Trade, Labour Markets and Health

Abstract

Previous analyses indicate that there are a number of potentially serious health risks associated with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The objective of this work is to provide further insight into the potential health impacts of the TPP by investigating labour market pathways. The impact of the TPP on employment and working conditions is a major point of contention in broader public debates. In public health literature, these factors are considered fundamental determinants of health, yet they are rarely addressed in analyses of trade and investment agreements. We therefore undertake a prospective policy analysis of the TPP through a content analysis of the agreement's Labour Chapter. Provisions of the Chapter are analyzed with reference to the health policy triangle and four main areas through which labour markets influence health: power relations, social policies, employment conditions and working conditions. Findings indicate that implementation of the TPP can have important impacts on health through labour market pathways. While the Labour Chapter is being presented by proponents of the agreement as a vehicle for improvement in labour standards, we find little evidence to support this view. Instead, we find several ways the TPP may weaken employment relations to the detriment of health.

USMCA (NAFTA 2.0): tightening the constraints on the right to regulate for public health

“…Labour provisions within FTAs can impact health in a number of ways [45]. For example, provisions that shift distributions of power among economic actors (e.g.…”

“…Like other areas of the USMCA, many of the provisions in its Labor Chapter are modelled on the CPTPP, which we have reviewed in detail elsewhere [45]. As with other labour chapters (including in the CPTPP), the USMCA refers only to the ILO Declaration and not to any of its more specific, fundamental Conventions (of which the US has only ratified 2, and neither of those related to workers’ right to organize and collectively bargain); and which, if implemented and enforced, contribute both directly and indirectly to workers’ health.…”

“…As with the CPTPP, violations of labour conditions with the USMCA are confined only to circumstances where a labour right is denied or level of labour protection lowered in order to obtain a trade or investment advantage. This would seem to exclude all persons working in the non-export or private (investment-driven) sectors, such as public employees and teachers, with potential knock-on effects for health equity [45]. However, for the first time in a trade agreement, the USCMA chapter does provide a definitions of the oft-used phrases “through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction” and “in a manner affecting trade between the Parties”:…”

International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good

“…TIAs have a range of positive and adverse outcomes. They affect up-stream determinants of health, such as poverty and inequality, in complex and much debated ways, [ 5 – 7 ] p.13 and can increase inequalities between and within countries: ‘the rich can get richer, and the poor poorer.’ [ 8 ] p.8. More specifically, TIAs have implications for (1) state budgets; (2) state governance; (3) achieving common good objectives; (4) developing countries; and (5) specific health concerns in relation to both communicable and noncommunicable disease (NCDs).…”

“…TIAs can detract in some cases from the attainment of social, health, human rights and environmental objectives. Generally trade and investment liberalization can affect ‘power relations, social policies, employment conditions and working conditions’ [ 5 ]. TIAs can affect ‘international and domestic labor markets, …job creation, wage and labor standards, and protections’ [ 11 ].…”