Rights violation in Child Wage Labour: Whose Rights; For whom?

By Whom and
why?

A critical analysis into the subjective perception that child wage labour violates the
human rights of the child labourer. The realisation that a lot of today’s African affluents
are graduates of the inherent ‘placement’ system where they had provided various
services in exchange for education or apprenticeship, give reasons to question the
rationale behind the West’s indiscriminate dogma of ‘righting’ children.

Introduction

The equal right theory behind the United Nations ‘Universal’ Declaration of Human
Rights (UNDHR) 1948 posits that, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights.” In theory, this in general, and the International Labour Organisation ILO
Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC) 1989 and its subsequent protocols in
particular are supposed to “protect and safeguard the welfare of all children as equal
human beings.” http://www.laborrights.org:80/stop-child-labor. However, in today’s
world of work, the social constructiveness of this Western derived concept of Human
rights and the similar lack of singularity in defining a child have significantly constrained
attempts to consensually qualify child wage labour as violating human rights or
otherwise. This is because despite the centrality of ‘universality’ in the Western
concept of human rights, non-Western cultures or ‘relativists’ led by Singapore,
strongly opposed the imperialistic tendency of the West to indiscriminately imposed
their indigenous cultural dogmas globally in complete disregard of the sovereignty of
non-Western cultural values and ethics. Principally, this discourse will employ the
theories of universalism and relativism to show how cultural divergence (social
construction) has made any attempts to achieve consensus in qualifying child wage
labour as implicitly breaching the employee’s human rights, complex and problematic.
To ensure that this analysis is understood from a unitary perspective I deem it
necessary to define those socially constructed terminologies that are central to my
debate. For the purpose of this discussion, the Minimum Age Convention of the ILO
(Convention 138) defines child labour as “economic activity performed by a person
under the age of fifteen, and prohibited for being hazardous to the physical, mental, and
moral well-being of the child as well as for preventing effective schooling.” Zehra (2002,
p. 173). The convention goes further to qualify labour as; "not limited to work for gain

1
but includes chores or household activities in the household of the child's care-giver,
where such work falls within the definition of child labour”.
www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/simpoc/southafrica/report/page3.htm.
Qualifying child labour as waged means that in return for their services, children
labourers are rewarded in cash or kind even if this ‘wage’ is exploitative.

Background

In today’s capitalist society where profit rather than Kantian virtues underpin
governance, longitudinal studies by the child-poverty-specific Joseph Rowntree
Foundation directly perceive poverty as the principal factor pushing children and their
families into child wage labour. Conventionally, as equally righted human beings, the
Western concept of human rights, its protocols and conventions seek to legally “protect
children from labour that is likely to be hazardous to, or likely to be harmful to the child's
physical, mental, spiritual, moral health or hinders the child’s education and social
development." http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/crp/back0610.htm. In addition
to the international minimum age and minimum wage laws as set forth in the
International Labour Organisation’s article 138 (ILO138), other instruments seek to
protect children from “trafficking, being used in armed conflicts or being sexually
exploited” http://www.ilo.org:80/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C138. In theory, the universality
and seemingly generous nature of these Western instruments subjectively suggests a
Kantian ethics or virtuous motivation to their enactment or is it? While moral ethics may
be accord universality to exploitative child labour, opinions are highly polarised as to the
legality of using Western derived concepts to judge alien cultural norms as rights
violations. Indeed, relativist of the Singaporean School would rather argue for a context-
based approach where sovereign cultures are not subjection to a modern day cultural
imperialism by Western autocrats who are oblivious and rather indiscriminately ignore
cultures alien to theirs. As such, to the relativist as opposed to the universalist using
Western norms as standardise bench marks to indiscriminately judge global child wage
labour as rights violation seem not only legally inadmissible and arrogant; ethically, it
infringes that Kantian or Aristotelian respect that should be inherent to, and between
human beings. Indeed, today’s capitalist society where its seems that there is one law
for the rich and one for the poor, it is paradoxical that the very Western greed-driven

2
employers or upper class who are responsible for enacting relevant so-called human
rights legislation and who blatantly and nonchalantly exploit their work force, can
hypocritically point accusing fingers at alien subsistent cultures who engage children in
child wage labour out of the desperate need for survival. Within the context where most
of today’s African affluent are graduate of a traditional placement system typified by
labour that would be judged as rights violations by Western standards, the inevitable
question is “of what use is human rights to a child and his or her family if these righted
persons cannot survive the harsh realities of the subsistence environment?

