The United States and ILO Conventions 87 and 98: The Freedom of Association and the Right to Bargain Collectively

EXPORTING LABOR RELATIONS ACROSS THE ATLANTIC? INSIGHTS ON LABOR RELATIONS POLICIES OF GERMAN CORPORATIONS IN THE U.S.1

“…The U.S. has yet to ratify ILO Convention 87, which was passed in 1948 and enshrines the principle of recognition of trade unions. While the U.S. has argued that its labor law is in line with ILO standards, the procedural and substantive discrepancies between the international standard set by ILO convention 87 and the election process of the National Labor Relations Act are certainly evident when scrutinized (Brudney 2007; McIntyre and Bodah 2006). The upshot is that if the local environment in their U.S. operations provides the opportunity, corporations will opt out of their commitment to an international norm in favor of a less restrictive legal provision, even if that is a questionable anti‐union “right to work” provision.…”

Bad Service Jobs: Can Unions Save Them? Can They Save Unions?

“…Except for a period in the 1970s, when it withdrew as a protest against what it perceived to be undue influence of the Soviet Union, the United States has been a major supporter of the ILO and its mission (Kaufman 2004, p. 552;McIntyre and Bodah 2006). Indeed, although its enforcement capacity is limited by both custom and constitution, one reason for the considerable amount of success that the ILO has had over the years (see, e.g., Valticos 1998) is that the United States pressures nations depending on it for trade and development aid to institute labor practices consistent with ILO standards (see Compa and Diamond 1996).…”

“…A recent study by Human Rights Watch (2000), which reported research indicating that denial of basic labor rights is rampant in the United States, found great difficulty with the position that U.S. law and practice conforms to international standards. McIntyre and Bodah (2006) are also critical of that position. The notion that the United States has the right to institute laws it considers to be adequate, even if they are inconsistent with ILO requirements, makes a mockery of the prin-ciple that all of the world's workers should enjoy certain common standards.…”

“…One of the main justifications for doing so is the assertion that many U.S. laws would have to be altered as a result. There is differing legal opinion about the validity of that assertion ( McIntyre and Bodah 2006). Nevertheless, it is certainly beyond doubt that many laws regulating labor relations in the United States are offensive to the letter and spirit of ILO standards.…”