[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
           ILO CONVENTION 150 CONCERNING LABOR ADMINISTRATION

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, early this morning the Senate 
took action on a rare form of legislation--we adopted an ILO 
convention. While this year marks the 75th anniversary of the creation 
of the ILO, up until 1988, the United States had only ratified 7--6 
maritime and 1 technical--of the 175 ILO conventions. However, in 1988 
a new era commenced. The United States ratified its first convention in 
35 years. In all, the Senate has now ratified four more since 1988. 
Most notably in 1991 when the United States for the first time ratified 
an ILO human rights convention: Convention 105 on the Abolition of 
Forced Labor. I think it fitting that the Senate has now chosen to 
commemorate the 75th anniversary of the ILO by ratifying our 12th 
convention: ILO Convention 150 concerning labor administration.
  While ILO Convention 150 is not a substantive convention, I think it 
is the right one for this occasion. It is unique among all other 
conventions the ILO has adopted because it is the first attempt to 
directly address the importance of having in place a labor 
administration to implement the obligations a state assumes under the 
ILO. Convention 150 establishes guidelines for national systems of 
labor administration as a whole. It has precise minimum obligations, 
but allows for maximum flexibility in recognition of differing systems 
of government.
  I can report to my colleagues that the Foreign Relations Committee 
held a hearing on September 20 to examine this convention. Testimony 
was received from representatives of government, labor, and business; 
specifically from Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich; secretary-
treasurer of the AFL-CIO Thomas R. Donahue; and from the international 
labor counsel for the U.S. Council for International Business, Edward 
E. Potter. All three stated for the record that the United States is 
already in compliance and that they support ratification of ILO 
Convention 150.
  ILO conventions are not sent to the Senate on an arbitrary basis. In 
1980, President Carter established the President's Committee on the 
ILO. This committee established the Tripartite Advisory Panel on 
International Labor Standards [TAPILS] to examine ILO conventions with 
a view toward making recommendations to the President on ones that can 
be ratified without changes in U.S. law.
  The TAPILS review does not automatically ensure that an ILO 
convention will be transmitted to the Senate for ratification. If the 
United States is not found to already be in compliance with a 
particular convention, then TAPILS will not recommend ratification to 
the President, as was the case after they reviewed Convention 138 
concerning minimum age for admission to employment. As much as we may 
like to ratify a specific treaty to show solidarity with its aims, we 
will not do so until our normal legislative process brings us into 
compliance.
  Not every country is so responsible, and thus the nations with some 
of the worst labor standards have ratified the largest number of ILO 
conventions. In general, observing labor practices in a country offers 
important insights into the living conditions there. Secretary Reich in 
his testimony before the Committee said:

       Mr. Chairman, as you know--and you have talked on this many 
     times--the less democratic the country, the greater the 
     grounds for suspicion or concern that labor standards are 
     being suppressed in order to serve narrow or misguided 
     interests.

  While some countries may have ratified too many ILO conventions, the 
U.S. ratification efforts can only be characterized as stingy. As Tom 
Donahue stated in his testimony:

       The typical member of the European community has ratified 
     70 of the conventions. Indeed of all the countries in the 
     world that have been ILO members as long as the United 
     States, there is only one, El Salvador, that has ratified 
     fewer conventions than the United States.

