Speeches 2004

Address By U.S. Ambassador David Lyon at FTUC 6TH Decade Leadership Workshop

Tanoa International Hotel, Nadi
Friday, May 14, 2004

The Honorable Senator Felix Anthony, General Secretary of the FTUC;
Daniel Urai, President of the FTUC; Rajeshwar Singh, General Secretary of the Fiji Public Servants Association and thank you Rajesh for your very kind introduction; Ms. Carol Beaumont, Secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions; Michael Sebastian, ILO Bangkok; Scott Connelly, Transport Workers Union of Australia; A.M. Zakaria, ILO representative for the South Pacific; Ladies and Gentlemen:

I would like to thank the leaders of the FTUC for their kind invitation to speak at your 6th Decades Anniversary Leadership Workshop. I would also like to congratulate the FTUC for its long history of protecting and advancing worker rights in Fiji.

As an American official representing a conservative Administration, I admit to having been pleasantly surprised when I received my invitation to speak here today. I imagine many of your other guests may also find it unusual to be listening to an American talk to trade unionists about labor - most likely including your guest from Australia, Scott Connelly of the TWU.

Although I must say, as someone who helped get Sydney's public transportation system unsnarled just in time for the 2000 Olympics, Scott has certainly faced tougher challenges than listening to a Yank for a few minutes.
I'm glad Australia is represented here today since I worked closely with organized labor when I was Consul General in Melbourne. From Martin Kingham and the CFMEU on the left, to Greg Sword and his National Union of Workers or Bill Shorten's Australian Worker's Union on the right, my time in Melbourne introduced me to the wide range of philosophies that exist under the "big tent" of Australian trade unionism.

I can vividly remember a conversation I had with Bill Shorten shortly after he criticized in the press by left-wing labor because he was studying for a BA.
Bill told me that he was doing so because he believed he would be better served in negotiations if he understood the thinking and motivations of the people across the table from him.

He then went on to say that learning how labor was presented to future business leaders - with working men and women treated as inputs no different from raw materials or electrical power - had made him more committed than ever to the labor movement.

Turning to the American labor movement, a case can easily be made that the first modern unions were established in the U.S. in the 19th century. That said, American attitudes towards organized labor are very, very different from those held by Australians, New Zealanders and Fijians - at least on the surface. I would like to tell you about some of the ways that our philosophies are in close agreement, but first I would like to discuss a number of our most important differences.

The first is that while nearly all Americans strongly support the right of workers to unionize and to bargain collectively, and accept, at least in theory, the right to strike, we very much expect our unions to behave with moderation and to avoid, if at all possible, disrupting the national economy. If I can generalize, Americans will support tough bargaining, will cautiously accept short-term strike action, but will generally turn against protracted strikes.

A major strike from the 1990's is a good example of this -- Caterpillar's contract disputes with the United Auto Workers (or UAW) that lasted from 1991 to 1998, ending with an unsuccessful 17-month strike. This bitter dispute was almost as focused on public opinion and the Congress as it was on wages, benefits, and the company's insistence that it needed much greater flexibility from its workers, and their union, if it was to be successful against foreign competition.

While public sympathy was originally in favor of the workers, as first the deadlock and then the strike dragged on, it shifted in favor of management. Despite all of the UAW's efforts, Congress, ever sensitive to public opinion, refused to weigh in on its behalf and the strike collapsed.

By the time the dust settled on the dispute in 1998, Caterpillar was a very different company. Over half of its domestic manufacturing jobs had moved offshore, and even though the company is now extremely profitable, American workers as a whole suffered a loss. Meanwhile, Caterpillar's long record of labor discord continues -- the UAW announced in April that its members had voted to reject Caterpillar's "final" contract offer.

A second difference between the U.S. and European labor models is that there has never been a successful political party in the U.S. that based its support solely or even principally on organized labor. The Democrats have made a point of seeking endorsements from organized labor, and many American unions contribute a great deal of money to Democratic candidates.

