HIV/AIDS and the world of work

International Labour Conference 2009-2010

Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö
Työelämä- ja markkinaosasto

Comments from The Finnish Trade Unions (SAK, STTK, Akava)

The Finnish Trade Unions wish to draw attention to the following points when preparing for the second Session of HIV/AIDS Committee:

The ILO Office has made good work when further redacting the outcomes of 2009 Committee. We appreciate this work and mostly support it.

The proposed Recommendation is an adequate instrument for proper protection, on condition that the follow-up mechanism will effectively take place through ILO tripartite machinery and as such this principle must be clearly put in writing in the Recommendation. This is a point for discussion in Committee 2010.
We do not oppose additional follow-up through UNGASS, which must not by any means weaken the tripartite ILO follow-up proceedings. (paragraph 47)

Any kind of discrimination, based on real or perceived HIV status, should not be allowed in any cases.
To this end, we support the removal of brackets as in the Office text (para 25). If left in the text, it might even encourage persons tested negative to neglect proper prevention practises while at work – though their HIV-status may turn to positive any day. All workers need to follow all prevention practises while working, every day. We should also note that the viral load of HIV-positive workers who are under treatment is very low, thus bringing the risk of transmission to very low levels as well. The transmission risk of very recent cases, without diagnosis and without treatment, is much higher.
We must reject this clause as an entrance to accept discrimination based on HIV status.

We share the Office concern (para 9) that wording ”protection equivalent to” in fact will weaken the protection provided by Convention 111. That threat must be rejected. Insted, wording like in para 11 (Yellow Report) is more adequate. This should be a point for discussion in Committee 2010.

In order to protect migrant workers and migrant jobseekers against discrimination, we suggest to mention these vulnerable groups spesificly (para 23 and 26). Both paras need to be included, since the discriminator may be either the employer, or the Member state when receiving the immigrant.

The consultation of workers and their representatives is of utmost importance when planning and carrying out workplace health interventions. This basic principle was also accepted in the Committee 2009. Now, after some changes in the order of the paragraphs, it seems to be missing. We suggest it will be returned to the text (in the actual numbering, para 17).

In order to further clarify some occupations that are more risky in terms of professional HIV transmission, we suggest to mention health sector workers as an example in para 28.

Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö SAK

Toimihenkilökeskusjärjestö STTK

Akava ry