JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Archives


MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH Home

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH  2000

MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fw: international appeal in defence of Maternity rights

From:

Bridget Okereke <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:12:18 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (346 lines)

On 20 Jul 00, at 11:35, Ishbel Kargar wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean Pierre BARROIS" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 20 July 2000 08:25
>
>
> JP Barrois
> Senior Lecturer and trade unionist
> International Campaign
> in Defence of ILO convention 103
>
>
> Dear Friend,
>
>
> This is to draw your attention on an international appeal in defence of
> Maternity rights launched by an international meeting of trade unionists
> which took place in Geneva on June 12 .
>
> The recent 88th annual Assembly of the ILO voted for the revision of ILO
> Convention 103 on the Protection of Maternity Rights, with 304 votes in
> favour of the revision, 22 votes against and 116 abstentions.
>
> The revised Convention now authorises the dismissal of pregant women !
>
> It is a tremendous blow against workers right and a step back to 19th
> century conditions.
>
> The trade unionists assembled in Geneva on June 12 decided to launch the
> appeal I am sending you to organise the resistance to reclaim the rights
> which were codified in ILO 103 before revision.
>
> It has to be added that this question should be very sensitive in Britain
> where under the growing pressure of trade unionists, the Government had
> ratified ILO 103 just three days before it was revised.
>
> In three days the new rights won by women workers were scrapped!
>
> It is all the more important to organise a very broad campaign to reclaim
> these rights.
>
> I very much hope you will agree to endorse the appeal and E mail me back
> your endorsement either in a personal capacity or on behalf of your
> organisation.
>
>
> Yours
>
>
> JP Barrois
>
> APPEAL
>
> International Campaign to Reclaim the Rights codified in Convention 103
> and to restore ILO 103
>
> They dared to revise ILO Convention 103!
>
> They dared to authorise the dismissal of pregnant women workers!
>
> On 15 June 2000, in Geneva, the participants in the 88th annual Assembly of
> the ILO voted for the revision of ILO Convention 103 on the Protection of
> Maternity Rights, with 304 votes in favour of the revision, 22 votes against
> and 116 abstentions.
>
> In some quarters, such as in the international press, this is spoken of as a
> " victory", an "improvement" of the protection of pregnant women workers.
>
> At first glance, it could look like a progressive step. Maternity leave is
> actually extended from twelve weeks to fourteen, daily breaks for
> breast-feeding will be paid time, a woman worker cannot be made redundant
> during her leave... But let us not deceive ourselves. A close reading of the
> first ten articles of the new Convention show that it is far from
> progressive.
>
> Article 6 of ILO Convention 103 (adopted in 1952) was strictly worded:
> "While a woman is absent from work on maternity leave in accordance with the
> provisions of Article 3 of this Convention, it shall not be lawful for her
> employer to give her notice of dismissal during such absence, or to give her
> notice of dismissal at such a time that the notice would expire during such
> absence."
>
> It was clear-cut, straightforward, indisputable: under no circumstances,
> whatever the reason, could a woman be dismissed during maternity leave.
>
> When a woman left her job on maternity leave, she was sure of returning to
> her job at the end of her leave.
>
> Article 8 of the revised Convention reads totally differently: "It shall be
> unlawful for an employer to terminate the employment of a woman during her
> pregnancy or absence on leave referred to in Article 4 or 5 or during a
> period following her return to work to be prescribed by national laws or
> regulations, except on grounds unrelated to the pregnancy or birth of the
> child with its consequences or nursing. The burden of proving that the
> reasons for dismissal are unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth with its
> consequences or nursing will rest on the employer."
>
> It is a fact: the absolute ban on dismissing pregnant women workers has been
> lifted.
>
> The revision opens the way to possible dismissal during pregnancy or absence
> on maternity leave.
>
> Every working woman knows that any employer can find, in a blink of an eye,
> grounds "unrelated to pregnancy or childbirth with its consequences or
> nursing".
> `
> Of course, there will be no link between dismissal and motherhood....at
> least no obvious link.
>
> That the burden of proving that the reasons for dismissal are "unrelated to
> pregnancy or childbirth with its consequences or nursing" will rest on the
