Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Minister of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare – The Plurinational State of Bolivia has been a Member of the ILO since 1919 and is the signatory of various Conventions adopted by successive sessions of the International Labour Conference, including the eight fundamental labour Conventions.

The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, respectful as it is of its commitments and also of international standards in the field of human rights, has adopted, as a recurrent practice since 2006, the application of an ambitious labour policy for the dignity and recovery of the social and labour rights of workers, the effects of which can be seen in the reduction of unemployment rates and an increase in the minimum wage of approximately 380 per cent.

The Plurinational State of Bolivia confirms that it has adopted machinery aimed at the direct participation of both employers and workers in minimum wage fixing and the formulation of development policies, enabling participation on an equal basis for both sectors.

Despite these measures, the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) makes a complaint in public every year that it is not taken into consideration in consultations, citing supposed non-observance of the Convention, but at the same time it also makes its irreconcilable position public in dismissing the Government’s proposals on minimum wage fixing, including rejecting well in advance the clear possibility of establishing a consultation round table that would ensure uniform criteria, bring positions closer and substantiate the Government’s position that it is only with work and a decent wage that better conditions can be achieved, in terms of both productivity and living standards, not only for those of us from the working class but for society as a whole.

A clear example of the fact that our State is characterized by the promotion of constant and unconditional dialogue with absolutely all the social partners, with a view to appropriate and balanced decision-making to address the needs and interests of the community as a whole, dates back to 2019, before the democratic period was abruptly interrupted. On this occasion, working round tables were established with both the employers and the workers.

It should be noted that on 25 March 2019 a meeting was held between the CEPB and ex-President Morales, accompanied by several Ministers of State, in which the discussion specifically focused on topics of national economic development, fully in line with Article 3(b) of the Convention, which provides that the elements to be taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages shall, so far as possible and appropriate in relation to national practice and conditions, include:

…

(b) economic factors, including the requirements of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment.

After this meeting, the CEPB president, Mr Luis Barbery, said, and I quote: “It was a positive meeting where the private business sector was able to express concerns and also our willingness to work for the Plurinational State of Bolivia.”

Another meeting was then held on 30 April 2019 with the private employers of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, at which aspects of taxation were discussed with the aim of assisting productivity levels in the sector. Under these circumstances, the complaint of the employers, who, as has been shown, are party to the Government’s consultations on minimum wage fixing, actually appears to be a complaint against social justice, which is a fundamental pillar of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and is precisely the key point of Article 3 of the Convention. However, the Government has always taken measured and responsible action in this respect, constantly taking into consideration national realities and the economic conditions of the workers’ and employers’ sectors.

In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, minimum wage fixing is not an arbitrary or discretionary measure. On the contrary, it is done strictly in accordance with the legislative provisions in force, namely:

• Article 49(II) of the Political Constitution of the State, which provides that the law shall regulate employment relations, including collective contracts and agreements, general and sectoral minimum wages and wage increases, reinstatement, paid hours of rest and public holidays, calculations of seniority, hours of work, overtime, extra pay for night and Sunday work, various types of bonus or other company profit-sharing systems, compensation and dismissal, maternity leave, vocational training and other social rights.
• Moreover, article 298(II)(31) of the Political Constitution provides that labour policies and systems are the exclusive competence of the central level of the State.
• Furthermore, section 52 of the General Labour Act provides that: remuneration or wages is what is received by employees or workers as payment for their work; wages may not be set at a level lower than the minimum wage, which, according to branches of work and areas of the country, shall be fixed by the Ministry of Labour; and wages shall be proportional to the work, without distinction as to sex or nationality.

As the Committee can see, the position adopted by the Government is not at odds with the legislation. On the contrary, it is supported by the principle of intervention which the Government must undertake in order to guarantee a fair wage to all persons. It is also backed up by the doctrine of Mr Guillermo Cabanellas, who states that the interventionism of the State preferably finds expression in the setting of maximum hours of work and minimum periods of rest, the fixing of minimum wages, and compensation for unjustified dismissal.

In addition to all these arguments, it should be noted that our social, productive and community economic model has a common factor in its four pillars (the private, state, community and cooperative social economies). What is this common factor? It is the strength of the work done by the workers, which is therefore the main driving force in growth and economic stability.

The World Bank has recognized that the Plurinational State of Bolivia is among the region’s leaders in reducing pay inequalities. According to the Gini Coefficient of Labour Income, over the last ten years the wage gap has improved from 0.53 per cent to 0.44 per cent as a result of the economic model. Extreme poverty was also reduced from 38.2 per cent to 15.2 per cent during the 2005–18 period.

Another equally significant element is that the wage increase strengthens the domestic economy, increasing working capital in the country, and this is reflected in the annual growth of legally established enterprises that observe the requirements of formality. This shows that the measures taken are appropriate.

Data from the Virtual Formalities Office, the mandatary register of employers, forming part of the portfolio of the Ministry of Labour, report that in 2018 the total number of enterprises was 143,038 and in 2021 was 151,768, representing 14 per cent growth in three years.

Economic stability is reflected in the growth and increase in the domestic consumption of products and services. Up to October 2019, restaurants achieved a turnover of US$571 million and supermarket sales amounted to US$632 million. Between October 2018 and October 2019, restaurants recorded a 2 per cent growth in sales, while supermarkets announced 10 per cent growth for the same period.

However, even more important is to point out the drop in late banking payments, which reflects the solvency of the financial system. Until 2019, the rate was one of the lowest in the South American region, standing at 1.9 per cent in 2019. In other words, 98.1 per cent of credit payment obligations were honoured on a regular basis.

The Committee of Experts, whose work constitutes the cornerstone of the ILO supervisory system with respect to international labour standards, cites a vitally important item of data in its 2020 report, referring to various socio-economic factors taken into account in the fixing of the minimum wage, namely that, “Bolivia is the country that has increased the minimum wage the most over the present decade in Latin America, without affecting the most relevant macroeconomic variables and without inflationary consequences.”

The Government considers that this appraisal, from those who have the role of monitoring compliance with the ILO Conventions, is the clearest proof that the wage fixing system used by the Government does what is necessary to ensure economic stability, in addition to upholding one of the basic principles promoted by the ILO, namely social justice.

The establishment of a national minimum wage by the executive branch of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in accordance with the economic and social situation in the country, does not undermine, let alone refuse, the participation of the employers, as shown by all the actions described above.

Further proof that this reiteration by the Committee is unnecessary is the position adopted by the Government in the current year (2021), having stipulated only a 2 per cent rise in the national minimum wage without affecting the “basic wage” paid to the country’s whole labour force, with the aim of preserving labour stability and reviving the country’s economy. The Government has made an effort to provide this increase in line with our policy to give support to the working class without endangering the economic revival of production.

In the current year, the parties involved stated their positions. The Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB) was calling for a 5 per cent increase in both the national minimum wage and the “basic wage”. The Government proposed a 0.67 per cent rise in the national minimum wage and the employers insisted on not increasing wages, on the grounds that any increase, however small, would result in lack of liquidity, possible bankruptcy and dismissals.

Under previous governments of the neoliberal period, the national minimum wage was frozen at 440 Bolivian bolivianos for three consecutive years, from 2003 to 2005. Since 2006, there has been a sustained growth in workers’ wages.

However, in 2020 this increase was paralysed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and the improvised policies of a de facto Government. In the context of the income redistribution policy, the minimum wage rose by about 380 per cent, from 440 to 2,122 bolivianos in 2019.

The data presented indicate the in-depth analysis conducted by the Government through its various departments with a view to ultimately fixing wage levels, making use of its exclusive jurisdiction established in the Constitution, which was the result of a revolutionary constituent process with the participation of the people and approved by over 64 per cent of the votes in the 2009 referendum.

These are important elements, we believe, because they indicate that we are on the right path. This is a scenario of gradual, progressive recovery, which is important for the Bolivian economy and all its sectors, since these indicators are not concentrated in one specific sector and it has been shown that the Government is conducting an exhaustive analysis through different decision-making mechanisms, especially in the area of fixing the minimum wage, which above all provides men and women workers with a living and the capacity to obtain the minimum elements of subsistence.

Worker members – It is for the third time in succession that the Committee is examining the Plurinational State of Bolivia’s observance of the Convention. We cannot ignore the fact that since our last discussion many political and social events have occurred in the country. We welcome the fact that the country appears to be rediscovering a degree of serenity, and recall that political stability is an essential prerequisite for economic and social development.

More specifically with regard to the application of the Convention, two aspects should be distinguished.

First, as can be seen from the Committee of Experts’ report and has been discussed previously in the Committee, there would appear to be a divergence of views between the Government and the employers of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The latter claim that they are not fully consulted regarding the determination of methods for fixing and adjusting the minimum wage.

I recall that the Committee had invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to rectify the situation. We note that this has been unable to take place. The Workers’ group is particularly interested to know the reasons that prevented the Government from accepting this mission.

However, we would like to reiterate that the consultation referred to in Article 4 of the Convention does not mean co-determination. It consists of enabling representative organizations to have an in-depth discussion with the Government on the minimum wage fixing machinery.

The second aspect which must be carefully emphasized relates to the purpose of the Convention. Its objective is to establish a system of minimum wages. With regard to this dimension, we are obliged to conclude that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has given full effect to the Convention. It should be emphasized that Article 4 of the Convention provides that in determining minimum wage levels, account must be taken of the needs of workers and their families and, in second place, of economic factors.

In the present case, it is not disputed that the Plurinational State of Bolivia has given effect to its commitment via an ongoing increase in the minimum wage. This has resulted in a major improvement in living standards for the workers concerned. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia should therefore be congratulated on the results achieved. This is all the more justified in that these increases have not had any negative repercussions on the economy or in particular on inflation.

Even though these consultations are just one means for setting and adjusting minimum wages, it is also important that they can take place. While recalling its commitment to social dialogue during the discussion of this case, the Workers’ group wishes to emphasize that this attachment is not dictated by opportunistic considerations or short-term interests. Above all, it is a question of conviction and credibility.

Employer members – First, we would like to thank the Minister of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for appearing before the Committee today and for the information provided. Regrettably, it is clear from this information that the issue regarding the application of the Convention persists. This is a case of application of the Convention ratified by the Plurinational State of Bolivia in 1977, it is the third consecutive time that this Committee is discussing the application of the Convention by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, since it was also examined in 2018 and 2019, although the Committee has made observations noting concern since 2006. This is due to continued and systematic non-compliance by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

We are faced with a recurrent serious situation. The Government is failing to comply with Articles 3 and 4(1) and (2) of the Convention, concerning factors for determining minimum wage levels and full consultation with the social partners. For a number of years the Committee of Experts has been asking the Government to take urgent steps to ensure full consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and their direct participation in the machinery for fixing wages, especially the minimum wage. The Committee of Experts has also observed that while the Government affirmed that consultations were being held with the social partners, in the way that they are occurring today, the CEPB employers’ organization and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) claim the opposite.

Furthermore, in 2018, given the divergences expressed in the Committee between the Government and the aforementioned employers’ organizations, the Committee already expressed the need for a direct contacts mission to take place without delay with a view to finding a solution to the difficulties faced in the application of the Convention. However, the Government did not respond to this request and therefore in 2019 the Committee again asked the Government to, first, carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations – it emphasized with both, not just with the workers’ organization – with regard to minimum wage setting in the country; second, take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers and their families, as well as economic factors as set out in Article 3 of the Convention, namely including the requirements of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment; and, lastly, avail itself without delay of ILO technical assistance. However, once again none of this has happened. What is more, the Government has indicated in its recent report that there is no need for a direct contacts mission given that no difficulties are faced in the application of the Convention, and it does not appear to us that it is receiving ILO technical assistance in this regard.

It would appear that this rejection of the direct contacts mission disregards the conclusions of this Committee and ultimately strips the ILO supervisory system of validity and efficacy.

First, the Employer members kindly but firmly request the Government to reconsider this rejection.

Second, we point out that the COB annually presents a list of demands including a proposal for an increase in the national minimum wage. The Government therefore insists that consultations are held with this federation on account of its annual proposal and that the employers’ sector is excluded.

Third, the same does not happen with the CEPB and the Government argues that this is because section 10 of the union’s constitution provides that the CEPB shall not undertake the legal representation of its affiliated organizations for the negotiation or settlement of individual labour disputes between workers and employers.

In other words, the Government bases its argument on this element while stating in its report that the annual minimum wage increase takes into consideration the positions of workers and employers, with whom, it claims, it promotes dialogue and consultations on the basis of good faith and respect, as demonstrated by the round-table meetings established with the representatives of the CEPB and the COB. It should be clarified here that the statutory prohibition on the CEPB clearly refers to intervention in individual labour disputes of its members; that is to say, it cannot undertake the defence of those individual disputes and not in the case with which we are concerned, since it must also be borne in mind that this criterion was also analysed previously in the Committee and article 52(1) of the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia also recognizes and guarantees employers’ freedom of association, which is reflected precisely in the representative role exercised by the CEPB.

I would also like to reiterate that this Committee has stated that the Convention is very clear in Article 4 regarding the need for the Government to carry out full consultations in good faith with the representative organizations on the establishment, operation and modification of minimum wage fixing machinery. The Committee of Experts has noted that this is what it describes as full consultations and in 2009 it stated on this matter, and I quote: “While recalling that consultation should be kept distinct from co‑determination or mere information, the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances. It therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form.” The mere indication of the wage that it is intended to adopt, which we understand was the closest that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia came to a communication to employers, cannot in any manner, in light of the above, be considered consultation, and still less full consultation. It is clear to us that for this to be the case, consultations have to be held in good faith with a view to identifying the concerns and aspirations of each of the parties and with the objective of achieving consensus, or as a minimum of incorporating the concerns and sensibilities of the partners into the decision that is finally adopted by the Government.

Moreover, the Government has in turn stated that minimum wage fixing is based on social and economic factors, taking into account inflation, productivity and other economic indicators. What is clear is that the Government has been fixing wage increases to be applied not only in relation to the international minimum wage but at times also with respect to the “basic wage” without holding any consultations. We repeat: without any consultation of the employers’ sector and, especially, without the full consultation referred to in Article 4 of the Convention, and, on the contrary, determining the five elements referred to above as the basis for exclusive direct negotiations with the COB, ignoring the employers’ sector, which has been obliged to take measures in this regard.

In addition, with regard to the minimum wage fixing criteria – according to the Government, inflation, productivity, gross domestic product (GDP), per capita GDP, the consumer price index, economic growth, the unemployment rate, market fluctuations and the cost of living – evidence shows that this statement is inaccurate. Between 2006 and the current year 2021, on account of the increases imposed by the Government, the national minimum wage has undergone an overall increase of more than 324 per cent. In the current year, 2021, it set an increase of 2 per cent, the national minimum, as a result of negotiations that were held only with the COB. This was counter-productive for the economy, as reflected in the level of informality in the country, which stands at over 70 per cent. This situation also acts as a disincentive for investment and for the conclusion of employment contracts owing to the total uncertainty among employers, who are finding it impossible to adopt the necessary measures and take the action required to assume the cost represented by the discretionary increase in wages, which, moreover, is retroactive to the month of January each year.

In conclusion, the Government is deliberately refraining from consulting the employers’ organization in the country on minimum wage fixing. It also fails to comply with its obligations deriving from the Convention by disregarding technical criteria which should underpin wage fixing, and this goes against the culture of social dialogue which is mandatory under the most fundamental principles of the ILO. It also affects employers and workers in practice, as well as the general public, with sources of decent employment being reduced, accompanied by an incessant growth in the informal economy, where no minimum wages are guaranteed, and there is no other type of labour protection or social security. The Committee must promptly take note of all these serious circumstances and take action accordingly.

Employer member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – As is known to the members of this Committee, at both the 107th and 108th Sessions of the Conference held in 2018 and 2019 respectively, in view of the complaints made jointly by the CEPB and the IOE, the failure of the Government to apply and comply with the Convention was examined. In view of its ratification by our country, the Convention certainly forms part of the constitutional bloc envisaged in article 410 of the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

In this light, it should be recalled that the complaint made by our employers’ organization is based on the fact that the Government has been setting the wage increases to be applied, not only in relation to the national minimum wage, but also to the “basic wage”, without engaging in any consultations with the employers, and particularly not in the form of the “full” consultations required by Article 4 of the Convention. On the contrary, the Government has set such increases on the basis of direct negotiations it has held with the COB, completely disregarding the private employers, who have been required to accept the measures imposed upon them in this respect. It should also be recalled that between 2006 and this year, 2021, the national minimum wage has risen in overall terms by over 324 per cent. Such a measure has been counter-productive for the economy, as reflected in the level of informality in our country, of over 70 per cent, and the disincentive to investment and labour recruitment.

It is important to emphasize that this is confirmed by ILO documents, including the various reports of the Committee of Experts in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, in which it indicated that the authorities of the Government should engage objectively in full consultations and that it was essential to draw a distinction between the concepts of “consultation”, “co-determination” and mere “information”, on which clear guidance is contained in Paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113). Nevertheless, the Government has failed to give effect to the full consultation process which it was specifically required to implement with private sector employers.

Regrettably, it would appear that in the view of the government authorities, social dialogue, which has always been promoted by this Organization, is not a component of the Convention. We therefore assume that this misconception explains the reason why employers’ representatives are excluded from any consideration in relation to the determination of the national minimum wage, and the failure to take into consideration aspects, which, according to Article 3 of the Convention, include economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment.

In addition, notwithstanding the proactive approach always taken by the Bolivian employers and despite undergoing, from early 2020, the pandemic and all its devastating economic fallout, this year, in 2021, as our Minister has acknowledged, in view of the direct negotiations the Government held solely with the COB, by Supreme Decree No. 4501 of 1 May 2021, it once again increased the national minimum wage by 2 per cent. It did so without calling for, let alone requiring, the participation of or consultation with the employers’ sector, regardless of the letters dated 13 and 16 April 2021 from the CEPB to the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, or our willingness to engage in dialogue with the COB's executive secretary expressed in a letter dated 16 April 2021.

However, as a result of the foregoing facts, in its conclusions at the 2018 and 2019 sessions of the Conference, the Committee, while expressing its concern about the dysfunctional operation of social dialogue and calling on the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to comply with the Convention, urged the Government to take a number of measures, including availing itself of ILO technical assistance and accepting a direct contacts mission. The government authorities not only ignored these suggestions, they refused to accept them. Consequently, in its 2019 conclusions, the Committee expressed regret at this refusal, reminding the Government that these missions constitute an effective form of dialogue designed to find a positive solution to the problems.

Lastly, I have to say that our organization is convinced that the basis for any rule of law is faithful and in-depth compliance with the law and the standards by which each society chooses to be governed. Therefore, we once again call on the Government to understand the gravity of this lack of compliance in view of the need for all ILO Member States to be subject to the supervisory bodies of this Organization to ensure compliance with the Conventions ratified by each country, and the Plurinational State of Bolivia cannot be an exception in relation to the supervisory bodies.

Worker member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – As workers at the national level of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, and also as representatives of all the workers of the Plurinational State of Bolivia at the meetings that we have attended and participated in past years, together with the commissioners and with our state authorities, we have always raised awareness among the international community of the defence of workers’ labour rights. Therefore we, as workers and on the basis of the responsibility that we have assumed, have raised awareness of the Convention, which has been discussed year after year, so that all the demands of workers across the country may be addressed publicly and openly. We have therefore engaged in ongoing coordination with the Government in recent years, given that it is a popular Government, a Government of the people. In our view, I think that all of the coordination and consensus that exists currently is highly important with regard to the standards, laws and decrees that benefit workers.

With that in mind, today more than ever, after having gone through perhaps difficult moments in 2019 and 2020 when it was not possible to coordinate or work with the de facto Government at the time, we are resuming that coordinated work, which we have been undertaking for more than 14 years.

This year, under the leadership of President Luis Arce Catacora, the current President of our Plurinational State, with the Ministry of Labour, and today with our Minister of Labour, we are carrying out new projects to benefit and defend workers’ rights. I think that we have always adopted this approach: openly, beyond the employers, in other words with the private sector, and the workers’ position will therefore always be to maintain our independence with respect to the topic under discussion so that we may raise our social demands directly with the central Government. It is therefore undoubtedly the Ministry of Labour that deals with these matters to defend labour rights in some way.

Beyond the problems that the Plurinational State of Bolivia experienced, I repeat, in the previous year, during which coordination was not possible and representation at the international level did not take place, today more than ever we once again have the opportunity, we are working together, sharing things beyond work and what our Government offers us under the leadership of the Ministry of Labour, which today is the representative at the international level at this event, and I think that consensus is important.

We are sharing a forum because we are working on the same matters that affect the workers in our country.

On the other hand, I think that it is important to mention the large number of workers who were dismissed as a result of the pandemic and because of the coup d’état. These are two factors that have combined in recent years; although the pandemic is global, we have seen extra dismissals thanks to the de facto Government when it assumed power and gained a footing in all the ministries, and ultimately in the whole Plurinational State of Bolivia.

A number of dismissed workers have yet to be reintegrated, legal proceedings are ongoing, and, at the same time, there are outstanding wages that have yet to be paid. In some sectors, including among entrepreneurs, the pandemic has seen businesses closed and workers unjustly dismissed. On the other hand, I also think that it is important, today in particular, that workers are mobilized in judicial institutions, including the Constitutional Court, to identify some of the judges who handed down sentences against workers during the past year. I repeat, they violated workers’ rights. This is about more than making our position known. We are also working to examine how we will initiate court proceedings to determine the responsibility of those judges who ruled against the country’s workers.

One sector was hit hard: the manufacturing sector. But to this we can add the mining sector, the construction sector, municipal and administrative workers, and others.

The task today is to examine, jointly, how this high number of workers across the country can be reintegrated, under the leadership of the Ministry of Labour.

With regard to joint action, and the sentences of some judges, coordination is under way, not only at the executive level but also at the legislative level, with the Legislative Assembly of our State to initiate these court proceedings to determine the responsibility of some judges who ruled against the workers.

We are working on that, and there are a few more projects that we are negotiating. I think that it is very important for us to make known these coordination efforts in our State with the democratically elected popular Government as a whole, today led by, I repeat, President Luis Arce Catacora.

There is full coordination with all State ministers and therefore, as I said, with the legislative authorities, which is very important because they are the operating branch that produces laws that benefit the workers in our State.

Government member, Portugal – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The Candidate Country Montenegro and the EFTA country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as Georgia, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States attach great importance to human rights, including labour rights, and recognize the important role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising international labour standards.

We firmly believe that compliance with ILO Conventions is essential for social and economic stability in any country and that an environment conducive to dialogue and trust between employers, workers and governments contributes to the creation of a basis for solid and sustainable growth and inclusive societies.

The EU and its Member States also remain committed to sustainable development and good governance. In this context, we have granted the Plurinational State of Bolivia preferential access to the EU market’s Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+). It is specifically premised upon the ratification and effective implementation of the ILO fundamental Conventions and on good cooperation with the ILO on these issues. While the EU is encouraged by its recent positive exchanges with the Plurinational State of Bolivia, we note that no report has yet been received from the Government in response to the Committee’s conclusions from 2018 and 2019 on the Convention. To our knowledge, no follow-up measures have been implemented either.

The Committee’s invitation to the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to the country may, in our view, help in finding a solution to the difficulties faced in the application of the Convention. Recalling that these missions constitute an effective form of dialogue designed to find a positive outcome to the issues in question, the EU and its Member States join the Committee’s firm expression of hope that the Government will welcome a direct contacts mission in the near future.

We stand ready to support the Government in its effective engagement with the ILO in implementing and enforcing labour standards and organizing meaningful tripartite consultations. The EU and its Member States will continue to support the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in this endeavour.

Government member, Barbados – I am making this statement of behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC). We appreciate the information provided by the Minister of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, regarding compliance with the Convention.

GRULAC takes note of the 2020 report of the Committee of Experts. Furthermore, we take note of the response of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia regarding its efforts to promote permanent, open and transparent dialogue with all social sectors within the framework of a democratic and participatory political system in accordance with its Constitution.

We highlight the vision of the Government, stressed by the Minister of Labour, regarding the consultation with the various sectors and search for consensus with them.

In addition, we emphasize that the decision to set the minimum wage in that country is not a discretionary measure of the Government but rather takes into account the need for prior dialogue and consideration of Article 3 of the Convention, the needs of workers and their families and economic factors, including the requirements of economic development, productivity levels and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment.

In this regard, GRULAC is aware that, in the 2020 report of the Committee of Experts, mention is made of an important fact which has been highlighted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), referring to the various social and economic factors, taken into account in fixing the minimum wage, noting that Bolivia is the country that has increased the minimum wage the most over the present decade in Latin America, without affecting the most relevant macroeconomic variables and without inflationary consequences. This information indicates that the system used by the Government in fixing the minimum wage brings together the necessary efforts to take care of economic stability in the country and the demands of the sectors. This balance is often very difficult to achieve.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the entire world, but the Latin American and Caribbean region was one of the most affected. Each country in our region has very complex challenges that require the participation and commitment of the different sectors, mainly aimed at overcoming the health crisis and moving towards an economic recovery.

In the case of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in addition to the health crisis, the country was facing a social and political crisis resulting from the interruption of the constitutional order in 2019. To overcome this situation, we call on the Government, workers and employers, to reach the necessary consensus to protect political stability and improve the social and economic situation of the country, taking into account especially those sectors most disadvantaged by the pandemic.

Likewise, we note that this discussion is recurrent in this Committee, so we request that technical conclusions be adopted that clearly explain the specific provisions of the Convention with which the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is not in compliance and that show a balance between the needs of the workers and the employers.

Taking into consideration all of the above, we encourage the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to continue its commitment to the application of the Convention and we encourage the ILO to continue cooperation with the Government.

Government member, Cuba – Cuba believes that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has duly provided the information requested by the Committee of Experts. Since 2006, the Plurinational State of Bolivia has developed economic and social policies that protect the sectors that have historically suffered exclusion and discrimination. Through the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare, the Government has stated that it fulfils its role of protecting decent work, fair remuneration and efforts to eliminate pay gaps. When fixing the minimum wage, it takes into consideration economic growth indicators, unemployment rates, market fluctuations, the cost of living and other analyses that provide a specific approximation of the country’s socio-economic reality. Additionally, since 2006 the Government has increased the minimum wage four times. It also has legislation on dialogue round tables, proposals, development and government policies.

With that in mind, the fixing of the minimum wage is the result of dialogue with the sectors, as set out in the Convention. The wage increases therefore were the result of consideration of the social partners’ positions thanks to the work of highest-level round tables with their representatives. This is without forgetting the needs of workers and their families, taking into account general wage levels in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits, economic factors, productivity levels and the benefits of reaching and maintaining high rates of employment.

For these reasons, Cuba hopes that this Committee’s conclusions, resulting from this debate, will be objective, technical, balanced and based on the information provided by the Bolivian Government.

Employer member, Argentina – We agree with our Employer colleagues that it is regrettable that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia continues to fail to acknowledge the recommendations adopted by this Committee in 2018 and 2019.

As recalled by the Employer members’ spokesperson, for several years the Committee of Experts has been requesting the adoption of urgent measures to ensure full consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and their direct participation in the minimum wage fixing process. In this same spirit, in 2018 this Committee expressed the need for a direct contacts mission, which was not undertaken.

The employers’ sector expects ILO Members to comply in good faith with the Conventions that they have ratified and to pay close attention to the recommendations made by the supervisory bodies. In this case, the Government has failed to acknowledge the recommendations and continues to fix minimum wage increases without any consultation whatsoever with the employers, much less the full consultation stipulated in Article 4 of the Convention. It is our understanding that failing to acknowledge in this way the obligations arising from ratified international standards is a prejudicial act for all constituents.

We hope that this Committee recognizes the gravity of the situation in its conclusions and will urgently request the Government to undertake full consultation with the social partners within the meaning of the Convention and to accept a direct contacts mission and technical assistance from the Office to assist in resolving the difficulties faced in the application of the Convention.

Government member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – My Government aligns itself with the statement by GRULAC. We have noted that the Committee of Experts’ 2021 report indicates, as stated by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, that consultations to determine the minimum wage take place within the framework of the Convention, and that consensus is sought through dialogue with the social partners representing Bolivian workers and employers.

We recall that, for the purpose of minimum wage fixing, the Government takes into consideration the needs of workers and their families, observing socio-economic factors and levels of productivity, with a view to maintaining a high level of employment, without affecting macroeconomic variables and without inflationary consequences.

Let us remember that the Convention does not provide for a model specifying how such consultations should be conducted, and in this regard the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has emphasized that it conducts such consultations in good faith, thereby seeking to close wage gaps and protecting workers with fair remuneration.

Lastly, my country's Government trusts that the conclusions of this Committee will be objective and balanced, so that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia continues to progress in its compliance with the Convention.

Worker member, Nicaragua – The observations made in relation to the Plurinational State of Bolivia and submitted for the Committee's consideration are not dissimilar to those made about other Latin American countries whose governments have promoted minimum wage increases as a social policy to improve the working population’s quality of life.

In the Plurinational State of Bolivia's case, the 2 per cent increase announced in May, equivalent to some US$311, does not heed the original stance of the workers, who sought a higher increase.

Business organizations, whose political stance contrasts with that of the Government, maintain without any economic or statistical evidence that the fixed amount will have an impact on enterprises and will push more people into informal labour. To demonstrate the falsity of this argument, we need only recall that there were no minimum wage increases throughout 2020, a period in which the country endured a coup d’état and disruption to its democracy.

Furthermore, we can easily show on the basis of official statistics that increases in previous years did not affect enterprises’ performance, nor did they increase inflation, let alone informality. This is the case because the impact of wages on enterprises’ cost structure is minimal, and because the quality of life of workers and their families can be improved by balancing this objective with enterprises' sustained profitability.

We reiterate that what must be safeguarded here is a minimum wage policy that is conducive to improving the quality of life for working people, as opposed to a view that essentially rejects any minimum wage policy, with or without consultation, if we look to other cases in which such matters have recently been discussed.

Government member, China – We thank the representative of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for the presentation. We have read carefully the report of the Committee of Experts. We commend the Government for its commitment to sustained, open and transparent social dialogue with the social partners within the framework of the democratic political system in accordance with the Constitution. Since 2006, thanks to various economic and social policies adopted by the Government, we see improved living standards for the people and protection for the development of sectors that were once excluded and discriminated against.

Private entrepreneurs of the Plurinational State of Bolivia have also benefited greatly from economic, political and social stability and legal security offered by the Government. The important role played by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare in promoting decent work, equal pay and the elimination of wage gaps is worthy of our recognition.

It should be stressed that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia engaged, as the Convention provides for, in exhaustive consultation, discussion and dialogue with employers and workers in all social sectors and fixed minimum wages on the basis of consensus reached.

In the process, the country considered fully such factors as economic growth, the unemployment rate, market volatility and the cost of living, and took concrete measures tailored to social and economic development in the country.

In the past 15 years, the minimum wage in the country has quadrupled. We note that the Plurinational State of Bolivia is identified by the World Bank as one of the leading countries in its region with regard to reducing inequalities in wages. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty in the Plurinational State of Bolivia decreased from 38.2 per cent in 2005 to 15.2 per cent in 2018. More than 3 million people have been lifted out of poverty. We speak highly of this result. At present, 60 per cent of the country’s labour force could receive an average level of wage and enjoy a stable life, which are in line with the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.

We hope that the Committee’s conclusions on the case could reflect objectively and fairly the evident progress made by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in fixing minimum wages and promoting economic and social development, so as to encourage the country to continue its implementation of the Convention.

Employer member, El Salvador – The Government has violated Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention in relation to two matters: firstly, the factors for determining the level of the minimum wage and, secondly, full consultation with the social partners.

As has been mentioned in the Committee’s conclusions, in 2019 the Government was requested, firstly, to carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to minimum wage setting. Allow me to highlight that when the Committee refers to consultations, it refers to consultations with both sectors, not only with the workers. Secondly, the Government was requested to take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers and their families as well as economic factors as set out in Article 3 of the Convention, and, thirdly, to avail itself without delay of ILO technical assistance. However, the Government has not complied with any of the conclusions adopted by this Committee, and in its report it has continued to assert, falsely, that the annual increase in minimum wages takes into account the positions of workers and employers.

In reality, it has not undertaken any consultations with the most representative employers’ organization in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, and much less “full consultation” as stipulated by Article 4 of the Convention.

Minimum wages not only involve those who receive them and the enterprises that pay them. Minimum wages impact the entire economy of any country because they are one of the three most important markers of macroprices, together with exchange rates and interest rates. Fixing minimum wages with the participation of both social partners, as provided for in the Convention, is beneficial for the entire country.

For that reason, we request that the Committee adopt conclusions that will allow this situation to be overcome.

Worker member, Zimbabwe – Once again, the Employers bring this case to the Committee under the same argument: that a pay rise for workers will cause unemployment. The sky will fall on businesses across the Plurinational State of Bolivia. But, just like last time around, the sky will not fall in and Bolivian businesses will continue to flourish.

Adequate living wages do not cost jobs in theory, and evidence suggests they do not cost jobs in practice. The most serious academic studies conducted in the past 30 years have shown that there is no unemployment effect from minimum wage rises. So, if there is no scientific evidence, we are led to believe that the employers are not really concerned with unemployment or with informality. They just do not want the State to be able to carry out public policies to the benefit of workers and their families.

Raising incomes and reducing poverty is a moral duty for any government, and especially for a country like the Plurinational State of Bolivia, one of the poorest in South America. The national minimum wage of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is now about US$311 a month. In fact, I challenge anyone in this meeting to attempt to bring healthy food to the table and cover the costs of transport, clothing, utility bills and healthcare with this amount in the Plurinational State of Bolivia or anywhere.

Let me try to understand what the employers are saying. Are they suggesting that their existence as businesses relies on the impoverishment of the majority in society? If so, I urge them to change their business model immediately.

Here we should be urging the Plurinational State of Bolivia to raise wages much further than a meagre 2 per cent. This amount does not meet the test of the Convention that clearly states that wages must fulfil the needs of workers and their families. This is the real purpose of the Convention.

Government member, Russian Federation – The Russian Federation fully shares the assessment given by the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia with regard to the application of the Convention, particularly taking into account the situation of developing countries.

We would note that, recently, there have been significant challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic for the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Despite that, the Government has continued to make efforts and develop and implement socio-economic policies which respond to the interests of all Bolivians: protecting the sectors of the economy which were in a difficult situation; ensuring fair wages; and trying to do away with significant inequalities in wages.

Overall, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has been carrying out an open and sincere dialogue with all social partners within the context of a democratic and inclusive system of state structure. The basis for this has been the country’s Constitution, where social fairness is identified as one of the main objectives of state development.

