Labour Standards

[Nickademus]

I can't remember if i posted something about this before or if i just discussed it with redceltic. anyway i've been thinking about the wto/gatt and the inclusion of labour standards a lot recently (largely because i wrote a 30 page paper on the topic recently). essentially i said that under the current regime there is no place for labour standards (and by labour standards i mean very basic labour standards that are often considered human rights -- such as the right to collective bargaining, a prohibition on child labour etc.) in the wto/gatt under but that they should be included. but i've been question that second part more and more. i'm not an economist (that's my brother) so i'm not 100% certain how they are interconnected to trade. will higher labour standards create a better economy or will is it likely that labour standards will only improve with an increased economy. i know this rests largely on the fact that it is a capatalist society. at the moment, however, i am trying to see this from a capatilist point of view so bear with me.

i know that labour standards are extremely important and that slave labour etc. are absolutely horrific. but with an increased economy is it not possible that a government/state may overcome some of its other problems such as poverty etc. i know a large portion of the new money will go to the rich, but even if a small amount gets to the poor is that not better than nothing.


i could really use some opinions here. this question has been bothering me for a while now. i find it most ironic that the developed countries, especially the US are advocating for the inclusion of a social clause (which would protect basic labour standards) in the wto while the developing countries are against such a clause. it makes me rather suspect even though my heart and my mind says the clause should be included to at least ensure some means of protection within the capatalist regime.

[Guest]

It's been suspected in American circles, from institutes as varied as the Brookings and Cato, that elites in foreign nations has a vested interest in keeping their populations poor so as to attract foreign investment. On the other hand the US govt. has a vested interest in increasing labour standards for two reasons. The first is pragmatic, as it would slow the transfer of obsolete american professions overseas. The second is ideaological, to preserve Locke's clause that all contracts are fair if the contracting parties are equal. This clause justifies market exchanges in capitalism. If foreign workers were subject to artificial downward wage pressure from their govts. it would render any notion of global capitalism as fair aside. In short the US has a vested interest in preserving the Just nature of capitalism.

[Nickademus]

but does this mean that labour standards should be excluded, simply because the united states, not the only advocates of a social clause, has an alterior motive?

would the inclusion of a social clause have any real affect on labour standards in other states. should we even be pushing for labour standards. and no the labour standards i'm talking about are not western values. i am referring to the values in the ilo's 8 major treaties (international labour organization). most of thesee treaties have been ratified by developing countries and not developed countries.

[Guest]

well nickademus, first of all you seem to imply that any american "alterior motive" is bad, not the case, the US government is pandering to organized labor as it often does.
In my opinion labor standards should be included for the sake of preserving capitalism. As I explained before capitalism benefits from labor standards. One cannot easily justify market exchanges in respect to labor if there are differences in the standards that govern different laborers. The lack of such standards would constitute economic oppression, which is why the US government is in favor of instituting labor standards.