Date post: | 28-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mason-jackson |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
1
GLOBAL COMPANIES
GLOBAL UNION ORGANIZATION/ACTION
The IUF’s Transnational Company Work&
The Chiquita Case
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
2
IUF GLOBAL STRATEGY
Organize the Company internationally If necessary fight them globally Build pressure for recognition of global union
organization“de facto” and/or backed by a signed agreement
Recognition leads to global “bargaining rights”normally in rights areas (around “access” to rights)
rather than in interest areas (local bargaining) Enhanced access to rights should mean greater
levels of union organization and stronger workplace labour standards
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
3
IN PRACTICE WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? A COUPLE OF CASES
#1: A tough company and yet the most progress:
The Coca-Cola System#2 Tough as well but with
less “global” impact:
Chiquita
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
4
20 Years of IUF Campaigns
1983 - 2003: Guatemala, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Peru, France etc. A series of conflicts - mainly victories…..but all temporary
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
5
2003 From History to Plan
1980’s - Global Campaign in support of Guatemalan affiliates
1990’s - Sporadic conflicts against background of corporate chaos and declining corporate prestige
2003-2007 - History turns to Plan:unions organize throughout the systemachieve recognition of the IUF and affiliates internationallyestablish a global negotiating table for rights & employmentavoid and win conflicts across this ”global bargaining table” -
always backed by capacity for conflict when this fails to deliver
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
6
The Challenges“Company” vs. “System”
Employment - company and “system”:TCCC employs 80,000+ peopleCoke system employs 600,000+ people“Top to top bottlers” (400,000+)Franchisees (<120,000)Labour Relations “in principle” handled by system bottlers -
risks mainly lie with TCCC
TCCC controls:Some major bottlers (large minority shares and board seats)Concentrate (the “formula”)Marketing and product strategy
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
7
2003-2005: Global Union Recognition March 2003 - First global meeting of CC unions (100+
unions in New York) 2005 agreement to recognize the IUF and meet with a
group of 5-8 IUF affiliates and senior Coca-Cola Executives twice yearly (normally in Atlanta)
De facto “contact group” - IBT and UFCW (USA), NGG (Germany), CAW (Canada), FESTRAS (Guatemala), UI ZENSEN (Japan), FAWU (South Africa), FATAGA (Argentina) led by IUF GS
2005 signed statement formalized global recognition and recognized that Coca-Cola workers have ILO, OECD and all related rights - though nothing on access to rights
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
8
Results of global recognition and the “Contact Group” meetings: 2005-2007
Reinforced union recognition and protection:RussiaSouth AfricaHaitiPakistan
Membership decline reversal/growth:RussiaPakistan (included public campaign to Accelerate
progress)Philippines (close to +1,000 in 2007)
Local union recognition “victories”:Pakistan: recognition of IUF federationIndia: recognition of national Coca-Cola union federationRussia: recognition of local and national union grouping
IndiaPhilippinesGuatemala
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
9
The following companies have refused recognition despite tough conflicts and direct union/IUF approaches:
Nestlé (at global level - though concession by CEO in December 2007 and first meeting likely in February 2007)
Unilever (though first meeting now on February 1 2008)
Hilton InternationalPepsiCoKraft (at global level)
Where do we stand today?
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
10
“Open Door” Companies
Companies that recognize the IUF:•Accor•British American Tobacco•Cadbury’s •Chiquita•Coca-Cola•Compass•Danone•Del Monte•Dole•Favorita (bananas)•Fonterra•Heineken
•Hershey Foods •Imperial Tobacco•INBEV •Japan Tobacco International•Masterfoods (Mars Incorporated)•Permira (Private Equity Fund)
•Bird Eye/Igloo•Galaxy Entertainment (Macau)
•Philip Morris International•SAB (now SABMiller)•Scandinavian Tobacco•Sodexho
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
11
THE CASE OF CHIQUITA
“In the banana sector the first company we will try to build an organization within and gain recognition from will certainly NOT be Chiquita - they are the biggest, the worse, the most brutal and the most anti-union. We’ll take on a softer banana giant first….”. Statement in 2000 from...
Ron Oswald, general secretary, IUF
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
12
But research and experience revealed…...
Most vulnerableMost committed to internal changeMost prepared to invest in real rather
than cosmetic changeMost seriously committed at the very
top of the companyAnd…..Already the most unionized
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
13
IUF and COLSIBA work together
COLSIBA presence on the groundIUF strategies and experience
negotiating with major companiesMutually reinforcing and comradely
relationship arising pragmatically out of historical necessity (pre IUF entry into an agricultural jurisdiction in 1994)
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
14
Conferences and Crises
1st International banana conference in Brussels in May 1998
IUF, COLSIBA, NGO Proposal to meet all banana companies in Miami in 1999 To discuss “industry crisis” and the future
Chiquita, Del Monte, Dole and Fyffes accepted invitation
Corporate strategy clearly differed…….
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
15
Follow-up engagement
Costa Rica meeting in 2000Again all companies were invitedDifference in corporate strategies
become even clearer……Chiquita and Del Monte came - Dole
and Fyffes did not…..
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
16
“Engagers” vs “Fakes”
Chiquita - clearly committed to engaging with unions locally, regionally and internationally
Del Monte - nervously following Chiquita’s lead…..but little corporate commitment
Dole - hiding behind SA 8000 certification “fig leaf” - no willingness to engage seriously with unions
Fyffes - felt little “reputational impact” and so dropped out
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
17
IUF/COSIBA AGREEMENT WITH CHIQUITA
On June 14 2001 the agreement was signed at the ILO and witnessed by ILO Director general Juan Somavia
Mechanism was set up to review the agreement
Limitations:RegionalPartial in terms of Chiquita employeesWeakest on “supplier” issues
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
18
What we think has worked
Credence given to Chiquita’s “will to change” and much of its internal and external CSR work (though concerns still about its certification programme both environmentally and particularly “socially”)
Increased union membership in Colombia and Honduras
Protection of union recognition in Costa Rica, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala and Panama
Partially effective conflict resolution mechanism prior to public campaigns
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
19
Examples of what has worked…. Colombia - over 4,000 new union memebrs and
27 new collective agreementsHonduras - newly unionized farms- Buenos
AmigosUnion-management dialogue and recognition
protected in Guatemala, Panama and Costa RicaAgreement reached protecting rights in transfer
of Colombian operations in 2004Opening to Ecuador Chiquita supplier(together
with IFC pressure)
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
20
What has not worked…….
Adequately dealing with suppliers - notably supplier contract issues
Breaking free of the Costa Rican “Solidarismo” structures and rights vacuum
Establishing robust and effective mechanisms and an environment for discussing tough “change at work” locally in dialogue between Chiquita country management and national and local unions
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
21
CSR Issues and limitations
Can substitute for real engagement (Dole and SA 8000 example) so IUF does not work with Companies on “Codes”
Limited credibility arising from:“Frauds and fakes” - not always the case of courseLack of constant presence on the ground - always risk
of “missing” things (Chiquita/RA and Colombia)Worker rights/social issues challenge most CSR and
NGO groupsLimited ambition………..IUF concerns about “access to
rights” rather than simple acknowledgment of them
Cardiff Symposium, January 9, 2008
22
Fair Trade Issues
IUF in principle very supportive of “Fair Trade” initiatives
Difficult transition from small producer systems to plantations and thus corporate systems
Dangers of FT parallel structures - notably the establishment of joint bodies to oversee “premium” use in unionized plantations
Union concerns about worker right and “union presence” weight in FT criteria and evaluation