In light of all this, we believe that complaints against the Plurinational State of Bolivia for not observing the provisions of the Convention do not have any foundation. We believe that the Committee should note with satisfaction the information in the detailed report which the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has given to us today, and conclude consideration of this question.

Employer member, Mexico – We regret that this case is continuing in the same, or worse, conditions as in previous years.

How much longer will we have to wait for the Government to comply with its obligations under the Convention and with the recommendations of this Committee? How many more times will we have to listen in this room to baseless and unjustified excuses for behaviour that damages the country as a whole, given that informality is growing in the face of these arbitrary increases and has reached more than 70 per cent of the population?

This is not a minor point. Everyone here knows that informality does not bring decent work or sustainable employment and, far from improving a country’s economic conditions, it creates a decline that is increasingly difficult to reverse.

We hope that the Government avails itself of the technical assistance provided by the Office and accepts the direct contacts mission as soon as possible in order to resolve the problem with willingness and commitment, strengthening social dialogue through full consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in accordance with the Convention.

Another Employer member, Mexico – The explanations and reports received by this Committee confirm that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has repeatedly and constantly failed to comply with the obligations set out in the Convention.

It is a serious matter that the Government fails to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention by failing to hold consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations so that they may participate in wage fixing; by refusing to accept technical assistance from the ILO; and by fixing wage increases after negotiating only with the COB, without allowing the employers to participate.

The simple fact that between 2006 and 2021 the minimum wage rose by more than 324 per cent and that informality is in excess of 70 per cent demonstrates that when the Government imposes wage adjustments, it not only infringes the Convention but also discourages investment and the generation of formal employment owing to the uncertainty caused in the employers’ sector.

This Committee must therefore consider the background to the case and deem serious the deliberate failure of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to comply with the Convention.

Government member, Argentina – The Government of Argentina supports the statement by GRULAC on the importance of the minimum wage increase in the Plurinational State of Bolivia. This notwithstanding, we should like to make a few additional points that will serve to further underline the significance of Convention No. 131 for the social and labour policy of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

The effect of the minimum wage increase in the Plurinational State of Bolivia must be viewed in the context of a much broader policy, as described by the Bolivian State in its defence. In this regard, it is worth recalling that the entire international community, including the ILO, has channelled all its efforts into its commitment to eradicate poverty by 2030 under the Sustainable Development Goals, principally Goal 8: “Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all”. It is the responsibility of the ILO to implement this goal vis-à-vis the international community. This is the thrust of the overall policy of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, and this Organization ought to support it.

Furthermore, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has provided evidence of sufficient compliance with Article 3 of the Convention, through the implementation of consultations. The difficulties it reports as regards their implementation do not exactly derive from the Government. Therefore, we also consider that the direct contacts mission, reserved for serious situations, would not appear to be the appropriate remedy in this case. In the Argentine Government’s view, if there were any reason to bring the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia before this Committee, it would be precisely to acknowledge a case of progress in the application of the Convention, in the context of the international community's commitment to eradicate poverty under the 2030 Agenda.

Government member, Nicaragua – The Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of Nicaragua warmly greets the Plurinational State of Bolivia, which has demonstrated its commitment to working with international labour standards.

We acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to promote ongoing, open and transparent dialogue with all sectors of society, fulfilling its role in the framework of a democratic and participatory political system that aims to build social justice.

The Government has reported that, through the Ministry of Labour, it continues to fulfil its role of protecting decent work and fair remuneration and is fighting to eliminate wage gaps, with the aim of achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The Government of Nicaragua emphasizes that the information presented by the State indicates that the Plurinational State of Bolivia does not fail to comply with the Convention. This has also been stated by the World Bank, which agrees with the progress made regarding the minimum wage policies of the State, which, using multidimensional analysis, endeavours to understand the country’s social and economic reality in defence of workers through fair wages for their work and the elimination of inequality.

We encourage this Committee to adopt conclusions, resulting from this debate, that are objective, technical, balanced and based on the information provided by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Worker member, Uruguay – Once again we have a case such as that of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in which it is clear that the employers’ sector is engaging in something that it always criticizes: the use of political motives to bring cases before our Committee. Clearly, the Plurinational State of Bolivia is once again on the list for a political motive because the employers’ sector does not approve of the political views of the current Government.

We wish to welcome the minimum wage policy of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Recalling that the Plurinational State of Bolivia is part of our region here in Latin America, the most unequal in the world, it is a false comparison to seek to pit the minimum wage against the generation of employment, formality and so on. In fact, the opposite is true: a good minimum wage policy such as that of the Plurinational State of Bolivia creates greater consumption and a stronger domestic economy in general, and that is subsequently corroborated by improvements to investment, formality and the living conditions of the people.

Therefore, this basis of the trickle-down theory that the employers wish to implement once more, while it has been shown empirically that everything left over trickles down, that is not the reality in the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

We are sure that the employers in the Plurinational State of Bolivia will have proposals, but until now the employers have not proposed policies that will improve the lives of the people.

Government member, Sri Lanka – The Government of Sri Lanka welcomes the efforts of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in ensuring effective implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

We note the important steps taken by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in fixing the minimum wage, including inclusive dialogue with the employers as well as with the workers, by establishing working groups with high-level government representation and adopting a holistic approach through consideration of a broad range of indicators, such as economic growth, unemployment rates, market fluctuations and the cost of living, in fixing the minimum wage in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

Since 2006, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has quadrupled the minimum wage. Moreover, the 2020 report of the Committee of Experts notes the ITUC’s acknowledgement of Bolivia as the country that has increased the minimum wage the most over the present decade in Latin America, without affecting the most relevant macroeconomic variables and without inflationary consequences.

We support the continuous efforts of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reduce the economic gap and wage inequalities, in consultation with employers as well as workers, and believe that the Committee will adopt a balanced and objective approach to the situation in the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Government member, Egypt – We take note of the measures and efforts by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to achieve harmony between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention with regard to the minimum wage.

The Government has promoted a sustainable and constructive social dialogue with the social partners in the framework of a democratic and participatory political process, according to the provisions of the 2009 Bolivian Constitution, which instituted social justice as a basic state pillar, in addition to the Government’s efforts to develop socio-economic policies in the best interests of the citizens and to protect all sectors which have been discriminated against and excluded in the past. In addition to the Government’s efforts, through its Ministry of Labour, with regard to promoting decent work, providing fair wages and striving to close wage gaps, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has taken also consecutive steps to increase the minimum wage amounting to four times the initial level. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia was keen to adopt a minimum wage policy aimed at closing the enormous economic gaps, thus benefiting excluded sectors while safeguarding the sustainability of the private and public sectors.

In conclusion, we highly value the efforts and measures taken by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to achieve harmonization with Convention No. 131 and trust that the Committee’s conclusions will reflect these efforts.

Government representative – I would like to begin by clarifying to the representative of the Employer members that on this occasion, as Minister of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, I did not on any account mention the supposed statutory impossibility of participation of the employers’ sector in any negotiation or dialogue. This may have been the case in previous years but the gentleman is repeating old speeches.

Furthermore, and this is fundamental, I would like to mention that our theoretical framework, our legal framework and our political framework for action is precisely our Political Constitution, article 9(1) of which provides as follows: “The essential purposes and functions of the State are to construct a fair and harmonious society, grounded in decolonization, without discrimination or exploitation, with full social justice, in order to consolidate plurinational identities.” And I also refer, precisely because I am reading out a principal function of the State, to article 410(2) concerning the primacy of our Constitution: “The Constitution is the supreme instrument of the Bolivian legal order and enjoys primacy over any other normative provision. The constitutional bloc comprises international human rights treaties and conventions and standards of community law, ratified by the country.”

In our Plurinational State of Bolivia we have a legal framework which is the protector and guarantor of the rights of all sectors. Since we consider ourselves a plurinational State with a social, community and productive economic model, we therefore protect not only all economic models but also all nations that make up this Plurinational State.

I would therefore like to use my statement as a servant of the State to express gratitude for the positions of support for the Plurinational State of Bolivia and repudiate the calls to attention, since, like the narrative on fraud and the coup d’état under discussion in Bolivia, there is a presumption of fraud without a shred of evidence. There is also a presumption of a possible violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention without a shred of evidence.

The Workers who have made statements have praised our State, our wage policy, precisely because it gives priority to the needs of workers and their families. Because let us not forget that the workers for any State in the world must not be just another number, they must signify a family that forms an important part of the people. That is why our wage policies protect the social well-being of the families of Bolivian workers. But they also protect growth and economic stability.

It comes as no surprise, precisely, to hear our representative from private enterprise putting forward arguments about a pandemic attack in 2020, which has endangered the continuity of many enterprises. But he forgets to mention that there was also an abysmal state administration, which is why I remind him that it was precisely during this year that the wage increase was frozen at zero and yet it was the year when unemployment peaked and unjustified dismissals went up to almost 12 per cent.

Hence there is no connection whatsoever between the economic policies of the neoliberal periods and supposed economic stabilization.

We have shown in the course of 14 years of government by President Evo Morales that it is rather we who have made use of our constitutional right, our interventionist constitutional power that is the guarantor of human rights and fundamental rights established in the Constitution for the whole Bolivian population. We have protected the social stability of the workers and we have also protected the economic stability of enterprises.

It is our sovereign right as the Bolivian State to use our official data, and macroeconomic indicators show us – even though some sectors, perversely, do not even consider them – that we are growing once more, they show us that our interventionist wage policies have not had any effect on unemployment rates, let alone on any supposed decline of Bolivian enterprises. On the contrary, all the figures have been positive over the years.

With regard to the direct contacts mission called for in one statement, the Plurinational State of Bolivia affirms that since there is no violation of the Convention, or at least none that has been demonstrated at this session, there is no need for this mechanism. On the contrary, we urge the ILO to focus technical assistance on the promotion of labour rights and on the creation of opportunities for work, but decent work, improving social protection.

We are aware that we are on the right side in these class contradictions which have been made evident in these statements.

Employer members – First of all, let me say that the Employer members have very generously accepted all the statements of all speakers. However, when a speaker speaks out of turn and does not refer to the case or use the parliamentary language to which this Committee should adhere, there is good reason to request a point of order. The Employer members request that the statements of the Worker member of Uruguay be removed from the record of the meeting of this Committee.

Having made this clarification, we are surprised to see something very unusual in this case, which is that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and the Workers are making their statements from the same venue. Besides being unusual, this may be the real evidence, the true reflection of what is happening in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, specifically with regard to fixing the national minimum wage.

The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia continues in its non-compliance with the Convention, which, like all the Conventions, was adopted on a tripartite basis. It was freely ratified by the Plurinational State of Bolivia in 1977. We do not have to explain, therefore, that the Plurinational State of Bolivia must fulfil its international commitment.

Furthermore, the Committee is one of the manifestations of the ILO supervisory bodies and nothing entitles us to judge political intentions when requiring compliance with the standard adopted on a tripartite basis and ratified voluntarily by a State. Such is the case we are dealing with. Nor is it feasible to distinguish between Conventions that are fundamental, governance or technical, as in this case. They are all subject to the supervisory mechanisms of this Organization and must all be properly enforced. Tiny or insignificant non-compliance does not exist, and in this case there is only one situation, which is non-compliance.

Once again, the Employers wish, on this occasion, to state that we cannot and must not fail to warn this Committee in the strongest possible terms of such non-compliance by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, and to demand compliance with its international commitments. It is unacceptable for a Government to disregard social dialogue just because the views expressed may be uncomfortable to hear. This time it is the employers but, in this and other cases, it could also be the workers who are affected, and this Organization must use the same standards to judge all these situations.

Hence, the Employer members propose the following conclusions for the case, in which this Committee should highlight the seriousness of the situation and should request the Government, as a matter of urgency, to: (1) carry out full consultations with all actors in the world of work with regard to wage setting, both with the representative workers’ organizations and the most representative employers’ organizations and, in these consultations and in setting the minimum wage, take into account all the elements set forth in Article 3(a) and (b) of the Convention; (2) provide information on such actions to the Committee of Experts in its next report; (3) accept the direct contacts mission already repeatedly requested by this Committee and the technical assistance of the Office, possibly in order to realize the extent of the non-compliance currently denied by the Bolivian Government; and (4) lastly, owing to the seriousness of this matter, the Employers’ group requests that the conclusions of this case be included in a special paragraph in the Committee’s report.

Worker members – I should like to thank the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for the explanations provided. We note the indignation expressed by some speakers. The same approach would be most welcome when it comes to discussing cases where workers’ fundamental rights are flouted, or even situations where lives are quite simply taken.

I can only reiterate our request to the Government to hold minimum wage fixing consultations, as provided for in the Convention.

Nevertheless, we highlight the Government’s efforts to improve the lives of workers and to fulfil the commitment made by ratifying the Convention. In this regard, it is worth noting that economic factors have been fully taken into consideration in the minimum wage increases.

We should also like to state that we absolutely disagree with the analysis of the Employers’ group, which draws a direct link between informality in the country and the increase in the minimum wage. This is a risky assertion that would certainly require more detailed analysis.

A careful examination of the situation should logically enable us to distinguish between its various factors, so as to make an adequate assessment of the situation.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalled the high importance of full consultation with the social partners, as well as the elements to be taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages as set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee regretted that the Government did not accept a direct contacts mission, as they were invited to by the Committee in 2019 in order to implement all its 2019 recommendations.

The Committee therefore, once again, urges the Government of Bolivia to:

• carry out full consultations with the social partners with regard to minimum wage setting; and
• take into account the needs of workers and their families as well as economic factors when determining the level of the minimum wage as set out in Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee requests that the Government avail itself, without delay, of ILO technical assistance to ensure compliance with the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee requests the Government to provide, in consultation with the social partners, further information to the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention before its next sitting in 2021.

The Committee once again urges the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission before the next session of the International Labour Conference in 2022.

Government representative – We note the Committee’s conclusions. We regret that the Committee gives the impression of defending the privileged sector more than families from historically vulnerable sectors. We are concerned at the fact that no account has been taken of indicators of sustained economic growth since 2006, which undermine the Employers’ arguments and contradict the report issued by the Committee itself.

The Plurinational State of Bolivia takes note of the Committee’s suggestions and reaffirms the strong commitment to achieve a State with social justice through compliance with the principles and rights enshrined in the Political Constitution of the State. These criteria were even referred to only yesterday by the Pope, appealing to the trade unions and the most disadvantaged not to forget their true calling, namely to produce wealth in the service of all and not just the few.

The Government reiterates that it is not failing to comply with the Convention, which is why it does not consider a direct contacts mission to be necessary, since dialogue is the basis on which state policies are formulated. On the contrary, we urge the ILO to generate technical cooperation to guarantee the full exercise of labour rights.

We vigorously underline the fact that the Committee’s second suggestion is what we, as a democratic Government, have taken into account. It appears that the Committee is unwilling to recognize this.

We are on the list of cases because in order to determine the minimum wage we take account of the factors mentioned in Article 3 of the Convention. Hence we affirm that we have succeeded in maintaining this balance.

The Plurinational State of Bolivia reaffirms its compliance with the agreements and its commitment to continue generating better conditions of employment and decent work in the context of our sovereignty.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)



Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – With reference to the report that we are called upon to present to this Committee, we have to point out in the first place that it must be noted that our State is characterized by the promotion of constant and unconditional dialogue with absolutely all the social partners. That is done with a view to the adoption of appropriate and balanced decisions to address the needs and interests of the community as a whole. It is carried out within the framework of a clearly democratic and participatory political system, in accordance with the provisions of our Political Constitution of the State since 2009, which reformed the country by incorporating the highest standards of social justice, in accordance with the will of a constituent assembly voted into power by the majority will of the Bolivian people.

The Government of President Evo Morales Ayma is a Government that develops economic and social policies in support of all women and men Bolivian nationals, but which also seeks to protect sectors that have historically been excluded and suffered discrimination. Accordingly, dialogue, consultation with the various sectors and the search for consensus are the methods that are used to govern, as respect for national and international law is a characteristic of our Government.

With regard to the comments contained in the report of the Committee of Experts, we have to note its observation that, while the Government affirms that consultations were held with the social partners, the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) claim the opposite.

Today, it would therefore appear that doubts have been raised concerning the word of the Bolivian State in relation to the holding of full consultations with the social partners. Of course, there are opposing opinions, but the facts are nevertheless clear. In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, minimum wage fixing is not a political measure at the discretion of the Government, but is the result of responsible dialogue with the social partners, as envisaged by the Convention, that is, dialogue with employers and with workers.

In this respect, it should be noted that on 25 March 2019, a meeting was held between the CEPB and President Morales and the Ministers of State, in which the discussion specifically focused on the fixing of the minimum wage for the present financial year. Another meeting was then held on 30 April 2019 with the private employers of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in which wage matters were also examined. These facts, among many others, show the perseverance of the Government in engaging in full dialogue. Moreover, specifically in accordance with the Convention, which was adopted to supplement other ILO Conventions relating to the protection of workers against unduly low remuneration, the Plurinational State of Bolivia applies a policy of the gradual and systematic increase of wages. The complaints of the employers, who participate in dialogue with the Government for the fixing of the minimum wage, therefore appears to be a complaint against social justice, which is a fundamental pillar of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

The fact that we are appearing before this Committee today due to a complaint by employers means that employers are endeavouring to use the Convention to try and prevent the State from setting decent wage levels for workers. Basically, this appears to be a challenge against the economic model of the Bolivian State, which has been found to be successful, not by us, but by international organizations and the international community. The figures are clear and do not lie.

