Estimate delegates, dear colleagues,

The call for a new social contract must go hand in hand with addressing effective labour market governance and focusing on implementation and measurable impacts.

Contracts are the foundational elements not just of every business, but of human cooperation and society. Contracts enable people, businesses, and society to come together and collaborate towards their specific desires and needs. So, what is a contract really? A contract is created when there is an offer, consideration, and acceptance between two or more parties.

In our case, when the report of the DG overlooks the essential role of the private sector and the necessity to create an environment conducive for business growth and job creation, when it misses the positive impact of technology, the importance of a skills and productivity agenda and sound macroeconomic policies, when the report falls short of properly addressing informality and addressing globalization (which has brought new opportunities, innovation, and job creation), when the report does not discuss the negative impacts of protectionism on social welfare, jobs, and opportunities, in short, when it does not respond to the needs of the business community, there is no real offer, no consideration, no mutual acceptance and therefore: NO CONTRACT! Not even a germ planted that could lead to a contract.

Also, introducing a new standard is not the solution to promoting social justice, address inequalities and foster sustainable development. Limited application of already ratified standards clearly demonstrates that this is a dead-end street. Instead, practical solutions and implementation strategies are much more needed. We employers call for a constructive and future oriented approach, addressing social and macroeconomic policies that would benefit the whole society, rather than consuming a bunch of resources on deep theoretical reflections on a “new social contract”.

Here is a short list of take-aways. For free, so please take note.

1. Invest in skills development from early childhood to adulthood
2. Increase productivity
3. Step-up efforts and tackle inefficiencies in transitioning to formal economies
4. Create a conducive environment for sustainable enterprises
5. Reform the social protection system to provide work incentives

In this years’ conference we engaged in a standard setting discussion on biological hazards, and we are working towards conclusions on important topics such as the care economy and fundamental principles and rights at work. Now let me tell you it will be of little avail to workers that the conventions are made by a tripartite constituency of their own choice if those conventions be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. Incoherence is a common hazard for people that dwell in ivory towers or are driven by ideology alone.

The Latin root is “cohaerere”. That means “stick together.” So once again: build on tripartism! This means that the governance, the policies, and the actions respect the role of Employers’ organizations. It requires a genuine partnership. Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, but working together is success. Tripartism is not just a pure talk-shop approach. It is not a mere ILO branding exercise.

My whole professional life was and is focused on efforts to improve health, safety, and wellbeing at work. My motivation is intrinsic. I have a deep and personal concern for the health, safety, and wellbeing of workers and so has our group. If the employers argue for simple and to the point provisions, if we ask for consistency and coherence, then we are not against workers’ safety or better protection against biological hazards. On the contrary. We want to achieve results in the field. This should not be a window dressing exercise, not paper-based safety, not a false sense of security!

Yet what is the Committee doing? The exact opposite… We are about to create a standard, a convention that is full of hurdles and barriers for the willing. And full of good excuses and arguments for those member-states that do not want to adhere to ILO conventions. A thousand reasons for not ratifying…

May I remind this house that not that long ago on the important right to social security we had to take one step back because the convention was aiming to high and had low ratification rates. We had to lower the bar and construct social protection floors, with minimum social security provisions to allow member-states to gradually improve and extend social protection. In the biohazard discussion we are adding layers to fundamental conventions on health and safety that already have a high protection standard and are difficult to achieve for many countries. So please, let us take one step back. LESS IS MORE. You can always do more than you commit yourself to in writing but NEVER less. Don’t commit to something if you are not certain that most of us will be able to fulfill the requirement.

Incoherence, inconsistency, and overload are the notes of the symphony of destruction. Nothing is forever. In a world, that is changing mad rapid, an ILO not delivering on its core business, then this is it, this is the countdown to extinction. Make a turn now, while you still can!

I THANK YOU!