> employer cannot hide the fact that the absolute ban on dismissing women
> workers who are pregnant or on maternity leave has been lifted.
>
> Mrs Samuels, who reported before the ILO commission, herself recognised that
> the revised convention opened the way to dismissal when she said: "The
> period during which a woman is protected against dismissal has been
> extended, it now includes the pregnancy, the maternity leave and a period
> after return to work. With the new Convention, protection is no longer
> absolute but dismissal will be possible only if it is unrelated to pregnancy
> or childbirth."
>
> Where is the progress, if the threat of dismissal looms over pregnant
> women's heads?
>
> Some Latin American governments voted against the revision, on the grounds
> that they "refused to adopt a convention authorising the dismissal of
> pregnant women".
>
> The international press covering the ILO Assembly reported that "the
> absolute ban on the dismissal of pregnant women has been lifted".
>
> Can we really talk of "improvement" ?
>
> Maternity leave has been extended from 12 to 14 weeks. They tell us: of
> course, the dismissal of pregnant women is no longer strictly banned, but in
> exchange maternity leave has been extended.
>
> Why ever should we have to give up a right in exchange for a small
> concession? Besides, it is plain wrong to
> talk about a "progressive step", because they are not telling us everything.
>
> Convention 103 was clear: "The period of compulsory leave after confinement
> shall be prescribed by national laws or regulations, but in no case be less
> than six weeks."
>
> The revised Convention says (Article 4, paragraph 4): "With due regard to
> the protection of the health of the mother and that of the child, maternity
> leave shall include a period of six weeks' compulsory leave after
> childbirth, unless otherwise agreed at the national level by the government
> and the representative organisations of employers and workers."
>
> What do they mean by "unless otherwise agreed at the national level" ?
>
>
> If each member state can decide for itself whether postnatal leave is
> compulsory, that means there are no more common norms and rules. It means
> the introduction of "flexibility", as pointed out by Mrs Samuels herself.
>
> Flexibility is the direct opposite of rights and regulation.
>
> We do not accept!
>
> We have a mandate.
>
> For several months, tens of thousands of workers and trade unionists,
> elected representatives from a range of political views, men and women in
> more than sixty countries, have added their names to the international
> appeal in defence of ILO 103 Protecting Maternity Rights.
>
> On 11 June 2000, at an international conference of trade unionists from 32
> countries convened at the initiative of the International Liaison Committee
> of Workers and Peoples ( ILC), women workers launched an appeal to the
> representatives of the workers, the employers and the governments assembled
> in Geneva: "Don't vote for the revision of ILO 103!"
>
> The revision represents a massive step backwards for millions of women
> workers round the world.
>
> Women from all over the world said : "We, women, never give up. What is at
> stake is our children, their health and lives; no rhetoric, no smokescreen
> will convince us otherwise. We hereby solemnly undertake that whatever
> happens, we will defend the right to maternity leave codified in Convention
> 103. We, women, will defend civilisation.
>
> Maintain Convention 103 as it is, as an Imperative Convention! Maintain all
> the rights codified in the Convention!"
>
> In this appeal, we have only focused on Articles 8 and 4 of the revised
> Convention - called Convention 2000. But each of these Articles gives cause
> for concern. Each statement opens the door to a threat, to an interpretation
> in favour of governments and employers and against the rights of women. We
> are well aware that the protection of pregnant women workers is already
> under threat from European Union directives.
>
> "Convention 2000" is a tool for reducing the protection of pregnant women
> workers.
>
> Maternity leave is now under threat!
>
> Today, we must fight for more progress, for more protection for pregnant
> women.
>
> The children represent the future for our countries. Let us aim for true
> social progress, which takes human dignity into account. We must not let
> them be born into a world which is hostile to them before they even arrive.
>
> We the undersigned call on all working men and women, trade unionists, to
> join the campaign to Reclaim the Rights Codified in Convention 103, restore
> ILO 103!
>
> We support this appeal
>
>
> ABUL, Bashar, Bangladesh, ; ALTMAN, Michael, Germany, ON ASA SPD; ANOR,
> Albert, Switzerland, SSP; ANOR, Alexandre, Switzerland, member of the Swiss
> socialist party; BAIBORODOVA, Svetlana, Russia, Association of Trade Unions
> DEFENSE; BARRIERA, Gabrielle, Switzerland, UCPO; BARROIS, Jean-Pierre,
> France, ILC.; BEGUELIN, Matthieu, Switzerland, unionist; BERGER , Christof,
