By Julie Inglese
In the years leading up to the
2014 Winter Olympics, thousands of migrant workers from countries such as Armenia, Bosnia, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the Ukraine arrived to Sochi, Russia to build an
Olympic-worthy city from the ground up. Though most of these workers came to Russia willingly, they
quickly faced inhumane treatment by their host country. Specifically, migrant
workers in Russia were denied the proper housing promised by their employers
and payment for their labor. This raises the
question: Has the International Olympic Committee (IOC) violated the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by allowing
the Olympic Games to proceed in spite of the human rights violations suffered
by migrant workers?
The UNGP’s are
guidelines adopted based on the Special Representative’s “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework,” which was unanimously adopted by the
Human Rights Council. They are intended to provide practical advice to governments, companies,
and other stakeholders on how to better protect individuals and communities
from the adverse human rights impacts of business activities.
The Olympic
Committee’s decision to allow Russia to host the 2014 Olympic Games is
questionable from the standpoint of international human rights guidelines, but is
not itself a violation of international norms.
However, by virtue
of their business relationship, the Olympic Committee assumes responsibility
for any human rights violations Russia commits in connection with the Olympic Games.
The Committee has a business relationship with Russia as the host country for
the 2014 Olympic Games, and the Committee is a business enterprise within the
meaning of the UNGP. Under the UNGP, a business
enterprise like the Olympic Committee must “avoid infringing on the human
rights of others.”
This obligation
under the UNGP extends not only to infringements “caus[ed] or contribut[ed] to
. . . through [the enterprise’s] own activities,” but also to “adverse human
rights impacts that are directly linked to [the enterprise’s] operations,
products or services by [the enterprise’s] business relationships, even if [the enterprise] ha[s] not
contributed to those impacts. In other words, the Olympic Committee
may violate the UNGP if Russia or
one of the entities in its supply chain causes an adverse human rights impact.
The UN’s Office of
the High Commissioner of Human Rights’ (OHCHR) commentary on
the UNGPs states: “[t]hough it may have neither caused nor contributed to the
impact, it may be involved because the impact is caused by an entity with which
it has a business relationship and is
linked to its own operations, products or services.” Further, the OHCHR’s examples demonstrate that
an enterprise is responsible if its product is being used in
accordance with a violation by a third party.
Therefore, the point
when human rights violations came to light in Russia in connection with
preparation for the Olympics is the point at which the Committee became implicated
in these violations and had an obligation to intervene.
Under the UNGP, the
Olympic Committee could be held accountable to the extent that Russia’s “Olympic-related activities” have adverse
human rights impacts. This is especially true in a situation where the
human rights violations were well documented and clearly visible to the
Committee. A Human
Rights Watch report detailing the working conditions of sixty-six migrant workers in Sochi reported that many of the workers never signed a contract, were
never issued work permits, were never paid, and were forced to suffer through
inhumane living conditions because their employers took away their passports, leaving them with no way home.
The denial of these rights has had
further repercussions. Workers went to Russia expecting hard work but also substantial
compensation. Reuters
spoke with a 41-year-old Serbian man named Matic about his experiences:
“It was a dodgy deal, but I
thought: it's only two months. The money was good, and I needed it,” Matic
said. He described his nightmare stating, “[w]e finished the job ahead of
schedule and demanded our pay.” “A Russian man came in wielding a gun. He was
like the baddie in a gangster movie. We took what little money they gave us and
left.” Because no contracts were signed, the workers have no documentation for
how many hours they worked or how much money they are owed. This is making it
impossible for workers to fight the legal battles that have arisen because of
the denial of pay. Further, because no work permits were granted many employees
were detained in Russia for working illegally, resulting
in the workers’ home countries needing to step in to free them.
To add insult to injury, workers
were subject to inhumane living conditions. Matic described how after a 27-hour
bus ride to Sochi, he was given lodgings in an empty room where he rigged a
light bulb with a scavenged power cable for light. Other workers explained, “we
used outdoor toilets and had to pay 150 roubles ($4.30) for a shower.” “There
were only four toilets for about 200 construction workers.” Another worker
explained how the food employers promised them was inedible. “The food has no
taste at all, it's impossible to eat it, we have to throw it
away.” The workers were also denied medical care when they fell sick and breaks
after working long hours. The working conditions were horrible and there was no
pay.
On January 10, Russian officials
released their estimates of the total wages stolen from Sochi workers and vowed
to pay $8.3 million in wage arrears. However, there are still over 700 workers with no documentation who have
not been compensated. It is unlikely they will ever see this money.
Under the UNGP, the
IOC has a duty to protect migrant workers from this type of abuse. It appears
IOC is making an effort to resolve the issue by trying to convince Russian
officials to pay the workers; however it is not clear whether the IOC is doing
enough to satisfy their obligations under international guidelines.
0 comments:
Post a Comment