Wouldn't the Abolition of Child Labour have a Negative Effect on those who Rely on the Income to Survive?

The article below aims to address the following frequently asked question: Is the abolition of child labour an oversimplification of a complicated issue that would have a negative effect on the lives of the working children and their families who rely on the income to survive? Would it be better encourage companies that take on child labour to provide education?

This is a complicated issue, but the policy of the ICFTU is clear. No child, as defined by the conventions (138 and 182) of the International Labour Organisation, should be deprived of the right to education or a childhood. Child labour is exploitative and furthermore it is unnecessary, only perpetuating a poverty that in turn forces more children to work.

The reality is that most child labourers are in fact children of adults who had to work when they were children, and the parents of most working children are either unemployed or in unprotected and exploitative work themselves. The vast majority of companies that actively employ child labourers do so at the expense of adults and often simply because children are cheaper, un-unionised and easier to exploit. Such practices are unjustifiable.

Some try to reject the ICFTU position by saying that 'life is not that simple'. Perhaps, but that no employer should ignore, let alone encourage, such a scourge just because it has complications. Child labour was once accepted as normal and even acceptable in Europe, but it was abolished in the same way it must be abolished in the developing world. It is just a matter of political will.

Some of the least wealthy parts of the world have managed to virtually eliminate child labour (such as Kerala State in India). Eliminating child labour and getting all children into school are essential steps on the path to social and economic development. Economic development in the countries once commonly known as the "Asian Tigers" only really started after the political decision had been taken to put all children into school, backed up by budgetary allocations from government to build and staff schools. Unfortunately, other governments put a much higher priority on military spending than on education.

There are some observers who promote the idea of companies (usually subcontractors) employing children and giving them some schooling as well. Evidence shows, however, that such part-time education is no substitute for quality basic education and that anything more than a few hours' work each week has a significant effect on children's learning achievement. Companies should employ adults and allow them to form unions, if they choose, so that they can negotiate decent local wages and conditions. The incomes of families would thus be sufficient to allow them to send their children to school (the evidence we have shows that usually any income from working children makes only a marginal impact on overall household income). There can be no justification for companies employing children.

In some situations (for example concerning street children in certain cases), transitional informal education can help to "bridge" the children concerned into full time formal education and reintegration into society, however such initiatives should be strictly transitional and carefully implemented.

ICFTU Talking Point