Bill Jordan is the newly elected general secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the largest international trade union grouping. The Brussels- based ICFTU has 188 national union affiliates in 134 countries, representing 126 million workers. An engineer by training, Jordan was previously president of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union in Britain. Jordan has also been the president of European Metalworkers' Federation since 1986. He took office in January 1995.
Bill Jordan was interviewed at the United Nations Social Summit in March 1995 for Multinational Monitor by Hugh Williamson, a Germany-based freelance journalist specializing on international labor issues.
Multinational Monitor: What are your general priorities for the ICFTU?
Bill Jordan: The policies and priorities are agreed to by our truly international executive. We recognize there are two ways to tackle deteriorating conditions and the need to bring prosperity to working people. One is that you have international minimum standards that no civilized society should fall below. Just as a civilized society has laws, so a civilized economy should have minimum standards. We will continue to work for this with the International Labor Organization [ILO], national governments and regional organizations like the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA].
The other key aspect is that one of the surest and most successful ways of transferring wealth to the people who create it has been through strong, free trade unions. No one can question the truth of that statement - it's been demonstrated that in every country in the industrialized world where there has been a high level of prosperity for working people, we've seen trade unionism.
And it's no coincidence that in Britain, where trade unions have been attacked and undermined for 15 years by a determined right-wing government, the country has fallen down on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development gross domestic product table.
We want to see the emergence of strong trade unionism, particularly in the developing world, where there is wealth created but - this is the tragedy - it is being retained in the hands of the few.
We also see one of the measures that would greatly promote the development of strong trade unions and wealth transference in the ILO conventions on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; these should be acknowledged as one of the raft of measures that ought to be the minimum standards in international trading.
How can wealth trickle down when there is no one empowered to ask and demand that wealth, where there's no freedom to organize or change the government that is suppressing them? And yet democracies are prepared to let these people trade.
MM: How has the end of the Cold War affected the role and mission of the ICFTU?
Jordan: If my election proves anything, it proves the Cold War mentality is over. I received an overwhelming number of nominations from the developing world.
The ICFTU has never been more relevant than it is today. Governments and politicians used to hold sway over industry and commerce with the communist [threat], saying "look, we've got to be careful." That is now gone.
That is why the leaders of commerce and industry are in the driver's seat, but it is the constitution of such groups to make money, not to look after people. Now that this political restraint is gone, the situation has frightened world leaders. The world is now global in a way it's never been before, and to match that, you need a strong international trade union, perhaps for the first time in the history of the world.
Previously, there was no doubt that there was a union international that represented unions behind the Iron Curtain (the World Federation of Trade Unions, WFTU), and there were unions representing what was called the free world (the ICFTU). The WFTU's influence has been devastated, they're a spent force, and that merely points to the new responsibilities of the ICFTU. There is a global challenge - there needs to be a global response.
MM: British and other unions have said they are looking to your leadership to make ICFTU's work more focused. How do you plan to respond to their calls for reform?
Jordan: I believe that in the past, there has been an emphasis on "fire- fighting," dealing with the many crises as they arose, one after the other, with less emphasis on setting objectives internationally and regionally. Now we have to set our objectives for what we want on the international scene.
If, for example, to be a member of NAFTA, each country has to have minimum standards, including the recognition of free trade unions, I'm less likely to be dashing over to some Latin American country to protest about the suppression of trade unionism, because we would have tackled the problem collectively.
We'll only be able to do this if we strengthen the role of each union in each country, and set objectives with them, for them to influence their policy-makers.
MM: Will the ICFTU then play a role in setting national union objectives?
Jordan: No, we adopt policies that the national unions recognize as an international approach, and they have to play their part in that. It would be clear to them that these are the objectives we seek, and we would expect them to try to influence their governments to talk this language when they are taking part in regional discussions. But the lead does have to come from the top.
For example, the sheer scale of China 's threat means there are those who say, "Can you ignore them? Can you take a stand against them?" Clearly Clinton failed to do this. I don't think there's anyone that doubts that, in his heart-of-hearts, Clinton would not want to trade with China. He's not the sort of man that believes workforces should be treated in the way they are in China. But his decision was dictated by the powerful financial forces in America.