  He went on to state that at our current rate of ratification, it 
would take the United States 133 years to ratify our 70th convention.
  The hearing also underscored an important point about the ILO. It was 
the forum for the first human rights conventions the world has known. 
Perhaps none is more important than the right to organize the bargain 
collectively. It took 30 years for these rights to be incorporated in 
labor treaty, as they finally were with the adoption of ILO Convention 
88 the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, 
and Convention 98, which established the right to bargain collectively. 
Thus it is natural that at the end of the hearing the discussion turned 
to the next ILO convention which TAPILS will consider: Convention 111 
concerning employment discrimination. Edward Potter concluded his 
testimony by noting that ``we should be able to ratify [Convention 
111], simply because we have the most far-reaching employment 
discrimination laws in the world.''
  And so the Senate can look forward to the possibility of receiving 
the second ILO human rights convention in the next Congress. I hope 
that those engaged in the TAPILS review of that convention will do so 
with dispatch.
  Finally, Mr. President, in tribute to the 75th anniversary of the 
ILO, I would like to take a moment to focus on its early years. The 
history of the ILO goes a long way back into our national life, before 
it finally came to fruition at the end of the Great War. One of the 
strong demands of the working people in France, Britain, and the United 
States during that war was that there be some attention paid to the 
fact that labor standards were often the victim of international trade.
  The Western nations were shaken by the revolution which had swept 
Russia in 1917. Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor was 
enthusiastically received as he traveled through Europe in the fall of 
1918 to speak out against the growing bolshevik influence in the 
European labor movement. The idea of an international labor 
organization became imperative to prevent uprisings like the one in 
Russia from spreading across Europe. So much so that as the terms of a 
new international order were being drawn up at the peace conference, a 
commission headed by Gompers created the ILO--much more a part of the 
campaign for the League of Nations than we remember.
  The League of Nations, which was the subject of such fierce debate on 
the Senate floor in the fall and winter of 1919-20, came to life 
somewhat furtively in the clock room of the Quai d'Orsay in Paris in 
January 1920. In point of fact the league system had already begun to 
work here in Washington in October and November of 1919 when the first 
international labor conference was held as directed by article 425 of 
the ILO Constitution signed as part of the Treaty of Versailles on June 
28, 1919. The Washington Conference, held at the Pan American Union 
Building on Constitution Ave., turned out to be an almost complete 
success, despite all the prospects of failure. Six major labor 
conventions, the first human rights treaties in the history of the 
world, were adopted, including the 8-hour day convention, and the 
minimum age convention.
  Woodrow Wilson, on his great trip across the nation campaigning for 
the United States to join the League, spoke continuously of the 
International Labor Organization. Indeed, almost the last words he 
spoke before his stroke, before he collapsed in Pueblo, CO, were about 
the ILO. Literally the last paragraphs. He told the people in Colorado 
about the League covenant and the ILO. But, he collapsed, and was 
prostrate when the International Labor Conference was organizing here 
in Washington.
  His Secretary of Labor, William B. Wilson, did not know what to do. 
The Senate was caught up in a protracted debate about whether to have 
anything at all to do with the League. A very distinguished British 
civil servant, Harold Butler--later Sir Harold Butler--arrived in New 
York by ship and then came down here, assigned to put in place the new 
international organization as article 425 of the ILO Constitution 
intended. He found the President prostrate and silent, and the 
Secretary of Labor unable to take any action without the President.
  By sheer chance, Butler dined one evening with the then Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, a young, rising New York political figure, 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his wife Eleanor. Butler recounted his 
difficulties. ``Well, we have to do something about this,'' said 
Roosevelt. ``I think I can find you some offices at any rate. Look in 
at the Navy Building tomorrow morning and I will see about it in the 
meanwhile.'' Roosevelt was devoted to Wilson. By the next day Roosevelt 
had 40 rooms cleared of its admirals and captains to make room for the 
conference.
  Harold Butler later became the second director-general of the ILO, 
serving from 1932 to 1938. Subsequently, he returned to Washington 
during the second World War and his continued friendship with President 
Roosevelt made him a hugely influential figure in the wartime alliance. 
A biography of Sir Harold is long overdue.
  Just as Roosevelt helped get the ILO off the ground, when he came to 
the oval office, his administration soon laid the groundwork for the 
United States to join. In June, 1934, the House and Senate both passed 
a resolution clearing the way for our participation. Thus while this is 
the 75th anniversary of the ILO, it is also the 60th anniversary of 
U.S. membership. The ILO is the part of the league system the United 
States was least likely to join. The league system consisted of the 
league itself, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and the 
ILO. In fact, the ILO was the only one we did join and it was the only 
one to survive the next war.
  And so we have before us today the fruits of the labors of men like 
Gompers and Butler. However, one might ask, since the United States has 
only ratified 12 of the 175 conventions are we getting all we could 
from our participation in the ILO. In 1988 when the Senate, which for 
35 years had not ratified a single ILO convention, ratified two, 
Senator Hatch was struck by this fact when on the Senate floor he 
observed:

       The hearing [on the ILO conventions] made it quite clear 
     that our failure to ratify a single ILO convention during the 
     last 3 decades has undermined the effectiveness of our 
     representatives to this important international organization. 
     * * * Unfortunately, when we have criticized Communist 
     violations of ILO standards, our credibility has always been 
     somewhat suspect given our own refusal to even consider 
     ratifying ILO conventions. To be taken seriously in this 
     organization, Congress must break away from the policy of 
     abstention we have practiced for the last 30 years, the 
     policy of not ratifying a convention regardless of its 
     content.

  Those words are still instructive. With the observation that it was 
not just communist violations of labor standards which affect us. The 
premise of the ILO is that all states must act together to improve 
labor practices. Otherwise an imbalance occurs and an unfair advantage 
is created. I think it is fitting that on the 75th anniversary of the 
ILO that we take steps to strengthen our efforts to play a leading role 
there.

                          ____________________