Author: fvmun

Dorothea Schmidt-Klau, Director of Employment, Labour Markets and Youth at the ILO, spoke in ILO 6 about the solidarity policies to be adopted in order to reduce unemployment. 

In her view, talking about unemployment means talking about job creation. The most important thing is not the quantity of jobs created, but the quality of those jobs. It’s about workers having a decent wage and security, while having a say in the company’s choices.

Ms Schmidt-Klau adds with certainty that poverty reduction depends on the creation of decent jobs, and that this is the only sustainable strategy for escaping from poverty. Indeed, in countries where only some young people receive a high level of education, the lack of jobs creates frustration. This is why investing solely in education and not in the number of jobs is a risk for society. Institutions are therefore needed to match the supply of workers with demand. In Europe, the opposite problem arises. Because of the demographic problem, there are fewer and fewer young people, so supply is less than demand. Political representatives must therefore take reality into account, based on globalisation, climate change and demographic change, in order to create a realistic and favourable framework for each State and citizen.

Is there a risk of workers being replaced by robots in the future?

According to Ms Schmidt-Klau, the decision to replace certain jobs with robots is a political decision, for which the ILO must provide the framework, in order to guarantee ideal working conditions. What’s more, technology creates more jobs than it destroys, and creates jobs with better conditions.

What solutions can be put in place to eradicate forced labour?

First of all, Ms Schmidt-Klau points out that “there is no excuse for forced labour, no justification” and that it runs counter to all the UN’s principles. The possible solution could be to educate children so that they go to school instead of working, rather than banning forced labour. Tripartite solutions, taking into account the opinions of the government, workers and employers, can be envisaged. However, they often lead to inconclusive solutions, as the opinions of the parties are too different. Politicians have a more “realistic” view, aware that radical or idealistic policies are difficult to implement.

How can African countries be made more attractive in terms of employment?

Paradoxically, the brain drain (workers leaving for more developed countries) could be a solution of sorts, enabling the country to shine internationally. We can’t expect African countries to create as many jobs as developed countries.

How can being informed about the state of the labour market help in political decision-making?

This is where ILO employees come in. They go to the countries where the problems are greatest and help to find solutions, even if this can be difficult. This is where technology can help a great deal, by assessing the positive or negative impact of political decisions on the population. ILO employees then negotiate with political leaders, workers and employees, and agree with them on solutions adapted to their country. These solutions are then discussed in the various countries to find the best way of adapting them to the legal framework of each country. 

In the end, Ms Schmidt-Klau’s talk was a very enriching experience for all the students present, enabling them to think more deeply about their problem and to come up with better solutions.

Noa Compte and Loan Nicot

The International Labour Office (ILO) has many experts in the field of employment, including specialist Janine Berg. A senior economist at the ILO, she has been working since 2002 on inclusive labour markets, relations within the world of work and working conditions in different sectors. Having also worked for 3 years in the ILO’s Brazil office as an employment specialist, she is also the author of several books and numerous articles on the labour market. 

Her current area of interest is transformations in the world of work, and more specifically digital work platforms and algorithmic management. As a result, her interests are directly in line with those of the Innovation Committee, with whom she will be discussing the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence for future jobs and for improving working conditions. 

The expert lent herself to the FerMUN experience, and spent an hour reacting to the resolutions envisaged within ILO 4. Ms Berg began her speech by talking about digital transformations in the world of work and the impact of artificial intelligence. New technological advances have always caused apprehension from the outset, so it seems only natural that artificial intelligence should give rise to concern. In her view, one of the greatest dangers facing the public at the moment is misinformation.

She argues that the countries that are least developed in terms of infrastructure and economy should be doing more to make up for their shortcomings rather than trying to join the transition. She mentions a major problem: the place of women in the labour market is likely to be affected by the arrival of new technologies within companies. 

Nevertheless, she adds that the integration of technologies within companies can have major benefits, particularly in terms of the quality of work. It is vitally important that the technological transition is not imposed in such a way as to control employees, but rather that there is an opportunity for feedback from employees to their employer. Artificial intelligences could provide a great deal of assistance to workers, particularly in the field of health. As far as the arts sector is concerned, the specialist believes that it will not be replaced just yet: people still prefer to go to concerts to listen to live music, even though the technologies to replace them already exist.

