This campaign by the American government and EU authorities is underway. The Bangladesh
government must not act as if it wants to agree with their unreasonable demands
US and EU views of trade unions and Bangladesh
Md Amin Ibrahim
The former US Ambassador to Bangladesh observed in a seminar before his departing some months ago that Bangladesh still had a long way to cover to get back its lost GSP facility in the US because it was lagging behind in meeting compliance demands from US and other Western buyers. But the fact of the matter is Bangladesh has gone a long way in meeting such demands. This was proved from two alliances of buyers from USA and European Union actually carrying out of inspections in our garments factories and producing reports to the effect that the greatest number of our garments factories have effectively met compliance requirements or are about to do so.
But these sobering and realistic reports appear to be not acceptable to the US administration (for reasons best known to them). The US administration is bent on arm twisting our garments industry and government into accepting their pet theories and admit freestyle trade unionism and take on additional burdens in the name of compliance. However, these moves are being seen as what they actually are : putting unfair pressure on our government as reprisal measures for our political differences with the US on some other issues. But such pressures are completely contrary to the almost universal consensus that exists now that developed countries and international agencies ought not to punish the vulnerable working people or squeeze the economies or business organizations of developing countries to pursue political agendas because doing of the same will only frustrate poverty eradication goals in those countries.
Now let us see what is the Bangladesh Government and business communitys view of labor unions. This view is forged in the cauldron of decades of unhappy experience. It is largely the history of union activity in Bangladesh. Labor unions have been largely destructive here in three different ways:
1. The union leaders bring labor peace in return for generous private financial benefits. This is labor racketeering Bangladesh style where the interests of the workers are secondary to private financial rewards of union organizers.
2. The union leaders bring about strikes and demonstrations disrupting the operation of the company. The strike becomes the first step in negotiation not the last. This has been the unhappy history of many companies that have gone out of business.
3. The union leaders block restructuring, protect workers associated with the unions, preventing modernization. The union becomes a device to protect jobs not to protect workers from abuse or to promote their longer term interests.
Many observers believe, based on this unhappy history, that encouraging full fledged unions in garment factories in Bangladesh would be a very dangerous step. But the easing of the labour laws in Bangladesh in 2014 have already led to the introduction of limited trade union activities in over 100 garments industries and there is external urging to allow full fledged trade unionism in all garments industries at the soonest. The well intentioned observers fear that this will ultimately lead to great labour agitation, such disturbances may result in violence, the disturbances will spread due to closely packed factories.
Thus, if the United States Government is proved wrong and the result of the introduction of stronger unions leads to worse labour disturbance, disruption to the industry, and a major setback to the economy, who will be responsible? Does anyone imagine the US Trade Representative standing up and saying he is sorry and offering financial compensation? That will never happen. The United States Government will take no responsibility for the consequences of their demands. Instead there will be some explanation that Bangladesh did not implement the introduction of labour unions in a sound way. Do you think the American labour leaders will take any responsibility for causing harm to the industry and of course to the workers who will lose their jobs? That also will never happen.
Sadly nations of the EU and the United States are demanding actions with possibly disastrous consequences but these nations are not really ready to take responsibility for being wrong in their judgment about the consequences. Usually when nations cause harm to other countries by misjudging the consequences of their actions we are dealing with national security issues and that is part of life. But here we are talking
about sewing cloths and groups outside Bangladesh demanding changes in the organization of labour that are very dangerous to the economy and economic welfare of the workers. These outside groups are essentially saying, we know better.
Experience indicates very strongly that one should be very humble about making predictions and in asserting one really knows the consequences of actions one is supporting.
The United States and the EU in their demands for establishment of labor unions should make clear to the Bangladesh Government that the main objective is to insure better factory floor conditions leaving the establishment of wages, benefits, and hours to negotiation at the sector level. If these nations refuse and insist on full collective bargaining at the factory level then I predict we will see a million women out of work in the next three years and sharp increases in poverty levels from rapid closure of industries in this sector. There will be a lot of ordinary Bangladeshi workers who will ask any American, German, or Frenchman that they come across: Why did you do this to me? Why did you destroy my life over something that was of no importance to you? What did I do to you that you punished me this way? It is the workers that will suffer.
This campaign by the American government and EU authorities is underway. The Bangladesh government must not act as if it wants to agree with their unreasonable demands.
The writer is a researcher on social and developmental issues
