Many company codes of conduct include a standard on freedom of association and collective bargaining, sometimes explicitly referring to ILO Conventions 87 and 98. Some companies, however, add the phrase 'the right to not associate with third-party organizations such as labor organizations' (Intel). Or use similar wordings like 'the right of workers to refrain from such activities' (Hewlett Packard/ Samsung). I'm looking for a discussion (or critique) on the use of these phrases in the context of codes of conduct and global supply chains. Any ideas?
In a free society, any person (or group of persons) has the right to associate with another person (or group of persons) willing to associate, this for certain reasons and on the basis of certain understandings. But, inherent in the right to associate is the right not to associate, meaning, that any person (or group of persons) also has the right not to associate with whomever he/she/it chooses, such as a trade union. What matters is freedom.
Thanks Oliver, I understand, but why do some companies choose to add "freedom not to associate" while other companies do not? Also, international standards on freedom of association do not include these type of phrases. I assume it has something to do with 'closed shops' in the US industrial relations context, but I am looking for some (academic) discussion on it.
Dear Oliver,
You are confusing things... "freedom of association" is a fundamental human right. It's not a choice it may be awarded to you.... As to why some companies include such dubious clauses, I'd suggest it's because codes of conduct are worthless pieces of paper. Have no legal status, and anything can be written into them. In general they tend to be "aspirational" (things I'd like to do as a company, but could not really care, such as paying decent wages, do not have thugs beating up workers, fire women when they get pregnant, etc. etc.). Unfortunately, too many academics have swallowed that corporate propaganda (commonly know as "CSR") as some genuine effort to improve conditions. There has been no improvement, only steady deterioration.... For instance, right now, and on top of everything else, many companies have stop payments to their suppliers which means that millions of workers in Bangladesh (for example) are facing starvation.
Honestly, I wonder how long people are going to keep on buying that bullshit - will they ever wake up?...
And if you doubt my claims, start looking for evidence!
Hi George, thanks for reminding me why codes are not working. I had almost forgotten :-). Since we have this discussion before, I think that there many instances where unions and labour groups on the ground use this 'worthless pieces of paper' to advance their causes, frequently successful (see my own research and that of many others), so that is the reason why I continue to engage with that 'bullshit'.
II'm still waiting to see the EVIDENCE of irrefutable improvements in conditions of employment and livelihoods. What he/she/it said (because their salary depends on saying so) is not evidence; interviews with "key informants" are not evidence; nor are because he/she/it works in a "prestigious" university. These are unscientific mumbo-jumbo belonging to previous centuries. Medicine is a good example of how reliance on evidence-free opinions/status/dogmas cost millions of lives. And nowadays those who rely on evidence-free CSR, etc. to build careers are complicit - CSR was doing great and then Rana Plaza happened (how come then?); Accord and GUFs were fantastic, until millions left unpaid to starve (who cares!), and so on. "Bullshit" is indeed the (un)scientific category that these writings belong to, distinct from pseudoscience (astrology, homeopathy) that emulate "evidence" (the planets are indeed aligned in Leo...). "Bullshit" relies of ideologically-loaded "self-evident" "truths": multistakeholder agreements obviously are a good thing; GUFs strengthen the position of the unions; down to the most elaborate hoaxes: getting government- sponsored, management-friendly, corrupt etc. unions to be cheerleaders for corporate programmes, etc. etc. Apart from my recently published paper, have look at the nice little book by HG Frankfurt "On Bullshit"; McIntyre's "The Scientific Attitude"; and get hold of Zizek's CVD "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology" (we are just about to look like the exchange in the openings scenes... but maybe the segment on the "Sound of Music" might be useful for you...). The road to evidence-based science is a difficult one and starts by dispelling prejudice and self-evident "
truths".
Sorry George, but I'm looking for a answer to a much smaller question (see the original question), maybe find another platform to raise your concerns?
I think I have given you the answer but the straitjacket of ideology does not allow you to reach for it.