European campaign to ban nightwork for all IN JUNE 1989, a conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) will meet in Geneva, Switzerland, to rediscuss Convention 89, which bans nightwork for women in industry. This convention came into force in 1951 and has been ratified by 56 countries. However, there is a strong risk that it will be modified, or that some countries - Switzerland has already announced its intention - will not re-ratify it.
The ILO conference, bringing together representatives of governments, employers and trade unions, will not provide a real opportunity to hear the opinions of rank-and-file workers and their experience of, and opposition to, nightwork. For this reason a committee of trade-unionists, feminists and others has taken the initiative to organize a symposium against nightwork in Geneva on June 10, 1989, just before the opening of the ILO session.
lems of decline in productivity and quality because women are reputed to be more conscientious and punctual (and lower-paid).
Employers hope that if they reach an agreement with the unions within the ILO their projects can be implemented without trouble. They want an international agreement so that there will be a "fair" basis for competition.
The social and health arguments against nightwork need no further repetition. The appeal launched by the United Committee for a Symposium Against Nightwork in Switzerland summarizes them (see box).
The formal position of trade unions in many cases remains opposition to nightwork. The European TUC reaffirmed this position in December 1988 by adopting a motion restating its general opposition to nightwork for men and women, calling for strict control over the grounds for exceptions and for compensatory working conditions where nightwork is necessary.
In the context of the discussion in the ILO, it will be important to mobilize opinion within the unions and at the level of rank-and-file workers to make clear that workers will not accept any attempt by the union leaderships to go back on this position during their discussions within the ILO.
The Committee is hoping that delegations of trade unions, workers and women's
T HROUGHOUT Europe, women's nightwork in industry is becoming a focus of sharpening conflict between bosses and trade unions. Convention 89 of the ILO has, up to now, formally banned nightwork for women in industry.
The reality, of course, is already different. In France for example, which has not withdrawn from this convention, a derogation was given for women to work nights in the electronics industry, under the fabulous pretext that it was a question of national military defence!
There are many reasons for the employers' wish to introduce women's nightwork. They include:
• Increasing use of machinery for the best return possible and at the lowest cost in sectors where sophisticated machines require enormous investment (electronics, optical instruments and micro-electronics, for example).
• The need for totally flexible production without stocks that immobilize capital, which could otherwise be spent on publicity and marketing.
• The difficulty, particularly in economically developed countries, of finding stable, submissive, flexible, competitively-priced workers prepared to work day and night, weekdays and weekends.
• In high-technology sectors, nightwork is basically for unskilled sectors, working without the normal supervision (it is very difficult to find technicians prepared to work nights), doing repetitive, boring work which nevertheless requires a lot of attention.
Employers think that it is easier to use women as a workforce that works day and night when the orders come in and stays at home when they do not, and to overcome the difficulty of recruitment and the proborganizations will attend the symposium in June and add their voices to the case against lifting the ban on nightwork for women and for extending this ban to all cases, for men and women, except where there is proven social necessity.
Copies of the appeal can be obtained from: Comité Travail et Santé, CP 119, 1211 Geneva 8, Switzerland. *
Appeal for a symposium against nightwork • Because nightwork is a danger to health
It is recognized today that people who work at night — men or women - suffer serious effects on their health: problems in sleeping, gastro-intestinal trouble, and psychiatric problems among others. It is impossible to go through all the social and family problems caused by nightwork, as well as the chronic fatigue that comes from a lack of night-time sleep. It has been proved that the body never adapts to changed rhythms, and that constant tension results from the fact that the different biological functions do not have real rest periods. • Because nightwork leads to isolation
Nightwork forces one to live at counter-current to the majority of soclety, and therefore makes it difficult or impossible to participate in collective activities. As well as social isolation, there is also isolation at work because very often at night the factory or workplace is deserted. Finally, the nightwork of one member of a household spoils the quality of life for all the others. • Because nightwork is not the result of a free choice
For the majority of workers, nightwork is imposed upon them, either because, in refusing it, they would be without a job; or because the average wage in their sector is so low that they absolutely have to improve it through bonuses; or because, given the lack of crèches, nightwork seems a solution for parents. • Because equality should go in the direction of social progress
The protection of women against nightwork is justified because they are still traditionally responsible for domestic tasks more than men. In addition, the ban on nightwork is not an obstacle to their promotion because in most cases nightwork consists of repetitive tasks.
Most social gains have been won first for a limited group before being generalized. Now in the field of nightwork the ban should be extended to men.
Nightwork can be socially necessary (in hospitals or transport, for example). In these cases, there should be compensatory working conditions. But it is a health danger for all women and men. It should be banned for all women and men when it is not socially 13 necessary. *
USA A LTHOUGH the right to safe and legal abortion has been chipped away bit by bit over the past eight years under Reagan, it was not until the Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of a Missouri anti-abortion law, in the case Webster Vs. Reproductive Health Services, that the threat was great enough to build this massive demonstration.
Theoretically, the US Supreme Court cannot be lobbied. But in practice it is impossible for the justices to function in a vacuum. Chief Justice Rehnquist once admitted that the Supreme Court is affected by "the court of public opinion." Over half a million people from all over the US demonstrated what that opinion is.
Webster, accepted for review upon special request by the Bush administration, involves the constitutionality of a Missouri statute that would severely restrict women's access to abortion services. The statute's assault on a women's right to control her body begins in the preamble which states that life begins at conception and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being." It bars the use of public funds for abortion counseling programs and "to perform or assist an abortion, not necessary to save the life of the mother."
It also prohibits abortions in all public hospitals and clinics (even if conducted by a private physician with private funds), and requires fetal monitoring tests on any woman who is over 19 weeks pregnant and is requesting an abortion, in order to determine if the fetus is viable — able to survive outside of the womb. The most recent lower court ruling declared the Missouri law unconstitutional.
The implications of
Supreme Court rulings
The Supreme Court could rule in any of three ways. The first, and least likely outcome, is that the lower court verdict will be upheld and Roe vs. Wade will remain intact. The icon posited, is has tie i, be The second possibility, that Roe will be ultimately will be made more feasible by the third, most likely result: that the Court will strike down only some of the provisions of the Missouri anti-abortion law.
Considering the composition of the Court, including three Reagan appointees, its recent rulings, which demonstrate that it exists to protect privilege, and the political climate of the Bush administration, a partial disabling of Roe is almost assured. It is generally agreed that the decisive vote on the abortion issue belongs to Sandra Day O'Connor, the only female justice on the Court. She personally opposes abortion, but may find problems with the violation of free speech and privacy in Webster, as she has done in previous controversial cases. 14 of the anti-abortion provisions, it would If the Supreme Court were to uphold any International Viewpoint #162 • May 1, 1989 most definitely foretell great and continuous losses for women's rights, by allowing each state to devise its own anti-abortion laws around the decision handed down. The following points are among the most immediate dangers for women.
The provision of the Missouri law prohibiting public funds for abortion procedures, if found constitutional, could prove to be particularly harmful in areas where public hospitals or clinics are the only abortion providers. Obtaining an abortion would require travelling longer distances, causing delay and increased health risks and costs. Poor women might effectively be denied any safe and legal choice, and be forced into illegal abortions or having an unwanted child.
Horrific consequences of
"fetal rights"
The concept of fetal rights, contained in the preamble and in the fetal monitoring provision, has already proven to be an enemy of the control women have over their bodies in dozens of cases in state and lower federal courts.
Among these appalling cases:
• 1986, Michigan: Penny Fryover was 16 weeks pregnant when she was killed in a car crash while swerving to avoid a dog. Her husband sued the dog's owners for the wrongful death of his wife and her fetus. He was awarded damages for both.
• 1987, Washington, D.C.: Angela Carder was 25 weeks pregnant when she was diagnosed as having cancer. While an emergency regimen of chemotherapy could have prolonged her life, a court-ordered cesarean section was performed on her against her will and against the advice of all of her doctors. The fetus lived two and a half hours and Carder two more days.
• 1989, New York: Nancy Klein was pregnant when she suffered severe brain damage in an automobile accident. Her husband had to fight two complete strangers (prominent anti-abortionists) in court for guardianship of his wife and her fetus. He finally obtained guardianship and an abortion for his wife, whose condition could not handle the strain of pregnancy.
Closely related to these cases are hundreds of others, all over the country, involving forced surgery (generally cesarean sections or sterilization). There are an increasing number of cases concerning fetal abuse usually brought against poor women who are under the watchful eye of government health care. Drugs, diet, sexual activity, and refusal of medical advice can all lead to prosecution, and such cases are most often decided against women, creating the idea that a woman is her unborn fetus's worst enemy.
This is especially ridiculous in contemporary US society. Millions of women, predominantly the urban poor, women of color, and the homeless, have inadequate access to general medical care, much less