the conventions are the instruments  to which one must refer when tripartite mandates deem internationally binding regulations to be necessary, and that, in this case, the conventions must  announce the essential general principles and stupulate the formulation and choice of means of implementation relevant to national legal forms and practice”.

What does this mean? Until now, as soon as  ILO conventions are ratified they are applied in the same terms in which they have been formulated, without any possible derogation or exception, and, let us repeat, in every country which ratifies them. This is what gives them their unique character as international labour standards, and are by definition legally binding. To transform these conventions into “ statements of essential general principles ”, to submit the formulation and choice of means of implementation to “ relevant national legal forms and practice” is to simply empty the conventions of their real meaning.  Moreover, collective rights are currently being threatened at the national level, resulting in the repeal of the labour codes, collective agreements and statutes which guarantee the collective rights of the working class in each country, and national agreements are being replaced with workplace agreements, collective conventions with “ individual conventions ”.

The working class was historically formed as a class through building workers’ intitutions - organisations, agreements, statutes, social protection systems, etc  - which unite each worker into a whole, forming  a class welded together by its collective rights and guaranties. As soon as the individualisation of rights begins to replace collective rights, the destruction of those same rights is put on the agenda.

The proposals contained in the resolution put forward by the employers’ delegates, within the framework of the 88th Session of the ILO, have no other aim. The employers propose substituting “ recommendations - which are more flexible ” for the ILO conventions, and further propose that “ more room should be made ” for  recommendations,  and consideration should be given to “ their possible adoption as stand-alone instruments ”. Under the ILO’s current system, only the conventions are legally binding. Recommendations, as the name suggests, are only designed to recommend the conditions for implementing  the conventions. On the one hand, to transform the conventions into statements of essential general principles, and on the other hand, to transform recommendations into  “ stand-alone instruments ”, is to remove at a stroke the legal framework for legally binding standards in relation to the role of employers and governments  under  labour law. What can non-binding standards represent? Guidelines? In effect this would mean the disappearance of standards.

The employers are being quite open when they write: “ other instruments such as conclusions, declarations, bodies of practical directives, which are not international labour standards, are also a legitimate means of realising the objectives of the ILO. ”

What does this mean? The experience of the class struggle tells the workers in every country  that the only means of guaranteeing objectives is not “ statements of principles ”, “ declarations of intent ”, or conclusions, but through collective legal instruments which are binding.

When the employers demand “ means of promoting the constitutional objectives of the ILO other than by formal leagal instruments ”, we are not fooled: they want to impose indvidualisation of rights. And by so doing, they are simply expressing at the international level the so-called policies of “ flexibility ”, “ modernisation ”, “ social reform ” and other “ responses to the new economics ”, in the name of which the very existence of the working class throughout the world - even its physical existence - is being threatened in every country.

In a report recently published by the World Health Organisation, we read of 32 countries  where life expectancy is already less than 40 years, and as low as under 30 years in some of those (25.9 years in Sierra Leone). In subsahara Africa, life expectancy has dropped from 51 to 46.3 years in the last ten years. In Russia, male life expectancy today is 56 years! Who can deny the link between the degrading and destruction of the living conditions of the vast majority of humanity and the policies of so-called structural adjustment, imposed by the IMF and the World Trade Organisation? Who can deny that the attacks on collective rights, the spread of individualisation, resulting in the dismantling of the collective measures protecting working people, can only further result in endless degradation and destruction.
 

And what justifies this? It’s in the name of the so-called new  economy which is nothing else but the right – quite  old, actually – that the exploiters and speculators claim to submit the workers and youth throughout the world to superexploitation  without any limits.

This is impossible to accept. In particular, the undersigned, workers and activists  from all backgrounds coming from countries around the world, we hereby assert: it is impossible for workers organisations to accept such a threat to collective rights.  We cannot allow these so-called “ roundtable social dialogues, consultations…” to take place, for their only goal is to coopt workers’ organisations  into the process of dismantling collective rights.

We hereby assert: this is cannot  take place for it would mean that labour organisations would be direct participants in the dismantling of the collective legal framework of the working class, and in this sense helping to undermine their own existence. Historically, labour  organisations  were formed within the very  movement in which workers gained their collective guarantees. If individualisation were to replace collective agreements, this would mean threatening the very existence of labour organisations as such.

Collective social guarantees, independent labour organisations:  what’s at stake is democracy itself, to the extent that the right of workers to freely organise collectively is an integral component  of democracy.

It is time to act. We have been informed that during this 88th International Labour Conference, the new mechanisms  demanded by employers have, even before their formal adoption, already been integrated into the draft revision of ILO Convention 103 protecting maternity rights.

