The Governor’s so-called “Budget Repair Bill” will require state employees to make larger contributions to their pensions and health care coverage, and will also remove collective bargaining rights except for wages, which would be limited to be not greater than the Consumer Price Index. (Police and fire fighters would be exempt from this provision.)

While most public employees appear ready to make financial concessions to help ease the State’s budget crisis, the push to eliminate collective bargaining rights has not, to say the least, been well-received.

Wisconsin, of course, has a proud history of progressiveness and organized labor: Wisconsin was the first state to give its public workers the right to bargain collectively; the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the largest public employee and health care workers union in the United States, was founded here; and the state is often credited as the birthplace of progessivism. For such reasons, this dispute between a conservative state government and its public employees has been described as a defining moment in the labor movement nationwide.

We are 5 days into the organized protests, and it remains unclear if/when/how this will be resolved.

But I wanted to use this space to give credence to the argument that collective bargaining is a fundamental human right, recognized internationally in various conventions, constitutions, and courts.

For example, Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organise trade unions as a fundamental human right, while item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining” as an essential right of all workers.

Consider the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution, which guarantees that “Every trade union, employers’ organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining.”

In 2007, the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri held that Missouri’s state constitution also protected the right to collective bargaining for public employees.

And most strongly, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a case disputing whether a constitutional guarantee of freedom of association includes procedural right to collective bargaining, finding that collective bargaining is indeed a human right:

The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work… Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends…rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government… Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.

I do hope, in the coming days, the State of Wisconsin will also support dignity, liberty, and autonomy through the continuation of collective bargaining rights among public employees.

UDPATE: Please read this excellent post by UW-Madison’s Greg Downey: “On public employees and the right to organize“

UPDATE 2: I found this letter from Archbishop Listecki [PDF] compelling, where he repeats the Catholic Church’s position that there is a moral imperative to protect workers rights, including collective bargaining. Listecki quotes section 25 of Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate (which itself builds from section 60 of Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum), which argues:

Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

Listecki also quotes Pope John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens, which states “[a] union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible to ignore it.” (#20, emphasis in original).

From the announcement:

In an effort to protect and advance the human rights of freedom of expression and privacy, a diverse coalition of leading information and communications companies, major human rights organizations, academics, investors and technology leaders today launched the Global Network Initiative.

From the Americas to Europe to the Middle East to Africa and Asia, companies in the information and communications industries face increasing government pressure to comply with domestic laws and policies that require censorship and disclosure of personal information in ways that conflict with internationally recognized human rights laws and standards.

The Initiative is founded upon new Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy – supported by specific implementation commitments and a framework for accountability and learning – that provide a systematic approach for companies, NGOs, investors, academics and others to work together in resisting efforts by governments that seek to enlist companies in acts of censorship and surveillance that violate international standards.

The Initiative’s website includes a full list of participants and three core documents that describe the Initiative’s objectives and key commitments, including a statement of Principles, Implementation Guidelines, and a Governance, Accountability & Learning Framework.

There is a lot to parse here, but I’ll provide some initial reactions below.

Participants

The list of participants includes the usual suspects in initiatives like these, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, etc. It also includes a variety of (sociall-minded) investment firms, like Domini Social Investments, F&C Asset Management, and Trillium Asset Management, perhaps indicating a new focus on brining the financial sector of the ICT industry into the fold on these vital issues.

Noticeably absent from the list of partners are other major tech companies who commonly confront issues of privacy and freedom of expression, such as Facebook (ahem), AT&T (ahem), Cisco (ahem), or Skype (ahem). Also absent are other major advocacy groups like EPIC or Amnesty International. It is unkown whether these groups we asked to join and declined, or haven’t been approached to contribute to these efforts.