The central objective of the Convention, as set out in Article 1, is the establishment of a system of minimum wages which covers all groups of wage earners. The essential aspect of the Convention is therefore the fixing of minimum wages, and the tool used to achieve this objective is social dialogue through the machinery established democratically by the Bolivian State.

The Preamble to the Convention reaffirms the role of States in protecting disadvantaged groups of wage earners in relation to employers, that is, the protective role of the State in relation to workers which, in our case, is mandated by the Political Constitution of the State, and to which full effect is given.

Another aspect is the observation by the Committee of Experts that there are differences concerning the criteria taken into account for the setting of the level of minimum wages. Since 2006, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, under the leadership of President Evo Morales Ayma, has developed measures which have allowed unduly low wages to be increased, in full compliance with the spirit of the Convention, and in respect of mechanisms of dialogue and consultation with the categories involved within the framework of the Constitution and the machinery established by the legislation in force.

As a result, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has quadrupled the minimum wage, which in 2005 was 440 bolivianos (approximately US$63), which was one of the lowest levels in the region. The wage is currently 2,122 bolivianos (approximately US$300). This increase in the wage was determined taking into account the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Convention, that is: (a) the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits, and the relative living standards of other social groups; and (b) economic factors, including the requirements of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that the wage policy followed by the Government is proportional to the growth and production of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, which has also quadrupled as a result of the social, productive and community economic model. Indeed, since 2005, gross domestic product (GDP) has grown by US$9,568 million to over US$37,000 million in 2017. They are not therefore arbitrary increases, but increases based on the solid and growing economy in our country.

The World Bank has recognized that our country is among the leaders in the region in reducing wage inequality. According to the Gini Coefficient of Labour Income, over the last ten years the wage gap has improved from 0.53 per cent to 0.44 per cent as a result of the economic model. Extreme poverty was also reduced by 38.2 per cent to 15.2 per cent during the period between 2005 and 2018. Over 3 million persons have been taken out of poverty and our society is no longer a pyramid. Now, the majority of the population, 62 per cent, have average incomes which enable them to live well. These objectives are also set out in our Patriotic Agenda focused on 2025, which we believe are in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals for 2030.

The wage policy that has been implemented has generated greater domestic demand, which has also been very beneficial for the private sector, where profits have been multiplied by four, rising from 8,663 million bolivianos in 2006 to 27,766 million bolivianos in 2017. This is because the economic model is based on the following pillars: the nationalization of natural resources and industrialization, the strengthening of domestic demand, the distribution of wealth and dynamic state investment, which guarantee results in terms of economic stability, employment generation, a decrease in the unemployment rate and the constant growth of the economy, which are contributing to reducing poverty and the levels of inequality.

As shown by these figures, private employers have benefited to a large extent from the economic, political and social stability and legal security provided by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in order to be able to invest and engage in new initiatives with the security that they will obtain optimum results.

It is the ineluctable duty of employers to afford security and social stability to the men and women workers who depend on them. Nevertheless, there are employers who provoke the premeditated failure of enterprises and abandon them. In this regard, we regret the unfounded accusations made by the Employers to this Committee, based on procedural arguments, with a view to limiting the just and equitable increase in the minimum wage, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. We also regret the inclusion of this case in the list by the Committee. On the contrary, governments should be encouraged to improve the standards of living of their populations within the framework of the Convention and in light of the obligation to respect human rights.

The wage increase was determined taking into consideration the positions of both social partners, the workers and the employers, with whom the Government engages in dialogue and full consultations. For this purpose, working round tables have been established at the highest level of the Government with the representatives of the CEPB and have met on several occasions. Clear proof of this is provided by the national press. The full consultation required by Article 4(2) of the Convention refers to machinery for the fixing, application and adjustment of minimum wages, that is the legal design of the provisions that will govern the process of the determination of the minimum wage. The Government’s wage policy is focused on reducing the enormous economic gaps and favouring categories that are traditionally excluded, that is those who earn the least, by increasing wages by above the inflation rate, while maintaining the sustainability of public and private investment. Annual increases are determined on this premise.

In this context, the Plurinational State of Bolivia firmly believes that the legal interpretation of the provisions of the Convention needs to be more rigorous and not lose sight of the fact that its spirit is the protection of wage earners in view of their intrinsic asymmetry with employers.

With regard to the institutional machinery, we are bound to recall that the determination of minimum wages in the Plurinational State of Bolivia takes place within the following institutional framework:

(1) article 49 of the Political Constitution of the State, which provides that the law shall regulate labour relations, including the fixing of general and sectoral minimum wages and wage increases;

(2) section 52 of the General Labour Act, which provides that the determination of the remuneration of wage earners shall be carried out by the central Government;

(3) Presidential Decree No. 28699 of 1 May 2006, which provides that employers and workers shall agree freely on remuneration, which shall be above the national minimum wage determined by the Government.

The Constitutional framework is therefore established and has its origins in the Political Constitution of the State which, in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, is not only the outcome of consultation with workers and employers, but with the whole Bolivian people since, it should be recalled, the Constitution is the outcome of a constituent assembly and a confirmatory referendum.

In accordance with the machinery for the determination of minimum wages, since the last International Labour Conference in 2018, the Government has engaged in a series of full consultations with both sides with a view to setting the minimum wage and many other social policies. We now therefore have a balanced minimum wage which takes into account the position of both partners and the parameters indicated above. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is committed to continuing to hold these dialogue round tables with employers.

Worker members – Today we will examine the application of Convention No. 131 by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. This is the 16th observation made by the Committee of Experts on the subject of minimum wages in the Plurinational State of Bolivia since the Convention was ratified by the country in 1977.

An active debate is currently essential on what constitutes appropriate minimum remuneration to protect workers and their families from poverty and ensure stable remuneration in times of financial fluctuations.

As the representative of the Workers, we once again reaffirm that engaging in social dialogue in good faith is key to the implementation of an equitable and just economic policy at the national level. Such dialogue enables the Government and the social partners to work on a common strategy to promote decent work, inclusion and social justice.

As indicated by the Committee of Experts in its previous observations, the minimum wage system envisaged in the Convention is intended as a social protection measure to overcome poverty by guaranteeing decent levels of income, especially for unskilled workers and marginal groups.

The establishment of a minimum wage is intended to protect workers against the payment of low wages and to prevent exploitation, by guaranteeing that all men and women workers benefit from a fair distribution of the results of progress.

The Convention is based on the idea that it is necessary to protect wages, which are generally the only means of subsistence of workers, faced with the effects of market competition and to prevent a race to the bottom.

First, I wish to reflect on the debate in the Committee in June 2018 on the application of the Convention by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. During the discussion, the Government was requested to adopt a series of measures, and I quote, “the Committee urged the Government without delay to: carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to minimum wage setting; take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers and their families as well as economic factors as set out in Article 3 of the Convention; avail itself of ILO technical assistance to ensure without delay compliance with the Convention in law and practice; and accept an ILO direct contacts mission.” As workers, we welcome the decision of the Government to increase the national minimum wage for 2018, through Presidential Decree No. 3544, with the result that the minimum wage rose from 2,060 bolivianos a month to 2,122 bolivianos a month.

During the process of wage negotiation, account was taken of various factors, including inflation, productivity, GDP, economic growth, the unemployment rate, market fluctuations and the cost of living. These elements were taken into consideration in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention.

We also welcome the application by the Government of wage policies intended to preserve the real value of the remuneration of men and women workers with the lowest incomes and to protect their remuneration so that it does not lose value as a result of inflation. This policy of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is key to ensuring a just distribution of wealth and removing the greatest number of men and women workers from poverty.

We also applaud the reaffirmation by the Government that the ideal of equality is a fundamental pillar of a sustainable economy. We wish to reaffirm that open social dialogue plays an essential role in ensuring the sound design and adaptation of public policies to all aspects of the economic and social situation of a country.

Taking this into account, we consider it appropriate to encourage the Government to continue its major efforts to give effect to the Convention, which requires the holding of consultations in good faith with the representative organizations of employers and workers for the establishment, operation and adaptation of the machinery through which minimum wages are fixed and adjusted.

We emphasize the importance of the Convention and its application, with the incorporation of objective quantitative methods for the determination of the minimum wage in which the active participation is ensured of the most representative organizations of employers and workers in future decisions concerning wages.

Effective consultations and the full participation of the representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations are essential to guarantee solid, sustainable and broadly accepted machinery for minimum wage setting.

Employer members – We thank the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for the information provided to this Committee. The Committee of Experts has made observations on various occasions in which it noted with concern matters related to Convention No. 131. That was the case in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018.

This Committee examined the case last year, when it urged the Government without delay to: (a) carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to minimum wage setting; (b) take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers and their families as well as other economic factors; (c) avail itself of ILO technical assistance to ensure without delay compliance with the Convention in law and practice; (d) accept an ILO direct contacts mission; and (e) submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts in 2018.

Those conclusions were the product of a long discussion in the Committee during which the failings that justified such conclusions were determined. It is to be hoped of a Member of the ILO that the recommendations of its supervisory bodies are implemented in good faith. It is now our responsibility to determine the extent to which, if any, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has given effect to these recommendations, beginning with those that are of most concern to employers, that is the full consultations required before the determination of the minimum wage.

Indeed, the Convention is very clear in Article 4 on the need for the Government to engage in full consultation in good faith with representative organizations on the establishment, operation and adaptation of the machinery through which minimum wages are set.

As we noted during the examination of the case last year, the Convention describes the consultations as full. To shed light on what that means, I would like to refer to the comments made by the Committee of Experts in its examination of the same case in the now distant year of 2009, when this problem arose. I quote: “While recalling that consultation should be kept distinct from co‑determination or mere information, the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances. It therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form.”

The mere indication of the wage that it is intended to adopt, which we understand was the closest that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia came to a communication to employers, cannot in any manner, in light of the above, be considered consultation, and still less full consultation. It is clear to us that for this to be the case, consultations have to be held in good faith with a view to identifying the concerns and aspirations of each of the parties and with the objective of achieving consensus, or as a minimum of incorporating the concerns and sensitivities of the partners into the decision that is finally adopted by the Government.

During the two meetings to which the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia referred, we understand that fiscal matters were discussed, and that the information provided in one of them was limited to the figure by which the Government was planning to increase the wage, without permitting discussion of the subject. In evidence of the lack of will by the Government, I refer to the notification published on 18 April this year, which I quote: “the Minister of Development Planning, Mariana Prado, confirmed on Tuesday to the Fides News Agency (ANF) that it had been agreed not to engage in tripartite negotiation with the participation of the private sector, and that the determination of the wage increase would be balanced.” There was no consultation, and especially not full consultation, despite what the Government has said. What the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia did was to reach agreement solely with workers’ organizations, in clear violation of the provisions of the Convention and the most elementary standards of this House concerning social dialogue, which is one of its pillars.

Indeed, we have seen a document concluded by the Government and the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB), dated 30 April this year, in which it is agreed, among many other matters, to reform the labour legislation and increase wages.

This situation was indicated to the Committee by us during the examination of the case last year, when we referred to public statements by high-level government officials to the local media in which open and categorical assurances were given that employers would not participate in decisions on minimum wages and that it is government policy to determine the increase in the minimum wage only with the workers.

Today, the facts confirm once again the reality of this policy, which is in violation of ILO standards and those of the country itself, as they have been incorporated into national legislation through the ratification of the Convention.

In the report that we are examining, and in others that have been produced for many years, the Committee of Experts requests the Plurinational State of Bolivia to give effect to its consultation obligations in relation to the determination of minimum wages. The response that we have seen has been the same.

This situation has to change, for the credibility of the supervisory procedures and because we have to ensure that the Members of the ILO comply in good faith with the Conventions that they have ratified. This has to be done in the most rigorous terms possible, in light of the retrograde attitude of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and the complacency of certain Worker representatives who do not see the evident dangers in this advantageous situation, which is nevertheless of little benefit, as it is undermining social dialogue and, in the final analysis, the rule of law in a country through the systematic violation of its laws. Sooner or later that will be to the prejudice of the population as a whole.

With regard to the second aspect, namely the non-compliance of the country in relation to the elements that have to be taken into account to determine the level of minimum wages, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, we have no indication that such elements were taken into consideration. Once again we are required to point out certain specific concepts of Bolivian legislation. There are two reference points for wages. On the one hand, there is the national minimum wage, which is universal for workers in all areas of the economy as the minimum level of remuneration that they should receive for a full day’s work, in accordance with the regulations. On the other hand, there is the so-called “basic wage”, which applies to all workers and cannot be lower than the minimum level referred to above, but which may be higher. This is therefore independent of the minimum wage and its determination is a consequence, in each specific case, of the individual or collective contract between employers and workers.

Article 49(2) of the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia specifies that the law is the suitable machinery for the determination of wages. The institutions that supervise the domestic constitutionality of the Plurinational State of Bolivia are those that must determine whether or not the Government has the legal power to intervene in the determination of wage increases by means of Presidential Decrees, as it has been doing in practice and, if so, whether they should also be the subject of consultation with the social partners, as we have been saying.

We have also expressed our reservations, as being in violation of the right of employers and workers to collective bargaining, of the requirement, under the terms of the ministerial decisions that are issued every year regulating wage increases, for the parties to negotiate an increase in the basic wage, for which a time limit is also set to reach agreement and for the submission of the agreement to the government authorities, under penalty of fines and sanctions for the employer for each day of delay, which places unfair pressure on the employer.

We have been noting that since 2006 the national minimum wage has been increased by more or less 300 per cent and the basic wage by 150 per cent, with both figures being well above inflation. Moreover, the official figures show a fall in GDP growth since 2014 and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts that this will continue until 2022.

The IMF predicts that the country and its economy will face a period of major challenges relating to complexities in key sectors such as hydrocarbons. Earlier figures suggested that the elements referred to in Article 3 of the Convention have not been taken into account in the determination of wages. If they had been considered, wages would undoubtedly not have been increased by the percentages noted above, as in practice happened in the public sector.

Finally, with regard to collaboration with the Office to resolve the problems that have been identified, the Committee of Experts regretted that the Government had not even replied to the request by the Conference Committee to send a direct contacts mission.

This shows once again the Government’s attitude to finding a solution to the issues that we are raising. We have no doubt that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is deliberately refraining from consulting the employers’ organizations in the country in relation to the determination of minimum wages. Nor has it any interest in collaborating with the Office. Indeed, it would appear to be indifferent to the situation of non-compliance with its obligations deriving from the Convention, as well as its impact on the national economy, with sources of decent employment being reduced, accompanied by an incessant growth in the informal economy, where no minimum wages of any type are guaranteed, and there is no other type of labour protection or social security.

We need to remind the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in the most severe terms, that it is in violation of its obligations under the Convention, and needs to take the corresponding action.

Employer member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – Over and above the complete astonishment with which we have heard the report by the government authorities containing a message that is absolutely not in accordance with the real situation, we are bound to recall that, as is known to the members of this Committee, at the 107th Session of the Conference held in 2018, in view of the complaints and protests made jointly by the CEPB and the IOE for many years, the failure of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to apply and comply with Convention No. 131 was finally examined. In view of its ratification by our country, the Convention certainly forms part of the constitutional bloc envisaged in article 410 of the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

In this light, it should be recalled that the complaint made by our employers’ organization is based on the fact that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has been setting the wage increases to be applied, not only in relation to the national minimum wage, but also for the basic wage, without engaging in any consultations with employers’ representatives, and particularly not in the form of the full consultations required by Article 4 of the Convention. Indeed, on the contrary, it has confined itself to setting such increases on the basis of the direct negotiations that the Government has been holding for all these years with the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation (COB), completely ignoring the representatives of private employers, which have been required to assume the measures imposed upon them in this respect.

It should be noted that this is confirmed by ILO documents, including the various reports of the Committee of Experts in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, among others, in which it indicated that the authorities of the Government of Bolivia should engage objectively in full consultations and that it was essential to draw a distinction between the concepts of consultation, co-determination and mere information, on which clear guidance is contained in Paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 of the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113). There can therefore be no confusion in the Committee between the action referred to by the Government relating to the holding of isolated meetings in which general discussions were held on various subjects, but which in no case amounted the compliance with the procedure of full consultation with specific reference to the determination of the national minimum wage. It is clear, not only that no documents exist showing that Bolivian employers were taken into consideration and invited to discuss this subject, but also that in recent years we have not even had the good fortune to have been received at any meeting in the Ministry of Labour, as the Ministry responsible for labour matters, and have certainly not had any meeting with the responsible Minister.

We must point out that between 2006 and this year, 2019, in view of the increases imposed by the Government, the national minimum wage has risen in overall terms by over 322 per cent, while the basic wage has risen by over 130 per cent. That has given rise to a multiplier effect that is insupportable for various enterprises as they provide the basis for the calculation of all the other elements that make up the wage structure, and this increase has to be reflected in the wage agreements that are also imposed by the Ministry of Labour through regulations setting out a deadline for such agreements, under penalty of the imposition of financial fines for delays in the event of failure to comply, which increase on a daily basis up to the equivalent of 40 per cent of the payroll. This situation undermines the legitimate voluntary negotiation referred to in Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which has also been ratified by the State of Bolivia.

It should also be recalled that at the last Conference, as indicated in the records of this Committee, in relation to the same complaint of failure to comply with the Convention, in contrast with what was said today by the representatives of the Government, and which runs counter to what we have been told, the then Minister of Labour of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in defence, said precisely that: “The essential characteristic of the Convention [is] the fixing of the minimum wage, and not necessarily social dialogue”. That means that, in the view of the authorities of the Government of Bolivia, social dialogue, which has always been promoted by this house, is not a component of the Convention. We therefore assume that this mistaken view was the reason why employers’ representatives are excluded from any consideration in relation to the determination of the national minimum wage, thereby failing to take into account the views of Bolivian employers, which have constantly endeavoured to persuade the national Government to also take into consideration for the fixing of increases the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Convention, including economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment.