There is therefore an urgent need to organise  the struggle against deregulation at the international level, which means preserving collective rights against  individualisation.

In continuation of the Open World Workers Conference for Independence of Trade Unions and in Defense of Democratic Liberties held in San Francisco in February 2000, we propose to organise an international conference against deregulation to be prepared in each and every country  by fact-finding inquiries , analysing  the forms and mechanisms of deregulation being implemented, both in a general sense and in specific forms depending on each professional sector.

We propose that on the basis of such inquiries and in preparation of this conference, the link be made between the defense of ILO conventions and the preservation of work codes, labour legislation and collective guarantees in every country. This material will be used to put together a black book on deregulation.

We hereby address ourselves to you, government representatives and labour delegates
On Monday, June 12th, the Commission is to vote upon Convention 103’s revision.
On Tuesday 13th, a new vote of the plenary assembly will be held.
On Thursday 15th, each of you, government representatives and labour delegates will be individually called upon to give you own position in a roll call vote.
You must maintain Convention 103 as is!
You cannot vote its revision!

 
The revision would allow pregnant workers to be laid off

•  Article 6 of the present convention is firm: “When a women is absent from work in virtue of dispositions of article 3 (which defines maternity leave) of the present convention, it is illegal for her employer to give her leave from employment during this period”.  This says in no uncertain terms that redundancy, i.e. layoffs of women during maternity leave is formally prohib-ited.
• However, the new formulation included in the draft revision (article 7) is another story all together:

 We are told that there has been an extension of the ban on redundancy because the period now includes mater-nity leave and the entire pregnancy. So be it. But let’s be clear. The present convention clearly states that during maternity leave in no case, under any circumstances can employers lay off women workers. No woman on maternity leave can lose her job. The revised version would create the possibility for a women to be laid off during the period of maternity leave (because maternity leave takes place during pregnancy!) for reasons not linked to pregnancy. But how long will it take for an employer to find a motive for layoff? Once the door is open for lay-offs, there is no longer any absolute ban. Who would dare claim that this is a factor of progress?

 That the responsibility of proof is placed upon the em-ployer in no way counteracts the fact that the absolute prohibition has been removed.

 There is only one possible, clear position to take, that we defend what we have gained: this means maintaining the absolute ban on layoffs during maternity leave. Any improvement can only mean one thing: extending to the entire pregnancy and including childbirth the absolute prohibition of any layoffs for any reason.

 We hereby address each and every one of you. Can any-one believe for an instant that we, women, can accept to begin our pregnancies while living under the constant threat of a layoff, looming over our future, over our children’s future?

 No government seriously concerned with preserving democracy can vote such a revision.

 No representative of organisations defending workers can vote such a measure of social regression.
 
 Guarantees would no longer be guarantees
 The partisans of the revision say: 6 weeks postnatal leave has been maintained. Extension of maternity leave from 12 to 14 weeks is a step forward.

 Paragraph 4 of Article 3 states: «Taking fully into account the need to protect the health of the mother and of the child, the maternity leave will include a period  of six compulsory weeks after the birth, at least if there is not a decisision on an other form decided at the na-tional level by governments and representative organi-sations of employees and workers».

 What is the meaning «At least if?» If each state is al-lowed to decide derogatory norms about the leave pe-riod, that means there are no more norms, no more rights, that there will only be virtual rights. A virtual right is not a right.

 How can any government concerned with preserving democracy vote such a revision?

 How can any representative of workers’ organisations accept to vote the destruction of a right which leaves us at the mercy of employers and the local situation de-cided in each country?

 Healthcare for the woman and child by qualified personnel, mid-wives, doctors would disappear from the convention.
 
 There is something apparently quite incredible in this diehard attempt to revise Convention 103. Need it be reminded? In 1919, one of the ILO’s first conventions, Convention 3 was devoted to the protection of maternity rights.

 In 1952, Convention 3 was revised and improved. The rights registered into this new convention were im-proved notably in the areas of social protection, thanks to the establishment of social welfare systems. Protect-ing the health of the mother and child, guaranteeing maternity leave, financial and medical benefits, protec-tions against layoffs, this was the objective of Convention 103 which henceforth prescribed:

· A minimum maternity leave of 12 weeks of which 6 mandatory postnatal leave
· Absolute prohibition of layoffs
· Applying to all categories of women employees
· Ensuring at least 2/3 of previous wage remunerated by social insurance or public welfare, medical care and services provided for by skilled personnel
 According to the 1998 International Labour Bureau (ILB) report, Convention 103 was really a source of progress:
· 119 countries granted 12 weeks of maternity leave. 62 countries granted 14 weeks. Mandatory leave in-ferior to 12 weeks was granted in 31 countries.
· In 1919, only 9 countries granted maternity leave remunerated by the welfare state. In 1952, the num-ber of these countries increased to 40. Today, there are more than 100.
· 29 countries in Asia and Africa prohibit layoffs dur-ing maternity leave whatever reason.

