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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|