Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no?
That’s a hard question to answer and it really depends on the circumstances. Once the child is not being forced to work against her/his will, and during the course of employment continues to want to work, then I do not disagree with it. The very term ‘child labour’ however conjures up very young children working in factories in other countries under horrific working conditions, and where minimum wage is non-existent. It brings to mind countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and other such places. But we do not have to go further than our own Nova Scotia province lines.
Under what circumstances would you agree with child
labor?
In Canada (like many other countries) we live in a world where we are bombarded with materialism from a very early age. Children want new and better school clothes every semester; some schools want assignments typewritten; the assignments require on line searches; and the list continues. Not all parents can afford to keep up with their children’s demands, and not all are blessed with the strength of character to refuse to keep up with their children’s never ending ‘needs’ and ‘wants’. So some younger children under 16, work – perhaps to allow them to earn money to contribute to their school requirements, perhaps to have something to do during a summer, perhaps to save for something at a later date, perhaps for some other reason – but all within the Labour Standards Code of Nova Scotia.
There is no definition of ‘child’ in the Labour Standards Code.
The Code governs the employment of children in Nova Scotia. These laws are not applicable to persons 16 years and over. The Code divides children into two groups: those under 14 and those under 16 and provided:
a) It is against the law to pay wages to a child under the age of 14 to do work that:
a) is likely to be unwholesome or harmful to the child's health or normal development; or that
b) is likely to keep the child out of school or make it hard for the child to learn at school Children under 14 cannot be employed
a) for more than 8 hours a day
b) for more than 3 hours on a school day unless a certificate has been issued under the Education Act that allows the child to work
c) for any time during the day when that time plus the time the child is in school adds up to more than 8 hours
d) between the hours of 10 pm of any day and 6 am of the next day
Children between the ages of 14 and 16 cannot be employed in the following industries: Mining / manufacturing / construction
/ forestry / work in garages and automobile service stations / work in hotels /work in billiard rooms, pool rooms, bowling alleys or theatres
Children between 14 – 16 are allowed under the Labour Standards Code to work in restaurants provided they are adequately supervised, are given safety training that they may use and are not allowed to cook.
If the Code is violated the child’s parent or guardian can be fined unless they are able to prove that the child worked without his/her knowledge.
As with most things there are exceptions which are that these regulations are not applicable to a situation where an employer employs a 14 or 15
year old member of his/her own family.
Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
Nova Scotia Canada: legislation covers this so yes this could be allowed.
Outside of Canada: again this is a hard question to answer. In a case where in a developing country, a parent, or both parents may be afflicted with an illness that does not allow them to work, then who will maintain the family if not the children? There may not be sufficient governmental support, or family support or funds to support the family, so it falls to the child or children to support the remainder of the family. Hopefully they will be able to go to school and work, but that’s the price the children pay.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant’s satisfaction – even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation?
I can only speak for now from the perspective of here in Nova Scotia. At the Human Rights Commission, our resolution conferences(some may say mediations but there is a difference) are not ‘private’ because if there is no agreement reached, then all of the information collected is incorporated into a report and sent to the Commissioners.
In that report there must be a recommendation as to what the next step should be. If the facilitator thinks there may be sufficient information that a Board of Inquiry may make a finding of discrimination, then the recommendation may be to send the complaint to a Board. The facilitator may be of the view that there is insufficient information upon which a Board may determine that discrimination has occurred, in which case the
recommendation may be dismissal.
It may be that in holding our resolution conference the respondent suggests solutions that are for the benefit of the public and the individual; the individual is reluctant to accept that the public interest solutions she /he proposes are not as practical as the solutions suggested by the respondent. The public interest may over-ride the individual complainant’s satisfaction.
Our legislation speaks of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission
looking after the public interest and in a situation such as this, if the
public interest is satisfied, then the complainant may find that even though no agreement is reached, if the respondent is prepared to undertake the solutions proposed in the public interest, the complainant may not benefit from any individual remedies.
Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
Looking at it from the business context would mean seeing it as at D above.
No.
Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no?
No, I don’t believe a child should be forced to work. Although I appreciate that there are circumstances under which children may need to work to survive or to support their families. I believe that the conditions under which a child would need to work should be the focus of prevention efforts. Child labour could be prevented with the assurance of international human rights so that these conditions do not need to exist. However, on the other hand, in the West, there are children who want to work to buy material items. This is a true choice. Children who are 5 years old and picking coffee beans on the road up to UPeace for example, don’t have a real option. Their pay is minimal and they can barely survive. Their families need them to work and they need to work to survive. So, when I say I don’t agree with child labour, I am refering to forced labour.
Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor?
When a child has no other option but to work to support themselves and their family, it would be cruel not to allow them to work to support themselves. A child living in the West who wants to work to buy material items, that is their choice. They are not forced and usually have a roof over their head so this option should be available. Some kids take on paper routes or jobs of this nature so they can buy the latest electronics. I don’t have a problem with “child” labour when that child is choosing to go into the work force for their own gain.
Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
In dire circumstances, yes they should be permitted, however, it would be better if there were community supports to prevent the need for a child to work. One would hope the child could remain in school but often families cannot afford the uniform or books, in circumstances where a child is considering to work.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant’s satisfaction – even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation?
Tough question. I think companies that are exploiting child labour should be brought to the forefront, however, if the result of that is that families suffer because they can no longer financially support themselves then it’s a double edged sword.
Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context? No.
I agree with Lianne. It's difficult to say. In "Western” terms I do not find a huge issue with younger people working, but coming from America, there are rules and regulations that require a child to be of a certain age & certain working conditions to perform work. I agree with this. Not with people younger than that. I started working when I was 14 years old, babysitting and then when I was 16 working for a local business. Looking back I appreciate working that young because it taught me what it meant to earn my own money, save for things I wanted to buy, & just save in general. I wasn't working to support my family, but I had friends who did, and it was a huge help to their household. Again, this is the "Western” way.
In the global sense of the term I don't can't say I ethically support child labor. Mostly because when I hear the term 'child labor' I imagine 6 year olds working in sweat shops for 20 hours a day or in rock quarries smashing rocks for 20 cents a day. The conditions are horrendous for any human being, let alone a child, & not regulated by any governing body. Those types of conditions directly violate human rights, not just for children, but adults as well.
Kids should be allowed to be kids for a while & then beyond that they should be in school getting an education. I do not believe school should be forfeited for a job, but I have also worked with a lot of kids who have no choice. If it's the difference between their family eating or not, work takes precedence, & in that case it's hard to argue.
In a perfect world, with regulation & oversight, I think people of 14 or older should be able to work within a healthy work environment. I do not feel children under the age of 14 should be able to work, but again it's hard to argue with the reality that if they do not, their family might not survive. The best that can be hoped for in situations like these is decent working conditions.
In regards to the disclosing of rights and whether it should be public or private I don't have any direct experience with this, but I think that it could be a combination. First and foremost, the rights & privacy of the child should be respected. In America, when there is a crime against a child, their identities are not disclosed to the public for their protection & I feel it should be treated the same with child labor issues.
If the case were handled in the courts there would be the potential for widespread change and betterment of standards, but it could expose the child in a harmful manner. I am not familiar with the legal process so I can't really speak to how that should go, but if there were a way to handle the disclosure of what the child went through discretely, but yet make a way for change on a larger scale that could be optimal for the advancement of child labor protection.
I don't believe that the business sense and the civil rights context should be separated when it comes to child labor regulation. No business should get ahead on the mistreatment, low wage payment, and straight up exploitation of youth working for their company. The same should be said for adult employees.
Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no? No, i don´t agree. The convention of the right of the child (CRC), in its article 32 establish that:
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.
2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular:
(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;
(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.
I believe childhood is
entitle to special care and assistance, and therefore children needs special
protection. This is the theory, reality is different, but in any case I don´t
agree with child labor.
Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor?
Under any circumstance, but sometimes when families face extreme poverty there is are not many options. Specially when Governments do not work to help in this situations. Even though there are national laws in countries around the world which state that no child under the age of 14 may work, the law is often ignore. More tan 130 countries have signed the international convention saying that children may not work full-time before they are 14 or 15 years of age. However, in some of the countries concerned, laws on this are confusing and vague and not enforced. Employers can usually find a loophole to justify a Young child working for them. Also in some countries they don´t have a uniform birth registration system, so many people don´t have birth certificates. Children´s ages can´t be established for certain and without documentation children may be denied access to state services like schools.
Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
Like I said before, I do not agree, but it happens in poor countries. Extreme poverty and hunger has not been yet eradicated, and therefore lot of work need to be done in terms to extend social protection to combat child labour.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation?
I think it could be better to disclose the human right violations so that make people be aware of it and act accordingly.
