Good Honest Dollar $$

This is the ninth discussion in my (albeit interrupted) series on worker rights.

Today, I would like to discuss the extent to which expatriates of western countries or other foreign employees should be expected to tolerate employment practices in their host country which would not be acceptable in their home countries.

Broadly speaking, I feel that acceptable employment practices should be defined according to the laws and customs of the host country, and that it is the responsibility of expatriate staff to adapt and fit in with their host culture.

But there are limitations to this, and expatriates should not be expected to tolerate work practices or conditions which are either represent a breach of contractual or human rights or are otherwise unreasonable.

 
Working overseas – a rewarding experience
Working in a foreign country can be a wonderful experience, both for expatriate employees and their host employers.

Such arrangements offer the opportunity for expatriate employees to experience full immersion into a culture and way of life which is different from that of their home country, whilst at the same time providing the host employer with fresh perspectives, exposure to global best practice, professional expertise (which may potentially be lacking at a domestic level) and a better understanding of target markets within the developed world.

Personally, my experience in Korea, where I have taught English in a public school for the past three and a half years, has been easily the most rewarding experience in my (albeit short) career to-date, and one which I will no doubt cherish for the rest of my life.

 
Cultural clashes
Problems can arise, however, where cultural values clash, and expectations of what is acceptable differ between expatriate employees and their host employer.

In such circumstances, I feel that both parties have a responsibility to exercise a considerable degree of flexibility, and to adopt a position of mutual respect toward the cultural values of each other.

Nevertheless, as stated above, I feel that the laws and cultural values of the host country should take precedence over those of the home country of the expatriate in terms of defining acceptable employment practices, and that it is primarily the responsibility of the expatriate employee to adapt to the ways and customs of his or her host employer, not the other way around.

 
Some practices not acceptable
But there are limitations to this, and there are certain practice which in my view should never be considered to be acceptable, regardless of cultural considerations.

Such practices include.

• any practices which constitute an abuse of human rights;
• failure on behalf of the employer to honor contractual obligations; or
• any practices which are otherwise plainly unreasonable or unfair.

The second point above is an area where I have seen conflict arise over and over again during my time in Korea, where attempts by host employers to short change expatriate employees on contractual provisions with respect to wages, housing or working hours are all too common. (The former employer of one friend of mine once literally doubled her work hours without providing any increase in pay)

Granted, these problems are usually the result of cash flow issues or simple bastardry, but cultural issues may also be a contributing factor, since contracts do not carry as much weight as they do in western countries.

This should not be tolerated. Any lack of respect for contractual rights of expatriate staff represents a form of manipulative behavior which should not be tolerated, regardless of cultural considerations, and employees who are subject to this form of treatment should not feel obligated to continue in service to their host employer unless an amicable solution can be reached.

(Fortunately for me, I work in the public school system, and have personally experienced any problems in this regard, or else I would have been on the first plane home.

But I have heard plenty of stories from others who have not been so fortunate, particularly those who teach in privately owned academies.)

Given a previous court ruling in their favor, Indian Airlines was probably vindicated in its controversial decision last week to sack nine air hostesses whose weight exceeded company requirements.

Air hostesses should be grounded, in my view, when, and only when, their weight is sufficient either to compromise their ability to perform their duties in effective manner, or pose a legitimate threat to passenger safety.

 
The case in summary
• In December 2005, Air India, a state owned airline, warned air hostesses that those who failed to meet specified weight limits would be grounded.

• In June last year, the Delhi High Court dismissed a legal challenge to this policy, agreeing with the airline about safety concerns.

• Last week, the airline terminated the employment of nine air hostesses, each of whom had been grounded for several years under the policy, on the basis that there were no longer any ground positions available for them.

 
Why airlines do not want chubby hostesses
Whilst I have considerable empathy for the hostesses concerned, the objections of airlines toward chubby flight attendants are somewhat understandable in my view.

Broadly speaking, these objections can be summarized into two categories – beauty related concerns and safety related concerns.

From the viewpoint of passengers, in-flight experience is a crucial factor in distinguishing one airline from another, and the physical presentation of flight attendants, along with their friendliness and efficiency, can be a significant aspect in this regard.

This is particularly so throughout some parts of Asia, where physical beauty is often equated with professional excellence.

Moreover, the role of a flight attendant is somewhat physically demanding, and in order to perform their duties in a safe and effective manner, flight attendants must be able to:
 
• spend long time periods on their feet;
• bend over and or stretch to assist passengers with issues relating to their seats, under their seats or in the overhead lockers;
• move up and down narrow isles without causing undue passenger interference; 
• perform emergency functions as required; and
• not cause undue impediment to passengers during evacuation processes.

