Compliance with labour rights and international labour standards: Implications for workplace productivity and competitiveness

The common perception, particularly among employers of labour is that enforcement or implementation of enhanced labour standards would negatively impact on overhead costs thereby impeding the organisation’s competitive advantage through price mechanisms at both national and global marketplace. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis and draw inherent relationships between enforcement of labour standards by organisations and possible implications on workplace productivity and overall organisational efficiency, competitiveness and survival. Theorists of firm’s wage efficiency argue that implementation of enhanced labour standards will most certainly increase overhead costs and push up prices thereby disadvantaging the firm’s ability from competing favourably with other firm’s operating in territories where labour standards are not observed. However, comparative cost-benefit analysis of implementing labour standards by this paper suggests that organisations indeed benefit significantly by enforcing labour standards as this would translate to higher productivity and enhanced organisational competitiveness and survival as workers experience job satisfaction, safe and healthy working conditions and environment which reduces rate of industrial accidents, medical costs and sick leaves. Furthermore, employers benefit from implementing enhanced labour standards through low employee turnover rate and improved cooperation and understanding between workers and their employers resulting in a stable and positive labour relations environment that is devoid of unplanned work stoppages due to industrial actions and loss of production.
Core labour rights, International labour standards, Productivity, Conflicting necessities
Samuel, M. O. (2014). Compliance with Labour Rights and International Labour Standards: Implications for Workplace Productivity and Competitiveness. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(9), 89-95