Would you answer this question
differently in the business context than in the civil rights context? No.
Submitted by Huan Pham (Jack)
1.Do you agree with child labor? Why?
Child labor in and of itself is not necessarily bad however, the concern is that children are vulnerable and child labor can become exploitative. Children do not have the intellectual capacity to deal with adult consequences and conditions attached to a labor market. For this reason I do not agree with child labor without laws or regulations in place to protect the unique vulnerabilities inherent in children.
2.Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor?
The circumstances where child labor is acceptable are dependent on the nation - state however, there should be fundamental guiding principles that all nation - states observe and adhere to.
They include:
-Protection of wages
-Protection of health and other benefits
-Reasonable hours
-Reasonable breaks
-Must be allowed to participate fully in either a public or private
education programs (formal schools). The state must provide this opportunity
-Be well represented by both a guardian and state funded legal counsel
- Must be properly trained if in specialized area
3.Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
Yes, with conditions. They include all of the above conditions in no. 2. In addition a cut off age should be determined. For example, a 2 - year old child should not be allowed to do manual labor. That said, the conditions are entirely dependent on the type of jobs. The younger the age the more strict the conditions should be observed.
4.What should be more important (in business-related human rights violations):
a.the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations (challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies) or
b.the individual complainant's satisfaction (even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation?)
The potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations is arguably more important. Human rights are fundamental law and rights. While violations of human rights affect individuals, it is matter of a wider public importance. An acknowledgment and adherence to human rights laws and mores will help both individual and the
Community. Too often individual rights overshadow the importance of the over all human rights. It is particularly important in a business - related forum.
5.Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
No. While it is particularly important in a business - related forum the same argument applies in a civil rights context.
Answer to question 1:
Child labor is prohibited in the Convention of the Rights of the child. Most states have ratified this convention except America and Somalia. There is an acceptance in the international community that child labor is forbidden. Still, we are all aware of the fact that child labor is a common tradition in many countries today and an economic necessity for many families. As described in the article "Mediation in Buisness...” human rights are "qualified” in the sense that they are capable of limitations. Either when they are in conflict with other human rights or in circumstances provided for in the treaties. Child labor challenges children's right to education. I also believe that it challenges the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and their right to rest and leisure. But it also brings "money to the table” which is essential for the right to food, health and housing. So I will not answer your question with yes or no but with yes and no. As long as family members depend on each other to survive and the income of the children are a necessity - we must accept child labor. Unless we are able to find solutions that will help the family to survive and in the same time respect the right to education. A Norwegian cocoa company was criticized some years ago for using child labor in the production of Norwegian chocolate. Most cocoa plantations in the world today use child labor. So the company went in dialogue with both the suppliers and the local families to find a solution, so that these children could also get an education. The result was that the company provided money to the village so that they could build a school and give these children some hours of education every day. In the same time the company contributed so that the salaries of the plantations workers were increased. By doing so the parents were less dependent on the salary from their children. The solution in this case did not end child labor. But I believe that it was a great solution under the circumstances. In this context I would like to refer to Ellen Waldman and what she describes as "norm advocating” as a form of mediation: "In these processes, the mediator takes the role of educating the parties about the legal and ethical norms relevant to their dispute and to some degree safeguards norms. At the same time considerable negotiation may take place in the open space which normative guidelines leave uncertain”.
I will answer question 2 tomorrow. Im sorry that I am late but there is so many things at work now.
Re: Please Post Your Answers Here
Question 2:
First of all I must say that I really enjoyed the article on mediation and Buisness by Caroline Rees. This is a topic I find extremely interesting, and she made me reflect on issues I haven't thought about before. What I value the most in here writing is that she stresses several times that mediation alone is not adequate to bring justice when corporations are complicit to crimes as torture, killings and slave labor. State prosecution has a crucial role to play in these cases.