As a result of these events, and as recognized by those who preceded me in the 2018 Conference in their conclusions, the Committee expressed concern at the dysfunctional operation of social dialogue and called on the Plurinational State of Bolivia to ensure compliance with the Convention. It also requested it to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to ensure without delay compliance with the Convention in law and practice and to accept an ILO direct contacts mission.

However, unfortunately, one year after the adoption of the Committee’s conclusions, none of the action requested from the Government has been undertaken. On the contrary, despite noting the proposal made publicly by the employers’ confederation in this respect for 2019 that the increase in the minimum wage could not exceed 2 per cent, as the annual inflation rate was 1.51 per cent, the Government systematically refused to engage in full consultations with representatives of private employers, as borne out in the numerous statements made to the press in which the various Ministers and representatives of the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation rejected any possibility of negotiation and tripartite discussion. On the contrary, as it has been doing all these years, the Government once again focused its attention on direct, single and exclusive negotiation with the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation. Negotiation sessions were held with Ministers between 27 and 30  April 2019, which finally resulted in the authorities of the Bolivian Government, under the leadership of their chief, and the leaders of the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation, signing an agreement on 30 April 2019, which was read out at a press conference, and which set at 3 per cent the increase in the minimum wage and 4 per cent for the basic wage. In both cases, these increases were much higher than the accumulated inflation rate of 1.5 per cent.

This agreement is flagrant evidence of the failure of the Bolivian Government to comply with the Convention. Contrary to the message conveyed by our authorities, this has had an effect on the economy and is reflected in the level of informality in our country, which is over 70 per cent, and the disincentive for investment and the contraction of employment due to the total lack of certainty among employers, who are finding it impossible to adopt the necessary measures and take the action required to assume the cost represented by the discretionary increase in wages, which moreover is retroactive to the month of January each year.

Finally, I have to say that our organization is convinced that the basis for any rule of law is faithful and in-depth compliance with the law and the standards by which each society chooses to be governed. For this reason, we continue to believe that, following all the efforts made for our complaint to be finally considered, reviewed and decided upon by the Committee in 2018, its conclusions cannot be simply ignored and overlooked by the national Government, and that this failure of compliance has as its only consequence the need to provide a report year after year to justify the unjustifiable. We therefore call on the Government to understand the gravity of this lack of compliance in view of the need for all the member States of the ILO to be subject to the supervisory bodies of this Organization to ensure compliance with the Conventions ratified by each country, and the Plurinational State of Bolivia cannot be an exception in relation to the supervisory bodies.

Government member, Brazil – A significant majority of the countries in the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) thank the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for the information provided. We welcome the efforts made by the Plurinational State of Bolivia to take into account the positions of both social partners in setting the minimum wage, as well as the needs of workers and their families and economic factors. We also note the existence of national mechanisms for dialogue with workers and employers, which also cover the implementation of Convention No. 131.

Taking into account, as indicated in the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 that sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed, we welcome the information provided by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia on the progress achieved in reducing wage inequality through a real increase in the minimum wage and the consequent positive effects on poverty reduction and economic growth.

We reiterate the importance of the Convention in supplementing the protection of workers against unduly low wages. We also emphasize that the Convention does not impose a single model on all ILO member States.

We take into account the information provided by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia on the consultations held with representatives of employers and workers for the determination of the minimum wage based on criteria of balance and equity. We also note the progress achieved since the last International Labour Conference in terms of compliance with the Convention.

Finally, we encourage the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to continue its efforts to strengthen its mechanisms for consultation with the social partners.

Government member, Nicaragua – My delegation thanks the Government representative for the report presented to this Committee. We commend the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for having continued the consultations with the partners involved and employer representatives on wages, and for the establishment of the working dialogue round tables at the highest level of the Government with the representatives of the conference of employers in the country. We emphasize that the Government, in addition to taking into account the position of both social partners, considers the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Convention. We also welcome the fact that, as a result of the Government’s conciliatory and inclusive wage-setting policy, the Plurinational State of Bolivia is among the most successful countries in the region in terms of reducing wage inequality, according to World Bank data. Similarly, we emphasize that Bolivia has taken the lead in economic growth in the region, tripling GDP per capita in the country over the last 13 years, with an increase of 12 per cent.

We encourage the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to continue making efforts to achieve the effective and comprehensive development of the country with a view to good living.

Employer member, Argentina – As indicated by the previous speakers, ensuring tripartite social dialogue as a condition for the setting of the minimum wage offers a series of benefits that are globally recognized. In contrast, when its level is determined ignoring the situation faced by producers in each country, it can be transformed into an obstacle for the creation of genuine employment. At the 107th International Labour Conference in 2018, this Committee requested the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, among other matters, without delay to carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and to take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers, but also other economic factors, such as inflation, levels of productivity and the requirements for the economic development of the country, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention.

We are concerned that there has been no response to the request by the Office to send a direct contacts mission and that the decision was taken to go forward with a new increase in the minimum wage without consulting the constituents. This concern is greater due to the absence of information on the elements that were taken into consideration and the manner in which they were weighted for the determination of the level of the minimum wage.

The Employers hope that the Members of the ILO give effect in good faith to the Conventions that they have ratified and listen carefully to the recommendations of the supervisory bodies. The opposite would imply disregarding, and particularly failing to take advantage of the benefits of social dialogue at the various levels and disregarding the international standards that have been ratified, a decision that would in the end have an impact on the whole of the population.

In conclusion, we hope that this Committee will urge the Bolivian Government to receive a direct contacts mission and accept the comments of the supervisory bodies, taking advantage of the technical support of the Office to ensure the tripartite consultation of employers’ and workers’ organizations and to give due weight to the different economic variables that have to be taken into consideration for the determination of the minimum wage.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking in the name of the IndustriALL Global Union, representing over 50 million workers worldwide. We have read the Committee’s reports and recommendations on the application of the Convention, and, in particular, we have taken note of the recommendation to the Bolivian Government to carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to minimum wage setting; and to take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of the workers and their families.

We have heard reports from the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation – la Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), that in 2019, the Bolivian Government held consultations and negotiations with the representative employers’ organization and with the COB to establish and adjust the national minimum wage. As you may be aware, in Bolivia the minimum wage is the lowest amount a worker can legally be paid for his work, meaning that employers in Bolivia who fail to pay the minimum wage may be subject to punishment by Bolivia’s Government. Our understanding was that this year, in 2019, the only proposal that came from the employers’ organizations was to not increase, hence to “freeze” the national minimum wage, while on the other hand, the COB carried out ample national consultations with their membership and presented their proposals and set of recommendations to the Government.

In June 2019, the national minimum wage stands at 2,122 bolivianos per month, which is equivalent to US$306 per month. It may be useful to recall that between 2001 and 2019, the average minimum wage in Bolivia used to range around 1,009 bolivianos per month (roughly US$140 per month) and actually remained stagnant around US$55 per month in 2001. Hence, we note that since President Evo Morales took office in 2006, the minimum wage has increased over 300 per cent in the interest of workers. This latest increase in 2019, of around 3 per cent, is slightly above the inflation rate of 2.3 per cent (according to the IMF) and remains below the country’s annual growth rate of around 5 per cent (as the World Bank says).

“Raising real incomes for workers to boost domestic demand remains one of the pillars of Bolivia’s sustained economic growth, which has been keeping it as the South American leader in recent years.” As the Vice-Minister of Labour Hector Hinojosa has reported, the consecutive increases of the minimum wages in the Plurinational State of Bolivia over recent years has corresponded to steady economic growth and the development of internal markets, as well as to the development of productive and service sectors.

Already several years ago, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL) declared that: “Gradual increases in the minimum wage contribute to reducing inequality and have no significant adverse effects on aggregate employment.” Taking into account the progress achieved during the recent negotiations on the national minimum wage between the Government and the COB, we consider that it is important to encourage the Bolivian Government to continue advancing and implementing social dialogue and to pursue all efforts to bring the employers to negotiate in good faith. IndustriALL trusts the COB will continue to support the implementation of a socially responsible and inclusive economic policy.

Government member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – The Government of the Boliviarian Republic of Venezuela welcomes the presentation by the distinguished representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in relation to compliance with the Convention. We welcome the fact that, within the context of compliance with the Convention, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is taking into account the need to protect workers against low pay with a view to reducing extreme poverty and with the objective of ensuring that workers can provide for their own needs and those of their families, in the light of socio-economic factors.

It should be emphasized, as indicated by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, that it is developing dialogue and consultations with the sectors involved for the setting of the minimum wage. We are sure that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia will continue to give effect to the Convention by setting the minimum wage with increases that continue to benefit the workers.

The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hopes that the conclusions of this Committee, resulting from the debate, will be objective and balanced, based on the explanations and information provided by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Employer member, Chile – The Committee is having to examine once again the case of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in relation to the implementation of Convention No. 131. We must regretfully note, as the Committee of Experts does in its 2018 observation, that the Government of Bolivia has not given effect to the recommendations contained in the conclusions adopted by this Committee last year.

In particular, it is a matter of concern that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is persisting in not holding full consultations in good faith with the CEPB, in its capacity as the most representative employers’ organization. This situation, which has persisted for many years and has been the subject of various observations by the Committee of Experts since 2004, must be resolved as soon as possible to protect decent work and the sustainability of enterprise activity. The imposition of increases in the minimum wage without taking into consideration the diverse realities of private enterprise gives rise to uncertainties that can end up making formal activities by enterprises unfeasible. It is therefore important that, when setting the minimum wage, the criteria and proposals of employer and worker representatives are taken into consideration.

An April 2018 report by the ILO indicates that the informal economy employs over 60 per cent of the active population in the world. In this regard, the rate of informal work is also high in the Plurinational State of Bolivia. For this reason, it is important for the Government to enter into dialogue with all of the social partners to listen to their views and, in so doing, develop policies that promote formal and protected work. In this respect, the imposition of increases in the minimum wage without taking into consideration their impact on private sector activity can have the effect of pushing back the formalization of employment, thereby affecting the sustainability of formal enterprises.

For this reason, in the same way as the Committee of Experts in its observation in 2018, and its previous observations in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, we respectfully call on the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to proceed without further delay to hold full consultations in good faith with the most representative organizations of employers and workers on the setting of the minimum wage, and to respond to the request made by this Committee last year for an ILO direct contacts mission to visit Bolivia in the near future to try and determine the facts and examine in situ the possibilities for resolving the problems that have arisen.

Worker member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – The workers of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela give our support to our comrades in the COB in all the action that they have taken to defend the wages of men and women workers from the onslaught of inflation. We support the Government of Bolivia, under the leadership of comrade Evo Morales, a worthy representative of the working and rural classes, in its efforts to maintain the purchasing power of wages and in the consultations and social dialogue undertaken with the participation of the COB and the CEPB. We emphasize that both the workers and the Government confirm that consultations and social dialogue were held for the setting of the minimum wage on 1 May 2018 and twice in 2019, and that the Employers indicate that they were not consulted.

In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, employers are maintaining almost absolute silence on the rise in inflation, largely caused by the manipulated rise in prices that are not in accordance with the structures of the cost of production, while they cry scandal when a Government that is committed to social justice and peace engages, through social dialogue, in wage increases that protect workers from the wave of inflation by maintaining the minimum purchasing power for subsistence.

This behaviour by the CEPB appears to be part of a repetitive cycle of employers’ organizations affiliated to the IOE, which focus on confronting governments that promote policies of social justice, maintain a policy of productive growth, guaranteeing the adjustment of the distribution of wealth, providing social security for formal and informal workers and promoting decent and rural work, as the Government of Bolivia is doing.

We draw attention to the adoption of measures of interference in the internal affairs of Bolivia which, far from being a means of promoting social dialogue and peace, are being converted into a public relations and media campaign to generate international disapproval of the Government and society in Bolivia, as has occurred recently with the sister Republic of Nicaragua and also with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, by seeking to obscure the immense social progress and giving rise to subsequent and continuous measures of pressure. In conclusion, we support and encourage the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to continue developing social dialogue.

Government member, China – The Chinese delegation has listened carefully to the statement made by the representative of the Bolivian Government. We have noticed that in recent years the Bolivian Government has established a consultation mechanism on wages for employees, a dialogue mechanism with social partners and policies related to the determination of wages benefiting both employers and employees. The wage gap between workers and the number of the poor have been effectively reduced and the per capita GDP, the number of enterprises and the size of the middle class have continued to expand. We believe that the Bolivian Government has demonstrated positive political will and made tangible efforts to comply with relevant international Conventions. The Chinese delegation supports the Bolivian Government’s continued dialogue with the partners concerned and hopes that the ILO will provide necessary technical support to the Bolivian Government.

Government member, Cuba – The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has indicated that a mechanism for direct tripartite consultation has been established for the determination of the minimum wage and also for social dialogue with the respective social partners. It also reported that social dialogue includes specific consultations, through working round tables established at the highest level. It has told this Committee that it took into account the position of both partners in the process of increasing the minimum wage. For that reason, it considered the needs of workers and their families, the cost of living, economic factors, levels of labour productivity, among other relevant aspects. The Government’s wage policy has had positive effects by reducing unemployment and promoting public and social investment, all for the benefit of its people. The results described are clear and show the Government’s political will and commitment to comply with the Convention. They must therefore be allowed to apply their measures in an environment of cooperation and exchange, without pressures which could distort the Government’s policy of the protection of social justice.

Worker member, South Africa – I am speaking on behalf of the Southern African Trade Union Coordinating Council (SATUCC) concerning the application of Convenion No. 131 by the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Regarding the Employers’ claim that increases to the minimum wage in the Plurinational State of Bolivia are increasing the informality, it would be important to ask the Employers on what data they are basing this allegation.

Although unfortunately there appears to be no available data on the evolution of informal economy activity in the past three years, the Plurinational State of Bolivia’s Ministry of Economy and Public Finances has reported that informality has fallen substantially over the last two decades in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, from 68 per cent in 1991 to 46 per cent in 2015. Furthermore, the largest share of the fall in informality was recorded precisely between 2006 and 2015. This fall corresponded precisely to the steady increases in the minimum wage in the Plurinational State of Bolivia that have taken place since 2006. The Ministry also reported that the decline in informality was the second largest among 158 countries studied, after Uruguay.

At the international level, several studies, in particular a paper from OECD economists on the effect of minimum wages in ten emerging economies, concluded that minimum wages do not appear to increase informality. In fact, studies show that minimum wage is helping to address issues of working poverty.

Taking into account the progress in the recent negotiations on the national minimum wage between the Government and the COB, we consider that it is important to encourage the Bolivian Government to continue advancing social dialogue and to pursue all efforts to bring the employers to negotiate in good faith.

Government member, India – My delegation welcomes the delegation of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and thanks it for providing the latest comprehensive update. We appreciate the inclusive economic development agenda being actively pursued by the Government of Bolivia while taking positive steps to fulfil its international labour obligations related to decent work and social justice. This includes minimum wages that are fully aligned with the object and purpose of the Convention, availing the flexibility provided in it in accordance with its national context and priorities. The steps taken by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia towards a balanced wage policy and social dialogue mechanism, especially with those representing the more vulnerable, have brought tangible and substantial reductions in national wage gaps and poverty levels and have raised the standard of living of its people, in addition to other benefits to the general economy and society creating a win–win situation for both the employers and workers. We request the ILO and its member States to constructively engage with, and fully support, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia including through the work of this Committee in realizing its labour-related socio-economic goals as well as in fulfilling its labour-related international obligations. We take this opportunity to wish the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia all success in its endeavours.

Government member, Argentina – The Government of Argentina once again reaffirms its commitment to this Organization, as well as to social dialogue in its Centenary year. We give thanks to the representatives of Governments and the various social partners who have taken the floor on this item. We listened carefully to the intervention by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in which it provided details of the action taken to achieve an economy that is growing, stable and generates employment, and which has therefore substantially reduced the unemployment rate and decreased poverty.

The Plurinational State of Bolivia adopted Convention No. 131 taking into account the need to increase the protection of workers against low wages. As a result, the wage-fixing policy in this country has had benefits, both for the private sector and for workers. The World Bank has recognized that Bolivia is among the leading countries in the Americas in the reduction of wage inequality.

With Convention No. 131 and its effective application, the Plurinational State of Bolivia is taking action in the world of work to give workers an identity and dignity. It is also following the principles of the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 and, as a future full member, is aligning itself with the principles of the Social and Labour Declaration of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), which include the requirement to establish a minimum wage.

Argentina encourages the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to maintain its efforts to strengthen mechanisms of full consultation with the social partners, thereby ensuring their full participation in setting the minimum wage and definitively resolving this complaint. It suggests that it accepts the direct contacts mission, as it said it would in the Conference last year, with a view to assisting, supporting and ensuring that all the social partners feel that they are participating in the progress indicated by the Government of Bolivia.

Worker member, Nicaragua – Before beginning my intervention, I wish to convey our solidarity to the Government, the people and the family of the miner who died today following an accident in a mine in Chile, and our solidarity with the family.

In life, we come across options that govern us – the ideal, the reality, the desirable and the possible. In which options do we place the case that we are examining here? The ideal for employers is for there to be no increase in the minimum wage, the reality is that men and women workers require better incomes to improve their lives. In this respect, the Government is taking the best option and as a result is continuing to reduce poverty.

When employers use consensus as a veto, as in the present case, it is necessary to find a bilateral or unilateral way out. From the experience of the model and alliance, consensus and dialogue practised in Nicaragua, when the minimum wage is set in the tripartite commission, if the workers and employers do not reach agreement, the Government determines the percentage wage increase that will be applied and, even if we do not like the result, we abide by the decision.

The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, under the leadership of President Evo Morales, has developed the economy through sustained growth, the highest in the Andean region, with social programmes that have resulted in the reduction of poverty. It has been demonstrated that, with higher incomes, women and men workers have greater purchasing power, which facilitates the exchange and movement of goods, strengthening the market, which in turn results in greater sales and profits for employers. As a result, when the latter oppose decisions designed to distribute wealth, they are acting against their own interests.

The Employers repeatedly bring before the Committee governments that endeavour to apply national laws that restore adequate wage rights which are in accordance with standards of living. As workers, we recognize that tripartism is a required model to seek good labour relations, and we therefore urge the Government to continue reinforcing tripartism in accordance with the Convention.

Government member, Algeria – I first wish to thank the Government of Bolivia for the information provided concerning the setting of the minimum wage. Algeria is of the view that the considerations expressed by the Government are totally praiseworthy and that work must continue on establishing the criteria for setting minimum wages. That is in line with the objectives of the Convention in terms of the setting of minimum wages, as well as the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention, which takes into account in particular the needs of workers and their families, and all the related economic factors.

In practice, the Convention contains several flexible provisions in relation to the adoption of adequate criteria for the setting of minimum wages as a function of the situatiion in each country. That is why Algeria considers that the Government of Bolivia has assumed its responsibility to guarantee that economic and social conditions are taken into account in the setting of minimum wages.

In conclusion, consultations with workers and employers and the commitment to give effect to the Convention can have the best impact in terms of the setting of minimum wages, but that has to happen within the framework of the work that is already under way.

Employer member, Honduras – Today once again we are protesting against the terrible lack of respect by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia towards employers in the country. We regret that, despite the clear conclusions adopted by this Committee at the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference in 2018, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has not given effect to them, thereby showing its lack of respect for the ILO supervisory bodies.

It cannot be possible for the Plurinational State of Bolivia to continue setting minimum wages while disregarding technical criteria such as inflation and productivity indices, among others. It is even more serious and worrying that minimum wages are determined without engaging in full consultations with employers’ representatives, who have the commendable responsibility of generating decent jobs in this country. We wonder how decent jobs can be created if the entity that is responsible for protecting the rights set out in international labour standards is precisely the one that is failing to comply with their provisions. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has introduced disproportionate increases that are out of line with the economic situation in the country between 2006 and the present.

The increase in the national minimum wage has reached the accumulated rate of over 300 per cent, as the overall result of the increases made each year, which is giving rise to higher rates of informality in the country.

It is not only a question of the failure to comply with the requirement of consultation for the setting of minimum wages, in accordance with the Convention, nor the requirement derived from a technical provision of a Convention; it is a serious failure to respect the fundamental principles that inspired the creation of the ILO.

It is not possible for the Committee of Experts to regret in its report the follow-up to the conclusions of the Conference the previous year, and that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia still has not replied to the request by the Committee to send a direct contacts mission.

The situation in the Plurinational State of Bolivia is very serious, and we therefore categorically call for it to be included in a special paragraph of the General Report to place emphasis on the worrying situation in Bolivia.

Worker member, Argentina – I am speaking on behalf of the General Confederation of Labour of the Argentine Republic (CGT-RA), the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA Workers) and my confederation, the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA Autonomous). The Committee of Experts noted that the Conference Committee urged the Government without delay to carry out full consultations in good faith, taking into account the needs of workers and economic factors, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and to accept a direct contacts mission.

The Committee of Experts noted that the Government indicated in its report that the minimum wage had been increased and that socio-economic factors were taken into account, such as inflation, productivity and consumer price indices, and that informal consultations were held with both the CEPB and the COB. The Government also indicated that both parties maintained their positions, and the matter was therefore resolved accordingly.

In its conclusions, the Committee of Experts regretted the lack of authorization for a direct contacts mission. It is important to note that, in its analysis, the Committee of Experts only refers to formal matters as illustrations of the failure to comply with the conclusions. However, beyond formal matters, we believe that there has been significant progress in economic factors, as well as in the introduction of the minimum wage which, in our view, is a substantial part of the subject covered by the Convention.

Consultation can be informal, joint, individualized, regular, simultaneous and, in any case, in accordance with the customs and usages of each government. In this respect, Recommendation No. 113 does not establish any specific form for it to be carried out and, similarly, the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Case No. 1533, does not make any reference to a specific form of consultation. Consultation is not an institution referred to solely in Convention No. 131, but also in many international standards, including Conventions, Recommendations and Declarations, which refer to consultation as part of a system of tripartite relations. Consultation forms part of the system proposed by the ILO 100 years ago. It involves seeking common ground between parties whose interests are naturally opposed, but it is not, as maintained by the Employers, collective bargaining. Convention No. 98 is not applicable. It would be desirable for the Committee of Experts to engage in a more general analysis in its conclusions concerning Convention No. 131, taking into account the results achieved and examining whether they are in accordance with the institution of a minimum wage.

It would be necessary to determine whether this very important instrument has fulfilled its purpose and whether it is in accordance with the needs of workers. And I believe that if it fulfils these conditions, the means by which consultations are held, even though important, are of lesser significance. We believe that, in this respect, there has been significant progress in the setting of the minimum wage, that the objective has been met and that there has been a sustained increase in real wages.

The setting of the vital and mobile minimum wage is of fundamental importance in establishing the starting points for collective wage bargaining and, in accordance with the Convention, no worker may remain below that level. For this reason, the vital and mobile minimum wage has been, throughout the history of capitalism, a tool that States can use to confront crises. It is fundamental when applying anti-cyclical policies and we hope that the history of the last 100 years will include this institution and that the Convention will be included in the fundamental ILO Conventions.

Government member, Uruguay – Although Uruguay forms part of the significant majority of GRULAC countries which have made a previous intervention, it wishes to take the floor in its national capacity. Our Government places special value on certain of the indicators referred to in the report, such as the improvement in the Gini Coefficient, the increase in real wages and the reduction of extreme poverty, which shows that government decisions have been adopted with a view to improving wages, leading to a better quality of life for the population.

Moreover, we recognize the efforts made by the Bolivian Government to promote social dialogue and find a satisfactory solution for all the parties through collective bargaining, in accordance with the context and characteristics of the country.

It may be recalled that Article 3 of the Convention sets out criteria that have to be taken into consideration when determining minimum wages: the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits and the relative living standards of other social groups; as well as economic factors, including levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment.

In this light, and taking into consideration the role of wages in subsistence, we understand that, in relation to the conclusions of the last session of the Conference, the Government of Bolivia has made significant efforts to promote agreements that encompass all workers, giving priority to the well-being of the population and the needs of workers who earn lower wages. They have resulted in important progress for Bolivian society.

We encourage the Government and the social partners to continue along the path of dialogue to find solutions that are satisfactory for everyone and to continue providing protection and ensuring benefits for Bolivian society.

Employer member, Brazil – This is a case that we know well in this Committee and for which we requested the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to take the necessary measures to achieve conformity with the Convention. Employers in the Plurinational State of Bolivia have not had social dialogue as established by the principles of the Convention for the setting of minimum levels of wages for over ten years.

The Committee has repeatedly called on the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to hold the necessary tripartite consultations, listening effectively to employers, as required by Article 1 of the Convention; to set minimum wage levels following full consultations with the social partners, but this has not happened, which has led this Committee to make recommendations along the same lines in recent years. On a total of eight occasions since 2006, the members of this Committee have called for a response in practice to the claims of the employers of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

It is a matter of great concern for employers that, for many years, no tangible evidence has been provided of the full consultations held with the social partners, and particularly employers in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, as the conclusions of the Committee have been requesting for a long time.

Brazilian employers call urgently for the re-establishment of tripartite social dialogue in the Plurinational State of Bolivia so as to comply in practice with the Convention, in view of the risk of making the serious levels of informality in the country worse. We also urge the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to give effect to the recommendations that this Committee made in 2018 with a view to achieving a definitive solution, complying with the requirements of the Convention and engaging in effective and full consultations with Bolivian employers.

Government member, Egypt – We would like to thank the representative of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia for the information which has been given to the Committee relating to the mesures taken by the Government for the application of the provisions of the Convention. We have heard reports of consultation that has taken place with the social partners to consider all of the elements of establishing the minimum wage. If we consider what we have heard and recognize the importance of a minimum wage for social justice together with all of the social partners, we have to recognize the value of the measures taken by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to effectively implement the Convention and would urge them to continue their dialogue with all of the social partners when deciding at what level to set the minimum wage. We think that these factors should be taken into account when drafting the conclusions.

Employer member, Uruguay – The Government has referred to the economic growth in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, its political and social stability, the decrease in poverty and the improvement in social conditions in general, especially for the most vulnerable. Social improvements are a very important achievement for any country, particularly in our region of Latin America where the shortcomings are so great. We must emphasize and welcome any improvement in this respect. However, it bears no relation whatsoever to the observation made by the ILO and our Committee, and could even be omitted when drawing up the conclusions for this session.

Coming back to the facts, we see that it has not been possible to demonstrate the holding of “full” consultations with representatives of employers, as required by the Convention. On the contrary, we could say that the situation is more serious than when we examined this case last year. On 30 April this year, the Government concluded an agreement with the Bolivian Workers’ Confederation in which, in addition to negotiating the minimum wage, matters were addressed relating to labour standards, production and the economy. There was no dialogue. Employers’ representatives were not heard on any of these subjects. And the absence of dialogue for the establishment of a minimum wage is only an indicator that must act as an alert.

Based on the experience of the ILO, it is easy to anticipate what happens when, in one of our countries, over a long period of time, one of the social partners is ignored, excluded or rebuffed from the possibility of holding real dialogue. We hope that the ILO will provide specific support to the Plurinational State of Bolivia and that the Plurinational State of Bolivia will accept that support so that it can give effect to the Convention rapidly.

Government representative – At this stage, we have to clarify a number of aspects. First, we have indicated that during these 13 years of government we have managed to achieve economic stability for our country. This is reflected in such facts as, for example, the international crisis did not affect businesses in our country. Second, there has been absolute security for the financial system, which has grown considerably.

During the intervention by the Workers’ representative, an allusion was made to a reference indicating that the IMF considers that the economy will be seriously affected. We have another IMF source which agrees that the Plurinational State of Bolivia will have the highest growth in the region in 2019. We believe that we are acting with sufficient responsibility. The qualification of the economic stability of our country was not by us, but by others who see from close up how we are managing the country. In this respect, we have received very positive reviews from the World Bank itself and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), which place emphasis on the economic development and economic stability of our country.

The Employers’ representatives were clear in their indication that there were two meetings. Indeed, we also said at the outset that two meetings were held and that they touched upon the subject of wages. The Employers’ representative said that the subject of wages was not addressed, and yet the Employer member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Pablo Carrasco, reported the subjects covered in the meetings and said that in the Plurinational State of Bolivia reference is made to a minimum wage and a basic wage. This shows that the discussions in these meetings referred to the subject of wages, the minimum wage and the basic wage. However, in this respect, it is also necessary to take into account the manner in which the media in my country reported these meetings. One media channel indicated, quoting Luis Barberi, President of the CEPB: “it was a very positive meeting where the private business sector, that we are leading in the CEPB, was able to express concern and also our position of working for the Plurinational State of Bolivia.” More specifically, with regard to the subject of wages, another publication referred to Mr Barberi, and reported not only discussions of the minimum wage and the basic wage, but also of percentages. With respect to the percentage proposed by the employers and the percentage proposed by worker representatives, analysis was undertaken of the inflation rate, GDP growth and all the other factors. When the meeting ended, the President of the CEPB indicated, as reported in the media, that: “It seems to me a little higher than what we were thinking of, than what can be given, making efforts to be able to cover the erosion suffered by wages due to inflation, with us going from the 1.5 per cent inflation rate to 2 per cent, which was the proposal that we made.” It is clear that in these dialogue forums the subject of wages was discussed, which was their purpose.

We assume with sufficient responsibility compliance with the Convention. In addition, we must note another aspect. In one of the interventions, it was said that in the Plurinational State of Bolivia close contacts and the entry of employers into the Ministry of Labour is not allowed.

Meetings were held with the very representative of the employers of the country in an economic forum, and more specifically, a meeting with the National Chamber of Exporters of Bolivia in the Ministry of Employment, in the premises of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Welfare of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. It is clear that we do not close our doors: indeed, we keep our doors open and we are always available for any type of dialogue on any subject, because that is our democratic vocation.

We are concerned at the economic situation of the country and the situation of employers. For this reason, alongside the meetings that are held to set the minimum wage, we are implementing employment plans and programmes. When we implement these employment plans and programmes, we help employers in various ways: as we understand that the provision of training to a worker to be integrated into the workforce can represent a cost, the State subsidizes the process of the training of the worker. Another example is that we assume the cost of coverage by the social security scheme in the short term in the context of support programmes for employment. These are some of the ways in which we take measures to support and strengthen employers in the country.

In this respect, as the Bolivian State, we reiterate and reaffirm our democratic vocation, with our deep respect for integration processes, and we take sufficiently seriously the role played by the International Labour Organization. For this reason, we come to the Conference with the most absolute truth concerning democratic practices in the Plurinational State of Bolivia. Clearly, under the terms of our Constitution, it is our duty to comply with international conventions and, as we said, with regard to this Convention, we are also committed to continuing to engage in full dialogue with the social partners with a view to setting a minimum wage that is balanced and adequate.

Employer members – We respect the interventions of Governments, Workers and our colleagues the Employers. For a correct analysis of the case, we need to keep to the facts. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has not engaged in full consultations with the most representative, free and independent employers’ organizations on the setting of minimum wages. That is a fact. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has a policy of not consulting employers’ organizations. That is a fact. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia concluded an agreement on wage increases solely with workers’ organizations. That is a fact. The Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia did not give effect to the call made by this Committee for the sending of a direct contacts mission. That is a fact. Some people in this room wish to minimize or simply deny these facts. That is also a fact.

The point at issue should not be whether or not the minimum wage must be raised in the Plurinational State of Bolivia. That needed to happen in the country through full consultations with the social partners, which did not happen. That is also a fact.

We are pleased, however, to note the similarities between the positions of the Workers’ group, the Employers’ group and many of the Governments which intervened in the discussion on the importance of social dialogue and full consultation with the social partners, as well as the fact that in practice the good faith of all the parties must prevail in social dialogue.

We hope that the Government will take good note of these views and will make use of social dialogue as a tool for the development of good relations with employers and workers, and with the legitimate purpose of collaboration between the social partners and governments with a view to the design and implementation of policies for the benefit of society. In this regard, we endorse the concepts set out in Recommendation No. 113, which invites us to take measures appropriate to national conditions to promote effective consultation and cooperation at the industrial and national levels between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations, as well as between these organizations, with a view to developing the economy as a whole, improving conditions of work and raising standards of living. The Recommendation also clarifies that consultation should have the general objective of promoting mutual understanding and good relations between public authorities and employers’ and workers’ organizations.

We also respectfully suggest that the Plurinational State of Bolivia should consider the ratification of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). So doing would offer a firm demonstration of the vocation of dialogue that the Government representative has claimed during the discussion.

At this stage of the discussion, it has become very clear that the present case is considered to be serious by the Employers. It should also be seen as such by Workers and Governments which consider that States are called upon to honour their international commitments and comply with their own legislation. We are faced with a case of serious failure to comply with standards which require the holding of full consultations in good faith. The situation is to the prejudice of employers, but could eventually also be to the prejudice of workers, for which reason we are all called upon to defend equally the principle that has been violated.

The case is serious in view of the subject addressed, as we know that social dialogue is a pillar of the ILO. But it is also serious because it is a case of a conscious and deliberate omission. This Committee must place emphasis on this seriousness, as failure to do so would irremediably affect the credibility of the ILO standards supervisory mechanisms.

In 2018, we clearly expressed our concern at the statement made by the Government representative, who made it clear that there would be no change in the conduct that is in violation of the Convention. This is what happened in practice, as clearly illustrated during the discussion.

For these reasons, we propose that in the conclusions to the present case emphasis is placed on the gravity of the situation and the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia is urged once again to immediately engage in full consultations with the social partners on the setting of minimum wages, to report on the action taken to the Committee of Experts in its next report prior to its 2019 session. We also propose that a request is made for it to accept without further ado a direct contacts mission and the technical assistance of the Office.

Finally, in view of the gravity of this matter, we call for the conclusions on this case to be included in a special paragraph of the report of this Committee.

Worker members – As indicated during the course of the discussion, the minimum wage has played a relevant role in the socio-economic changes in the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

In the context of Latin America, the Plurinational State of Bolivia has made notable progress. According to updated 2019 data, the minimum wage in this country is in sixth place in terms of United States dollars. According to ECLAC data, forecasts for progress in Latin America in 2019 place the Plurinational State of Bolivia in third place. The growth rate is 4.3 per cent, which is much higher than the average of 1.7 per cent for the region.

