The ILO was started in 1919. I read two paragraphs (About 45–50 million new jobs will be needed each year over the next ten years just to keep up with the growth of the world’s working-age population and reduce the unemployment caused by the crisis. At the same time, a wave of technological innovation is altering the capacity of modern manufacturing and service activities to generate jobs. Widening inequalities in income and opportunity within and across countries are weakening the social and political fabric of our societies, fuelling a downward cycle of economic, political and social uncertainty.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation also will entail a process of structural change towards the use of renewable energies, climate-friendly technologies and more sustainable modes of production and consumption. In this process, there will be losers and winners in employment and livelihoods, with already vulnerable populations at greatest risk. New market opportunities will arise from the promotion of sustainable development, leading to new jobs and incomes, but in the losing sectors, adjustment costs and resistance will be high if alternative jobs are scarce).

Tell me how technology decreases income when it should only decrease production time, if the purpose of ILO is true.  Is there an underlying agenda, say greed, profit? 

 Qualify according to the tribal peoples or the loop hole rule of compensation? Quantify compensation or restitution?  Compensation is usually decided before the fact.  Restitution is usually an argument after the fact.  Both are intentional (simply ask, "Was it done by accident?").  Here you are asking should it be done (what, why, where, when, how, etc.) and at what lost to who.  In all actions, you are looking for justifications for wrong doing (doing it the wrong way)! Ask the American Indian or the American Negro Slave.