Principles

The GNI’s Principles outline its commitment to the protection and advancement of freedom of expression and privacy online, largely based on international human rights laws and standards including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Principles statement opens with a strong endorsement of protecting human rights:

All human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated: the improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others; the deprivation of one right adversely affects others. Freedom of expression and privacy are an explicit part of this international framework of human rights and are enabling rights that facilitate the meaningful realization of other human rights.

And then continues to outline how freedom of expression and privacy fit into that human rights perspective. Notably, it defines “privacy” as:

Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age.

Right on. Unfortunately, however, it frames the threat to privacy solely in terms of government interference:

The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws and standards.

…

Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards.

Given this language, it appears these principles are meant to provide guidelines to prevent unwarranted government access to personal information, but does little to address how the companies themselves might be impacting users’ privacy rights through their own collection and use of personal information.

Implementation Guidelines

The Implementation Guidelines provide more details on how the partners plan to put the Principles into practice. Notably, it calls for the boards of the participating companies to “incorporate the impact of company operations on freedom of expression and privacy into the Board’s review of the business”, as well as “employ human rights impact assessments to identify circumstances when freedom of expression and privacy may be jeopardized or advanced, and develop appropriate risk mitigation strategies”. This is to be achieved through the “creation of a senior-directed human rights team, including the active participation of senior management, to design, coordinate and lead the implementation of the Principles.”

This is incredibly similar to a recent shareholder proposal that Google’s board rejected (twice). What made them change their mind? Perhaps they wanted to make it appear as an inernal & altruistic move, rather than “giving in” to shareholder demands? One wonders…

With regard to privacy, the Implementation Guidelines outlines numerous steps for the Partners to follow, including some key items related to transparency:

Participating companies will seek to operate in a transparent manner when required to provide personal information to governments. To achieve this, participating companies will:

• Disclose to users in clear language what generally applicable government laws and policies require the participating company to provide personal information to government authorities, unless such disclosure is unlawful.
• Disclose to users in clear language what personal information the participating company collects, and the participating company’s policies and procedures for responding to government demands for personal information.
• Assess on an ongoing basis measures to support user transparency, in an effective manner, regarding the company’s data collection, storage, and retention practices.

Many of the partner companies have been working hard to make their data collection practices more transparent, and this is good stop towards codifying these efforts. In particular, I hope the first point above means that privacy policies will be more explicit when they state a company will disclose personal information to “satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.”

Finally, the Guidelines also call for the creation of a “confidential multi-stakeholder Advisory Forum [to] provide guidance to participating companies on emerging challenges and opportunities for the advancement of freedom of expression and privacy.” Why must this be confidential? I have no idea, and contradicts the efforts towards transparency stressed above.

Governance, Accountability & Learning Framework

The Governance, Accountability & Learning Framework outlines a multi-stakeholder governance structure, goals for collaboration and a system of company accountability to support the Principles, maximize opportunities for learning and ensure the integrity and efficacy of the Initiative.

Essentially, each of the Partners will contribute to the formation of an Organization to oversee the Initiative, “with equal representation from company and non-company participants that will strive to operate on a consensus basis.” A key task of this Organization will be to conduct “independent assessments” of the participating companies to ensure compliance with the Principles. Note, however, that the companies get to choose their independent assessor (“in close consultation with the Organization”). Hopefully the independence criteria to become an accredited assessor are sufficient to ensure fair assessments of the companies’ actions.

Summary

To summarize, this is an important (perhaps unprecedented?) step by members of the tech industry to recognize how their products and actions impact human rights, and I am thrilled that they are willing to sign on to such an initiative. I know many of the people who have been working on this (I’ve been hearing rumors of its creation), and I know they are committed to protecting both freedom of expression and privacy rights across the globe.

While there are gaps, this is an important step, and I hope momentum builds and real action emerges as a result.

