October, 04 2010, 02:45pm EDT
Corporate Accountability Statement on Passage of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution on the Rights to Water and Sanitation
Last Thursday, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution that further recognized the rights to water and sanitation, an important step towards making these rights legally binding. This action underscores the important precedent set by the U.N. General Assembly's resolution [A/RES/64/292], adopted this summer, where governments formally recognized the right to water and sanitation as rights that they must uphold.
BOSTON
Last Thursday, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution that further recognized the rights to water and sanitation, an important step towards making these rights legally binding. This action underscores the important precedent set by the U.N. General Assembly's resolution [A/RES/64/292], adopted this summer, where governments formally recognized the right to water and sanitation as rights that they must uphold.
The resolution states that the rights to water and sanitation are, at a minimum, inextricably related to other human rights - such as the right to health and to life - which governments have already formally recognized as law through various international treaties. It also calls on governments to adopt policies and mechanisms that will progressively realize people's rights to water and sanitation. These recommendations from the UN's primary human rights body will help push governments to prioritize improving access to water and sanitation for the billions who currently lack such access, and will help enable ordinary people to seek redress when their rights have been violated or have not been met.
Corporate Accountability International is hopeful that passage of this resolution will generate further momentum for the work of the Independent Expert on the Right to Water and Sanitation, who in 2008 was appointed to a three year post by the Human Rights Council to study the legal parameters of the rights to water and sanitation and make recommendations on what policies governments should adopt in order to protect and fulfill these rights. We also hope that Member States will, in the wake of this resolution, take bold steps to become champions of these rights on the ground as well as in the halls of government.
We also remain concerned that some elements of this resolution do not go far enough, and could even be detrimental to the realization of these rights. In particular, we are concerned about operating paragraph (OP) seven of the resolution, which deals with the involvement of non-State actors - including the private sector - in the provision of water and sanitation services. This paragraph says that "States, in accordance with their laws, regulations and public policies, may opt to involve non-State actors in the provision of safe drinking water and sanitation services."
For years, governments and international financial institutions have actively and systematically promoted the involvement of corporations in the provision of water and sanitation services, often at the expense of people's lives and health. Millions of people have seen their water rates skyrocket or their access to water cut off when private corporations have controlled their access to water for profit, or have waited in vain for the promises of these corporations to extend water access to their communities.
If the right to water is to be truly respected, protected and fulfilled, we must have global water policies that do not promote a pre-ordained solution, but focus on truly providing affordable and equitable water and sanitation for all. The current understanding of human rights law with respect to this right supports this principle, in that human rights law is understood to be neutral and does not favor the private sector over the public sector when States determine how to provide people with water and sanitation.
Prior to passage of the Human Rights Council resolution, Corporate Accountability International and eighteen other civil society organizations sent a letter sharing these and other concerns with the members of the Human Rights Council and the members of the U.N. General Assembly (The letter is accessible on our website here).
The final resolution text on this specific subject is an improvement over the original text, but we believe it still falls short. Therefore, the international community must guard against any element of this resolution being used to encourage States to seek involvement of non-State actors, or private water corporations, as a preferential option.
In the wake of this resolution, it is critical that communities, civil society organizations, social movements and people around the world seize the momentum toward realization of our rights to water and sanitation, while urging States to adopt policies that will foster democratic governance and fully participatory decision-making processes regarding these rights. We must ensure that democracy is in the driver's seat when global water policy is being crafted, so that the billions of people who lack access to clean water and sanitation are not only heard but have a lead role in shaping the policies that underpin their basic survival and dignity.
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525LATEST NEWS
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crushing Blow to the Labor Agenda' as Manchin, Sinema Block Biden NLRB Nominee
"These two senators effectively handed Trump control of the board when his term begins," noted one observer.
Dec 11, 2024
In a move likely fraught with major implications for worker rights during the impending second administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump, Democratic-turned-Independent U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday blocked Democrat Lauren McFerran's bid for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
With every Republican senator except Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas voting against President Joe Biden's nomination of McFerran for a new five-year term, the fate of the woman who has led the agency since 2021 was up to Manchin and Sinema—who, as More Perfect Union founder and executive director Faiz Shakir put it on social media, "consistently spoiled the story of 'what could have been'" by years of fighting to thwart their own former party's agenda.
Sinema struck first, her "no" vote on McFerran grinding the confirmation tally to a 49-49 tie. Manchin, who showed up later, cast the decisive vote, negating speculation that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Senate president who lost the presidential contest to Trump last month, would break the stalemate.
"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee—with a proven track record of protecting worker rights—did not have the votes," lamented Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Chris Jackson, a former Democratic Lawrence County, Tennessee commissioner and longtime labor advocate, called Manchin and Sinema's votes "a crushing blow to the labor agenda."
"By casting decisive NO votes against President Biden's NLRB nominee, they've guaranteed Democrats will lose control of the national labor board until at least 2026," Jackson said. "Their votes effectively hand Donald Trump the keys to the board the moment he takes office again. This is a betrayal of working families—and a gift to corporate interests, which is par for the course for these two."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union, said on social media that while "Manchin and Sinema are responsible for killing voting rights, worker rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, childcare, vision, and dental for seniors, and an economy built for the people," the two obstructionist senators "are not the story."
"Don't bury the lede," implored Nelson. "The entire GOP has relentlessly fought against anything good for the vast majority of the people of this country. The GOP shows once again their total disdain for their constituents."
"But they better watch what they do in implementing their plans to make it worse," she warned. "These laws are set up to mostly protect corporations and getting rid of the last pathetic bits of worker rights under the law will simply lead to more disruption and CHAOS."
Trump's first term saw relentless attacks on workers' rights. Critics fear a second Trump administration—whose officials and agenda are steeped in the anti-worker Project 2025—will roll back gains achieved under Biden and work to weaken the right to organize, water down workplace health and safety rules, and strip overtime pay, to name but a handful of GOP wish-list items.
The latest votes by Manchin and Sinema—who are both leaving Congress after this term—sparked widespread outrage among workers' rights defenders on social media, with one account on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting: "Manchin is geriatric and Sinema has a long fruitful career ahead of her in a consulting firm that advocates child slave labor, but at least they kicked the working class in the teeth one last time. Nothing to do now but hope there's a hell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Defeat of Megamerger, Sanders Thanks Khan for Taking On 'Corporate Greed'
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said the Vermont senator.
Dec 11, 2024
Praise for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan continued to pour in on Wednesday after a pair of judges blocked the merger of grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons following challenges by the FTC and state attorneys general.
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Let me thank FTC Chair Lina Khan for successfully fighting this merger and standing up to corporate greed."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) also welcomed the rulings and sent "a big thank you to Lina Khan and her team at the FTC."
Their comments on Wednesday followed similar applause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal as well as groups including the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and Groundwork Collaborative.
Khan addressed the win during a Tuesday stream with political commentator Hasan Piker, noting that "this is the first time that the FTC has ever sought to block a merger not just because it's gonna be bad for consumers, but also because it's gonna be bad for workers."
Khan, an appointee of outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden, has won praise from progressives for taking on not only grocery giants and other companies trying to build monopolies but also Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Sanders recently called her "the best FTC chair in modern history" and AELP earlier this year published a document detailing how, under Khan's leadership, the agency "has entered a new era of more effective, modern, and democratic enforcement to better protect consumers, workers, and independent businesses."
Examples included in the AELP roundup include Khan's "crackdown on deceptive 'junk fees,'" a ban on noncompete clauses that's being challenged in court, a historic lawsuit against Amazon.com, and a "click-to-cancel" rule that requires sellers to "make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
However, the new era of the FTC is set to soon come to an end. Since President-elect Donald Trump's victory last month, speculation has been building that he would replace Khan with someone who would do the bidding of big business. Amid celebrations of the rulings against the Kroger-Albertsons merger on Tuesday, the Republican announced Andrew Ferguson as his pick for chair.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Wednesday, Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, said that elevating Ferguson, who already sits on the FTC, to chair, "is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Although the agency is expected to be friendlier to mergers under the next Trump administration, Albertsons responded to the Tuesday rulings by bailing on the $24.6 billion deal and suing Kroger for billions of dollars on Wednesday, rather than appealing or moving to in-house FTC hearings.
That move could reflect industry fears of U.S. courts that are willing to block major mergers, as The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen pointed out after the federal court decision on Tuesday.
"The important thing here is not that Biden's enforcers blocked a merger... it's that courts are increasingly comfortable with merger enforcement," he said. "States can sue under the Sherman Act, and they will. The real change to track is in the judiciary. Wall Street, take note."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular