Expanding The Support Of Employersin Regard To Child Labour Problem

Child labour is incongruous with any value developed through the second half of this century and every human rights convention. Yet, there are other things to be underlined presenting the same amount of incongruity: Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, not being able to utilise from health services, social insecurity.

Which has a priority?

While saying that "children can not be worked", it is supposed that they should be "looked after by their family". In this way, "society" imputes the responsibility to the shoulders of the "families"; and the adults of these families find these children right beside, while struggling for "daily bread, job and future". As a member of this family, a child is not able to stay unconcerned, while s/he is also struggling for life. Consequently, a child starts to work first with the aim of supporting her/his family, then with the concern of guaranteeing her/his own future.

At that point, it is pretty luxurious for this child to enjoy her/his childhood, have a quality education, not to work at "extreme" or "intolerable" jobs.

Nonetheless, the desperation of such a family would be reduced, as the level of income of this family increases and as the society takes on the "responsibility of these families". It is at this time when such a family is able to make a choice.

It is frequently stated that children are the future of societies. And it is the most natural defence mechanism that societies attend to their future. For this reason, it is broadly agreed upon that child labourers should be protected and looked after. WHAT IS THE SOCIAL COST OF EMPLOYING CHILD WORKERS?

1. These two factors make the societal future to be deprived of qualified manpower: children’s being involved in working life at an early age; their being withdrawn from the educational sphere.

2. Children can tolerate the hardships, inconvenient conditions and oppressions of working life only with the desire that they would establish their own business in the future. This desire, on the other hand, would create a profile that small-scale enterprises are to be managed by uneducated people in the future.

3. It is only the technological backwardness of enterprises that allows children to work. As a consequence of the utilisation of backward technologies by these workplaces, societies therefore come to face with unproductiveness, high energy consumption, environmental pollution, low standards and quality.

4. Child labourers are required to work and produce resources for the public welfare, while their coevals attend schools and play in the parks by means of utilising from these public resources. They have no time to play, and they are not able to attend schools. This is injustice.

5. It is a fundamental human right that children are able to attend schools, play games, develop their selves independently and to be fed. On the other hand, their being involved in working life –while abandoning all these rights- is a ground, sign and indicator for various human rights abuses.

6. Employing child workers is a factor that effects the employment structure of a country and the situation of labour market at close ranges. It is both the cause and consequence of unemployment.

7. These factors, effecting them at an early age, deepen the loneliness of child labourers: the struggle to remain standing alone at workplaces and among adult workers, not being able to spend times with their coevals. Whether they become employer or employee in the future, they remain away from any organised struggle or any process allowing them to insist on their rights. This is due to the fact that they are lacking in self-confidence and that they do not get acquainted with any co-operative struggles.

8. 2'nd Step (Long-term Objective): These should be eliminated: poverty, insufficiencies of the social security system, the concerns about finding a job in the future. These can be achieved only through convenient social policies.

9. 1'st Step (Short-term Objective): Given the fact that there are some children who are required to work and who cannot be withdrawn from working life, working and living environment of these children should be meliorated. Their lives should be facilitated, and it should be endeavoured that they overcome this period with a minimum loss.

LIMITS OF TOLERANCE?

All human rights documents as well as our common sense maintain that children should not be worked at an early age.

Yet, the same documents and senses also propose that children should be fed, be well-educated, and when they become adults, they should be worked in healthy and safe conditions.

All the scientists (and behavioural scientists), among which Moslow has a great significance, put forth the fact that meeting the physiological necessities of people has an utmost priority.

In this way, these intervention priorities make the "tolerance" factor a current issue with respect to children’s being involved in working life. However, what is the limit of this tolerance?

In what conditions child labour should not be allowed to occur, whatever the cost is?

For this question, ILO’s replies in this way: "Intolerable forms of child labour that demand immediate action for their prohibition are the ones that violate fundamental human rights, of any kind of forced labour, all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, that procure or offer a child for prostitution, drug trafficking or pornographic performances, the works which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, are likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children, and the works in which children are exposed to chemicals, or they are worked with hazardous vehicles and machines..."

The conception of hard and hazardous works should be shed a light on:

10. Children should not be employed in the works which are likely to harm the health and strength of children;

11. In order to understand this, a child should be provided with a health examination before entering in a job;

12. As long as a child works, the conditions of work should not harm his or her health;

13. In a working environment, measurements like air, noise, dust, and etc. and the risk analysis should be realised;

14. Children should be underwent medical examinations periodically (maximum in every 6 months);

15. Children should also be able to enjoy their childhood, play games and meet with their coevals;

16. Working hours of children should be diminished; youth centres and holiday camps should be devised in order to serve them to spend their leisure times together;

17. It should be provided that these children would continue their education;

18. For this, training seminars should be arranged for them to get information on "health + social + cultural" issues and to acquire vocational training;

19. All these demands are also relevant for the adult workers. Because, they are "human", too.

20. All these can be achieved not by the individual will of a single employer, but by means of forming groups with the participation of various employers.

THE LIST OF HAVES & LACKS

If we called this list only the "list of have’s", there would be an opportunity for us to answer the propositions positively considering the conditions of our country. Yet, these have’s are limited in number and they do not cover everyone in this country.

For this reason, we may propose that "if the below mentioned lacks were turned to be have’s, there would not be any child labour in our country".

The List of Lacks Considering the Living Conditions

If these are made available, working children in our country would succeed in working in more convenient conditions. Let’s question the list for adults and children separately:

The List of Lacks Considering the Working Conditions

WHY ARE THESE LACKS STILL PERSISTING?

21. Because, necessary intervention mechanisms and maintenance services are lacking.

22. In order to expose these deficiencies, sensitivity of public opinion and reactions of children and families are lacking.

23. Although available as local and small-scale examples, information and interaction networks are lacking.

LEGAL GROUND IS IMPORTANT, BUT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. WHY?

24. If implementations do not go hand in hand with public sensitivity, there is always a way for "wrongs" to infiltrate.

25. No government can be "strong" and "extravagant" enough to station an inspector in each workplace.

26. If both employers and employees are not fully satisfied with the works should be done, the necessary "enthusiasm" does not come along. It is this "enthusiasm", which is the essence of both living and developing.

27. Leading to wrong implications to occur, if the conditions are not fully abolished, "local" rights appear on the scene, which bear the above mentioned conditions. However, these local centres are the ones that are relatively sensitive workplaces having much better working conditions. On the other hand, the ones insisting on the same "wrongs" are just like the opposite.

On that ground, if we are not able to implement the laws completely and prevalently around the country, it means that we send children into an exile from relatively better off working conditions to much worse ones.

SMILING DISCOURSE

All laws are appropriated in order to ensure social order, by means of lessons taken from life, and in line with the citizens’ sensitivities. In any case, isn’t it the lessons taken from life that create all kind of sensitivities?

Convincing employers to perform their responsibilities on taking precautions can only be achieved by means of raising their social sensitivities. Consequently and undoubtedly, they would also be convinced about complying with the rules determined by the relevant laws.

The model we implement is not based upon punitive sanctions, rather it gives preference to encouragement and persuasion about the benefits of these laws.

In fact, if any success is brought about by force, it is not a long-lasting one. Given the facts that occupational health and safety inspections reach to 8 % in our country and more than half of the workplaces (100 workplaces) that are utilised from our model have been provided with services since 1986, the success of the smiling discourse (soft negotiation) is proven. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? EMPLOYERS?

It is one of the most important responsibilities of scientist to save people from "insubstantial" and "superficial" evaluations.

In our country, when we ask ordinary citizens to answer "who is responsible for child labour?", the reply, in general, would be "the employers". Yet, if we change the question and then ask "why these children work", the answer would become "it is poverty that push children to work".

While poverty, insufficiencies in the social security system, and concerns about finding a job in the future force children to be involved in working life, these factors also compel employers to appropriate such an inclination: the need for cheap labour, the desire for forming a good team for production, and traditional factors.

Therefore, it is the "whole society" that should be held in charge with "child labour problem". In order to sustain the condition that children are not allowed to be involved in working life at all, the supports should be expected not only from the employers, but also from all segments of society.

WHO OWNS THE DEBT?