Unfortunately, those who cease to be able to perform such functions are no longer fit for in-flight service duties.

 
When should hostesses be fired?
With respect to any position of customer service, it is reasonable to take beauty related considerations into account when assessing prospective new employees.

Existing staff, however, should be retained or terminated solely according to their ability to perform their duties in a safe and effective manner, not because of beauty related concerns.

In a wide range of industries, physical presentation of customer service staff does impact upon customer experience and the perception of the organization concerned.

The aviation industry is no exception, and it would be unreasonable to expect Air India to hire plumpish staff whilst its rivals choose from amongst the ranks of more physically attractive candidates.

But actually firing employees is different, and flight attendants should only be fired only where they cease to be able to perform their duties in a safe and effective manner.

 
Objective, transparent, consistent, fair
What is critical is that any process for dismissing flight attendants based on weight considerations must be (a) based upon objective criteria; (b) fully transparent; and (c) applied in a consistent manner throughout the organization.

Under no circumstances should dismissals occur on an arbitrary basis.

A first step, and one which Air India followed in this case, is the establishment of a table of specific weight limits, which must take into account factors such as the age and height of the employee concerned.

Second, any hostesses whose weight exceeds such limitations should be allowed a reasonable time period in which to reduce their weight. Only after they are unable to do so should grounding be considered.

Finally, in preference to outright termination of employment, grounded hostesses should be offered positions on the ground if such positions are available.

 
So, were the sackings reasonable?
It would appear so to me.

Air India did set specific weight limits, each of the hostesses concerned had exceeded by considerable amounts (between 11 and 32kg), and even then, the hostesses concerned were given several years to reduce their weight.

Moreover, the fact that company’s policy survived a court challenge adds some weight to its claims with regards to the safety concerns associated with the weight of the hostesses concerned.

A tough decision, but a fair one just the same.

There are some issues in relation to which the rights of employees which may be open for genuine debate.

One right which is beyond debate however is that of freedom from slavery, a right which is (correctly) recognized under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 4).

Under no circumstances should any person be forced to work against their will, and the fact that an estimated twenty-seven million people were held in slavery as of 2007 (refer Wikipedia) is a crying shame.

 
Clarifying what I mean by ‘slaves’
For the purpose of this discussion, I feel that it is important to clarify exactly who I am talking about when I refer to a slave.

I am not talking about economic slavery – those who are bound to their employer by virtue of economic forces only.

Instead, I am talking about forced labor – those who are forced into servitude against their will, either by legal means or by the threat of repercussions in the event that the servitude in question is withheld.

 
Differentiating slaves from employees
In addition, I also feel that it is important to make some clear distinctions between a slave and an employee. These distinctions apply even an employee who feels bound to their employer by virtue of economic forces:

• Slaves, unlike employees, do not supply labor of their own free will.

• Slaves, unlike employees, are bound to a single master are not free to withdraw their labor. Nor are they free, unlike employees, to choose an alternative master.

• Slaves, unlike employees, are (in some cases) legally owned by another person.

• In most cases, slaves, unlike employees, do not receive financial compensation for their labor.

• Slaves, unlike employees, are tradable and can be bought and sold like commodities.

 
Low paid labor is not wrong – slavery is
There is a big difference, in my view, between the employment of cheap workers in low wage countries, and the use of slaves.

Slavery, by its nature, is inherently unethical. The use of low paid workers is not.

Don’t get me wrong, any abuses of the rights of low paid workers are unacceptable and should not be tolerated.  But the mere practice of choosing to employ low paid workers, whose services can be secured upon more advantageous terms for employers, is not necessarily unethical in itself.

The use of slaves, in contrast, is wrong under any circumstance in my view.

 
Why slavery is so wrong?
Why is slavery so wrong?

What is it, about the use of slaves, in particular, that sets it apart and makes it immoral?

Simply this – human dignity and respect.

Every person on planet earth has a fundamental right to be granted at least a minimum degree of dignity, value and respect. Surely, this means that no human being should ever be considered as merely the property of another.

Objects can be purchased, sold, owned like commodities, or otherwise treated as the property of another. So too can animals (although I believe that animals should have some rights)

But people are not objects or animals, and should not be owned or traded as such, and the right to supply labor on the basis of free will should be a fundamental right of every person.