The fact remains, however, that organized labor's political clout has been steadily eroded by both its declining membership and the Republican Party's ability over the past thirty years to woo many union members away from the Democrats, and sometimes even large unions such as the one-million strong Teamsters.

In fact, the very approach to politics and government can differ widely between the U.S. and Fiji. Here you have trade union leaders of the stature of Mahendra Chaudhry who has devoted a considerable portion of his career to national politics, including, of course, serving as Prime Minister. We have had great labor leaders in the U.S., but few have entered politics, in sharp contrast to the situation in countries like Fiji, Australia and New Zealand.

This may reflect a fundamental difference in the way in which Americans view their government. While many around the world view government as the best and most appropriate mechanism to meet the needs of the common citizen, many Americans, especially conservatives, see things a bit differently.

To repeat one of former President Ronald Reagan's most sarcastic comments about the dangers of "Big Government":

"Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

Big government was often the target of President Reagan's sarcasm, but behind his wit, he had a very serious political agenda that included targeting key constituencies of the Democratic Party, including organized labor.

President Reagan's mix of social conservatism, tax cuts and an assertive foreign policy appealed to many Americans who had previously supported the Democrats, but who were uncomfortable with their liberal social agenda, including issues such as gun control, forced racial integration of public schools, and abortion. Richard Nixon first identified this group, but it was Reagan who captured its members in large numbers.

The resulting political phenomenon was called the "Reagan Republicans", among who were numbered hundreds of thousands of American workers, union as well as non-union. There are many theories for this shift but one of the most compelling is that Reagan recognized that the majority of American workers were entering the middle class - were achieving the American Dream - and were willing to break with the party that had traditionally supported workers' rights.

While most unions remained in the Democratic camp, their influence on national politics was diluted by the loss of so many of their rank & file members to the Republicans. In 2000, it can be argued that Al Gore's defeat was less the result of voting problems in Florida than it was to the defection of thousands of mine workers in West Virginia who voted Republican for the first time in their lives due to concerns about Gore's liberal environmental policies.

To reiterate, the U.S. approach to the whole question of the proper roles of labor, management and government is distinctly different from that taken in most other countries. It is important to note, however, that all parties accept this approach, labor included. To illustrate this, I would like to quote one of the most important labor leaders in American history, John L. Lewis of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, one of the founding parent bodies of today's AFL-CIO.

In 1937, with war approaching in Europe, American unions were increasingly criticized as being communists or at the very least communist dupes. In response, Lewis gave a speech entitled "Labor and the Nation" which remains one of the clearest explanations of the difference between the American and European models of organized labor. In his speech, Lewis said,

"Unionization, as opposed to communism, presupposes the relation of employment; it is based upon the wage system and it recognizes fully and unreservedly the institution of private property and the right to investment profit.

"It is upon the fuller development of collective bargaining, the wider expansion of the labor movement, the increased influence of labor in our national councils, that the perpetuity of our democratic institutions must largely depend."

In the same speech, Lewis concluded:

"The organized workers of America, free in their industrial life, conscious partners in production, secure in their homes and enjoying a decent standard of living, will prove the finest bulwark against the intrusion of alien doctrines of government."

American labor's "buy-in" to capitalism and the American Dream is further illustrated by the reasoning behind our celebrating Labor Day in early September, instead of May 1st as is the case in most other countries. This is especially ironic in that the inspiration for May Day was the Chicago Haymarket riot of 1886, one of the earliest and bloodiest attempts to organize American workers.

The decision to adopt an "American" labor day rather then one focused on the international class struggle, took place with the blessing of the American Federation of Labor in the 1890's. Mainstream labor leaders intentionally chose to demonstrate labor's power through parades featuring marching bands and other "respectable" symbols of middle-class America.

While more left-wing unions, which often included large numbers of recent immigrants, continued their May 1st marches and demonstrations, by 1919 America had turned its back forever on May Day in favor of our own national holiday, in honor of labor but celebrated by everyone.