As such, when one talks about human rights violation, such subjective generalisation
fails to interrogate; whose laws? By who, For whom and Why? This, in a nutshell is the
essence of this discourse.

The Universalism versus Relativism theories in Human Rights Violations

In a culturally utopian world, universalism theorists and proponents would encourage

and applaud the indiscriminate global applicability of Human Rights and expect them to
be arbitrary applicable to all human beings, including child wage labourers. However, to
accept this Western human rights construct of universalism to establish child wage
labour as rights violations blatantly presumes a global uniformity in cultures and people
if not cultural imperialism. Now let me transpose the Universalist Western notion of
human rights to the African context of child wage labour where, children within the
harsh subsistence economies have to labour for long hours (harvesting maize, millet
etc) as a means of survival for themselves and the group or clan as a whole. Although
the tenet for wage labour exchange may not be cash, within this rudimentary economy,
child labourers are not exposed to hazardous or toxic chemical, deprived of
conventional rest; sexually or emotionally abused compared to the life of children in
Western derived plantations, mines or industrial sectors. Presuming that the Western
concept of human rights was given universal credence, then the UNDHR, ILO
Convention 182 (ILO182) on the Worst Form of Child Labour and ILO138 on minimum
age will judge the rights of these children violated. Indeed, by applying articles 28 and
32 of the Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC28) and CRC32) Westerners will
judged the rights of subsistence child wage labour violated by virtue of missing out on

3
schooling as distinct from education. As the elders would ask, “what use is schooling to
a dead child or a hungry belly with a certificate of the white man’s human rights? My
experience and knowledge of African cultures suggest that, rather than rights violations,
the family head, or employers see the contribution of the child’s labour as a duty or
obligation whose omission will be morally and ethically wrong. By usually working along
their children letting them do what they themselves are doing, most third world family
heads and employers could be argued to be virtuously complying with Kantian
philosophy “to do onto others as you would do onto yourself.” Thus, if doing the best
good to one’s self is the ultimate test for virtue, then applying the same to one’s child
labour renders any case of rights violation morally inadmissible. Putting the African
scenario of child wage labour against the Western concept of human or children’s
rights, the violation of the rights of child wage labourers assumes the ambivalence of
simultaneously either violating or being in compliance with the dominant moral or legal
ethics depending on context.

Using Universalism to indentify global incidence and prevalence of child wage

labour rights violations

Basically, the argument that what constitutes rights violation should be determined by
the culture within which it is happening is informed by the relativism theory as will be
developed in subsequent debates. For now, presuming that the universal perspective
was consensually the norm, then experiences and circumstance of children working
especially in the agricultural sector across the world will constitute implicit cases of
human rights violations by Western standards. This assertion is founded on the
argument that these children will be experiencing the worst form of child Labour as set
forth in ILO182; in addition to being under age, under-paid and forced to miss schooling
as set forth in article 26 UNDHR, article 28 of the CRC and of the ILO 138 on minimum
age for labour. Within this context, what is the extent and nature of the violation of the
rights of child wage labour in the agricultural sector?

Researchers are consensual that “majority of all child labour occurs in developing
countries, largely in agriculture but also including domestic service, factory production
and backstreet workshops.” www.OneWorld.net. Figure one shows the global

4
distribution of child wage labour. Since exploitative child wage labour does no lift the
children and their families out of poverty, “over 25% of children in sub-Saharan Africa
and 18% in Asia remain trapped within the cycle of poverty of which child labour is part.
http://www.icftu.org:80/displaydocument.asp?Index=991223775&Language=EN.

