Unions Want UN Affiliate to Decide U.S. Labor Policy

Human Events, Nov 12, 2007 by Bandow, Doug

ILO Persuasion

This was not the first time that U.S. labor unions have requested the LLO to interfere in domestic policy affairs.

* In 2002, the AFL-CIO filed a complaint before the ILO, after losing a Supreme Court case allowing the firing of an illegal immigrant for union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO complained that "this decision is a violation of the LLO Conventions 87 and 98 and the LLO's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work." The court decision "penalizes workers who exercise fundamental rights. The decision rewards the violators and punishes the victims."

Never mind that U.S. immigration law was passed by the U.S. Congress, signed by the U.S. President and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the AFL-CIO, me LLO has an oversight responsibility.

* Two years ago, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), backed by Public Services International, filed an LLO complaint against the state of North Carolina. The International Commission for Labor Rights even sent an investigative delegation to document me oppression-"deplorable" in the words of the UE-of North Carolina's public employees.

Why? Legislators representing the people of that state had decided to prohibit public-sector unionization.

The ILO committee ruled against the U.S. Constitution and the principle of federalism earlier this. year. It urged the Bush Administration to uphold the JLO's principle of freedom of association by overturning North Carolina General Statute 95-98, which prohibits collective bargaining by state employees: "The committee requests the government to promote the establishment of a collective bargaining framework in the public sector in North Carolina - with the participation of representatives of the state and local administration and public employees' trade unions, and the technical assistance of the office if so desired-and to take steps aimed at bringing the state legislation, in particular, through the repeal of NCGS 95-98, into conformity with freedom of association principles, thus ensuring effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining throughout the country's territory. The committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this respect."

Union activists understand that this LLO decision has no legal force, but, wrote blogger Shirah in the DailyKos, "The bottom line is a stunning victory for the unions and a huge rebuke for the U.S. government's position." Labor lobbyists made much of the ILO ruling in the ensuing debate in North Carolina as they tried to influence public opinion and pressure legislators.

* The AFL-CIO has even gone so far as to urge the committee to send a delegation to America to document the pervasive despair besetting the land.

"A direct contact mission will have the added benefit of bringing dramatic public attention to the work of the Committee on Freedom of Association in a country and a labor law community that, lamentably, know little about the LLO and the authoritative role of the Committee on Freedom of Association," pleaded the AFL-CIO.