Considerable progress has been made, the labour movement has won these rights by using ILO Conven-tion 103 as a universal reference.

It represents an act of progress for mankind as a whole. Maintaining the rights registered in ILO Convention 103 protecting maternity is an act of civilisation.

What has motivated this attempt to revise the conven-tion?

The ILO employers caucus has demanded that Convention 103 be revised, considering it to be too rigid, too prescriptive.

One of the main arguments put forward by the em-ployer’s caucus is: this convention has only been ratified by a limited number of governments; it has to be eased for it to be ratified by a larger number of countries. This is the logic of the lowest common denominator.

Mr. Nicolas Valticos, former under-secretary of the ILB was right when he said: “The fact that an international convention has not been widely ratified is not in itself a reason to empty all its substance in the name of obtaining more ratifications of an impoverished text.” Tribune de Genève, June 6, 2000. By the way, the 37 ratifications registered as of December 31, 1999 is a figure which should not be contemptuously dismissed.

We could not understand how representatives of work-ers organisations could be associated with this operation of the bosses. Nothing could convince us of its legiti-macy. We know that the campaign launched worldwide by the International Liaison Committee for a Workers’ and Peoples’ International a year ago, the positions taken by labour organisations the world over, has marked your debates.

Mr. Somavia, ILO general secretary, stated on June 6: “As you know, the approach adopted for the proposed revision of the present convention has raised legitimate concerns, that the norms established about a half century ago could be downgraded (…). The issue of costs and how costs are redistributed in society must also be dealt with.”

Of course, the employers assert that maintaining Con-vention 103 as is is a “conservative” measure, that what we need is “progress”. We know what this word means in the mouths of employers.

In the name of modernising ILO norms, the employers caucus would like to eliminate any standards, to deregu-late. This makes sense, after all, their desire is to exploit.
How can one modernise by destroying what exists?

Isn’t the starting point of any modernisation the preser-vation of all rights which already exist?
Is it modernising to authorise employers to lay off workers?
Who could dare claim that this is an act of progress?
Is it modernising to eliminate medical care for women and child?
Is it modernising to make monetary benefits dependent upon the state of the local economy?
Is it modernising to authorise governments and employers to adapt at whim international norms, to determine the length of postnatal leave?

The starting point of any progress is to preserve the existing legal framework and guarantees.

 We hereby address ourselves to each and every one of you. You must each take you responsibilities. What’s at stake is the future of hundreds of millions of women the world over. We cannot accept any jeopardising of the rights protecting maternity. We are in favour of negotiations, for any improvements, but this can only take place if as a precondition existing legal guarantees and frameworks remain intact.

Government representatives, you must be accountable to the peoples who elected you.
Labour movement representatives, you must be ac-countable before workers organisations, before the workers. Social regression must not occur.

You know fully well: we, women, never give up. What is at stake is our children, their health and lives; no rhetoric, no smokescreen will convince us otherwise. We hereby take the solemn commitment that in any case, we will defend the right to mater-nity leave codified in Convention 103. We, women, will defend civilisation.

Maintain Convention 103 as is, as an Imperative Convention!
Integrally Maintain All the Rights Registered into the Convention!
 

Initial Cosigners:
ASTERIOU, Hélène, Greece, translator; BRUGIERES, Danièle, France; CAHORS, Annie, France; CASTAING, Emanuelle, France, trade unionist; COLIN, Christine, France; CONCEICAO, Maria José, Brazil, PT deputy from the Brazilia district; DE CAMARGO, Luciane, Brazil, ABC region teachers tunion (CUT); FIASTRI, Marzia, Switzer-land, Union of Circles for Workers Policies (UCPO); FROMAIGEAT, Denise, Switzeland, Swiss Committee in De-fense of Convention 103; GIRODO, Simone, Switzeland, Swiss Committee in Defense of Convention 103; GRAND-GREUB, Hélène, Switzeland, POP (Popular Wokers’ Party) Deputer from Faudrois Council; HERRANZ-DUVOISIN, Sylviane, Switzerland, Journalist, UCPO; HOBEL, Françoise, France, Committe for defense of maternity leaves, of Convention 103; JAMIL, Rubina, Pakistan, All Pakistan trade Union Federation; KESSELMAN, Donna, France, Trade Unionist; LAFOND, Laurence, France, trade unionist; LICHTSCHLAG, Micheline, Switzeland, UCPO; LOMBARD, Claudine, France, Committee for the defense of maternity leaves, for Convention 103; MENDES-FRANCE, Mireille, France; OSAMOR, Martha, Grande Bretagne, TUC RACE COMMITTEE; PARDI, Beatriz, Brazil, member of national PT leadership; PEREZ, Catalina, Espagne, federacion de servicios de Catalunya UGT; PERRIERE, Marie-Louise, France, Committee for defense of maternity leaves, of Convention 103; QUAZCO, Jolanda, Ecador, Permanent Committee for Women’s Rights; SCHIDLOWER, Marie-Claude, France, Committee for defense of maternity leaves, of Convention 103; SIMONIN, Michèle, France, trade unionist; SOLARI, Costanza, Switzerland; STAGLIANO, Marie, France, Committee for defense of maternity leaves, of Convention 103; TSAMION, Albertine, Gabon.