New types of jobs will also emerge in the near future, and these will help to reduce unemployment in certain countries and thus contribute to people’s well-being.

Tessa Dupenloup

On the second day of the conference, ILO 2 was pleased to welcome expert Martin Oelz. 

This committee focuses on equality and discrimination in the world of work.

Martin Oelz, a human rights lawyer, is a specialist in non-discrimination and equality at the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The expert began by explaining why he is in charge. The world of work suffers from various forms of discrimination based on skin colour, culture, religion, language, age, gender, etc.

 The ILO examines statistics and institutions to determine whether or not they are working. It also selects work programmes on the basis of fundamental rights.

 The ILO’s mission is to achieve objectives such as the recognition of indigenous languages and equal pay for men and women.

According to Martin Oelz, working at the ILO is a privilege. He is constantly learning and has the opportunity to collaborate on projects.

The interested ILO 2 delegates were then able to question Martin Oelz, who responded enthusiastically. One delegate, for example, asked: “Where is the ILO concentrating in particular?  It is in fact in Latin America that the ILO is very present, because of the high demand linked to current inequalities. 

Finally, Martin Oelz reiterated the importance of speaking different languages, although he was aware that this was not lacking at FerMUN. Finally, he made it clear that he would be available to answer any further questions delegates might have during the course of the day. 

Pauline Compte

Jennifer Goodyear is an American expert, and I had the honor of meeting her on the 11th of January  and to accompany her to ILO 1.
The ILO 1 is a committee that  treats the topics of fundamental rights, with 2 issues : “How can measures tackle modern slavery be strengthened ?” and “How can we counter forced child labour ?”.

Jennifer Goodyear is a labor attaché at the United States mission. She works for the U.S Department of Labor, so she is a labor specialist.

She responded to the ILO 1’s resolution for one hour and made many comments and observations, she used her past experience to provide many examples. For Jennifer Goodyear, FERMUN is a very exciting project and she thinks that it is very interesting to host teenagers at the ILO in Geneva as it enables students to discover the many ways that humans work to gain experience of the world of work.

 She recommends that the delegates do their best to not be shy because every idea can be the source of a debate.

If she could give one piece advice for the resolution she would recommend to be bold and go ahead with everyone’s ideas.

Throughout our interaction she mentioned many things and answered our questions. Please find some examples below:

For her, the support for education and the realization of the problem is very important, because when there is forced child labour, the child cannot go to school, learn important aspects of life and their opportunities are limited. Even if the education of workers in development progresses, it is important to pay attention to all perspectives.
The ILO takes care of big and large projects with partners and organizations to apply them quickly. She also said that the ILO has 5 obligations which are freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor, the effective abolition of child labor, the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation, and maintaining a safe and healthy working environment. She also mentioned that you have to be sure that the person in front of you is a victim of modern slavery and to always be kind and compassionate. However, it is also vitally important to gain their confidence and to ask questions such as “Where is your passport ?”.
For her the most difficult challenge is that often when there is forced child labour it is because the children have to do this to support their family. At times, the parents don’t have enough money or can’t work, so the children want to help. 

It is also important to take care of the economy of the country when you are initiating projects. She said that the American Government tries to fix the problem as much as they can even if the problems aren’t necessarily in the United States of America. 

For her, one of the biggest solutions is to improve the economic situation of families so that children do not have to work. 

However, if a lot of solutions are put forward, the issue can still not be completely resolved.

Thank you to Jennifer Goodyear for answering all of my questions.

Elsa ROSNER

The day of 11 January at ILO 1 was marked by intense and productive debates around the fight against modern slavery. The session, which began at 8.30am, was the start of a day full of discussions and ideas thanks to the intervention of an American expert who shared her experience and enlightened the participants on the issues surrounding forced labour. In particular, she highlighted the complexity of these problems, as well as the possibility of resolving them by taking concrete action on the ground. A question and answer session followed, involving the chair, the expert and the delegates. 

The debate then focused on the first resolution, presented by the Australian employers and the Indian government. This resolution aims to strengthen measures against modern slavery, sexual exploitation and forced labour, with particular emphasis on the situation in Asia and the Pacific. It recognises the importance of the ILO’s efforts and the need for robust legislation to protect victims and punish perpetrators. The resolution proposes a series of measures:

• Education and awareness-raising
• Combating forced marriage
• Creation of hotlines for victims
• Protection of migrant workers
• Strengthening legislation
• Training the authorities
• Creation of specialized departments
• Education campaigns and regulation of the sex industry
• Adaptation to national economic contexts
• Collaboration with NGOs and gradual implementation of laws

The day was also punctuated by amendments proposed by different delegates, each aiming to improve and refine the resolution. These amendments covered a variety of topics, from adding specific clauses to revising wording. The debates were lively, reflecting the diversity of views and priorities of the participants.

After constructive exchanges and adjustments, the first resolution was adopted, marking an important step in the fight against modern slavery.

The afternoon saw the start of discussions on the second resolution, on strengthening legal and moral frameworks to fight modern slavery, presented by German and Australian workers. This resolution proposes innovative measures, such as the creation of the UNLAC (body for strengthening fundamental rights and decent work), economic and judicial sanctions, as well as a comprehensive approach to support victims. The second resolution will be adopted.

This day at ILO 1 saw the determination of participants to find effective solutions against modern slavery. The adoption of the two resolutions demonstrates a collective will to act and make significant changes in this crucial area of human rights.

Ruben Buchot and Timothé Fournier

The sixth ILO committee on solidarity, chaired by Jasmine Benlechhab, Shirel Nakache, and Dahlia Djelouah, had the honour to debate in an ILO assembly room the 10th, 11th and 12th of January 2024.The bilingual tripartite committee was made up of 42 delegates representing the workers, employers and governments of 14 delegations. The delegates dedicated their time to debate two issues : ‘What solidarity policies should be adopted to reduce unemployment?’ and ‘How can the Social and Solidarity Economy be developed on a global scale?’

The debate started with a lobbying session on the first issue. Delegates were required to discuss informally, to form alliances and begin to write their resolutions. Two resolutions emerged by the end of the first day. The first to be debated was submitted by the Brazilian Government and co-submitted by various delegations of workers, governments and employers representing Brazil, Cameroon, China, Guatemala, India, Kiribati, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The second resolution was submitted by the UK government and was co-submitted by the remaining delegations present. 

The debates opened on Thursday with several relevant speeches delivered by delegations which showed their passion and investment as delegates who came from all around the world, united in adopting policies to fight unemployment. “Reducing unemployment is much more than a statistic” affirmed the UK government delegation as it presented it’s resolution.The resolutions submitted by the two groups had unique solutions designed to reduce unemployment, such as encouraging exchanges between universities and firms to create better opportunities for students, urging the creation of a commission based around the informal sector. 

Several important amendments emerged as delegates debated passionately, such as the Brazilian Government proposing a subclause which called upon the creation of an innovative program that has been explicitly designed to educate and train elderly and disabled individuals which would equip them with necessary skills to integrate into the workforce and reduce unemployment. 

The debate became especially heated as the delegations discussed how to proceed with financial subventions destined towards unemployed individuals. Many delegates such as the USA workers, pointed out that overly generous financial subventions and systems, could be exploited and could possibly lead to disencouragement of the unemployed towards looking for work. Despite these striking arguments, many delegations fiercely defended these systems and subventions, notably because of possible stigmatization and social exclusion that may occur if the mention of these systems were to be striked from the resolution. Morocco workers notably said “Nous ne pouvons pas laisser des humains, même s’ ils exploitent le système, à la misére”.

The second issue, concerning the development of the Social and Solidarity Economy on a global scale, began to be discussed on Thursday evening as delegates excitedly lobbied and awaited the formal debate the next day. Two resolutions appeared by the end of the evening. The debate was even more gripping than the previous, with dozens of compelling amendments, speeches and arguments pronounced all throughout the debate. 

Despite many fascinating amendments, one in particular served as a catalyst to propel a riveting debate: the delegation of Mexico employers proposed to strike the words “humanitarian aid” from a clause in the resolution, arguing that they had no place in such a resolution as “the social and solidarity economy model is not a question of life or death”. This argument was  largely contested by diverse delegations such as China’s employers, Cameroon governments and even Russia workers as they insisted that humanitarian aid is an important aspect of this economic strategy and that it would be against the principles of the ILO 6 committee, focused on solidarity, to neglect it. Therefore, the amendment did not pass.

