Conference Agenda

Introduction

In light of hyper-globalisation causing multiple interlinked crises, one of many avenues to help rein in unfettered capitalism could come in the form of a multilateral treaty on business and human rights. Such treaty can be understood as a global value chain due diligence law, in addition including access to remedy for rights violations. If it materialised, it could help reduce in-country and between-country inequalities and support a move towards fair, environmentally sound, gender-equitable working conditions across the globe. The paper would examine the dynamics of the negotiations process, with a view to supporting progressive forces in creating coalitions to move towards a binding multilateral agreement.

Research question

Ever since creation of the UN, there have been attempts to establish regulation in the form of a multilateral agreement regarding the operations of transnational corporations (MNEs). Failed UN-based efforts for a Code of Conduct for TNCs (1972-1992) were followed by the neoliberal, OECD-led and -limited Guidelines on Investment (1998) which did at least contain language around “not lowering standards” and a clause on labour and the environment. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) moved the process back to the UN, but in a voluntary format. In 2014, Ecuador and South Africa tabled a proposal at the UN Human Rights Council to re-establish negotiations for a binding agreement on business and human rights.

The paper will trace the economic, political and judicial constellation that triggered each of the initiatives, and map the actors involved: TNC-home and -host governments, TNCs and business associations, trade unions, civil society, and UN agencies. In a negotiating process that notionally addresses human rights including gender justice and child rights, decent work, and environment and climate concerns, the paper will attempt to track the actors’ normative reference points; their objective economic and political interests; and the interconnectedness with emerging and deepening globalisation and the generic role of global value chains and of TNCs therein. This analysis could hopefully serve as a basis to analyse which actors support, water down or oppose a global business and human rights treaty, and hence facilitate more effective progressive alliances.

Methodology

Literature review; selective desk review of statements at the 8 rounds of discussions/pre-negotiations of the current UN binding treaty process.

Contribution to literature

A political economy mapping of one of the processes of multilateral economic regulation.

Findings/Hypothesis

The negotiation progress is an outcome of political, economic and coalition building-building constellations.

In granting Ministers and employers virtually unrestrained powers to restrict (and effectively prohibit) industrial action by minimum service levels (MSLs), the Strike (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is the first comprehensive statutory minimum service intervention in UK strike law. The Bill seeks to inject an ‘executivist political technology’ into the established post-1979 restriction method. This paper critically assesses the proposed Act by advancing three principal claims. Firstly, it argues that the Bill is shaped by what is termed as ‘coercive dual unilateralism’ (CDU), an authoritarian crucible of three elements: (i) executive unilateralism (ii) employer unilateralism; (iii) coercion. Dual unilateralism refers to the empowerment of Governments and employers as key institutional poles in setting MSLs to the profound exclusion of unions, employees, and the Parliament. The provision of drastic sanctions for workers and unions (dismissal and damages), compounded by the ‘chilling’ legal uncertainty generated by unspecified duties, renders this dual unilateralism highly coercive. Secondly, the article challenges the Government’s claim of the Bill’s compliance with ILO standards and Article 11 ECtHR as a misconstruction. Thirdly, the paper places the Act in conversation with Bogg’s account of the previous Trade Union Act 2016 as a shift form neo-liberalism to authoritarianism (Alan Bogg, ‘Beyond Neo-Liberalism: The Trade Union Act 2016 and the Authoritarian State’ (2016) 45(3) ILJ 299). Despite tracing in the Bill all the authoritarian markers he identified (suppression of industrial and political dissent, coercion, elevation of social order as justification), the paper resists any conclusion of a move beyond neo-liberalism. On the contrary, it is argued that the Bill shall be seen as a strategic response of a ‘strong-weak state’ (strong in power, weak in securing consent) that seeks to fortify neo-liberalism against a sharpened contestation of the dominant neo-liberal power structures reflected in the current strike wave.

While work policies are in place to protect workers in many instances, there are some working environments in which organizations are either unincentivized or unable to protect workers, potentially resulting in unnecessary worker turnover. In this research, I aim to better understand the relationship between government health policy and meaningful workplace outcomes. Specifically, I draw on cross-sectional time series data across 2,609 counties and 44 states to investigate the effects of mask mandates on worker turnover in low, medium, and high-risk industry contexts. I take advantage of state policy variation to examine the effects of strict and non-strict policies on county-level worker turnover during the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the widespread introduction of vaccines. Using CBPS matching paired with differences-in-differences estimation, I find that mask mandates significantly reduce turnover rates overall and result in large reductions in county-level turnover rates in high-risk working environments. This negative effect is found to be even stronger when policies are strict, or in other words, announced with specific consequences for non-compliance. These results highlight the significant impact government policy can have both on worker safety and turnover decisions, especially for frontline workers. Future research would benefit from further examination of the relationship between public health policies and worker behavior.