The same sort of pressures come on the ICFTU. Can we ignore them? I say we can't; someone somewhere around the world, some small union can waver on this issue, but the ICFTU has to give a lead. What's wrong is wrong. That's what leadership is all about, that you take the majority with you.
MM: What about organizational reform: Do you see a different ICFTU emerging?
Jordan: I'm at the stage of assessing the effectiveness of the work we do. I've found a very talented workforce, but I'm assessing whether what they are being asked to do, and the form their work takes, is the most effective way of reaching the objectives of the ICFTU. It is too early to judge. It is self evident that the role of an international trade union which deals with almost every country in the world is complicated. It's also dealing with the diverse politics of all those countries, and the aftermath of the collapse of communism and the turbulent politics that everyone's witnessing. To be able to have policies that run true through that sort of turbulence is never going to be easy.
For example, in Russia , there are different currents of politics in southern Russia than in northern Russia, we know that. But the trade unions must make sure the way it goes about building up strong, free trade unions in those areas doesn't run afoul of these politics.
MM: What are the global issues raised by the UN Social Summit which are of particular importance to the ICFTU?
Jordan: First, you have to ask yourself why this is the largest gathering of world leaders in the history of the world. The answer is because of the growing insecurity and inequality in the world of work around the globe. Unemployment is now not just a Third World scourge, but a permanent feature of the industrialized world. And the world's leaders are picking up the concern of their populations, concern that there seems to be no international policy aimed at making the world a better place. All the evidence is that the world's economy is being driven by industry and commercial enterprises, whose sole objective is to make profits for themselves.
The Summit wants to set the world on a better course, to take account of the fact that, with the massive economic changes going on, people have to be taken account of.
Now the trade unions, whose historic role has been to speak up for people who have been harmed by unrestrained business objectives, have a general role of seeking improvement in pay and conditions, in other words, a better standard of life. We not only welcome the Summit, we think it should include specific measures to tackle some of the problems the world's leaders are here to debate.
MM: What are those measures?
Jordan: In particular, a world driven by competition means that those that can undercut their competitors through low wages and poor conditions will take the jobs, but they will be jobs which cannot be defended in terms of a decent society. To prevent this, you need a minimum set of standards which all the countries that want to benefit from the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs [GATT] agreement must be prepared to abide by (a so-called "social clause").
We want a bedrock of ILO conventions to be acknowledged as minimum conditions of trading within the GATT agreement. We're aware that a campaign has been run by the very people who are driving the world's economy against any type of restraint, regulation or standard at all. Someone who wants to make profits wants no strings attached. We are disappointed, but there is an acknowledgement that things are going wrong and the first steps are being made. Once commitments to change are made, the real job is in the follow up.
MM: What recommendations do you have on this?
Jordan: We will continue to campaign around the world - and with our 126 million members, we are in every country that matters - at the national and continental levels, for all the different regional trade agreements to embody elements of a social clause. We've already had some success in Europe, in the newly revised Generalized System of Preferences (which from January 1995 includes some elements of a social clause).
I take the long-term view on this. You don't change the direction of the world economy overnight, but as conditions continue to worsen, as insecurity continues to grow - and it will - as competition gets fiercer and more cruel and unfair - and it will - then more and more people, institutions and governments, will start to listen more intently to our arguments.
For example, India, which has set itself against the social clause, will soon discover that its cheap labor will be no match for the price of products that come from China's regimented and abused workforce. There's a simple reason for this: however cheap India's products are, they carry the cost of freedom.
The level of international insecurity that has now been reached means we are witnessing a growth of economic nationalism, born out of fear. Certain countries' attitude to the social clause reflects such a fear, that unless they play the industrialists' game, they will be left out of this rat race. This is economic nationalism, but that's also what happens with real nationalism, where fear gets to the point when all decent standards are cast aside.
MM: Is it a problem for the ICFTU that some Southern unions, for instance in India, do not support a social clause?
Jordan: The fact that more than half the ICFTU delegation (at the Summit) is from the developing world is important: They know the ICFTU's policy. Of course there are fears of protectionism, but they are equally aware that without the protection we seek, the alternative is 10 times worse.