We support the declaration addressed to the delegates to the 88th session of the International labour organisation.

Maintain Convention 103 as is, as an Imperative Convention!
Integrally Maintain All the Rights Registered into the Convention!

ABUL, Bashar, Bangladesh, ; ALTMAN, Michael, Germany, ON ASA SPD; ANOR, Albert, Switzerland, SSP; ANOR, Alexandre, Switzerland, member of the Swiss socialist party; BAIBORODOVA, Svetlana, Russia, Association of Trade Unions DEFENSE; BARRIERA, Gabrielle, Switzerland, UCPO; BARROIS, Jean-Pierre, France, ILC.; BEGUELIN, Matthieu, Switzerland, unionist; BERGER , Christof, Switzerland, unionist post; BRAND, Pierre-Alain, Switzerland, UCPO; CASAGRANDE, Marco, Switzerland, UCPO; CHANEL, Didier, France, unionist; CHARALAMBUS, Charlie, GB, ; COLLARD, Alain, France, unionist; CSAI, Chongguo, Chine, Chinese Labour Party; DELEY, Luc, Switzerland, unionist SSP; DORIANE, Olivier, France , unionist; ERWIN, Salazar, Peru, ULST-CGTP; FOFANA, Ibrahim, Guinea, SG UGT-G; FOFANA, Ibrahima, Guinea, ; GBIKPI-BENISSAN, Norbert Tévévi, Togo, unionist; GLUCKSTEIN, Daniel, France, Labour Party; GROTJOHANN, Anna, Germany, OTV; GUELPA, Severin, Switzerland, unionist; GULZAR, Ahmad. Ch., Pakistan, All Pakistan Trade Union Federation; HEBERT, Patrick, France, unionist (CGT-FO); HOFER, Daniel, Switzerland, UCPO, FTMH; HOMEM, Anisio Garcez, Brazil, Labour party national direction; IMSIROVIC, Pavlusko, Yugoslavia, unionist; ISELI, Claude, Switzerland, SAEN; LANDRY , Abdou, Switzerland, UCPO; LANGALET, Dominique, France, unionist; LICHTSCHLAG, Charles, Switzerland, SSP; LIEGEOIS, A, France, unionist; LINS, Rosana, Brazil, dol Sul programme; MABASA, Tziyani Lybon, South Africa, Political leader; MADDALENA, Silvio, Italy, PRC, UCPO, FTMH; MAILLOT, Dominique, France, unionist, Work conditions inspector; MARQUISET, Jean-Charles, France, unionist; MOSTAFA, Foster ; MOUTOT, Dan, France, ; NKUZIMANA, Paul, Burundi, University workers’ Union; OSTROSKI, Paulo, Brazil, CUT; PALACIOS, Evelyn, Mexico, Sec. SNTE; ROBERT, Max, Switzerland, UCPO; SAGNON, Tolé, Burkina Faso, SG CGT-B; SAGNON, Tolé, Burkina Faso, SG CGT-B; SALAZAR, Erwin, Spain, ; SCHUSTER, H. W., Germany, OTV; SHAPIRA, Daniel, France, Mouvement du mani-feste des 500 pour l’indépendance syndicale; SOKOL, Markus, Brazil, Labour Parti National Direction; SOW, Bayla, Senegal ; SPADARI, Anna M., Brazil, CGT; SPADARI, Anna-Maria, Brazil, PT San Paulo; STALDER, Yves, Switzerland, UCPO; TAFFAZUL, Hussein, Bangladesh, President BJSF; TAKJUT, Amar, Algeria, unionist UGTA; TCHIMPAGILA, Simon, Congo, SG CDT; TURRA, Julio, Brazil, CUT, national direction; VARALDO, Lorenzo, Italy, unionist; VASQUEZ, Luis, Mexico, ; YAO, K. François, Côte d’Ivoire, SG SYNASEG.