Now, let’s also note that you are good people, always trying to do the right thing, not be evil, and so on. As such, you likely recognize the following statements as being sound and reasonable:

• freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”
• the rapid provision of full and uncensored information through the Internet has become a major industry in the United States, and one of its major exports, and
• political censorship of the Internet degrades the quality of that service and ultimately threatens the integrity and viability of the industry itself, both in the United States and abroad
• some authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens attempt to obtain
• technology companies in the United States such as Google, that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
• technology companies in the United States have [often] failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression

If you accept these premises, and you’re a company dedicated to making the world’s information accessible and useful to all citizens — while not being evil — it would be appropriate for you to take certain measures to “develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.”

To accomplish this, you might reasonably institute policies to help protect freedom of access to the Internet, which would include the following minimum standards:

1. Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
2. The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
3. The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
4. Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
5. Users should be informed about the company’s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
6. The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

Seems reasonable, and the right thing to do.

Now, given all of this, it is apparent your company is concerned with how your policies and practices might impact human rights across the globe. So, even if you’re not comfortable committing yourself to the above standards (which would be surprising given your philosophy), you certainly would want to at least:

1. form a Board Committee on Human Rights,
2. provide said committee with funds for operating expenses,
3. adopt regulations or guidelines to govern said Committee’s operations,
4. empower said Committee to solicit public input and to issue periodic reports to shareholders and the public, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, including but not limited to an annual report on the implications of company policies, above and beyond matters of legal compliance, for the human rights of individuals in the US and worldwide

That seems reasonable. Of course, you might be concerned about how such a committee might impact company business decisions, so you would be sure to note that the formation of a Board Committee on Human Rights wouldn’t restrict the power of the Board of Directors to manage the business and affairs of the company.

Simply put, the Board Committee on Human Rights would review and make policy recommendations regarding human rights issues raised by the company’s activities and policies. It could be an effective mechanism for addressing the human rights implications of the company’s activities and policies as they emerge anywhere in the world.

These two proposals — taking a stance against Internet censorship and forming a Board Committee on Human Rights — seem reasonable, right? Especially for a company pledged to not be evil?

Well, two shareholder proposals suggest Google take these very actions: Proposal 4 offers the anti-censorship language outlined above, while Proposal 5 suggestions the formation of a Board Committee on Human Rights with the duties and restrictions I note here.

Google is recommending that shareholders vote AGAINST each proposal. (This is the second time Google has opposed the anti-censorship proposal.)

I urge all shareholders in Google Inc. to vote FOR these reasonable and ethical proposals when they receive their proxy statements.

A diverse group of companies, academics, investors, technology leaders and human rights organizations announced today its intention to seek solutions to the free expression and privacy challenges faced by technology and communications companies doing business internationally.

The process – which aims to produce a set of principles guiding company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with the achievement of human rights – marks a new phase in efforts that these groups began in 2006.

Last year, Google, Microsoft, Vodafone and Yahoo!, with the facilitation of Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and advice from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, initiated a series of dialogues to gain a fuller understanding of free expression and privacy as they relate to the use of technology worldwide.

At the same time, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) was also convening technology leaders, investors and human rights advocates to discuss how to advance civil liberties on the Internet in the face of laws that run contrary to international standards for human rights.

Both processes benefited from dialogue, research and policy expertise on internet filtering and surveillance practices from the OpenNet Consensus, a coalition of academic institutions including the University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism and School of Law-Boalt Hall, the Berkman Center and others.

The new combined group, in addition to developing the principles, seeks to advance their effectiveness by establishing a framework to implement the principles, hold signatories accountable and provide for ongoing learning.

“Technology companies have played a vital role building the economy and providing tools important for democratic reform in developing countries. But some governments have found ways to turn technology against their citizens — monitoring legitimate online activities and censoring democratic material,” CDT Executive Director Leslie Harris said. “It is vital that we identify solutions that preserve the enormous democratic value provided by technological development, while at the same time protecting the human rights and civil liberties of those who stand to benefit from that expansion.”

More commentary John Palfrey and Rebecca MacKinoon, as well as Yahoo itself.