Let me now move on to three elements of modern-day American thinking concerning the roles that organized labor, management and government play in labor relations and social development.

First off, and this is a tremendous departure from the situation in Fiji and many other countries, the U.S. Government plays almost no role in labor negotiations and disputes unless and until things break down badly, and sometimes not even then.

Labor laws may be passed by Congress, and signed by the President, and courts are there to resolve legal differences, but the "Tripartite System" that exists in many countries, doesn't have a true counterpart in the U.S. Almost all Americans would agree that employers and unions should be left to their own devices in reaching agreements, unless a failure to do so threatens the economy as a whole.

A good example of this was when the Longshoreman's Union, the ILWU, that handles most of the shipping industry on the West Coast of the U.S. went on strike in 2002.

Although this had an immediate and negative impact on an economy already stumbling after 9/11, President Bush chose not to use his powers to force strikers back to work. Instead, the Government worked behind the scenes to help resolve the outstanding issues between the union and the shipping companies. The result was a quiet success for negotiations rather than the force of law.

Secondly, American governments, especially Republican ones, strongly believe that trade and economic growth benefits everyone from stockbrokers to workers. As an example, my boss, Colin Powell, gave a speech May 3 about the benefits of free trade:

"It's trade that we want to encourage. It's trade that ultimately will lift up the economies of all nations, will lift up the peoples of all nations."

In the same speech, Secretary Powell also made a direct link between free trade, prosperity, and benefits for organized labor:

"Free Trade Agreements encourage investment; encourage trade. Free Trade Agreements provide the mechanisms for the better enforcement of workers' rights, the better enforcement of environmental standards...Free Trade Agreements will encourage good governance because nobody will invest in places where governance is not good, where corruption is rampant, where the rule of law does not exist. Free Trade Agreements move us in the right direction."

My third point is that the large majority of Americans accept that Globalization is here to stay and that economies, even, or especially, our own, need to adjust to it in order to succeed. The Bush Administration takes this a step further by believing that globalization brings benefits, including to labor, in addition to challenges and dislocations.

This is illustrated by a recent speech by the senior official in the State Department who focuses full-time on Labor and workers rights, Assistant Secretary Lorne Craner, who stated:

"We at the State Department regularly raise labor issues in our bilateral and multilateral exchanges with other governments and nongovernmental organizations...[Our] priorities include, in part, universal recognition of core labor standards; inclusion of worker rights on the agenda of international institutions; abolition of the worst forms of child labor; support for corporate social responsibility; and promotion of international labor diplomacy... through our embassies [overseas]"

Now you'll notice that neither Secretary Powell nor Assistant Secretary Craner said that globalization was perfect, or that it didn't lead to dislocations for many workers and their families. To be sure, many American unions like the UAW have a far less positive view of globalization than does Colin Powell. But all parties in the U.S. understand that globalization is a fact, and one that we must all learn to better cope with.

I would now like to outline for you how the Bush Administration proposes to deal with the aspects of globalization that touch on organized labor. In the process, I will focus on a number of key issues that American unions support just as strongly as their Fijian, Australian and New Zealand brothers and sisters do.

If I had to characterize the Administration's approach to labor relations, it would be with two words: Social Responsibility. It seeks to encourage all parties to act responsibly -- in bargaining collectively, in establishing standards for worker's rights, and in helping eliminate, in particular, forced and indentured child labor.

But again, being Americans, we have our own approach to these issues. As Secretary Powell noted, we see good labor relations as being linked to the rule of law, transparency, good governance, fighting corruption, and support for public-private partnerships.