And yet, it is argued that minimum wages have been increased by more than the accumulated inflation rate, which is precisely one of the functions that have to be fulfilled by minimum wages. The Committee of Experts itself, in its 2014 General Survey, indicated that: “Although the Convention does not specify the types of needs that have to be met, it should be borne in mind that the Preamble to the ILO Constitution proclaims that an improvement of conditions of labour is urgently required, in particular the provision of an adequate living wage.” The Committee of Experts emphasized in Chapter I that the concept of living wage takes into account more than the satisfaction of food, housing and clothing needs, and includes the possibility of participating in the country’s social and cultural life.

It is precisely the growing participation in national income that is affording access to full participation, or the path towards full participation, in the social and cultural life of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. It must not be forgotten that the minimum wage has to take into account not only the needs of individual workers, but also those of their families. As indicated in the Meeting of Experts in 1967, we must never overlook the fact that when we are dealing with wages we are not dealing with an economic abstraction, but with the source of livelihood of millions of people.

As an illustration of the virtuous effects of an adequate level of minimum wages, the Plurinational State of Bolivia has experienced a fall by half in chronic child malnutrition in little more than a decade, according to reports also prepared by ECLAC. But social progress is not limited to wage earners, and includes the community as a whole. According to Oxford Economics, La Paz is among the cities in Latin America that will grow the most in 2019, preceding the large urban areas in the region. As an explanation for this situation, we cannot fail to take into consideration that the Plurinational State of Bolivia is the country that has increased the minimum wage the most over the past decade in Latin America, without affecting the most relevant macroeconomic variables and without inflationary consequences, such as those that have affected the economies of other countries.

The process of dialogue in the Plurinational State of Bolivia takes place within the context of a policy for the elimination of poverty, and its extension must certainly be associated with the notable progress achieved over the past 15 years.

As workers we reaffirm the importance of social dialogue and the necessary and effective consultations with the social partners prior to the setting of the minimum wage, as well as the importance for the Workers’ group of Convention No. 131. We note that there has been significant progress in this case. We therefore encourage the Government to accept the direct contacts mission recommended by the Committee in 2018, which would offer an opportunity to demonstrate the progress achieved.

We agree that effective consultations and the full participation of the representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations are fundamental to guarantee solid, sustainable and widely accepted minimum wage-fixing machinery.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalled the importance of full consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, as well as the elements to be taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages as set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.

The Committee regretted that the Government has not responded to all of the Committee’s conclusions in 2018, specifically the failure to accept a direct contacts mission.

The Committee therefore, once again, urges the Government to:

- carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to minimum wage setting;

- take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers and their families as well as economic factors as set out in Article 3 of the Convention; and

- avail itself without delay of ILO technical assistance to ensure compliance with the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee requests the Government to elaborate in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations and submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2019 on the progress made in implementing these recommendations.

The Committee once again urges the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission before the 109th Session of the International Labour Conference.

Government representative: Firstly, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia takes due note of the conclusions presented by the Committee and will undertake the appropriate analysis of the conclusions.

In addition, we are bound to regret the fact that the conclusions do not necessarily reflect the discussion within the Committee. They do not cover certain topics raised and highlighted by the speakers, such as the achievements and advances in the wage policy implemented by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in relation to the purpose of minimum wage fixing established by the Convention itself.

In addition, the analysis conducted in the discussion did not focus on non-compliance; no views were expressed indicating that the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has failed to comply with the recommendations.

We also notice that the conclusions do not cover aspects referred to by the various countries and others that made statements. The wage policy and economic policy that have enabled the fixing of the minimum wage in the Plurinational State of Bolivia for these last 14 years have been a success, and it was the actual speakers in the discussion who highlighted the fact that it is other organizations that recognize this progress.

So we reiterate that the purpose of the Convention is the fixing of the minimum wage in relation to the Convention itself with a view to establishing decent wages for workers in situations of inequality. Our policy will remain the same in relation to our democratic calling: to govern while listening to the people.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



A Government representative recalled that the essence of the Convention was the protection of workers and that the complaints originated from employers. The Employers were using the Convention to question a successful economic model, in their nostalgia for privileged policies that benefited them, and to endeavour to ensure that the State did not set decent wages for workers. The Government was implementing economic and social policies that protected sectors which had historically been excluded and discriminated against. Dialogue, consultation with the various partners and the quest for consensus were the methods used, in accordance with national and international law. The Convention had been adopted to supplement other instruments intended to protect workers from wages that were unduly low. A policy was being implemented for the gradual and systematic raising of the minimum wage and the complaints of the employers appeared to be directed against social justice. The Preamble to the Convention reaffirmed the role of States in protecting groups of wage-earners who were in a disadvantage position in relation to their employers. The role of the State in the protection of workers was a constitutional mandate, which would not be abandoned on the basis of an inappropriate interpretation of the Convention. The central objective of the Convention was set out in Article 1, which required the establishment of a system of minimum wages which covered all groups of wageearners. The essential characteristic of the Convention was the fixing of the minimum wage, and not necessarily social dialogue, which was a tool for the achievement of that objective. There was a specific Convention on social dialogue, which was not the subject of the present discussion and which had not been ratified by the Government. Article 4(2) of the Convention referred to full consultation in connection with the establishment, operation and modification of wage-fixing machinery, or in other words in the development of the legislative provisions governing the process of the determination of the minimum wage, but not in the annual determination of its level. Since 2006, the Government’s wage policy had been intended to reduce the enormous economic differences and to favour sectors that were traditionally excluded, that is those who earned less, by increasing their wages above the inflation rate, while maintaining the sustainability of public and private investment. That was the premise for the annual increases in wages. In that respect, he emphasized that the legal interpretation of the Convention needed to be more rigorous and not lose sight of the fact that its spirit was the protection of wage-earners in light of the intrinsic asymmetry with employers. Minimum wages were determined within the following institutional framework: (1) article 49 of the Constitution provided that the law shall regulate labour relations, including the determination of general and sectoral minimum wages and wage increases: (2) section 52 of the General Labour Act provided that remuneration or wages shall be fixed by the central Government; and (3) section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 28699 of 1 May 2007 provided that employers and workers may agree on remuneration freely, and that it had to be above the minimum national wage determined by the Government. The institutional framework was therefore established and had its origins in the Political Constitution, which had itself been the subject of consultation with workers, employers and the people as a whole, as it was the product of a Constituent Assembly and a referendum for its approval.

Historically, there had been factors in the relations between employers’ and workers’ organizations which had worked in favour of employers and undermined collective bargaining mechanisms at the sectoral level. That situation obliged workers to have recourse to the State to uphold their claims, including in relation to wages. Since 2006, the Government had been adopting measures with a view to increasing unduly low wages, in full compliance with the spirit of the Convention, and giving effect to the dialogue and consultation mechanisms with the sectors concerned, within the framework of the Constitution and the legislation in force. The Government had quadrupled the minimum wage, which had been US$63 in 2005 (one of the lowest in the region), and was now US$295. Nevertheless, even though it had been quadrupled, the minimum wage continued to be lower than the needs of workers and their families. The wage increase had been determined taking into account the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Convention: (a) the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits and the relative living standards of other social groups; and (b) economic factors, including the requirements of economic development, levels of productivity and the desirability of attaining and maintaining a high level of employment. The Government’s wage policy was proportional to economic growth and national production, which had also quadrupled as a result of the economic and social productive and community model implemented. Gross domestic product (GDP) had grown from US$9,568 million in 2005 to US$37 billion in 2017. The increases were not therefore arbitrary, but rises based on a solid and growing economy. The wage increase had also been determined taking into consideration the positions of workers and employers, with which the Government was promoting regular dialogue and consultation, as demonstrated by the repeated round-table meetings established at the highest level of the Government with the representatives of the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB). The World Bank acknowledged that the country was among the foremost in the region in terms of reducing wage inequalities. In accordance with the Gini labour index, the wage gap over the past ten years had improved from 0.53 per cent to 0.44 per cent. As a result of the economic model, it had been possible to reduce extreme poverty from 38.2 per cent to 17.9 per cent over the period 2005–17. Over 3 million people had escaped poverty and the majority of the population (58 per cent) had an average income which enabled them to live well. The wage policy was generating higher domestic demand, which was also very beneficial for the private sector, in which profits had quadrupled, increasing from Bolivian bolivianos (BOB) 8,663 million in 2006 to BOB27,766 million in 2017. The economic model was based on the following pillars: the nationalization of natural resources and industrialization, the strengthening of domestic demand, the redistribution of wealth and large public investments. Those pillars guaranteed the following results: economic stability, employment generation, the reduction of the unemployment rate, and constant economic growth, which contributed to reducing poverty and the levels of inequality. As demonstrated by the figures, private employers were benefiting greatly from the economic, political and social stability, as well as the legal security guaranteed by the Government since 2006, to make investments and embark upon new initiatives with the security of obtaining optimal results. Employers needed to grant social security and stability to men and women workers, who depended on them, instead of which some of them were organizing the premeditated bankruptcy of enterprises, which they were abandoning. He regretted the baseless accusations of the employers, who were making use of procedural arguments to limit the just and equitable increase in the minimum wage in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, and the decision to include the case in the list for discussion by the Committee. On the contrary, governments should be encouraged to improve the standards of living of their populations in accordance with the objective of the Convention and in light of human rights.

The Employer members thanked the Government for its information. Even though the case was being examined by the Committee for the first time, it was not unconnected with the comments of the Committee of Experts, which had made observations on the subject in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018. The Committee of Experts had asked the Government to adopt urgent measures to ensure thorough consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations and their direct participation in the minimum wage fixing machinery. They also noted with concern that the CEPB and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) had been alleging, since 2006, the systematic failure to include employers’ organizations in consultations on minimum wage fixing. This year, the Committee of Experts had recalled once again that the Convention provided for full consultation with the social partners on the establishment, operation and modification of wage-fixing machinery, and that the active participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations was essential to allow optimum consideration of all relevant factors in the national context. There was a need to verify whether the recommendations of the Committee of Experts had been taken into consideration. The Government was a very long way from complying with the Convention, in terms of both wage-fixing machinery and the criteria used for fixing wages. With regard to the former, Article 4 of the Convention established the requirement for consultation with the social partners, in conformity with the most fundamental standards of the ILO, of which tripartite dialogue was a cornerstone. The key features of such dialogue were good faith and the desire to reach consensus. Whenever such consensus was not possible, whoever was responsible for taking a decision must incorporate into it the views of those who had participated in the dialogue. The Convention used the term “full consultation”. The Government therefore needed to make further efforts to facilitate and deepen the dialogue. By stating that the CEPB had not explicitly asked to be part of the decision-making on minimum wage fixing, the Government was disregarding its obligation as the entity responsible for full consultation. The employers had asked to be part of the dialogue on minimum wages, as reflected in the reports of the Committee of Experts. Senior government officials, such as the Minister for Economic Affairs and the Minister for the President’s Office, had declared in recent statements to the local media that employers would not participate in decision-making on minimum wages and that since 2006 it had essentially been government policy to fix wage increases only with the workers. The Government had confirmed that policy to the Committee and was claiming a new reading of the Convention, under which consultation of the social partners on wage adjustments would no longer be valid. The Committee could not accept a government disregarding social dialogue and needed to respond with the same severity in the case of failure to consult employers.

With regard to the failure to comply with the elements that needed to be taken into account to determine minimum wage levels, the Committee of Experts had referred to a statement by the Government that minimum wage fixing took account of inflation, productivity, GDP, GDP per capita, the consumer price index, economic growth, unemployment rates, market fluctuations and the cost of living. Such a statement was inaccurate. There were two benchmarks for wages in Bolivian legislation. First, there was the national minimum wage, which was universal for all workers, without differentiation between groups of wage-earners, which was desirable for economic and legal reasons and was permitted by the Convention. Second, there was the so-called “basic wage” (haber básico), which applied to all workers and could not be less than the national minimum wage. That was fixed through individual or collective bargaining between employers and workers. However, ministerial decisions were issued annually requiring the parties to negotiate increases in the “basic wage” within a set time, otherwise fines or other penalties would be incurred by the employer. Between 2006 and 2018, the national minimum wage had risen by 312 per cent and the “basic wage” by 149 per cent, with both figures being very much higher than aggregate inflation over that period. The national minimum wage was higher than GDP per worker, which meant low productivity per worker. They asked whether the productivity index, enterprise sustainability and the creation of more and better jobs were taken into account in fixing the minimum wage. The Government’s wage policy explained the growing precarity in employment, the increase in unemployment rates and the rise in informality indicators (around 61 per cent of the active population). The percentage of workers being paid a wage lower than the national minimum wage had also risen, precisely because of the increase in informality. For the public sector, there had been a fall in protected employment and a rise in temporary employment. However, they noted that the Government was applying the criteria of the Convention in the public sector, where it assumed the role of employer. To apply wage increases, public enterprises were required to conduct an analysis of net profits and financial resources in each enterprise, with the obligation to demonstrate financial sustainability and the required level of operating profit. In conclusion, the Government was deliberately failing to consult the employers’ organization and to take into account the technical criteria that should provide a basis for minimum wage fixing.

The Worker members said that, in 2017, the national minimum wage had been increased by Presidential Decree No. 3161 of 1 May 2017, taking into account a number of recommendations made by the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB) and, according to information received, socio-economic factors such as inflation, productivity, GDP, GDP per capita, the consumer price index, economic growth, unemployment rates, market fluctuations and the cost of living. The minimum wage now stood at BOL2,060, which was 335 per cent higher than in 2006. Fixing the minimum wage was important for a number of reasons. First, wages represented a crucial source of income for households, and as a result had an enormous influence on the standard of living of the population. Second, they were a source of personal fulfilment. Third, when the State set the minimum wage, it was guaranteeing that workers could cover the essential needs for their survival. The Preamble to the ILO Constitution proclaimed the urgent need to improve working conditions, in particular by guaranteeing an adequate living wage. The minimum wage enabled workers and their families to live in dignity, bearing in mind the level of economic development. Although it was true that economic factors could affect increases in the minimum wage, it should not be forgotten that the minimum wage was essential in avoiding the impact of economic situations on workers and households with the lowest incomes, which were the most vulnerable. The Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation, 1970 (No. 135), provided that “[m]inimum wage fixing should constitute one element in a policy designed to overcome poverty and to ensure the satisfaction of the needs of all workers”. The fundamental aim of the minimum wage was to provide workers with the necessary social protection in terms of minimum acceptable wage levels.

Nevertheless, as the Committee of Experts had pointed out in its observations, the Convention required full consultations with the representative organizations of employers and workers concerned for the establishment, operation and modification of the machinery by which minimum wages were fixed and periodically adjusted (Article 4(2)). The active participation of those organizations was essential so that all relevant factors in the national context could be taken into account as fully as possible. To that end, the Committee of Experts had firmly urged the Government to take measures without delay, in consultation with the social partners, to guarantee their full and effective participation in the fixing and adjustment of the minimum wage. The minimum wage was one of the most important institutions, and should be fixed through the intervention of governments, in conjunction with workers and employers. It was a public standard aimed at ensuring that wages covered the bare necessities: food, housing, education, social security, recreation and holiday. It should also be a starting point for the setting of basic wages in collective agreements. Fixing the minimum wage also helped to ensure a series of rules of the game that were the same for everyone. The Worker members welcomed the fact that, in fixing the minimum wage, the Government’s intention had been to create sustainable wage policies in line with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The issues of wage increases and unequal wages were placed high on that Agenda. Improving wages and enhancing opportunities for decent work were vital to eradicating poverty and reducing the inequality that existed in the country. The Worker members emphasized the importance of social dialogue and consultation with the social partners prior to fixing the minimum wage. Social dialogue should be institutionalized, with permanent tripartite structures to discuss public policy and a programmatic agenda to respond to the problems that affected society. However, once social dialogue had been institutionalized, good faith, input and responsibility were needed. In the end, the institutionalization of social dialogue should serve to: (1) generate sustainable and inclusive development to improve the quality of life and social conditions; (2) give workers greater participation in the distribution of wealth in order to eliminate present inequalities; (3) promote decent work and wage levels that allowed people to live in dignity, with freedom of association and strengthened collective bargaining; and (4) reduce the gulf between extreme poverty and concentrated wealth, with a view to social inclusion. Without adequate wages and labour protection, society would be neither inclusive nor would it guarantee social cohesion.

The Employer member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia emphasized that in recent years Bolivian employers had been complaining to the ILO at the Government’s systematic failure to give effect to the Convention since 2006 in relation to the requirement to hold full consultations with employers’ organizations. The Government’s wage policy had resulted in negative economic consequences for certain enterprises, which had neither effective mechanisms to control the legality of Government action, nor the legal security to restrain its conduct. The examination of the case by the Committee raised the expectation that, in an international forum, the Government could be called upon to reflect on the inclusion of all the partners in fixing the minimum wage. Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention established the requirement for full consultation with representative organizations of workers, as well as employers, in establishing the minimum wage system and, where appropriate, with groups of wage-earners to whom the system would apply. Article 3 of the Convention also set out the criteria to be taken into account in the fixing of minimum wage levels. With regard to full consultation, despite the complaints and comments that the CEPB had made repeatedly in recent years, the Government had made no changes. It had maintained its policy of removing employers’ organizations entirely from participation and consultation. The Government had confined itself to holding meetings exclusively with workers’ organizations, led by the COB. At no point had the Government benefited from the views, let alone the approval, of the CEPB, which had had to settle for finding out the decisions made from the national press and from the publication of legal bulletins. Moreover, Government representatives had, on repeated occasions, publicly refused absolutely to accept the participation of private enterprises in any kind of discussion on wage fixing. Among other public statements made on social media by Ministers of State, the Minister for the Office of the President had indicated that wages would be fixed only with workers, adding that he was part of a workers’ government, not the entrepreneurial class.

