Baumler Raphael
World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
Mar Policy. 2020 Nov;121:104101. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104101. Epub 2020 Aug 18.
In a view to protect workers from extended work periods as well as to comply with the Versailles Peace Treaty requirements, the International Labour Organization (ILO) regulated hours of work from 1919 using '8-hour workday and 48-h workweek' as yardsticks. However, a historical perspective demonstrates the ILO's difficulties in integrating such standards for sea workers. From 1920 to 1958, the ILO endeavoured to anchor the 8-hour workday principle in maritime conventions on working time and to ensure compliance by quantifying manning levels. Facing sectoral opposition and the obstacle of the minimum tonnage requirement, none of the conventions adopted during the first period entered into force. A second regulatory wave (1995-2007) initiated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) orientated working time towards fatigue management and adopted the 14-hour workday. Absorbed by the ILO from 1996, this threshold facilitated the implementation of working time standards for sea workers. The existence of autonomous maritime governance at the ILO and the IMO complemented by the incorporation of the tonnage clause in maritime convention allowed the acceptance of the 14-hour workday system in spite of breaching the universal principles established a century ago. The departure between maritime and land standards show that sectoral interests prevail over labour rights. More decisively, current standards detached labour rights from workers' human nature and attached them directly to sectoral interests.
为保护工人免受过长工时之苦,并遵守《凡尔赛和约》的要求,国际劳工组织(ILO)自1919年起以“8小时工作日和48小时工作周”为标准对工作时间进行规范。然而,从历史角度看,国际劳工组织在将这些标准纳入海员标准方面面临困难。1920年至1958年期间,国际劳工组织努力将8小时工作日原则纳入关于工作时间的海事公约,并通过量化配员水平来确保合规。面对行业反对以及最低吨位要求这一障碍,第一阶段通过的公约均未生效。由国际海事组织(IMO)发起的第二轮监管浪潮(1995年至2007年)将工作时间导向疲劳管理,并采用了14小时工作日制。1996年起被国际劳工组织采纳,这一标准促进了海员工作时间标准的实施。国际劳工组织和国际海事组织自主的海事治理,以及海事公约中吨位条款的纳入,使得尽管违反了一个世纪前确立的普遍原则,14小时工作日制仍被接受。海员与陆地标准的背离表明,行业利益优先于劳工权利。更具决定性的是,现行标准将劳工权利与工人的人性相分离,并直接将其与行业利益挂钩。