I believe that buisness-related human rights violations must be solved in a way that benefits the public and the individual. I refer to Fiss: "Civil litigation is an institutional arrangement for using state power to bring a recalcitrant reality close to our chosen ideals.” Yes I agree. But the problem with this argument is that it gives preference to "ideals” and not the aggrieved. I refer to Braithwaite: "human beings tend to make sense of their experience or awareness of injustice through stories, which typically get squeezed out of the courtroom by legal abstractions, but which can play a crucial role in building cultures respective of rights”. And this is the point: human rights standards has "open spaces” which mediation can explore in more creative ways, than litigation allows: voluntary nature of the process, the setting of ground rules that include respect for human dignity and the right to speak uninterrupted, the confidentiality of the process, providing a safer haven to express views and get to the underlying issues behind the dispute, and encouragement to the parties to treat each other as equals. I believe that these conditions are crucial in solving buisness-related human rights violations. The Chevron case shows how wrong it can go when a company uses a law suit to strengthen their reputation, and the plaintiffs are being harassed. I refer to Caroline Rees: "Other observers question the legitimacy of placing a perceived public benefit above the aggrieved individuals preferred course of action, arguing that «the sensitive advocate must resist making a reluctant client the champion of a human-rights issue through the judicial process”. "
I believe that you have the same challenges in the civil rights context, and that's why mediation is used more and more. Sometimes a conflict is so acute that there is no other option than to bring it to court. But often mediation will lead to better solutions for the parties involved because the process is more human and natural than a court process.
Do you agree with child labor?
Why yes/no? Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor? Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
No, if you say children working in harsh circumstances. For instance, according to some NGOs or media sources reported that most of the school students are obliged to work in cotton field by the government in Uzbekistan(one of the countries in Central Asia). Second example are school students who are financially helping their parents by doing portering stuff in day times in Dordoi market(the biggest market in Central Asia)
But another this is that children involving in land process under their family control during the summer vacation perceived is the normal thing. The reason is during the Soviet Union Period(My country was part of the Soviet Union) every school student out to spend part of the vacation, sometime even during the school time tho help "Kolhoz” with the annual harvest season. And it created kind of "child labor culture”. And now people perceive child labor as a normal.
In my point of view, if a company is decided to hire children under 18, they have to provide some program to assist those children to finish their studies and catch up in their school. Also limited work hours and well condition for children.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation?
For a company it is better to negotiate with the community and find out what the essence their complaints is. In my country you can see community protests against mining companies. And in many cases companies shut down their branches and just leave country.
Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no? Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor? Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
My answer to the first question is yes and no. In some
instances child labor should be allowed and in some other it should not. I
would allow child labor under the condition that it does not violate the human
rights of the child. On the other hand, I would disagree with child labor under
the experiences of force-labor, employment of very tender aged children, maltreatment
of the child worker such as the working conditions of house boys and girls and conscription
of children into militant groups as is the case with Boko Haram in my country. I
don't have problem with allowing Children under age of 18 to work to support
their families provided it doesn't violate their rights. It is not true that allowing
Children working in that young age necessarily mean they are unable to attend
schools. Apart from those from rich families this is how many children are able
to pay their way through school in low economy countries.
What
should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the
potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and
challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies,
or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the
individual complainant would require private mediation? Would you answer this
question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
Both interests - "the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights
violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to
change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a
solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation” - are important and should be secured in
any conflict resolution. Again I would reiterate that the end goal of conflict
resolution is peace and justice, not one or the other. Business situation is truly
different from civil right circumstance, and do affect which approach is used.
Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no? Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor?
Two key issues involved here include the determination of who is child and what child labor consists in. There is polarization of opinions on these issues. In many instances the international instruments for advancing the protection of children from child labor leaves much to the determination of national governments. ILO "C182 - Worst Forms of Child labour convention,” defines a child as someone under the age of 18. It isn't the case in many countries amounting to why countries like the US have not ratified some of these instruments. To answer the question I think a child labor is permissible and at the same time not. The major concern should be the conditions of labor and circumstances of the child to ensure the protection of the human rights of the child. In the US for instance, the federal law "Fair Labor Standards Act,” allows children between 12 and 16 to work in certain circumstances such as limited hours. It is very helpful for children to work to develop their talents and also earn some self-worth and independence. There are examples of children who became successful business people at very early age, some examples here are artists and sportspeople. Child labor isn't only associated with poverty as is always projected. We know of children from rich families who entered business world in their early years.
What should be discouraged is what the convention - C182 refers to as the worst form of child labor namely: "all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties; work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.”
Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
The reality is that many children work to support their families in most LCDs. Even in ODA countries working-children take off a heavy financial burden from parents even if their families may not depend on them. That children are able to take care of their own needs is boost to family income. However, efforts must be made to see that this is not the norm. Such early responsibility has its impact in children's development.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation? Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
Throughout this program it has become clearer to me than ever that issues of conflict resolution especially in relation to human rights are very complicated and the solution isn't which means is the best, as to which best suits a particular situation at hand. This would be how I will choose to respond to this question. Even in business-related human rights violations, there is no homogeneity of cases that one may say this particular solution best fits all. Of course it will be beneficial to the victims that their aggressors are exposed and brought to book and at the same time that any settlement ensures companies adopt change of policies, to meet the satisfaction of the alleged claims. Indeed litigation may do this to some extent yet a good mediation by trusted third party would be equally complimentary. While I will always maintain that complementarity between HR and ADR is better way to go at each situation, I might say the stake is higher in the business context than in civil rights context.
Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no? Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor? Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
I don't agree with child labor, as broadly defined by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (Work that is exploitative or any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.) There's a lot of room within that for states to determine appropriate ages, hours, conditions, and penalties. Child labor needs to be more heavily regulated than the adult labor market but eliminating child labor is not about preventing all children under 18 from working. It's about putting protections in place for children who certain types of work, with limitations.
It's helpful to view child labor as taking place within an ecosystem of rights claims and violations, as well as governance challenges. (Lucia brought up the angle of weak birth registration systems, for example.) Looking at what child labor is a symptom of may result in more creating and lasting interventions (like Charlotte's Norwegian cocoa company example).
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation? Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
For either civil rights or business rights contexts, I can imagine times when there's an argument to be made for "public benefit” that might lead to a different set of resolution processes than if considering soley the independent complainant. Hopefully in most of these cases there are other complainants who are more interested in a public case that could serve the same public benefit objectives. There may be some cases where a mediation produces a more positive outcome for complaintant's but that's because the mediation environment has been shaped by the public cases that came before it. Ultimately it's important for public cases to help shape further recourses.
Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no?
In fact is good to define child labor. If we consider that child labor is make child under 18 working as a slave, my response is no. If it's child under 18 working part time after school or helping parent my response is yes. So you understand from that how hard is to response to this question. From my cultural background, they use to say that it's good for the children to learn how to work, how to do some job. In the personal side, I use to work every day after school to help my grandpa in his farm. In my vacation time too, I used to go everyday do the work for him. For sure it's was hard some time, but we considered that as a training for me and my brothers and my sisters to sometime. Even here in Canada, some of my colleagues told me that they either used to help out their parents in their domestic work or in their farm. For certain, they used to have a part time job after school or in the summer to collect some money for their own needs. Now looking back, I figured out how important that part of my life is benefit for me in term of adaptation to any environment. And lot of children have doing it in their life and never regret it.
The bad side, which required a no response, is the king of children soldier in some country like rebels in RDC, or slave children in some country, where they work involuntarily and do only bad things.
Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor?
Under the positive and regulated circumstance child as adult can do the same job. And as I said previously, child should do limited and supervised job which is very good for them. Also doing certain job, help build their strength and knowledge if they are willing and have time to do it.
An in the other hand, the word is so changed that lots of jobs don't even need physical strength but smartness and technological use, so having children doing such job with parents, or friends is not bad.
What's bad is forcing them to do certain job that can harm them physically or mentally and that's not bad only for child but for all human being and all the local or international legislations are again those.
In an ideal world I oppose child labour. For any child's development it is very important to be able to receive quality education and to get the chance to be a child, to have friends and to play. A child's development benefits from not jet being integrated in the material world that it is being prepared for. Child labour disrupts this development. However, in our non-ideal world, the absence of child labour might disrupt it even more.
If a family cannot be sustained without the added income from child labour, prohibiting them to work does not benefit the child in question, nor its family. Businesses simply cutting child labour from their production line will not solve the problem either, if the demand for child labour does not seize to exist. I think that businesses operating in third world countries have a social responsibility to reduce the necessity of child labour by paying their adult employees sufficiently for them to keep their children out of the factory and in school. In the example mentioned by Rees, where a company discovers an illegal child labour facility at one of its sub-contracters, closing down the facility is indeed not a sustainable solution to the problem. If the company, for whatever reason, would not be able to eliminate the need for child labour, they could fulfil their responsibility by providing a safe working place and on site education for the children.
Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
At a certain age it becomes beneficial for a child's development to take on responsibilities and have a part-time job. Either for their own needs or to support the family. I lack the pedagogical background to put a number on this age, but I do think it is lower than eighteen. Again I feel that it is important for this work not to interfere with a child's development and education. Having a job outside of school does not seem to do so.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation?
In most of the examples that I know human rights violations by businesses started with an unjust assessment by the government. With the government permitting a certain company to start a mining operation or other economic activity at a certain location, the company often seems to assume that all interests have been weighed and their free to explore the limits of their concession. Taking the company to court will just increase the lack of understanding between business and community, as Reese suggests. Consequently it will not deter the company from its original path. Mediation might lead to a satisfactory outcome, but it will not change the governments policies that lead to these violations. I therefore feel that this question lacks a third option: taking it to the streets.
In 2000 the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia waged a war over water to protest the privatisation of the city's water supply. Though the practice of the protests left much to be desired, the eventual victory did deal a severe blow to the liberalisation agenda of Bolivia's government. Where a mediation process between the people of Cochabamba and the water company might have led to a somewhat satisfactory outcome for both parties, the protests made sure that the government reversed the liberalisation and abstained from any further privatisations of water supplies in other cities.
Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
As a human rights advocate it is very easy to answer this question with a firm 'no'. However, I could imagine having the responsibility over million dollar enterprise would make me think differently. Not having that responsibility I abide by my earlier remark that companies have a responsibility towards the communities they are active in. This responsibility includes upholding civil rights.
Please answer the following questions: Do you agree with child labor? Why yes/no? Under what circumstances would you agree with child labor? Should children under the age of 18 be allowed to help their families financially by being employed outside of school?
As many others in the group, Charlotte and Lauren gave really good examples of why child labor is not something we can get into a close category, this as many others human rights, is not a subject we could generalize; as Yahya said, we need to define what´s the definition of child labor we´re talking about, before making any statement.
This last month I´ve learned that many human rights should be apply, according to the different contexts where these are being put in practice. We shouldn´t just think that everyone as to put in practice things that may go against their culture or something like that, when it´s not harmful for their citizens and people in general.
Although there´s something Umut said, and for me that´s the key of this discussion, and what he said was that if companies hire children they also should give them opportunities for them to study, in those cases I would agree with children´s work.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation? Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
What´s more important in business related human rights violations is the individual right where context should change and possibilities for individuals should improve. Mediation is not the best way to get change, but if private mediation could help to reach individual human rights respect and a solution, so that would be a good tool, but I don´t think it could be use in all cases, like for example in sexual arrestment or labor exploitation.
In civil rights I don´t think individual interests should be over community ones, first of all because these rights imply a group situation and also because they aim to improve everyone´s life, not just someone´s life. In this case mediation would help and make a really big difference with probably very good results.
I basically oppose child labor as it is possibly deprives children of their other rights, such as education which means paramount to them. However, like all the course participants highlighted, it definitely depends on each situation and environment. An example in Korea, until my father's generation, it was just natural for children starting to work from their early ages. It can be said that they were forced to do it, but nobody had thought that constituted a crime against them. It was an unquestioned duty as a family member for surviving. I believe this just still happens in many parts of the contemporary world. We cannot just force them to abide by the international rules without understanding of the circumstances they are surrounded, even though they are the nationals of member states of international law. Besides, it is true that allowance of child labor still much remains under the decision of each nation-state and they know the best for their own people. When child labor constitutes a human rights violation is when it becomes exploitative. Therefore, primary concern is its condition and surveillance on child labor, and alternative methodology to make up for the loss of basic rights of children. In that sense, Norwegian cocoa company case by Charlotte and "Fair Labor Standards Act” of the US federal law quoted by Emeka show good examples of each community's efforts on protection of rights of children from exploitation. Under these ideal but still applicable conditions and protection infra, labor of children under the age of 18 also could be allowed.
What should be more important in business-related human rights violations: the potential public benefit by disclosing the human rights violations and challenging the business, and potentially the industry, to change its policies, or the individual complainant's satisfaction - even if a solution for the individual complainant would require private mediation? Would you answer this question differently in the business context than in the civil rights context?
No matter which methods would be adopted to handle human rights violations, I believe all the human rights violations should be dealt in public ultimately for further structural changes. However, it would be much more effective if it announce its violations cases with the result of good mediations and reparation for victims than just announcing it with public shaming and prosecuting. When considering that paramount value of all is to protect complainants' human rights and to respect their satisfaction and free will, ADR has to be adopted in every human rights conflict before its going public for potential public benefit. "Right to work” is one of the basic civil rights of human being. I don't find any reason to interpret this context differently in business-related human rights violations.