Parenthood, Surrogacy and the Labor of Childbirth

In early October 2025, Reem Alsalem, a United Nations special rapporteur, submitted a report calling for a ban on surrogacy, and describing it as a  “system of exploitation and violence”. Alsalem went further to liken the system of surrogacy to the system of prostitution, saying she found a lot of similarities between the two in terms of how they exploited women. 

She isn’t the only international figure to take such a strong stance against surrogacy. Pope Francis, who passed in 2025, had also called for a worldwide ban on the practice which he believed was exploiting the women who became surrogates. 

This call – which has seen equally heated criticism and support – comes at a time where more and more celebrities have been posting about their surrogacy journeys. The latest was actress Lily Collins earlier that year, who faced a slew of backlash to her announcement about welcoming her baby via surrogacy, including from many people who blamed the rich for exploiting women for their own desires to have children. While some celebrities like Kim Kardashian have been open about their reasons for using surrogates, others like Collins and Priyanka Chopra haven’t shared why they chose this particular path. 

But as stories where parents welcome babies via surrogacy become more and more commonly shared publicly, the harms and complications of surrogacy have also been coming to light. More than the stories themselves it’s the fact that so many of these cases are now becoming public knowledge that is allowing people to look deeper into the impact of surrogacy and explore it from different perspectives. Treating surrogacy as inherently exploitative isn’t a recent phenomenon – in fact countries such as France, UAE, Saudi Arabia and even India have long banned the practice, regardless of whether or not the surrogacy is commercial or not. Other countries like the UK and Canada allow altruistic surrogacy but have banned it commercially – which means that surrogates cannot be paid, except beyond reasonable expenses in certain cases. On the other hand, most states in the US do allow gestational surrogacy commercially, although compensation and protections around this vary by state. Across the world, experiences around surrogacy can vary significantly, as governments, families, and agencies work within (or sometimes around) the law to match the desires of would-be parents in wealthy countries while respecting what exists of local law for the birth family and the child. This is much like how experiences have played out with international adoption, where the lure of a payday can complicate and confound the process.  

“It would be incorrect to say surrogacy is always exploitation and incorrect to say surrogacy is never exploitation. That’s why it is so important to have proper legal protections, for the parents but also for the surrogate,” says Janene Oleaga, a family formation attorney and reproductive rights advocate, who works closely both with surrogates and intended parents. But for many others, like advocates working with Stop Surrogacy Now, who see it as categorically harmful, or intended parents who see it as the best decision they’ve ever made, the situation isn’t as nuanced. Which brings about the question of who is surrogacy really for? Who benefits from the system and what can be done to protect those most vulnerable? 

International Approaches, Varied Responses

With so many emotional, financial and physical considerations coming into play with any decision around surrogacy, reactions to both bans or a lack of them can get quite heated, especially as different groups are affected in very different ways. India’s legislative ban on commercial surrogacy was advanced in 2019 and adopted in 2020, after many critics called international surrogacy an India a system that exploited poor women, but the ban is also seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ couples as altruistic surrogacy is now only allowed for heterosexual couples who’ve been married for 5 years. Italy’s ban on surrogacy has also been criticised for similar reasons. But for anti-surrogacy campaigners, their stance against surrogacy is not discriminatory, simply protective of the women they are hoping to release from this system. 

Lexi Ellingsworth the founder of Stop Surrogacy Now UK says that the “euphemistic language disguises the brutal reality. Surrogacy exploits women for their reproduction ability, their fertility and denies newborns their mothers from birth,” she says adding, “Exploitation, human trafficking, obstetric violence, and coercion is rife. And the numbers are increasing. As we are against surrogacy as a whole, we do not discriminate. We reject the practice regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, income, marital status and circumstance.” 

A recent case where a stillbirth in a surrogacy case turned into a legal battle is just one of many examples that campaigners like Ellingsworth point towards to showcase just how easy it is to harm surrogate mothers within this process. 

Ellingsworth also points out that support for surrogate mothers who may feel exploited or harmed in the process is rare, and it’s not just the mothers campaigners like Ellingsworth are concerned about. Olivia Maurel, a spokesperson for the Casablanca Declaration also shares Ellingsworth’s views regarding the importance of protecting both surrogate mother and child. For Maurel, the issue is also deeply personal. 

“My activism began with a double awareness, that of a child and that of a mother. As a child born through surrogacy, I quickly realised that this practice tramples on the most fundamental rights of the child: the right to know and be raised by the woman who carried and gave birth to them, and the right to an identity that isn’t fractured by contract,” shares Maurel, further adding, “Behind the glossy marketing lies a global market going to be worth 200 billion dollars by 2032, one that operates with virtually no oversight. Reem Alsalem’s report calls this what it is: a form of gender-based violence and reproductive exploitation. She urges states to recognize that consent obtained under structural inequality is not true consent.” 

But Oleaga, who’s worked in cases where parents from various countries have come to the US for surrogacy still sees the positive in it, even as she agrees that safety and protections are crucial. “So I’ve had intended parents come from China and Europe to the US for surrogacy because it may be less expensive to go to other places but it’s oftentimes less legally secure. In the US it is a legally secure process,” she says adding that while the bad stories deserve to be reported on and exposed, “For every negative story you see in the news, there are hundreds if not thousands of opposite stories not just for the intended parents but surrogates as well. That’s why you see surrogates coming back” 

And while financial exploitation remains a major concern, Rachel Goldberg, a licensed marriage and family therapist finds more nuance in working around that and safeguarding clients than calling for an outright ban. “If someone is pursuing surrogacy out of financial desperation, it can feel like I’m preventing them from moving forward, but my role is to protect them as much as the intended parents. When someone is in a desperate situation, there is more room for exploitation,” she says, adding that she will also consider many other factors including stability in the home and emotional readiness before assessing whether a client is ready to take this step. 

In a 2023 paper, Dr Yingyi Luo argues for the application of labor law to bolster surrogate rights and protections while operating in a global market of cross-border surrogacy. Building on the example of Bulgarian labor law and safeguards for non-standard workers, Luo writes, “Surrogate mothers, even those who have not signed a surrogacy contract, do not need to validate their employment status. Once a surrogate mother becomes pregnant with the child of the intended parents, her status transitions to that of “employed.”” This labor-law forward approach could ensure accountability, financial and health protections, standards of care and due diligence, and compliance that can all be lost in the often informal or discreet nature of facilitating surrogacy.

An Inside Look At What Works, And What Doesn’t

For those who’ve worked in the surrogacy industry or been connected to it, the gaps are clear. Belal Breaga Bakht used to run a concierge service that provided on ground services between surrogacy companies based in the US and surrogates in India between 2007 and 2011. Bakht’s job became a way make sure the surrogates were cared for and looked after, both medically and financially and he shares that his position as an Indian who had been raised in the UK allowed him to connect well not just with the surrogacy company and intended parents, but also with the surrogates themselves. 

 “There are many working parts of this complex process, you’ve got marketing company and surrogacy company in US (or anywhere else), you’ve got the IVF side which is usually not linked surrogacy side – and they are the crucial part of this equation, if they are complicit in exploiting the women you can’t really stop it. So we took over that role slightly, even though we were not supposed to, and that’s because we had a very very strong Indian team,” Bakht shares. While Bakht was mindful of the gaps in the industry and where exploitation was possible he shared that would ideally like to see a regulated but legal surrogacy industry, where with the right care and protections both sides could benefit. 

Yessenia Lattore, a mother of three in the US, who is currently undergoing her second surrogacy journey shares her own experience of what it meant to be working in an industry that is largely self regulated. Despite the fact that she’s aware of bad actors, and has seen bad experiences, she chose to come back as a surrogate because of her own positive experience. 

“I don’t think surrogacy should be illegal, but in the US its not regulated and I personally think it should be regulated,” she says adding, “The first time I did it I was very naive, I kind of went with the first agency that responded to me – was communicative with me.” Still Lattore got lucky, both with the family she chose and her agency, although she chose to work with a new agency this time around. 

Focus on the birth mother and child - policy makers building laws and restrictions around surrogacy need to put the health and safety of the surrogate mother and baby first and foremost. This means safeguards that limit exploitation and restrictions where needed 

No Cookie Cutter Approach - communities and countries across the world will need localised policies, with countries with higher rates of exploitation of women needing stricter laws and maybe even bans where necessary. 

Labor Protections Protect Laboring - clear, transparent protections built not just on human rights but labor law frameworks could improve conditions, protections, and accountability while protecting against exploitation.

For Lattore, the decision to become a surrogate was motivated from her own experience with pregnancy loss, and when she was able to have healthy children after that she realised that she wanted to help other women have children too. She likes to joke that she can’t be doing it for the money because she receives “minimum wage” – if she looks at it compared to the hours being put in. But even for someone who’s had a positive experience, she knows the industry can do better in making sure it’s the same for everyone. “Surrogacy should be done ethically, so a surrogate isn’t left with 3 babies that aren’t her own. We have a psych evaluation, contracts, and  our own lawyer. I personally think it should be regulated because right now it is done in different ways,” she says.

Both Oleaga and Goldberg, who’ve worked with different actors within the industry, agree that self regulation is difficult, but question the extent to which regulations may be the answer, particularly under the current US administration. 

“I do think safeguards are important, but when they become overly restrictive, they can prevent families from growing. More regulation means more red tape, which is the challenge when involving politics. At the end of the day, even though it shouldn’t be this way and doesn’t feel fair, consumers still have to do their own homework to protect themselves from bad players,” Goldberg says. 

Oleaga also agrees that regulation is important and there needs to be more consistency, particularly in laws that offer protection to surrogates, intended parents and children. 

While Oleago and may seem like they’re miles apart from what Ellingsworth or Maurel are saying – and in some ways of course they are – what all of them are asking for and working towards are protections for the women and children often left most vulnerable in the world. And that should be the main goal for the industry, regardless of what side of the argument you lie on. 

Anmol Irfan is a Muslim-Pakistani freelance journalist and editor. Her work aims at exploring marginalized narratives in the Global South with a key focus on gender, climate and tech. She tweets @anmolirfan22


How the India-Pakistan Crisis Became a Profitable Spectacle Online

Dr. Fizza Batool is an Assistant Professor at SZABIST University, Karachi, with expertise in South Asian Studies and Comparative Democratization. Connect with her on LinkedIn or read her works on ResearchGate

In late April 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir led to escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. After four days of intense conflict, a ceasefire was agreed on May 10, 2025, following US diplomatic intervention. This conflict wasn’t just fought on diplomatic and strategic fronts—it was fiercely contested in the digital space, where the battle continues even after military tensions have cooled. 

The crisis revealed a profound shift in the information hierarchy, with YouTube channels and TikTok accounts often generating more engagement than official government statements or traditional news broadcasts. Piers Morgan’s viral debate featuring social media influencers alongside traditional experts perfectly captures this new reality— individuals who once would have been mere spectators now sit on equal footing with government representatives and veteran journalists in shaping public understanding of international conflicts.

Behind this digital conflict lies a troubling economic reality: content creators on both sides of the border have transformed geopolitical tensions into a profitable business model. While their strategies differ dramatically as per the socio-political context in each country—Pakistani creators predominantly use humor and satire, while Indian counterparts amplify nationalist narratives—both narratives operate within the same attention economy that rewards emotional engagement over factual accuracy. 

American policymakers have a responsibility to develop guidelines on crisis content monetization that recognize platform design choices have real geopolitical consequences.
The U.S. government should also fund partnerships with trusted civil society actors in South Asia, who can identify emerging digital threats and promote conflict-sensitive reporting standards without compromising press freedoms.
Platforms could take responsibility, voluntarily implementing cooling off periods to calm algorithmic amplification during a crisis, and provide transparency on how crisis-related content was monetized and promoted.

As platforms and content creators profit from conflict-driven engagement, serious questions emerge about algorithmic ethics during international crises and the responsibility of technology companies that transform regional instability into shareholder value. U.S. policymakers must confront this reality, as their oversight of Silicon Valley platforms gives them unique leverage to address digital conflict escalation between nuclear-armed neighbors.

Divergent Digital Narratives with Same Economic Objectives

The digital landscapes of India and Pakistan during the post-Pahalgam crisis reveal distinct cultural approaches to conflict representation. Content creators on both sides have monetized geopolitical tensions, but through markedly different strategies reflective of their sociopolitical environments.

Pakistani digital content displays a tendency toward self-referential humor that transforms domestic vulnerabilities into satirical content. This approach serves multiple functions: psychological protection, social cohesion, and strategic communication. The casual dismissal of war threats through humor represents not naivety but a deliberate coping mechanism in a society accustomed to various crises. Paradoxically, while this satire often critiqued internal governance, it simultaneously bolstered national unity during the conflict, with Pakistanis celebrating their pro-peace stance against Indian war mongering. Content creators leverage this inclination to use wit against war to generate shareable content that attracts cross-border engagement. 

Indian social media creators, in contrast, cultivated content centered on nationalist sentiments. YouTube channels, X handles, and Instagram accounts became amplifiers for outrage and misinformation. Misleading videos, photoshopped images, and hashtags advocating war flooded timelines, many originating from suspicious accounts, suggesting coordinated disinformation campaigns. In this environment, individuals advocating for peace faced significant backlash. For example, actress Dia Mirza’s call for peace amidst escalating tensions was met with severe criticism, with detractors accusing her of undermining national security.

To understand this difference, one must look closer at the civil-military equation in both countries. In India, the military action appeared to have strong civilian leadership approval and media endorsement, creating alignment between government policy and public narratives. In Pakistan, citizens’ responses navigated a more complex relationship with their government and military, where jokes contained a critique of both Indians and the failures of their own governance. While the conflict has gradually transformed the military’s image among citizens from a controversial political actor into a respected defensive shield against external threats, the meme culture continues to counter Indian nationalist content.

For instance, when Indian media falsely claimed that Karachi port had been destroyed and Indian social media accounts celebrated this fictional victory, Pakistanis in Karachi responded not with indignant denial but with sardonic humor. Residents shared images of potholed streets with captions suggesting India cannot destroy a city already destroyed by misgovernance, while others warned Indian forces that the attacking ship could lose “sideview mirror and audio unit” and “Indians should not bring their phones while attacking,” referring to Karachi’s street crime. This response demonstrates how Pakistani content creators transform actual lived experience into narrative countermeasures that simultaneously acknowledge domestic failures while undermining enemy propaganda. In contrast, the Indian celebration of a non-existent military success reveals how nationalistic content ecosystems can create closed information environments where emotional satisfaction supersedes factual verification, a pattern that generates high engagement metrics but potentially undermines strategic decision-making and public trust in the long term.

Despite their different stylistic approaches, content creators on both sides operate within identical economic structures. Platform algorithms reward emotional intensity and engagement regardless of the emotional valence. Pakistani humor and Indian nationalism both trigger high engagement rates, extended viewing sessions, and active comment sections—all metrics that directly influence creator compensation and visibility.

The Profit Machine Behind Conflict Content

The economic infrastructure of digital content creation has fundamentally altered how conflicts are presented to the public. Traditional media outlets covering international conflicts operated within established journalistic frameworks—editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and institutional reputations that required maintenance through adherence to reporting standards. These organizations typically employed correspondents with subject matter expertise and followed publication cycles that allowed time for verification and context-building.

Digital content creation has democratized conflict reporting in ways that offer certain advantages. Independent voices can now document events from perspectives previously excluded from mainstream narratives. The immediacy of digital platforms enables real-time updates during rapidly evolving situations, and diverse viewpoints can emerge without passing through traditional media gatekeepers. This has created space for counter-narratives that challenge official accounts from both Indian and Pakistani authorities.