Indeed, delegations faced heated discussions as major questions arose: should the emphasis be put on individual nations implementing policies and exercising their sovereignty, or should countries use multilateralism and work together? Several hours of fierce speeches, avid points of information and intense discussions passed on the last day between several delegations, but most notably the USA’s employers, Mexico’s workers, Brazilian government, Russian workers and Cameroon’s employers. 

As the debates concluded, delegates took to the assembly floor for moving concluding speeches. Concerning the first resolution, the delegate of the USA’s workers invited it’s fellow delegations to vote in favour of the resolution by affirming that “Our decision is not solely an economic decision, it is also a moral choice. We are making the choice to build a world where the economy serves humanity, and not the contrary.”

The hard work of the delegates paid off as all four resolutions debated passed the assembly vote by a large majority.

Marta Prokopchuk and Malo Lesprit

Chaired by Aurore STAMATIADIS, Emilie ESCOT and Ava TOUBOUL, the 5th committee held discussions at the ILO in Geneva on 11, 12 and 13 January 2024. The committee was made up of 46 delegates representing 17 delegations. They debated two issues: ” How can internships be upgraded to provide young people with a decent working environment?”  and “How to develop an apprenticeship system in professional training to fight against youth unemployment?

Following the lobbying phase, two resolutions were proposed for the first issue. The first was presented by the delegate representing Japanese workers. Other allies were the governments of Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom, as well as representatives of workers and employers from China and Pakistan, workers from the United Kingdom, Colombia and Cameroon, and employers from the United States. During the open debates, some doubts were expressed by the Chinese employers’ representative, who was generally against the resolution. After discussing whether or not to apply 18 amendments, 12 of them were adopted.  The debates were then closed, and speeches were made in favour (by the representatives of the Japanese workers, the government and the British workers) and against (by the representative of the Moroccan employers). Finally, the resolution was adopted, with 27 votes in favour, 19 against and 12 abstentions.

Following this first part of the conference, we interviewed three representatives: the alliance’s representative for this resolution, and two other delegates who were involved in proposing amendments.  

Interview of the Japanese government: 

The Japanese delegation, which presented the draft itself, is pleased with the simplicity with which this first resolution was managed. Indeed, the various players quickly agreed on the clauses they wanted to see appear. It also confided that it had been very interesting to debate the amendments, which were, in their words, “interesting because of their flexibility”. With regard to the debates on clause 6, which deals with the issue of the State covering the cost of trainees, the representative is of the opinion that the government should contribute half of the cost.

Interview with the delegate representing UK employees:

The delegation is satisfied with what has been put in place, particularly on the issue of work opportunities for young people. However, they have problems with some of the amendments, with governments trying to oust the resolutions they are trying to put in place. This is perhaps due to the difficulties encountered in finding a point of agreement with their allies. This resolution is acceptable to them, despite a few points on which they disagree. They nevertheless consider that the objective of introducing more resources for young trainees has been partially achieved.

Interview with the US employers’ representative:

The delegation representing employers in the United States hopes to see a drop in the youth unemployment rate as a result of the debates. In their view, this resolution would be capable of achieving this goal with the addition of a few amendments. However, they also took into account the fact that, as a developed country, their interests and resources vary greatly. They are keeping an open mind with regard to amendments from developing countries and how they can help and encourage this resolution.

The second resolution was presented by the Moroccan employer. Their allies were the government of Brazil, Cameroon, the entire delegation from Colombia, India, Morocco, Mexico and the employers from Russia. The delegates discussed 9 amendments, 8 of which were adopted. The debates were once again lively, with speeches for and against validation of the resolution, which was finally accepted by a majority of 54 votes to one.  

Following a second phase of lobbying, two resolutions were proposed. 

The first, presented by the government of China, brought together the signatures of the government and workers of France, the governments of China, the United Kingdom, Morocco, Pakistan and Cameroon, the governments and employees of Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation, the government and employers’ representative of Mexico and the employees of India. 7 amendments were adopted out of the 10 that were debated. This resolution was finally adopted by 40 votes in favour, 14 against and one abstention. 

Finally, the last resolution on which the representatives tried to agree was presented by the employers’ delegate of the United States. Cosubmitters were the governments of Guatemala, Colombia, Cameroon, the delegation of the workers’ and employers’ representatives of Russia, Morocco, the workers’ representatives of Mexico and the United Kingdom, and the government, employers’ and workers’ representatives of Japan. 12 amendments were proposed, 8 of which were adopted.  A motion to divide the issue was then seconded: the representatives voted on the clauses individually, which enabled them to vote on a resolution that was acceptable to the majority.

Eloïse GHESTEM, Julie CARVAILLO, Elisa DEVELAY.

It was the scene of passionate and intense debates during these 3 days of conference, with differences of views but obviously always with respect, despite some speeches being somewhat vehement.

The two issues addressed were: 

How to protect workers whose jobs could disappear and how to use AI to improve working conditions and enable new opportunities?

Is the digital economy a path to more and better jobs for young people?

The first issue particularly divided the ILO 4 committee, with various political positions and different opinions on the measures to be adopted.

Some delegates were pleased to answer our questions on their positions and ideas regarding the resolutions, as well as countries considered allies. We thank these delegates for the valuable time they have given us and which has allowed us to better understand the dynamics of the different countries and the different alliances that have formed. It is thanks to them that we can bring you a clear and objective vision of the debates that took place in ILO 4.

During the lobbying phase, several countries came together and after a while we had three different groups that eventually merged into two groups. The first brought together mainly the United States and Sweden, which initially disagreed, and the second was rather composed of China and several emerging countries, such as Mexico or Eswatini. 

Following the exciting speech of Janine Berg, we witnessed a phase of debate between the various states on the clauses previously discussed, sometimes in a climate of conflict, particularly between the delegate of the Chinese government and that of the United States. Delegates clashed in a merciless debate, where China even asked for a motion of apology and censure in the face of some aggressive arguments from other delegates who accused it of denying the facts. 

During the amendment phase, the Swedish employers’ delegate wished to delete a clause, which provoked a disagreement on the part of the Swedish government delegate, giving rise to a new debate between several countries, such as Japan, theUni, USA, or Eswatini.

Following the amendment phase, the resolution carried by China was finally adopted by an absolute majority, followed by the US resolution.

The second issue, focused on the digital economy, resulted in two resolutions, one presented by the Indian government and the other by the employers of Morocco. Both were based on the sharing of resources, the education of new generations, as well as assistance to less developed countries, for which there is a real technological gap compared to countries with higher labour intensity. 

Before starting the lobbying phase, some delegations had the opportunity to present their position, including Indonesian workers, who expressed interest in creating laws to protect data and promote digital security. The Government of Guatemala also shared with the committee its concern about the many inequalities in the world, which it believes are an essential factor to consider during the debate.

Two main groups were formed during the lobbying phase, one chaired by the Indian government and the other by the workers’ delegation of Morocco. The Colombian employers, notable signatories of the resolution carried by India, stressed their need for assistance from developed countries, motivated by a lack of resources as well as the need to improve their infrastructure, unsuited to the use of digital tools. On the other hand, employers in the UK have expressed an interest in higher education in digitalisation, particularly in the higher education programme, although they are not signatories to either resolution. 

After the introduction of the first resolution (the one carried by India), several delegations questioned certain points such as the origin and reliability of the aid funds, the possible dependence of the population on large private companies that would result from the adoption of this resolution, or the difference in levels between students from developed and less developed countries. The open debate then officially began with an amendment from the UK government, supported by the US government, calling for the removal of a clause on the establishment of a minimum wage for independent contractors. The British delegation showed a solid mastery of the subject by denouncing the legal default of the clause, any notion of flexibility, although essential to self-employment, being then lost. This resolution was adopted after the inclusion of clauses in favour of persons with disabilities and promoting inclusiveness.

The debate on the second resolution, written by Moroccan workers, was however more controversial. The legitimacy of the Chinese government’s comments was again questioned and the committee had difficulty finding common ground. The debate nevertheless gave rise to fruitful discussions, particularly on the support of ethical technologies including «white cap» hackers. The resolution was adopted, although with less enthusiasm than the previous one.

Lucile Fournier, Claire Chardin and Cyrielle Bouline.

For this edition of FerMUN at the International Labour organization, the committee ILO3 on environment is in charge of debating two issues during 3 days.

The first issue debated by the delegates is: “How can we limit the environmental impact of fast fashion?” Indeed, the fast fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries in our world. 

During the first lobbying session, the delegations discussed and created alliances in order to propose two resolutions. Several different agreements were reached during this time between delegates which included the ideas that fast fashion should be stopped by making changes at a slow pace or, to continue selling fast fashion products, but try to modify some aspects of this industry to diminish the environmental impact. Moreover two major alliances were formed during the lobbying session which diverged opinions on the economical aspect that fast fashion has.

Two delegations managed to submit their resolutions. The first one was presented by the delegation of the Chinese government which aimed to take new measures in order to protect the environment whilst still acknowledging the crucial economic advantages this industry has. Many delegations co-submitted this resolution as they believed it would bring innovative solutions to them.

Multiple amendments were made by different delegations to add more details and clauses to the resolution in order for it to be more appealing to their position and country. Amendments were easily passed such as the one submitted by the delegation of Australia government in order to add details to the resolution and allow all delegations a more efficient way. This amendment passed with the majority of delegations voting in favor.

As a whole, most delegations supported this resolution which passed with the majority of votes in favor. 

As for the second resolution on the first topic, it was presented by the delegation of the Swedish workers and it generated an intense debate with the delegations of the Chinese government. Following an intense start, a few notable amendments were made especially by the delegation of Romania which nearly the whole house voted in favor of.

After all the thrilling debates, the resolution was voted by the majority of the delegations and therefore adopted. 

This stage concluded the debate on the first issue  which was then followed by the lobbying session for the second issue : « How to promote “green jobs” without penalizing employees whose jobs are harmful to the environment? ». The delegates were divided between two resolutions which were presented by, on one hand the delegation of Australia’s workers and the other hand the delegation of the Rwanda government.

During the debate time of the second resolution, the delegation of the government of Australia proposed an amendment to strike the whole resolution which generated many discussions between the delegates. Indeed, this amendment caused an important conflict between China’s government and Rwanda’s government against Bangladesh’s government. In the end, this amendment was not adopted.

To conclude, all four resolutions proposed for both issues were adopted which shows how determined all the delegations were to find a common ground and come up with innovative solutions.

Mina DEGRUSON and Assan SANGARÉ

Unprecedented global collaboration at ILO Committee 2 to combat racism in the workplace. In a historic session, Committee 2 of the International Labour Organization (ILO 2) brought together representatives of thirty-three States to address the pressing problem of racism in the workplace. Chaired by Adrienne Husny, Grace Baylis and Selma Surieux, the committee sought solutions to combat racism and challenge gender stereotypes in the third sector.

The committee, made up of influential nations such as the US, China and the UK, recognised the urgent need to act on the alarming rise in workplace discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. The resolution, spearheaded by spokespersons from Sweden, received significant support from co-signatories such as Germany, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

Committee members underlined the fundamental importance of fostering an inclusive work environment, where diversity is not only accepted but celebrated. Interventions by several delegates reiterated the sentiment that discrimination in the workplace is an impediment to social justice and sustainable world peace.

One aspect of the resolution that attracted particular attention was the creation of a supervisory body within the ILO. This body would play a crucial role in gathering information, developing international guidelines to protect complainants and conducting statistical tests on companies to analyse their responses to discrimination problems.

One of the innovative aspects of the resolution is the call for large companies to be transparent about the ethnic pay gap. Companies with more than 250 employees are encouraged to disclose pay differentials, and could be fined if the difference exceeds 10%. The resolution also calls for the creation of a commission to annually assess the extent of racism in the workplace, on a global scale.

In addition to calling for sanctions against perpetrators of verbal or non-verbal racist attacks, the commission also aims to change the organisational culture by promoting non-discriminatory training programmes and mechanisms to ensure equal access to promotion.

This resolution by ILO Committee 2 is not simply a response to a problem, but a bold statement in favour of a future that celebrates diversity and where all people, regardless of their background, can thrive in a fair and equitable working environment. 

Léa Mongenot and Kenza Zaulfikaraly