The U.S. is currently engaged in many programs that link labor issues with corporate social responsibility. One is the Partnership to Eliminate Sweatshops, or PESP. We have funded PESP projects around the world, from Vietnam, where we're promoting code compliance; to the Gulf and Egypt, where we're building union capacity; to Africa, where we're working against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Similarly, the U.S. has consistently promoted universal recognition and implementation of internationally recognized core labor standards, including:
the freedom of association; the effective recognition of the right to organize and bargain collectively; the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor; the effective abolition of exploitative child labor; and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, the U.S. has pursued the inclusion of worker rights on the agenda of international institutions, including the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

The U.S. government has matched word with action. Take for example, exploitive child labor, one of the worst abuses. We were one of the leading advocates of ILO Convention 182 against the worst forms of child labor. We were one of the first countries to ratify it, 99-0 in the U.S. Senate in 1999, with 149 countries, including Fiji, now parties to the agreement. Since 1995, the U.S. has provided over half of the funding for the ILO's respected "International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor", or IPEC.

Working with local partners, we have funded or co-funded numerous programs overseas. For example, only last week our Department of Labor's announced grants to be used to combat exploitative child labor in Ecuador, Turkey, Panama, Indonesia, Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Southern Africa.

We no longer live in a world where business, worker rights, trade, development, and diplomacy can - or should - be kept in separate boxes. The globalization of commerce, communication and diplomacy requires all of us to understand the effect that developments in each area will have on the rest. Although the world is more complicated than ever, to succeed, we must all see Globalization as opportunity - an opportunity to prosper and to help make a better world.

 

I would like to round out my talk by touching on ways that the issues I have mentioned will impact on Fiji and its labor movement, especially in the short-to-medium term future. In my view, there are a number real and grave challenges ahead for labor, business and government in Fiji.

First, the expiry of the WTO's Multi-Fiber Agreement in 2005 means textile and clothing manufacturers everywhere must work harder and smarter to survive the onslaught of cheap, high-quality textiles from China and a few other highly-efficient producers.

Even though the U.S. and other governments are seeking to improve the lot of workers in China, the fact is that competing with the Chinese textile and clothing industries will be a very difficult task, one that will take all the forethought and hard work that Fiji's textile and garment industries can manage. Your unions, companies and government are going to have to work together seamlessly if Fiji's textile and garment industries are to survive and succeed.

Second, if anything, this same situation will apply even more so to Fiji's lynchpin sugar industry. I know your government is engaged in intense negotiations with all stakeholders on how best to move sugar into the 21st century. If history is any guide, and I believe it is, there is pain to be absorbed by all parties if real progress is to be made on saving the industry.

Diplomats are expected to be cautious, but I feel strongly enough about this to say that if all of your stakeholders aren't willing to make valid concessions, to accept short-term pain, there may not be a sugar industry in operation in Fiji in ten years' time, with everyone in the country suffering because of this loss.

Third, although this is not a popular statement with many people, it needs to be repeated: Globalization is an irreversible fact. Labor, corporate management, governments & civil societies must adapt to each other's needs within a single global economy.

An unfortunate aspect of globalization is that size matters. The U.S. isn't immune to problems caused by globalization - witness the loss of so many jobs due to the Caterpillar-UAW standoff - but our sheer size means that our economy can afford to suffer shocks that might seriously disrupt a smaller country. I believe it is absolutely essential for small economies, such as Fiji's, for their governments, businesses and, yes, labor unions, to be smart, flexible and agile while avoiding serious political or economic missteps.

In this regard, everyone in this room knows better than I of the damage caused to Fiji's economy and people by the coups of 1987 and 2000. With the entire world now competing for investment, trade, and tourism, continued political stability is absolutely essential if Fiji is to make up its lost ground.

I am not in any way saying that working men and women have more responsibility for Fiji's future than other key stakeholders. But for Fiji to move forward, everyone - government, business, unions, the military and both major ethnic groups - will have to work with one another better than they have in the past.

If I can leave you with one thought today -- as a guest in your country from a far-away place that has very different ideas about how unions ought to operate -- let it be this:

Push hard for the rights of your members and other workers; be tough in your negotiations with employers; call for strike action when absolutely necessary; but as you do so keep in mind the need for Fiji to compete in an increasingly competitive, globalized world.

Thank you very much.