However, this democratization has introduced problematic economic incentives that prioritize engagement over accuracy. Digital content creators monetize crises through multiple revenue channels: advertising impressions, channel memberships, donations during live streams discussing military developments, and merchandise featuring nationalistic messaging. Unlike salaried journalists, these creators’ incomes directly correlate with metrics like views, watch time, and interaction rates—all of which increase with emotionally provocative content.

This profit-driven model creates what media analysts term an “engagement trap”—a situation where financial incentives reward emotional intensity rather than factual integrity. Platform algorithms systematically favor videos generating strong responses, longer viewing sessions, and higher comment rates—metrics that conflict-driven content reliably produces. Consequently, creators face economic pressure to develop increasingly dramatic narratives that may amplify tensions rather than promote nuanced understanding or peaceful resolution.

Empirical studies acknowledge that algorithm-driven recommendations systematically favor emotionally provocative content over factual reporting. While content promoting sadness and anger dominates, there is ample evidence that humorous content, particularly sarcasm, can also generate higher digital engagement. It has been reported that users who express negative emotions are consistently fed increasingly aligned content. This reinforcement intensifies over time and persists across different contexts, indicating the algorithm’s role in creating emotional filter bubbles. 

The economic structure creates a troubling reality: platforms financially benefit from regional instability. Shareholder value increases with engagement metrics, creating corporate incentives misaligned with conflict resolution or accurate information dissemination. This dangerous alignment between profit motives and conflict amplification demands urgent intervention through regulatory frameworks, platform accountability measures, and digital literacy initiatives that can disrupt the economics of division before the next crisis erupts.

America’s Digital Diplomacy

The United States played a crucial role in defusing military tensions between India and Pakistan, and it now has both the leverage and responsibility to address the digital conflict that persists. As the headquarters of many major technology platforms are in the United States, it occupies a unique position to influence how these companies handle crisis-related content. American jurisdiction over Silicon Valley giants provides powerful regulatory tools and, therefore, American policymakers have a responsibility to develop guidelines on crisis content monetization that recognize platform design choices have real geopolitical consequences.

The U.S. government should also fund partnerships with trusted civil society actors in South Asia. These independent media watchdogs and digital rights organizations can identify emerging digital threats and promote conflict-sensitive reporting standards without compromising press freedoms. By supporting local expertise, American policy can help prevent digital escalation between nuclear powers, particularly in a crisis.

Meanwhile, digital platforms must also act more responsibly and update their own policies to reflect the role social media too often plays in conflict and human rights abuses. They could implement “cooling periods” during verified international crises. These temporary algorithm modifications would reduce engagement-based amplification of inflammatory content while maintaining information access. Rather than censoring speech, these measures would simply pause the algorithmic rewards fueling digital conflict, giving diplomacy room to function.

Platforms should also provide transparency through special reports during and after international conflicts. These disclosures would detail how crisis-related content is monetized and promoted, creating accountability for companies that profit from regional instability. The public deserves to know when platform economics align against peaceful resolution.

By addressing the profit incentives behind digital conflict narratives, U.S. policy can help create an information ecosystem that serves stability rather than shareholders. The real battle isn’t between the people of India and Pakistan—it’s between an economic model that rewards division and our collective interest in accurate information during crises.

Labor unions going global for workers rights

Wouter van de Klippe is a freelance journalist and Public Policy graduate based in Europe. He’s particularly interested in organized labor, economic, social, and environmental justice, and social welfare states.
 

Boiling in Amazon’s warehouses

The city boiled as the unrelenting sun cooked Manesar in India’s northern state of Haryana. Temperatures soared to 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas of India on May 16th this year as a deadly heat wave swept the region.

At 4:30pm, a manager inside of Amazon’s Manesar warehouse called a meeting. The meeting was, according to the manager, intended to motivate the workers to push their efforts and increase productivity despite the heat. To accomplish this, a worker testified in The Independent, the manager asked the warehouse workers to make a pledge: workers “will not take any breaks, we will not stop to drink water or go to the bathroom until we meet our targets.”

The inhumane pledge came as the same worker reported shifts of organizing products for 10 hours a day with only two breaks of 30 minutes to rest. While the facility has been outfitted with fans and coolers, she said that their impact is “negligible”, “walk just 10 steps away and you can barely feel any difference. The areas where we work are typically between 30-35C on any given day.”

Amazon has since said that the pledge was an “unfortunate and isolated incident”, but the case has catalyzed a renewed discussion of the brutal labor conditions in Amazon warehouses.

These conditions were brought to the attention of India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) by the Amazon India Workers Association (AIWA), established in 2022 and supported by UNI Global Union, a global union federation for service sector workers. AIWA is one of over 80 organizations across the globe fighting to improve the often brutal conditions faced by Amazon under the banner of the Make Amazon Pay campaign.

AIWA, with the help of UNI, was able to document and raise awareness of the conditions experienced by Amazon warehouse workers, ultimately resulting in the NHRC taking action at what the commission stated could potentially “raise a serious issue of the human rights of workers.”

Now, UNI Global union is campaigning to demand that Amazon provide safe working conditions – especially in light of the climate crisis. Amazon’s warehouses in India are not alone in unsafe temperatures – the Teamsters union in the US is mobilizing for better protections in the Northeast, and back in 2022 workers reported scorching temperatures during the 2022 California heatwave.

These campaigns and others like are one example of a burgeoning wave of global labor solidarity that is rising as unions seek out new strategies to confront global capital.

Especially in the United States, unions are experiencing a renaissance of public attention and support. Less well-known is that union victories in the United States could have the consequence of pushing union victories around the world.
 
 

Less well-known is that union victories in the United States could have the consequence of pushing union victories around the world.

On the last Friday of the groundbreaking United Auto Workers (UAW) walkout that led to a historic victory, Tesla servicing workers went on strike in Sweden. It was the first attempt ever to get Tesla to sign a collective bargaining agreement and the action benefited from the momentum of the UAW actions to organize auto workers.

Unions that are pushing the envelope of labor organizing in the United States could spearhead efforts around the world, especially when it comes to global efforts at US-based multinationals such as Amazon.

For Nick Rudikoff, UNI’s campaign director and coordinator of the Make Amazon Pay campaign, “only a global labor movement can transform Amazon into a responsible employer.”

“You have such a multisectoral company that transcends sectors and geographies, it’s the largest logistics and commerce company in the world.”

The Make Amazon Pay campaign was launched four years ago and has coordinated growing days of strike action each year – most notably during Amazon’s (in)famous Black Friday sales.

Last year’s Black Friday strike mobilized workers in over 30 countries and, according to Rudikoff, received more press coverage than the sales themselves. “The fact that the Make Amazon Pay strikes and actions received so much support shows just how much solidarity there is for workers wanting a union.”

A representative from AIWA told me that coordinating with UNI Global and the Make Amazon Pay campaign “shows that the poor working conditions at Amazon are similar everywhere across the world. We are fighting for the right cause, not only in India. We are fighting everywhere across the world, and we are learning from each other.”

New campaigns seeking to organize workers the world over within multinationals are one of the many ways that unions have responded to globalization and increasingly spread supply chains.
 

Globalization and International Framework Agreements

Labor unions have had to be nimble in response to contemporary capitalism. Historically, the labor union’s bread and butter way to improve working conditions has been to represent workers by negotiating collective bargaining agreements. When employers are unwilling to come to the bargaining table and negotiate these agreements, unions demonstrate their power through organizing strikes and collective actions.

Globalization and outsourcing put pressure on the ability of workers to do this – first, by companies threatening to move operations abroad in response to pressure from workers; second, by companies increasingly moving operations to countries with less-robust unions and fewer legal protections for workers and organizing.

In a report written by Astrid Kaag, policy advisor for the largest Dutch trade union confederation FNV, Kaag notes that “the most important tool we have, the collective labor agreement, means little in such situations.”
 
 

The heart of Union action has always been at the shop-floor between workers in a shared space.

The heart of Union action has always been at the shop-floor between workers in a shared space. As the threads of global capitalism weave increasingly international distances, the process of building worker power and manifesting it at the local level has come under threat.

To adapt, and strengthen international worker solidarity, unions developed a new tool to fight for improvements in working conditions called “Global Framework Agreements” (GFA). Essentially, these are agreements made between unions (most often global union confederations) and multinational companies that set a baseline of working conditions for the companies’ employees and suppliers.

One of the most impactful GFAs that have been signed to date was in response to one of the greatest worker tragedies in recent memory – the Rena Plaza disaster.
 

“The International Accord”

In April of 2013, an eight story commercial building containing several garment factories in Dhaka Bangladesh called the Rena Plaza collapsed, killing 1,138 garment workers. Companies that sourced clothing from the building included C&A (Belgium), Carrefour (France), El Corte Inglés (Spain), Benetton (Italy), and J.C. Penny (U.S).

The disaster catalyzed a response from workers, trade unions, and NGO’s that resulted in the creation of a legally binding framework agreement – first called the Bangladesh Accord and more recently transforming into the “International Accord for Health and Safety in the Garment and Textile Industry”, or more commonly just “The International Accord .”

The International Accord was signed and negotiated by IndustriALL Global Union and UNI Global union, alongside several NGOs. According to the accord’s dedicated website, it has resulted in over 2 million workers across Bangladesh being trained in workplace safety, over 56,000 factory inspections, and over 1,000 resolved complaints.

The accord’s first legal test came when in 2016 UNI Global and IndustriALL won a lawsuit against brands that had failed to live up to the requirements stipulated in the accord. In 2018, the two global union confederations won the court case and the brands were forced to pay over $2 million to remedy the accord violations at their suppliers.

Despite this victory, there are real limits for what workers can secure relying on GFAs. A study recently showed that while GFAs have indeed resulted in significant material improvements in some cases, they are largely dependent on the goodwill of management at a company’s headquarters.

Other studies have been less sanguine about the impacts of GFAs. In a report by the German foundation the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, it was shown that in many cases in the United States, the agreements were essentially ignored – either intentionally, or due to the fact that local managers didn’t even know of their existence. Between 1998 and 2018, the International Labour Organization estimates that over 300 GFAs were signed – and yet, many of these global agreements have failed to secure the workers rights that they call for.
 
 

despite the International Accord being lauded as a major victory, workers trying to organize in Bangladesh are consistently repressed, and in some cases, murdered.

At worst, GFAs can serve as opportunities for multinational companies to boast their corporate social responsibility while continuing the longstanding abuse of workers. This is especially the case when GFAs are not legally binding and do not contain dedicated ways to assess, monitor, and intervene on violations of the agreements by independent bodies.

In Bangladesh, although The Accord has led to changes in factories and successful legal battles for unions, worker abuses are still common in the country and garment workers are still paid very low wages. Many companies have yet to sign The Accord, especially those from the United States such as Walmart, Amazon, and Target. In fact, these corporations created their own, non-legally binding organization called ‘Nirapon’ which NGOs have described as being self-regulating and entirely opaque.

A key part of these agreements is to make companies agree to remain neutral when workers decide to unionize. Yet, despite the International Accord being lauded as a major victory, workers trying to organize in Bangladesh are consistently repressed, and in some cases, murdered. For example, Shahidul Islam, a prominent union organizer for the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation, was murdered on the 25th of April, 2023, after attempting to resolve a dispute over wages at a factory in Gazipur.

Not only has globalization put significant pressure on the ability of unions to organize. Political hostility to workers and unions have resulted in working conditions degrading in many places across the world.
 

Labor is under pressure the world over

The world’s largest trade union confederation, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), releases an annual report that describes the status of labor rights all over the world and provides ratings for each countries’ respect for workers rights.

This year’s results were bleak.

The ITUC’s 2024 report found that globally, workers were denied the right to strike in 9 out of 10 countries. In 49% of countries, trade union members were either arbitrarily arrested or detained. Only two countries’ ratings improved year on year (Brazil and Romania), whereas 13 countries saw their ratings fall.

