SEATTLE, Washington – There is debate among those who study global poverty about the effectiveness of instituting a global minimum wage. Nearly 40 percent of workers in Africa have an income that is less than what they can survive on. Several countries have adopted minimum wage policies with varying results. Some argue that a global standard of pay is the only way to guarantee a fair working wage and protect workers from exploitation.
The reason that many of the world’s workers earn so little is that they are competing in a system that measures success by their loss. A “rigged labour market” is what is currently operating, according to Jason Hickle of Al Jazeera. A global economy with a culture of laissez-faire policies that allow companies to survey the globe for the best investment opportunities without having to worry about being restrained by the laws governing a single given country.
Their search for the best investment opportunity means they are seeking the lowest wages, weakest protections, most limited rights and standards, and most insignificant taxes and startup costs. The global poverty crisis has left developing countries dependent on receiving foreign financial and business investment for growth and stability.
It leaves companies at an inequitable advantage to extract profit from the most ideal and therefore inequitable conditions to meet their interests. This means that the economies that are the most worthy of investment and most likely to deliver on profit would be states that have policies and conditions that would provide the least benefit for the most vulnerable of workers. This culture and practice of exploitation is maintained under the threat that they and their monies could pull out together entirely and instead invest in a competing market or state with more exploitative working conditions.
Without a global minimum wage or wage protection policies, there is no need to bargain with workers or develop safety standards or guarantees of rights. It’s a choice between unsafe and exploitative conditions or no income and employment for many of the world’s workers. Some companies operate business with this in mind, and have successfully lobbied to enact legislation that protects their profits over the rights of workers.
Country by country fixes won’t work as companies will just hop from one country to another and NAFTA already provides companies with the rights to sue governments that enact policies and laws that inhibit or limit their ability to make a profit.
Without global standards there can be no enforcement and no protection for workers. The premise of human rights is that they are universal – therefore the rights protecting some workers should be guaranteed for all. Human rights are enforced through their universality and most accessed and enjoyed when everyone has access to them. Rather than having wage floors set to meet the maximum price companies are willing spend and creating a wage based on the needs of companies, there should be a component of human rights involved.
If a minimum wage is mandatory it should be because workers deserve to be employed and maintain human dignity and should be able to work for a living wage. A global minimum wage is only effective if people are able to not just survive and produce goods for companies, but are able to thrive and participate in an economic system. When workers are safe, healthy and protected, there is a greater return on investment that is not only measured in dollars but in human potential.
– Nina Verfaillie
Feature Writer
Sources: Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera