Where8217;s the money, Mr. Gates?

It is no secret that India is one of the best places in the world to go shopping for good software. It is getting to be less of a secret tha...

It is no secret that India is one of the best places in the world to go shopping for good software. It is getting to be less of a secret that Indian engineers are paid less than a third of what their counterparts in Europe or America would get paid for the same work and in the international scale of money would even qualify for the wages category as opposed to the salary lot.

Bill Gates, for example, does not fork out the same amounts of money for work done in Bangalore, Mumbai and California. Haven8217;t heard anyone in the West complain about equal pay for equal jobs when he does that. Haven8217;t heard any equity and justice language coming out of Swissair or for that matter from any other multinational that pays Indian or developing country staff developing country salaries. If the domestic labour8217; and governments complain, companies relent. Especially as these practices are reminiscent of the East India Company.But in the international world, this is called globalisation, championed by the Geneva-based WorldTrade Organisation WTO which seeks to open new markets in the world to freer trade and unbridled movement of goods, services, people and money. In this circuit and sphere, salaries not wages are adjusted8217; to local conditions. Doesn8217;t matter if Indian engineers working for multinationals are remarkably underpaid compared to international standards and find their chances of seeking greener pastures in the West stymied by strict quotas. India8217;s calls for free movement of its qualified personnel as providers of services, especially in the software sector, have fallen on deaf ears.

Half a mile up the road from the WTO is the International Labour Organisation ILO where 174 countries this week moved one small step closer to policing workers8217; rights. A text adopted on Thursday night after tortuous and divisive negotiations aims to protect the right of workers to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively, to eliminate forced labour, end discrimination in employment and to bring about the effectiveabolition of child labour. In the final day of the two-week annual meeting, ILO member states also agreed to continue work in 1999 on a new convention to ban the most exploitative forms of child labour including hazardous work, debt bondage, child pornography and prostitution. But a new convention to provide better protection for contract workers worldwide which should have been concluded at these talks was put off, to be addressed by the year 2002.The new text creates a follow-up mechanism for members to report back on their compliance with these core labour standards, the closest the ILO can get to teeth. The US which is not party to most of the core labour standards and which lobbied heavily for the text as a way of defending fundamental freedoms in an age of economic globalisation called the agreement historic8217; and saluted its moral8217; pitch. US Deputy Under Secretary of Labour Andrew Samet pledged in a speech that Washington would not use the text for protectionist purposes, a commitment echoed byWashington.Doesn8217;t make sense, does it? A lot of the debate around labour rights and trade is confusing with equal parts hypocrisy, protectionism, and questions on equity fairness.

Western multinationals whether it be in the airlines, apparel, software or food processing industries, openly boast of how they can get their work done in the developing world for a pittance but fall silent when their countries pillory the developing world at the WTO for providing cheap labour, costing a fraction of their workforce. This approach gives currency to concerns in the developing world which have long viewed Western attempts to link trade and labour issues as nothing more than protectionism disguised under a moral cloak. 8220;We consider that the declaration should reaffirm the ILO as the competent body to set and deal with labour standards and rule out its misuse for protectionist or trade purposes,8221; Satyanarayan Jatiya, India8217;s Labour Minister, told the meet. The text explicitly bans its misuse for protectionistmeasures and re-states the link between 8220;social progress and economic growth8221;.The West, especially the United States and France, would like the WTO to take chapter and verse out of the ILO and enshrine it in the trade body which, contrary to the ILO, would then have the right and the required mechanism to enforce them. The United States and many countries in the European Union would get out of it at the WTO by stating that their domestic rights are ILO-friendly or by simply ignoring for themselves what they seek to impose on others. This is another way of telling the developing world heads we win, tails you lose.