An outlier can be found in the United States, where the Biden administration’s impressive support for organized labor has undoubtedly strengthened the movement in the country after decades of anti-union political leadership. Consider UAW’s successful amd ambitious campaign to organize non-union autoworkers. Surveys show that the US public is currently more supportive of labor unions than at any time in the past 60 years.

Alongside Biden’s formal political support has come new legitimacy within public discourse – although reactionaries have sought to disguise their intentions under a veneer of worker-friendly rhetoric.
 
 

reactionaries have sought to disguise their intentions under a veneer of worker-friendly rhetoric

Consider that the notoriously anti-union Republican party is attempting to rebrand itself as being pro-worker by, for example, inviting Teamster’s union president Sean O’Brien to the Republican National Convention.

Many of Europe’s far-right populists are similarly, and deceitfully, claiming an allegiance to the continent’s working class as well. The far-right Finnish Finn’s party has allegedly referred to itself as the “worker’s party without socialism”. Marine le Pen’s Rassemblement National is consistently attempting to present itself as the party of France’s working class.

In practice, these parties consistently implement policies hostile to organized labor. In the United States, the Republican party is blocking pro-union legislation and plans on rolling back labor protections for the working class when in power. In Finland, the Finns helped the center-conservative party slash worker and union protections.

Unions the world over are countering the far-right’s pseudo-allegiance to the working class by coming together.
 

Unions for Democracy

IndustriALL’s Walton Pantland wrote in 2019 that now, more than ever, there is a need for international union solidarity. He argues that the increasingly global and interconnected nature of contemporary capitalism requires new forms of worker movements.

“Labor is on the back foot. Jobs are becoming more precarious. Fewer workers have good pensions. Inequality is growing. The balance of power between capital and labor has tilted heavily in favor of capital.”

This year, the ITUC has been organizing a campaign “For Democracy” and warns that there are concerning anti-democratic movements in every continent that would have devastating consequences for workers’ rights.

For the ITUC, this gradual erosion of democracy presents an existential risk to the trade union movement. According to the ITUC’s For Democracy campaign, unions are forges for democracy. “Generations of trade unionists have fought and died, been tried and executed to advance democratic rights. Today, hundreds of trade unionists sit in jail, under house arrest or on trial as they continue to defend it.”

Wooing the labor vote has been a central part of the 2024 US presidential election and the outcome will have serious consequences on organized labor around the world. The stronger the labor movement becomes in the United States, the more pressure and momentum can be developed internationally. Just this year, Amazon workers in Coventry nearly succeeded in a vote for union recognition.

Amazon workers on strike in Coventry nearly won union recognition in a vote earlier this year. Image provided by UNI Global Union.
 
Labor organizers in the United States must take advantage of the current momentum and fight for legislative changes that will support organizing in the long-term. For example, campaigns must be centered around garnering support for the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) act which would empower worker organizing through new legal protections.

There are also legislative victories that can be fought at the global level. Take actions like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) which requires companies based in the EU to make sure that there are no labor and environmental abuses in their supply chains. Yes, the act has significant shortcomings and has been made significantly weaker through lobbying, but it is a good starting point that unions can organize around to fight for legal due diligence requirements at the global scale.

Another battleground could be union campaigns pressuring legislators to ensure that trade agreements contain clauses to protect the right for workers to unionize and requirements for participating in collective bargaining agreements.

The global fight for workers rights is a struggle contested on a cornucopia of battlegrounds – from legislation and presidential politics to local actions.

The Make Amazon Pay campaign represents one the many different ways that unions are fighting the world over to secure workers’ rights.

When asked on whether unions should be focusing at the global level, the local level, via old union confederations or new unions such as the Amazon Labor Union in the U.S., Rudikoff replies “every worker organizing drive at Amazon inspires dozens more – in other cities, in other states, and in other countries.”

“As a progressive movement we’re all in this together.”

CIP Logo Wordless Transparent

Timeline of U.S.-India-Russia Defense Trade

An overview of major developments in the US-India defense relationships