Figure One: Children in child labour by region (Graph derived from figures by ILO
2002)

Figures by the International Labour Organisation suggest that of the 250 million children
engaged in exploitative child wage labour, “the vast majority- 70 percent, or some 170
million-are working in agriculture.” http://www.ilo.org:80/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C138.
Whether in the banana, palm or cocoa plantations in Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast;
the cotton plantations in India and Egypt; the sugarcane plantations in San Salvador or
the fields in United States; reports by Human Right Watch HRW (2002) states that
“child agricultural workers frequently work for long hours in scorching heat, haul heavy
loads of produce, are exposed to toxic pesticides, and suffer high rates of injury from
sharp knives and other dangerous tools” Further reports by HRW, (2004) assert that,
“In agriculture, children may participate in applying pesticides, operate motorised
pumps that saturate cotton plants with pesticides, work in freshly sprayed fields, even
work in fields while they are being sprayed” in violation of Article 24 and 32 of the CRC
which recognises the right of all children to a high standard of health. Additionally,
within the unprotected work environment especially in the fields, “reports of physical
abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation in breach of article 34 of the CRC and other forms
of maltreatments are not uncommon.”
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/crp/back0610.htm. Needless to emphasise
that these violations are taking place within mass production capitalist labour
environments.

5
Figure Two. Minimum Age and Health hazard violation in agriculture

Although the tokenistic wages child agricultural workers earn may give an impression of
some degree of reward for their labour, by Western standards, their work legally
violates their rights to health, education, and protection from work that is hazardous or
exploitative. Figure Two, derived from figures by Human Right Watch (2002) shows
how, despite the vast differences amongst them, children wage labourers in India,
United States, Egypt and Ecuador face strikingly similar violations to their rights; like
being employed at early ages to work an average of twelve or more hours a day.”
Where the universality and concept of equal rights for all seem to imbue the Western
concept of human rights with Kantian ethics in protecting everyone, this perception is
quickly dispelled with the realisation that “multinational corporations like Coca-cola, and
Cadbury and their governments will turn a blind eye to child wage labour rights
violations by claiming a third party status.” ILO, (1996, P. 4). Yet directly or indirectly,
they are responsible for the universality and equal applications of human rights. But
must child wage labour be treated as rights violations based on Western norms? The
relativist would argue otherwise.

6
 The relativism perspective in the human rights violation in child wage labour

As a social construct, relativists strongly challenge and refute any attempt to use the
Western derived concept of human rights to qualify and criminalise non-Western
sovereign cultures for violating the rights of child wage labourers. Cultural relativism
theorists argue that “Western-derived human rights represent only one of many
possible socio-cultural normative doctrines and, as a result, can only be legitimately
applied to the particular cultural context in which they were formulated.” Zehra (2002,
p.16). Located within the context of deciding whether child wage labour violates human
rights, the inevitable and logical question is ‘whose laws or morals are being used as
bench marks to quality the treatment of these children? Indeed Singapore “openly
opposed the concept of the Western derived human rights and defends her ethical and
social positions in terms of Asian Values.” Zehra (2002, p.14).In Westernism or
UNDHR, the focus on the individual like the child wage labourer as the fundamental
basis of society is a western construction which stands in direct opposition to the Asian
Values that favour social harmony and value the whole above the individual. The
implication is that base on these values, actions by employers of wage children that are
perceived by the West as violations of individual human rights may be seen otherwise
by Singaporeans who constitute the iconography of the relativist theoretical
perspectives. In fact some critiques argue that human right abuse or child exploitation
“is only behaviour people so label” Becker, (1963, P. 9)

Similar arguments can be applied to outcome of studies on child poverty by the

Rowntree Foundation which perceives education as the ultimate way out of poverty and
therefore a way of breaking the circle of marginalisation that collude to push children
into wage labour with the potential of their rights being violated.

Here UNICEF points to plantation labour, street vendors, hawkers and child domestic
workers as examples of child wage labour which prevent schooling and carry a high risk
of human right violations in child wage labour. Similarly, in bonded child wage labour as
in India, the ILO states that “some children are completely prevented from access to
education thereby denying them a future” ILO, (1996, p. 8). Relativists would question
whether education is the sole route to a future. In deed moralist would question the use
of education to a child who is starving to death because Western human rights forbid he
or she from engaging in labour that would guarantee his or her very survival?

7
Needless to point out that to date relativists see the West’s precepts of universal human
rights as nothing short of cultural imperialism. While moral ethics will universally
perceive it as virtuous to treat a child on Kantian principles, the paradox within our
capitalist society is that, the very entrepreneurs who swears and defend their human
rights, are the same people who are greed-driven to exploit the labour of vulnerable
children to maximise their profits. When it comes to right violation of child wage labour
convenience and the vested interest of the controller of power (employer) seem the
deciding factor not the welfare of the individual (child). But compared to children
growing up in Western societies imbued with the so-called human rights, how well does
children in non-Western cultures who are ‘respected’ rather than ‘righted’ fare? The
African traditional placement system offers an ideal environment to undertake an
objective comparison.

The success of African Placement system as justification for the relativist

argument

My knowledge of African cultures show that while the Western notion of human rights
are predominantly used to judge how children are treated within the capitalist urban
areas, within the rural or subsistent harsh environment the legal norms of the West is
superseded by indigenous moral ethics based of ‘respect’. Although contrary to
Western norms African children like their Indian peers are born and socialised into the
dogma of almost unquestionable obedience to their elders, this domination does not
necessary translate into exploitation, abuse or rights violations. In fact, respect for the
child based of the indigenous ethics has ensured that the welfare of children is
underpinned by Kantian ethics to treat children as one’s self. Although the African
philosophy to respect rather than right the child may conflict with Western norms, its
relativism has ensured that even in wage labour the welfare of children are well
protected and safeguarded. For example in today’s Africa where “thanks to the ravages
of HIV/AIDS and the impact of the constant wars there is an emerging culture of orphan
child carers, children are having to engage in wage labour that would constitute rights
violation as set forth in ILO 182, ILO138, UNDHR article 24, 28, and 32. Nevertheless,
as the sole alternatives to crime or prostitution or at worst starving to death, many

8
children have successfully undertaken child wage labour under harsh conditions and
have graduated to become affluent individuals. Moreover, not every incident of missing
schooling or working extended hours without rest results in a future denied. For
example, some virtuous employers who engage children in seemingly right violation
wage labour; may actually pay them above the minimum wage while they acquire vital
life skills. Similarly within the traditional African ‘placement system, a child may be
placed in the home of a better-off relative or acquaintance in which the child performs
domestic work in exchange for education and training opportunities. While their
experiences within this placement may legally constitute human rights violations by
Western standards, relativist will argue that many of today’s African affluent are
graduates from households where, as children they laboured as domestics in exchange
for education. The logical argument here is that, without such support network, these
children would have been condemned to the circle of poverty that drove their parents
into letting them into child wage labour in the first place. Within such context, it is
difficult to justify the rigorous universalisation and enforcement of human rights as set
forth in relevant Western legal instruments. As in the African practices where child
wage labour has enabled many child wage labourers to attain their full potential,
relativist will forthrightly pose the question, what is the use of sticking to Western
socially constructed Human rights only to end up in poverty and with no future? In the
African placement system where the motive for child wage labour is directly or indirectly
the personal welfare of that child or the collective survival of the group within a harsh
subsistence economy, child wage labour is an end in itself, not a means to an end as
typical in the Western capitalist exploitation of child wage labour for profit.

Appraisal

Preceding analysis has shown that, attempting to establish human rights violations of
child wage labours based solely on the Western concept of universal ideals is not only
controversial but is a pretension that has several consequences. It “mistakenly
conflates the subjective western vision of what is good, with objective and universal
truth. It automatically invites opposition from relativist of the Singaporean theoretical
school who see the universalisation of Western human rights as a perpetration of
Western cultural imperialism. Indeed in the definition of a child by the West, collectivist
societies like the Asians who rather emphasise the rights of society to that of the

9
individual accuse instruments like the Convention of the Right of the Child (CRC) of
using “privileged and idealised concepts of childhood as opposed to definition of
childhood based on local cultural constructs that will situate a child within an
impoverished context.” Zehra (2002, p.16). To consent to qualifying right violation in
child wage labour based on the conventional legal instrument, blatantly presuppose a
global homogeneous cultural society. However as realism show that this utopian society
is but a dream, achieving consensus on child wage labour as a breach of human rights
based on Western norms will always be rejected by those cultures that currently deviate
most from what the West has established and imposed as universally desirable code of
conduct. Indeed, if child labour was to be collectively judged as violations of human
rights based of Western criteria, then African, Asian and most non-western collectivist
societies would have to be fundamentally altered in favour of the western model if the
UNDHR were to be adopted in their entirety. While moral ethics will universally perceive
it as virtuous to treat a child wage labourer on Kantian ethics, the paradox within our
capitalist society is that, the very entrepreneurs who swear and defend their human
rights, are the same people who are greed-driven to exploit the labour of vulnerable
children to maximise their profits. Apart from the example of the successful use of child
labour to promote the welfare of child wage labours within the African placement
system, other arguments abound to dismiss child labour as rights violations. Within this
context, since most children involved in wage labour are from very poor families and
may actually opt to engage in supportive labour to pay for their family and/or their
education, the moral argument seem more rational than the legal argument. Moreover,
some theorists justify child wage labour on the social reality that “the delegation of dirty
work to someone else is common among humans; as well as an integral part of
occupational mobility” Hughes, (1964, p. 23-36). Similarly, other proponents may argue
that, apart from actually being rewarded for the work they do; constructive child wage
labour can teach children life skills and has health advantages. Additionally, it could be
argued that the very existence of wages in the labour exchange between the child wage
labourer(employee) and employer, no matter the degree of exploitation, confirms “the
existence of some degree of mutual relationship, negotiation and interdependence even
if it is not legally compliant.” Esland and Salaman, (1980, p. 303). What is apparent in
attempts to qualify child wage labour as human right violation or otherwise is that, the
child is a passive consumer of decisions affecting his or her life. Indeed, some analyst
argue that some societies justify child labour on the gender-discriminatory argument
that, “Childhood did not belong to women” Firestone (1972, p. 81). Where “membership,

10
or access to a trade Union could have safeguarded the child wage labourer or
employees against exploitation by providing better working condition, equal wages and
autonomy” Hyman R. (1971), the reality is that “such autonomy is doubly conditional in
that it operates within an economic, technical and organisational context which can be
expected to persist only so long as the employer is able to derive an acceptable level of
profits through control.” Esland and Salaman, (1980, p. 318). Within the context where
relevant legal instruments including ILO 32 on minimum age are used to establish rights
violations, there is reason-enough to question the rationality of this approach since both
age and maturity are used to define a child. For example, a well-built matured eleven
years old struggling to accomplish a given labour in the plantation will receive less
sympathy compared to a seemingly scantily built eighteen year adult.

When it comes to right violation of child wage labour, preceding analysis gives plausible
reasons to suggest that convenience and the vested interest of the controller of power
(employer) both Universalists and relativists are the deciding factor not the welfare of
the child. What is your opinion?

Conclusion

The synthesis of preceding analysis suggests that as a result of the social

constructiveness of the concept of human rights, implicitly deciding whether child wage
labour violates human rights is complex and problematic. While both the universalist
and relativist perspectives uphold and defend their perception of rights and moral
ethics, to achieve a consensus on any instance of child wage labour as violations of
human rights the West (universalist) need to evaluate and understand other cultures or
societies (relativist) on their own terms and values relative to non-Western values and
beliefs. As such rather than based on the greed-driven capitalist motives to maximise
profit by exploiting the cheap and malleable child wage labour, rights should be derived
and applied on Kantian ethics. The commonality in practice between both the

11
Universalist and relativist perspectives in human rights is that human right will never be
absolute. Additionally, so long as capitalism is the normative governance of society,
human rights will always be violated in child wage labour with the inherent problem of
deciding whose norms should be used to qualify it as such or otherwise.

Bibliography

Becker, H. (1963) Outsider; Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free
Press.

Esland, G. and Salaman, G (1980) The Politics of Work and Occupation. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.

Firestone, S. (1974) The Dialectic of Sex. New York. Morrow

Hughes, E. C. (1964) Good People and dirty work. Illinois: The Free Press.

Human Rights Watch, (2002) Key findings of the global report on child soldiers 2001,
Human Rights Watch, New York, 2002.

12
Human Rights Watch, (2004). Turning a Blind Eye: Hazardous Child Labor in El
Salvador's Sugarcane Cultivation. London: Human Rights Watch,

Hyman R. (1971) Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism. London: Pluto Press.

ILO, (International Labour Organisation)(1996) Targeting the Intolerable. Geneva: ILO.

Zehra A. F. (2002) Analyzing Child Labour as a Human Rights Issue: Its Causes,
Aggravating Policies, and Alternative Proposals. Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 24,
Number 1, February 2002, pp. 177-204

org/departments/insight/articles/pp052309.shtml

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/crp/back0610.htm. Accessed: 13/1/2010

http://www.icftu.org:80/displaydocument.asp?Index=991223775&Language=EN.

www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/simpoc/southafrica/report/page3.htm.

http://www.ilo.org:80/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C138

www.OneWorld.net.

13