The 98th Session of the International Labour Conference, (ILC), took place in June 2009 in Geneva, and marked an important stage in the process towards the adoption of an international labour standard on HIV/AIDS.
For the first time, government, employers and workers met to exchange views on the form and content of the new instrument, which aims at increasing the impact of the ILO ‘Code of Practice on HIV/AIDS and the World of Work’ which was adopted in 2001. For the labour movement, it was an important opportunity to ensure the response to the epidemic takes into account the views and needs of workers and reflects the reality of the workplace.
Jefferson Pessi, Coordinator of the EI EFAIDS Programme was present at the session and provides an update of the process:
The comments and amendments made by the social partners during the tripartite committee sessions will now be included in the text of the Recommendation and circulated to the ILO constituents. The Recommendation is scheduled to be adopted during the 99th Session of the ILC in June 2010 and would subsequently be communicated to all ILO Member States so that it can be taken into account during the drafting and modification of national legislation. However, unlike a convention, the adoption of a recommendation is voluntary, and governments are not compelled to ratify it. In fact, apart from bringing it before the competent authorities, no further action is required of the governments. It is interesting to consider whether a recommendation that is not legally binding can actually make a difference. If the rationale behind was to move beyond the impact of the Code of Practice (whose uptake is optional) the question remains - can an instrument whose adoption is also voluntary lead to significant improvement in national HIV/AIDS policies and programmes? Significantly, only 6 percent of governments responding to the ILO survey on the instrument supported the adoption of a convention. The vast majority, 92 percent, favoured a recommendation, giving them more flexibility and imposing no obligations. The labour movement advocated for a convention, but failed to gather support from the government and employers, apprehensive for another legally binding instrument with potentially significant budgetary implications. One of the proposals made by workers’ representatives during the recent debate was that the instrument should be converted into a convention if by 2012 no substantial progress is made. Needless to say, the proposal was rejected, as was any move to stipulate budgetary allocations for national HIV/AIDS policies and programmes. It is perhaps too early at this stage to say whether the Recommendation will have a more significant impact in national legislation than the Code of Practice has had so far. What is clear is that workers achieved important objectives in terms of access to prevention, care and support services and anti-discrimination practices, to name a few. Moreover, there is a slight possibility that delegates to the ILC in 2010 may decide that the instrument should take the form of a convention. The labour movement has to advocate strongly in order to achieve that. It is an uphill battle, but given the impact of HIV/AIDS on the labour force, it is certainly worth trying.