> Switzerland, unionist post; BRAND, Pierre-Alain, Switzerland, UCPO;
> CASAGRANDE, Marco, Switzerland, UCPO; CHANEL, Didier, France, unionist;
> CHARALAMBUS, Charlie,National Committee Against PFI UK ; COLLARD, Alain,
> France, unionist; CSAI, Chongguo, Chine, Chinese Labour Party; DELEY, Luc,
> Switzerland, unionist SSP; DORIANE, Olivier, France , unionist; ERWIN,
> Salazar, Peru, ULST-CGTP; FOFANA, Ibrahim, Guinea, SG UGT-G; FOFANA,
> Ibrahima, Guinea, ; GBIKPI-BENISSAN, Norbert Tévévi, Togo, unionist;
> GLUCKSTEIN, Daniel, France, Labour Party; GROTJOHANN, Anna, Germany, OTV;
> GUELPA, Severin, Switzerland, unionist; GULZAR, Ahmad. Ch., Pakistan, All
> Pakistan Trade Union Federation; HEBERT, Patrick, France, unionist (CGT-FO);
> HOFER, Daniel, Switzerland, UCPO, FTMH; HOMEM, Anisio Garcez, Brazil, Labour
> party national direction; IMSIROVIC, Pavlusko, Yugoslavia, unionist; ISELI,
> Claude, Switzerland, SAEN; LANDRY , Abdou, Switzerland, UCPO; LANGALET,
> Dominique, France, unionist; LICHTSCHLAG, Charles, Switzerland, SSP;
> LIEGEOIS, A, France, unionist; LINS, Rosana, Brazil, dol Sul programme;
> MABASA, Tziyani Lybon, South Africa, Political leader; MADDALENA, Silvio,
> Italy, PRC, UCPO, FTMH; MAILLOT, Dominique, France, unionist, Work
> conditions inspector; MARQUISET, Jean-Charles, France, unionist; MOSTAFA,
> Foster ; MOUTOT, Dan, France, ; NKUZIMANA, Paul, Burundi, University
> workers' Union; OSTROSKI, Paulo, Brazil, CUT; PALACIOS, Evelyn, Mexico, Sec.
> SNTE; ROBERT, Max, Switzerland, UCPO; SAGNON, Tolé, Burkina Faso, SG CGT-B;
> SAGNON, Tolé, Burkina Faso, SG CGT-B; SALAZAR, Erwin, Spain, ; SCHUSTER, H.
> W., Germany, OTV; SHAPIRA, Daniel, France, Mouvement du manifeste des 500
> pour l'indépendance syndicale; SOKOL, Markus, Brazil, Labour Parti National
> Direction; SOW, Bayla, Senegal ; SPADARI, Anna M., Brazil, CGT; SPADARI,
> Anna-Maria, Brazil, PT San Paulo; STALDER, Yves, Switzerland, UCPO;
> TAFFAZUL, Hussein, Bangladesh, President BJSF; TAKJUT, Amar, Algeria,
> unionist UGTA; TCHIMPAGILA, Simon, Congo, SG CDT; TURRA, Julio, Brazil, CUT,
> national direction; VARALDO, Lorenzo, Italy, unionist; VASQUEZ, Luis,
> Mexico, ; YAO, K. François, Côte d'Ivoire, SG SYNASEG.
>
> First endorsers in Britain ( Pers. Cap. )
>
> Joe Benton, MP; Women's Health Information & Support Service (WHISS); Martha
> Osamor, T&G , Tuc Race Relations Committee, Geoff Martin Convenor London
> Region Unison, Tina Downes, Vice-President, NATFHE ( Pers cap) Val Shield
> ATL; Lou Gladden, Shropshire Unison; Charles Charalambus, National Committee
> against PFI and Privatisation, Donald McMillan Middlesex University;
> Geraldine Bailey; Dr. S. P. Chakravarty AUT; Julie Marshall, University of
> Manchester AUT, Steve Donnelly AEEU Liverpool, shop steward, Nick Phillips
> Brent UNISON , Juliet Goldbart MMU,NATFHE, Deborah Richardson Writtle
> College; Steve Hogan (Assistant to Jeremy Corbyn MP - TGWU);Mary Pearson;J
> Fredericks Unison, Muriel Cole, Branch Secretary, UNISON University of
> Bristol Branch, Audrey Brown University of York; Ledwith, Frank; Peter
> Glanville University of York Sports Centre, Francis, Raymond Nottingham
> University, Clair Jordain-Wheeler AUT; Dr Fiona Bowie University of Wales
> Lampeter; Ben Rickman Secretary Brent Trades Union Council; Helen Twidle
> University of Wales, Sue Bruley University of Portmouth, Roger Welch
> (NATFHE) University of Portsmouth, Joy Bent NATFHE, L.A.Old University of
> Newcastle, K.V.Rao City University AUT, Harriet Bradley University of
> Bristol AUT, B D Najak University of Durham, Business School AUT, Wendy
> Richards University of Keele AUT, Dr Luke Desforges AUT University of
> Aberythwyth; Ms..E Martins NATFHE; Adrian Pearce President AUT University of
> Bradford Br;Dr G. Paizis AUT University College London;Amanda Sives AUT
> Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London;David Grimes
> Univiersity of Reading; Christine Ditchfield; Ann Pethers University of
> Bristol; Stuart Bennett University of Sheffield;
>
>
> ENDORSEMENT FORM
>
> I endorse the appeal
>
> I want to join the British Committee to Reclaim the Rights Codified in
> Convention 103
>
> On behalf of my union/organisation / In a personal capacity
>
> Name:.Bridget I. Okereke..............................
> Address:Middlesex University, The Archway Campus, Furnival Building,
Highgate Hill London N19
3UA........................................................
>
> ............................................................................
> .....
> Union/Organisation:.....................Phone:0208-362-6354....................
>
>
> Fax:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Universite de CRETEIL-PARIS12 Tel. : (16) 1.48 89 18 37
> Internet : [log in to unmask]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
>





Bridget.I.Okereke,
Midwifery Education Department,(Sen.Lecturer).
Middlesex University,
10 Highgate Hill,
London N19 5NF
0181 362 6020
[log in to unmask]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager