1. ILO and International Standards
Abbreviations:
ILO – International Labour Organization
OHS / OSH – Occupational Health and Safety / Occupational Safety and Health
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration
GHS – Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals
ITC – International Training Centre (division of ILO)
Convey detailed information about the International Labour Standards
for Occupational Health and Safety.
As paraphrased from the ILO website, the ILO originated with the
signatory nations of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Their stated primary goal
is to “promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive
work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.” From their
Mission and Objectives page, “The International Labour Organization (ILO) is
devoted to promoting social justice and internationally recognized human and
labour rights, pursuing its founding mission that labour peace is essential to
prosperity.”
The ILO boasts of being the only tripartite UN agency. This means they
have input from governments, select employers, and unions. The primary
means of addressing Health and Safety and other issues are through
International Labor Standards.
As stated on the ILO website, there is a process to the creation and
adoption of International Labor Standards. When international issues arise, the
ILO's governing board will decide to present the issue at the International Labor
Conference. The International Labor Office performs an analysis of the current
laws involving the current issue. To elicit comments and discussions of the issue
at hand, this analysis is submitted to governments, member states, workers and
employers. The Office prepares a report of these comments and discussions,
which are discussed at the International Labor Conference. Following the end of
the conference, the Office prepares a secondary reports with draft instruments
for comments which is submitted for discussion at the next conference where the
draft is signaled for adoption.
Primarily governments use International Labor Standards. Some states
choose to ratify an ILO convention while others use the standards as guidelines
to establish their law. International standards can be used to shape different
policies; they can be used to shape local policies of family and employment.

2. Some examples of work ILO was or is a part of are the GHS, which largely
accomplished what its full name spells out. Another example of ILO involvement
is UNAIDS which holds some interesting positions.
To promote their stances, the ILO has a training arm called the
International Training Centre.
For additional information, the Cornell University Law Library has a very
good and concise summary on the ILO.
How is the goal of the International Standards for Health and Safety
different from OSHA?
Per the OSHA website, OSH Act of 1970 was created in response to the
numerous work related injuries and illnesses. Under the Act, OSHA assures safe
and descent working environment for workers of the states. The goal of ILO
differs from that of OSHA in that ILO encourages the health and safety of
workers globally. Per the ILO OSH website, Safe Work is the ILO Program on
Work and Environment Safety and Health and its purpose is to bring global
awareness of the magnitude of the consequences of On-the-Job injuries and
illnesses.
The U.S. is a member of the global society and global economy. The
U.S. has extensive OSH laws. In your opinion, is there really a need to
have international standards? Do we need to participate? Explain.
Analyn’s Pre-Info Gathering Response:
Is there really a need to have international standards?
Yes, but this must be exclusively done within the specific industries for
quality settings. Going from a top-down governmental approach carries with it
extensive problems and handicaps developing countries.
Does the USA need to participate?
No and yes. It is a violation of the sovereignty of the country if done in
an official treaty level function. It is beneficial to share what expertise the USA
has and the unbiased data. Also, if the USA's standards are already high,
participation in an official capacity outside of sharing of information is not
needed. It would be best if non-government industry specialists participated.

3. Emma’s Pre-Info Gathering Response:
Is there really a need to have international standards?
Yes. International standards are necessary for product comparison and
allow fair and equal trade. Standards provide a quality mark that can facilitate
the development of many products and facilitate international trade because
requirements for quality and safety of goods are the same. They ensure safety of
transported goods.
Does the USA need to participate?
Yes. Technology and other advancements are forever changing;
participating will facilitate the updating process of products, machinery, and
other goods, which is necessary to maintain quality and safety.
Analyn’s Post-Info Gathering Response:
Is there really a need to have international standards?
I submit that I agree with International Standards from the basis of
competing in a global economy. Equal definition of terms such as the GHS is a
needed item but not for social justice. It is common sense to have universal
definitions of chemicals. The topic of chemical classification does not carry with
it charged points of view. They are what they are.
When 'social justice' gets inserted, it is attempting to project one set of
values forcibly onto other nations regardless of the views of their population and
government. For equality between governments, OSH standards should be
normalized with the lead of the various industries and aided by government
recognition. Empower the individual countries to pursue industries that fit their
assets and abilities to support. A model of this was already done on the quality
side called 6 Sigma.
To be brutally honest, the more I read about ILO and its goals, the more I
thought I was reading fiction based in a fantasy world. The ILO goals have no
basis in reality and depend on a global top-down structure system that next to
never works. I‟m not being cynical, but I‟ve seen what happens personally.
Top-down government systems or solutions fail quickly for many reasons.

4. 1) The national government is incompetent, corrupt, a dictatorship, or toothless. A
large portion of the nations either can't or won't comply but will take the bribe to
„agree‟ to the terms.
2) The reports given back to the ILO will be based on the findings of bribed
regulators. This is just the standard method of operation in the Philippines and
many other countries. Either the regulator pressures you for a bribe under
threat of shutting you down or they are available to be bought for a price.
3) The ideal solution imposed on the country serves to make life more miserable
and dangerous. When the Philippine government bowed to UN pressure to
forbid capital punishment, crime, terrorism, and murder rates soared. Certain
cities became safe again because of „vigilantes taking justice into their hands.‟
4) The ideal solutions are ridiculously impossible to implement due to fiscal,
geographic, and weather restrictions and the reservations of the populace of the
government. From the perspective of the Philippines, the people are very
hesitant to accept changes from the UN or other foreign entities for a sound
reason. They were invaded, occupied, murdered, and raped by Spain (333
years) and Japan (WWII). The people view the suggestions with great
suspicion. The government has many reasons to fear the people. As such,
what is officially passed is rarely acted on, as enforcement is unrealistic.
5) Localized details (national level in this case) never fit a one-size-fits-all solution.
What may work in the USA may not work in Chili, the Philippines, or Madagascar.
This is a core reason why costs skyrocket, as every detail cannot possibly be
included in an overarching plan.
If OSH standards are driven by Industry norms, irrespective of value sets (UN
AIDS), then the people are far more prone to support it. It would be the rules of
competing in a given industry on the global marketplace. The top-down ILO
structure basically keeps the poor countries poor and dependent.
Additionally, going through an industry norm basis gives a much stronger
check and balance to a plan. The regulator from within the industry can get
fired much easier than if they were employed by the government.
Does the USA need to participate?
Yes. We are living in a global economy. Certain aspects do need a
common base of expectations and definitions so all are on the same page. The
USA can share information and stay on top of information as it may impact the
country. I do strongly disagree with the ILO format though. Industry focused
subsections are a must. Government should serve as a facilitator and not a
controller.
Emma’s Post-Info Gathering Response:
Is there really a need to have international standards?

5. International Standards, as previously mentioned, are necessary to maintain
competitive markets as well as safety and quality of transported goods. When
one thinks about the healthcare field, its medical supplies and equipments,
International Standards are a must. They ensure the quality and safety of such
equipments to properly cater to patient‟s needs.
International standards are beneficial to different aspect of society. It is
beneficial to consumers because the confidence level in the products, goods, and
services is elevated and a greater variety of offers is available as well. According
to IDS article, International standards are also beneficial to governments
because they can serve as a guide for policy making in matters of safety and
health (3). One example in which International standards have been successful is
found on ILO website. It is in the prevention of product poisoning related
accidents among children. International standards worked to implement child
safety caps for chemical fluids and other hazardous materials that can be
harmful to children. Another example was food safety management. Standards
require that organizations prove that food is safe at the time of consumption (4).
Standards are adopted based on current international issues but adopting
or implementing these standards does not guarantee change so this could pose a
challenge for certain organizations and governments. ISO does aim to provide
worldwide safety of different aspect of life but as any organization, it is an
imperfect one.
Does the USA need to participate?
The US has been heavily involved with ISO from the start. They both share the
same goals to encourage and maintain human rights in every aspect of life but
especially in working conditions. According to ISO.org, They both made a
commitment to bring respect for democratic principles.
Technology and other advancements are forever changing; the US participation
will facilitate the updating process of products, machinery, and other goods
which is necessary to maintain quality, safety, and fair and efficient trade.

6. References
1. http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/mission-and-objectives/lang--en/index.htm
2. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=OSHACT&p_id=
2743
3. International Dental Standards. Dental Material Journal 2009; 28(1): 57-61.
4. http://www.iso.org/sites/ConsumersStandards/en/2-3-examples-international.htm#4