IWD: How Women Are Tackling Violence and Harassment in the World of Work

The 8^th of March has always been an opportunity to commemorate women’s long-standing struggles to build a more equal world. Every year on this date, thousands of people across the world celebrate gender equality victories so far and continue elevating their demands for gender justice.

This 8^th March, I want to highlight one of those demands: the elimination of gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) in the world of work and how women’s solidarity and alliances have been at the centre of tackling this issue worldwide.

Convention 190: A milestone in the struggle against violence and harassment in the world of work

Capitalism has managed to prevail at the expense of women’s impoverishment and oppression, with GBVH as one of the most prevalent and yet hidden human rights violations, a primary barrier to achieving gender equality. The first global survey on experiences of violence and harassment at work developed by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and published in late 2022, showed that almost 23 per cent of workers equal to 743 million workers have experienced violence and harassment at work, whether physical, psychological, or sexual. The survey also showed that 205 million have experienced sexual violence and harassment and that certain demographic groups are more exposed to experience all forms of GBVH (for instance, young women were twice as likely as young men to suffer sexual violence and harassment).

ILO’s Violence and Harassment Convention, “Convention 190”, is a global treaty that recognises the right to a world of work free from violence and harassment. The Convention defines violence and harassment as “a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices” that “aim at, result in, or are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual, or economic harm”. More than a decade of mobilisation across sectors, countries, and regions was necessary to secure its adoption at the International Labor Conference (ILC) in 2019 and to ensure that it incorporated women’s lived experiences, especially those of the most exposed and highly vulnerable, such as domestic workers. A few key aspects of the Convention are its protection of sectors and forms of work that are traditionally excluded from social protections, such as the informal economy, as well as all gender identities; it also outlines how GBVH could be addressed in specific sectors; it protects workers beyond a physical worksite, including online harassment and GBVH in public spaces.

The Convention has been ratified by 25 countries and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has estimated that this number will increase to 50 by the end of 2023. The adoption of C190 has also been followed by widespread mobilisation and campaigning efforts. A recent report of the ITUC shows that 91% of unions are engaged in social dialogue to align C190 with national laws and policies, and about 67% have negotiated workplace policies and collective bargaining agreements.

The power of cross-movement alliances and solidarity

Women have been at the centre of the mobilisation and coordinated action aligned with C190. For instance, cross-movement alliances between women from unions, workers-based organisations, feminist movements, and broader civil society groups and organisations have been instrumental in the ratification processes and legal reform. From the Women Union Network (WUN) in Cambodia to the Coalition for Dignity in Middle East and North Africa, and from the advocacy Committee for C190 in Colombia to the cross-movement networks in Nigeria and South Africa, women are leading broad efforts to promote the ratification of Convention 190 and to bring its content to public policy, legal reform, and collective bargaining, even when ratification might seem like a faraway dream.

For example, Argentina, the fourth country to ratify the Convention, owes this achievement to the continuous work of the alliance between the union movement and feminist movements. Colombia, on the other hand, is one of the countries in which ratification will likely happen this year thanks to the articulated and long-standing work of the Advocacy Committee for C190. Agreements with brands in the garment industry, such as in Lesotho or Indonesia, are also examples of the coordinated action between unions and broader movements to eradicate GBVH in the world of work, with women taking the lead to make this happen.

Women’s solidarity has also been built with GBVH survivors. For instance, in Cambodia, women in the garment sector have developed a strategy of focal points to identify cases of GBVH in the workplace and beyond. The focal points link the survivor with their union, which connects the survivor with social services that can provide specialised support. The focal points also highlight specific cases to the advocacy coalition for campaigning and advocacy purposes, in agreement with the GBVH survivor. There are countless cases across countries that show how cross-movement alliances and women’s solidarity have played a key role in advancing the fight against GBVH in the world of work.

What we can learn from the mobilisation and solidarity around C190

The case of Convention 190 has special ingredients that have configured its adoption and implementation process to be inclusive and responsive to the lived experiences of women workers and broader marginalised workers across sectors and identities. In particular, the engagement and alliances between women union leaders and feminist groups before and beyond the adoption of the Convention show why centring affected communities and social movements in standard-setting processes of human rights is key to realising its implementation in practice.

The story began with women and their allied male counterparts in unions and broader workers-based organisations working for years for GBVH in the world of work to be included and prioritised in the labour movement agendas. Together with other variables, this element of the equation made it possible for the C190 to be adopted with the high participation of women workers. For instance, the tripartite structure of the ILO, accompanied by the tripartite consultations throughout this standard-setting process, was key for women workers to be engaged from the very beginning. In fact, women workers across sectors were the ones who pushed for the process to initiate. This created conditions for meaningful participation of social movements, unions in this case, with the strong leadership of women workers in collaboration with broader movements and feminist organisations. Such an alliance pushed for the Convention to recognise GBVH as a human rights violation (which was in danger at some point), and for the language and content of the Convention to respond to their lived realities and incorporate compliance mechanisms. Once the Convention was adopted, there were already cross-movement alliances in place that have continued to operate in the new stage of ratification and implementation and have expanded their power and influence with remarkable successes.

Therefore, the process around Convention 190 and the struggle against GBVH more broadly shows us that social movements are not just passive receptors of foreign human rights standards, but can be active actors in its conception, adoption, and implementation and that social movement leaders are knowledgeable and crucial participants in these processes. While there is no doubt that there is still much to be done to ensure meaningful participation of communities and social movements in standard-setting processes and around the implementation of human rights standards by broader treaty bodies, the process around C190 is a clear example of how this can be done.

Today, I not only commemorate the 8^th of March, but I celebrate it. And with that, I celebrate the victories and achievements of women all around the world, including those of women workers.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity programme, the International Inequalities Institute, or the London School of Economics and Political Science.