 
Is slavery alright if slaves are well treated?
Some may feel that the way in which workers are treated is more important than the whether or not their labor is provided of their own free will.

There is a degree of validity in this point. Indeed, the bible, which I believe in and respect as the word of god, places considerably greater emphasis upon the treatment of slaves than the question of whether or not slavery should be allowed.

Without a doubt, fair treatment of workers in itself can never be a bad thing, regardless of their status as employees or slaves. Likewise, mistreatment is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Nevertheless, I cannot agree with any proposition which says that the ownership of slaves is acceptable under any circumstances, regardless of the treatment which they receive.

Ownership of another human being is wrong. Full stop – no matter what.

So too is mistreatment of workers – slaves or employees.

There is one way and one way only with respect to labor procurement in this context – fair treatment of workers whose labor is provided of their own free will.

In last week’s post, I outlined two common objections toward the concept of allowing workers the right to form unions and bargain on a collective basis.

Today, I would like to outline the reasons why I feel that workers should have the right to form unions.

 
The employer-employee relationship is a special case
In last week’s discussion, I asked why employees should be granted special rights, such as the right to bargain on a collective basis, which are not granted to other economic participants.

My answer – the employer/employee relationship is a special case.

As a result of the degree to which the majority of workers are financially dependent upon a singular employer, employees are considerably more susceptible than other economic participants toward abuses of their rights. In light of this, it is reasonable to expect there should be some respects where employees are given different treatment under the law to that of other economic participants.

(Whilst sensible employers will always honor the rights of their staff, we must nevertheless accept the unfortunate reality that some attempts to exploit workers do occur from unscrupulous employers.)

 
The case for unions
There is, in my view, a strong case for allowing workers to form a representative body and bargain on a collective basis:

 
• A powerful deterrent to abuse of worker rights.

Fear of confrontation with powerful unions can, on one hand, result in employers accepting unreasonable demands.

On the other hand, such a fear provides a powerful deterrent to the abuse of worker rights.

Whilst primary responsibility for worker protection should rest with the government, the unfortunate reality is that government actions are not always sufficient to prevent exploitation of workers in every country.

In any case, even in countries where governments do adopt proactive measures toward the protection of worker rights, the fear of confrontation with unions (in addition to the prospect of legal penalties) still acts as a powerful deterrent toward the abuse of such rights.

 
• Affordable legal advice and representation.

Legal action never should be considered in terms of the resolution of workplace disputes until all other possible approaches have been exhausted.

Nevertheless, in cases of genuine rights abuses from unscrupulous and unrepentant employers, it is imperative that aggrieved workers not be disadvantaged in the legal system from either: (a) a lack of financial capacity to pursue legal remedies; or (b) any lack of understanding of their legal rights.

This is one area where a union can play a pivotal role – by providing its members legal advice and representation.

Furthermore, in many cases, a visit from union representatives (along with the associated message that the employee concerned has a powerful organization standing right behind him or her) is sufficient to pull unscrupulous employers into line.

 
An Internationally Recognized Right
The right to join the union is specifically recognized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (article 23, sub-section 4), along with the right of refusal to do so (refer article 20, sub-section 2).

Human rights must have a global baseline standard, beyond which any breaches are considered to be human rights abuses.

Whilst the declaration is not perfect, it is the best we have in terms of internationally agreed standards. Any attempt by any government (or any other party) to prevent citizens from acting upon their rights as specified under the declaration, including the right to belong to a union, should be considered a human rights abuse.

 
The strongest argument – common sense
In some cases, collective bargaining through unions would appear to be a matter of simple common sense.

This is particularly the case where firms employ large numbers of workers and/or the tasks performed by a significant portion of an organization’s staff are largely homogeneous in nature.

In such cases, attempting to negotiate wages and conditions on an individual basis, with each and every individual worker, would be pointless, impractical and inefficient. Equally ineffective is the practice whereby employers simply offer employment conditions on a take it or leave it basis without any form of negotiation. Such an approach provides no mechanism for worker input, nor any opportunity for sensible discussion as to how the agreement can be structured to best suit the requirements of both parties.

The most sensible option in these types of cases is for staff to elect representatives to negotiate workplace agreements on their behalf. This approach is not only efficient, but it provides an effective mechanism to enable the agreement to be structured in the best possible way in order to meet the requirements of both parties.

 
The right not to join a union
Whilst the right to belong to a union has international recognition, so to does the right of refusal to do so, and under no circumstances should union membership ever be mandatory, compulsory, or a condition of any form of employment.