Since 2006, not only had employers been refused permission to participate in wage fixing, but priority had been given to an inequitable system of participation, as the COB had been the only body asked to endorse wage increases. Fixing and increasing minimum wages with workers’ representatives alone completely undermined the spirit of social dialogue and tripartism promoted by the ILO for the formulation of labour policies. Consultations were also required on the criteria to be taken into account in fixing minimum wage levels. Such consultations served to validate social dialogue as an appropriate and legitimate mechanism for the establishment of minimum wage fixing machinery. The Government had introduced disproportionate increases that were at odds with the economic situation. Since 2006, the national minimum wage had risen by 312 per cent on aggregate, as the combined result of annual increases. Those increases greatly exceeded annual inflation rates and ignored the existence of other economic factors, such as the requirements of economic development, productivity levels, increased rates of better decent work, the importance of achieving and maintaining high levels of employment, the preservation of decent work and the sustainability of enterprises. Moreover, in fixing wage increases, the Government was not taking into account the ever greater informality on the labour market. Employers were also being required to negotiate agreements for submission to the Ministry of Labour within a limited period of time, under penalty of fines or other economic penalties. Some union leaders had used that situation to force employers to offer greater increases, in return for observing the formality of signing agreements. Finally, he called on the Committee to give its view on the complaint submitted and urged the Government to comply with all the terms of the Convention so as to safeguard and expand the market for decent work in the country.

The Worker member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that the Workers had been committed to complying with the Convention since its ratification. One of the reasons that justified the recent wage increases was that, since the 1980s, there had been a freeze in minimum wages, which had been partly due to the adoption of measures to privatize various State enterprises, including certain mining and cement enterprises. The freeze in minimum wages had ended in 2005, which meant that workers had suffered for many years. With regard to the application of the Convention, section 10 of the statute of the CEPB indicated that it “shall not assume the legal representation of its members, for the negotiation or settlement of specific and individual worker–employer disputes, and consequently had no legal status for summonses and notifications, or to accept complaints or lists of claims from any labour sector, which involve or are addressed to its entities, or are made though the Confederation”. For many years, workers had been prevented from participating in social dialogue at the same level as the Government and employers. Progress in the participation of workers had only been made recently, as workers now even participated in the auditing of state enterprises in strategic sectors. However, in the case of certain private enterprises, a significant number of workers (over 400) had seen their work affected, as they had been required to take collective holidays or had been dismissed on the grounds that the enterprises were in deficit, or were unable to pay minimum wages or increase wages. He suggested that legislation could be adopted for the creation of social enterprises so that workers could take over the management of several enterprises that had declared to be in deficit. Currently, certain enterprises, for example in the mining sector, were managed by the workers themselves, who had technical, economic and financial autonomy. In such enterprises, wages might or might not be increased, as they were subject to the profits made by the enterprise, or in other words, if there were no profits, there would be no wage increases. In that regard, the workers considered that job stability and the sustainability of workplaces were essential.

The Government member of Paraguay speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), thanked the Government representative for the information provided. The Convention had been adopted taking into consideration the need to further protect workers against unduly low remuneration. He also thanked the Government for the efforts made to take into account the positions of both social partners when fixing the minimum wage. As stated in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth was essential to achieve prosperity, which was only possible if wealth was shared and action taken to combat income inequality. To that end, the social stability of workers was an essential concern for the Government. He also welcomed the information provided on the progress made in reducing wage inequality through a real increase in the minimum wage. He encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen consultation mechanisms with the social partners.

The Employer member of Uruguay noted that the Government had clearly and systematically failed to comply with the Convention. The Government established minimum wages through negotiations with workers, without consulting the most representative organizations of employers. Beyond any inconsistencies regarding the increases in and methods used to fix minimum wages, the ILO needed to be alert to situations in which the social partners could not express their opinions. That was a serious situation in which the ILO could achieve its full potential by providing assistance through its regional offices to achieve a reasonable balance in labour relations. Policies which were not in conformity with the fundamental principles of work led to abuses that could not be tolerated, regardless of the social sector driving them. The ILO had all the tools to collaborate with the Government with a view to contributing to the strengthening of a more harmonious system of labour relations in which the employers could be heard. It was crucial to avoid violations of fundamental labour principles.

The Worker member of Uruguay recalled that the ILO had been born out of the fact that only in such an institution could everyone be equal. Minimum wages guaranteed that those who were the weakest had a wage floor below which they could not be paid. On behalf of the trade union movement in his country, he offered cooperation and assistance to the Government and trade union movement of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela endorsed the statement by GRULAC. The Government’s objective was to protect workers against excessively low pay with a view to eliminating poverty and ensuring that workers could cover their needs and those of their families, taking into account economic factors. In conformity with the Convention, the minimum wage had to be set in consultation with the social partners. Even if the consultations were not binding, they contributed to labour peace and helped the Government to take the appropriate decisions, as outlined in the comments of the Committee of Experts. In setting the minimum wage and subsequent increases, the Government took into account socio-economic factors, such as inflation, productivity, GDP, economic growth, market fluctuations and the cost of living. He encouraged the Government to strengthen consultation mechanisms with the social partners, which would contribute to labour peace and allow for wage increases that benefited workers and the world of work.

The Worker member of El Salvador indicated that laws in every country of the world required governments to maintain wage policies that were in line with the needs of the population and with macroeconomic factors. That involved striking a balance between the wage demands of workers and their families and the vision of some employers that refused increases in the minimum wage on the pretext that companies did not have the capacity to support such rises. The term minimum wage meant the minimum required to eat, dress and keep poverty and marginalization at bay. He asked how it would be possible to build a decent society if workers were forced to simply accept the minimum available through the system. Unions needed to be organized to ensure that workers and governments responded to demands for higher salaries in light of the cost of living. The Government’s decision to increase the minimum wage took into account technical aspects of the economy, such as economic growth, the claims of workers and therefore the dynamics of social dialogue. The index of minimum wages in Latin America showed that several countries with weaker economies than that of Bolivia, including Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama, had better wage conditions, for which their governments deserved credit and recognition. The economy of the Plurinational State of Bolivia was making progress in terms of the consumption and demand for products and services. However, a great deal remained to be done in relation to wages and decent work.

The Government member of Egypt thanked the Government for the information provided on the measures taken to implement the Convention. She praised the efforts made by the Government to increase wages, close the economic gaps, ensure the sustainability of investments, boost investment in the public sector and increase resources in a fair manner. She encouraged the Government to commit fully and to engage in dialogue with the social partners.

The Government member of Ecuador agreed with the statement made by GRULAC and welcomed the information provided by the Government. Achieving sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all required great resolve and the commitment of the different social partners and the Government. Constructive tripartite social dialogue would facilitate a consensus based on respect for human beings. She noted the Government’s efforts to achieve agreement with the social partners in fixing the minimum wage. She also welcomed the progress made in reducing wage inequality through a real increase in the minimum wage. In conclusion, she encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen consultation mechanisms with the social partners.

The Government member of India thanked the Government for its commitment to fulfil its international obligations and for the information provided on the positive steps undertaken to reduce wage gaps and levels of poverty and to raise standards of living. The participation of the relevant social partners, and especially those representing the most vulnerable, would contribute to the achievement of the objective of the Convention.

The Government member of Cuba endorsing the statement by GRULAC, considered that the Conference Committee, when examining the case, should take into account the information provided by the Government on compliance with the Convention. The Government had increased the minimum wage in recent years in proportion with economic growth and productivity in the country. That had been achieved through a process that took into account the opinions of the social partners, in line with the institutional framework established by law. She also praised the Government as one of the first in the region to reduce wage inequality and other types of inequality, thereby facilitating the achievement of social justice. The Government was not only in compliance with both the procedural aspects of the Convention, but also with its objectives to improve living standards for workers and the population.

The Employer member of Honduras drew attention to the fact that the Government had increased the minimum wage without social dialogue and without consulting the employers. After the CEPB had received no response to its request to participate in the consultations, Government ministers had stated that, as a government of workers, it only needed to consult the workers. Employers did not know whether the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Convention had been taken into account in the Government’s negotiations with the COB, namely economic productivity factors, when deciding on increases in the minimum wage. He also emphasized that, in addition to imposing an increase in the minimum wage, they were also required to conclude wage agreements with trade unions within a limited period of time under threat of fines and penalties. The exclusion of employers from minimum wage fixing violated the provisions of the Convention and the principles of social dialogue and tripartism, which were the cornerstone of the ILO. The Committee must urge the Government to comply with the Convention and to allow the employers to participate in consultations.

The Government member of Uruguay noted with special interest the specific characteristics of ensuring compliance with the Convention in the region where, in many cases, he considered that trade unions did not have sufficient training, capacity or support to fully develop procedures for the setting of minimum wages. In that regard, he highlighted the recent good practice in his country in relation to social dialogue, tripartism, consultation and collective bargaining. The Government of Uruguay was at the disposal of the Government to develop a cooperation plan aimed at strengthening and developing existing mechanisms in the country. Finally, he encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to develop social dialogue and tripartism.

The Government member of Algeria expressed support for the Government, which had confirmed its commitment to implementing the Convention through the adoption of measures aimed at: (i) increasing minimum wages and reducing wage inequalities to respond to the needs of workers and their families; (ii) fixing minimum wages in consultation with employers’ and workers’ representatives; and (iii) encouraging dialogue and consultation, as well as ensuring compliance with the minimum wage rates that had been fixed. The Government was engaged in a process of economic reform and was addressing a number of priorities in the areas of social justice and fundamental rights. The setting of minimum wages in proportion to economic growth and productivity was in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Government had taken measures aimed at social cohesion, reduced unemployment and inclusive growth. He invited the Committee to take the Government’s detailed replies into consideration.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) emphasized the importance of the case. The Government had shown little respect for the private sector and the creators of decent work. It was not only a matter of non-compliance with the requirement of consultation for the fixing of minimum wages, in accordance with the Convention, or an obligation arising out of a technical provision of a Convention. It was a case of a serious failure to comply with the fundamental principles that had inspired the creation of the ILO. Public statements by senior leaders conveyed unacceptable contempt for employers’ organizations. Such a worrying attitude was dangerously close to harassment of employers and an attack on freedom of enterprise and decent work. He called for these elements to be taken into account when drafting the conclusions on the case.

The Government member of Bangladesh thanked the Government for the information provided and welcomed the efforts made to protect and promote workers’ rights, including through increasing minimum wages since 2005. The Government had taken into account the socio-economic context as well as the position of both the social partners. Considering its compliance with the objective and procedures required by the Convention, it would be advisable to close the case.

The Government member of Iraq recalled that the Convention established that minimum wages had to be set in consultation with the social partners. While acknowledging that this could be difficult to implement in practice, he indicated that it appeared that in this case, the Government had taken into account the reservations of the employers.

The Employer member of Mexico noted with concern the Government’s statement, as it recognized the violation of the Convention which it had ratified and under which it was bound, and that it had not fully consulted, and did not intend to fully consult the most representative organizations in the near future. The Government had indicated that its actions were based on the fact that the law allowed it to determine minimum wage levels unilaterally. That was alarming, not only because it breached one of the obligations of the Convention, but it also undermined basic ILO principles, including social dialogue and full and effective consultation, which were the basis of relations between employers, workers and governments. However, it was reassuring to hear the Worker members reaffirm the importance of the institutionalization of the consultations to which the Convention referred. Social dialogue was also essential in labour relations because it allowed agreements to be made and prevented the polarization of the partners. Social dialogue was recognized as one of the four strategic objectives in the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, 2008. No State could be allowed to knowingly and deliberately fail to engage in from the consultations that it was required to hold on the pretext that it was acting in the interests of one of the partners in the labour relationship. There was therefore an issue of procedure and legal conformity that needed to be defended, as those principles were non-negotiable.

The Government representative reiterated that the essence of the Convention was the creation of conditions of equality and the eradication of poverty, and that the Government was mindful of those fundamental aspects. The complaint was groundless because the Government constantly held consultations with all economic actors in formulating its economic policy, including its wage policy, and private enterprise benefited from forums for dialogue at the highest level, sometimes even with the President. Fixing the minimum wage served as a means of redistributing wealth, obliging entrepreneurs to share their profits. For the first time in history, their profits had increased four-fold. The wage policy had enabled millions of Bolivian citizens to escape from extreme poverty. The Government would continue to uphold the mechanisms provided for in law for the fixing of the minimum wage. He considered the claim that there was a policy of destroying the private sector to be untrue and unfounded, as permanent consultation mechanisms existed with private enterprise at the highest level. Entrepreneurs had been consulted constantly about a range of national economic issues. Moreover, agreements had been signed with the Government to maintain economic stability, increase production and protect jobs. With regard to wage bargaining, he referred to the information sent to the Committee of Experts. Both private entrepreneurs and workers published proposals concerning the minimum wage. For instance, in 2017, the CEBP had suggested a freeze in the minimum wage and a 3 per cent increase in the basic wage at a meeting with the Ministers of the Economy and of Planning. For its part, the COB had proposed a 10 per cent increase in the basic wage and a 15 per cent increase in the national minimum wage. Taking into account the positions of both parties, as well as technical and economic considerations, the Government had decided on a 3 per cent increase in the national minimum wage and a 5.5 per cent increase in the basic wage. He objected to the claim that wage increases were a threat to private enterprise. The Government was safeguarding economic and legal stability, as shown by the increase in the number of private enterprises from around 65,000 in 2005 to 295,000 in 2017, with a 4 per cent increase from 2016 to 2017. The number of salaried workers had tripled. In 2005, there had been only just over 500,000, but now there were more than 1.8 million. That situation was also reflected in expanded social security coverage and the growth of decent work, which was ignored by employers. The Declaration of Philadelphia established the fundamental principle that poverty anywhere constituted a danger to prosperity everywhere, giving rise to the obligation to promote better standards of living. While it respected and valued the contribution that the private sector made to the economy, the Government would hold fast to its decision to reduce poverty and pursue economic, political and social equality for the majority of Bolivian citizens. He therefore reiterated that the complaint was groundless and was intended to call into question the Government’s policy of social justice and wealth redistribution, which it did not intend to renounce.

The Worker members thanking the Government for the information provided, reiterated that social dialogue was the best tool for growth with equality. It allowed governments and the social partners to develop a common strategy to promote decent work, and consequently, inclusion and social justice. Social dialogue was of critical importance in the formulation of policies designed to respond to domestic needs. As stated by the Committee of Experts in its previous observations, the minimum wage system provided for by the Convention was intended to serve as a social protection measure to reduce poverty, by guaranteeing decent levels of income, particularly for unskilled and low-paid workers. It was intended to protect workers from unduly low wages. As emphasized within the Organization, the existence of a minimum wage helped to ensure that everyone benefited from a fair distribution of the fruits of progress, and that all individuals who were in employment and needed such protection were paid a minimum living wage. The Preamble to Recommendation No. 135, which made particular reference to developing countries, emphasized the importance of adopting criteria to ensure that minimum wage systems were an effective instrument of social protection for the promotion of economic and social development strategies. Minimum wages must also be an integral part of policies to reduce poverty and inequality, including the wage gap that existed between men and women. In that respect, they welcomed the fact that the Government was implementing wage policies intended to preserve the real value of remuneration for workers with the lowest incomes, and which ensured a fair distribution, reduced excessive inequalities in wages and income, and reaffirmed consumption as a fundamental pillar of a sustainable economy. The setting of the minimum wage, which was contested by Bolivian employers, had taken into account economic factors of interest for employers, including productivity, GDP, economic growth and market fluctuations. Nevertheless, the Government was responsible for ensuring compliance with the Convention and they therefore urged it to do so in a correct and comprehensive manner, including through the adoption of objective quantitative methods for the determination of the minimum wage which ensured the active participation of the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The requirement to establish procedures that ensured effective consultation with employer and worker representatives was inherent to the ILO standards system as a whole. The focal point of the system was the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which the country had also ratified. In conclusion, the Worker members called on the Government to guarantee the full and effective participation of the social partners in the setting and adjustment of the minimum wage.

The Employer members expressed appreciation of the statements of the members of the Committee and said that emphasis should be placed on the extent to which the positions of the Worker, Employer and many Government members who had spoken during the discussion coincided with regard to the importance of social dialogue and consultation of the social partners on the subject of minimum wages. Another area of agreement was that good faith should be demonstrated by all parties in the conduct of dialogue. Improving the income and living standards of workers was a shared concern for workers and employers and was of strategic importance for the goal of the elimination of poverty. That common goal could not be achieved without taking into account the needs of some and the possibilities of others, and of course the economic circumstances of the country. Discarding both viewpoints signified a clear loss for society as a whole, while ignoring just one of the parties constituted serious discrimination and unacceptable bias. The intention to improve workers’ income would be of little use if it resulted in the growth of the informal economy, as that would mean that incomes improved for a few people, while informality increased for many more, who would lose both income and social and employment safeguards. Moreover, in reply to the statement made by the Worker member of the Plurinational State of Bolivia regarding the prohibition in the statutes of the CEPB concerning the scope of its activities, the Employer members wished to clarify that prohibition related to intervention in individual labour disputes of its members. They also emphasized that the case under discussion was also a source of concern for workers and governments who were advocating the implementation of democratic methods to govern the destiny of their nations. It placed a question mark over social dialogue, which was one of the fundamental principles of the ILO. At present, Bolivian employers were being silenced by the Government, which had indicated that it would not comply with the Convention that it had ratified. In future, it might be the workers or employers of some other country who would be silenced. The Committee should not let a situation of this kind go unnoticed, as it would undermine the credibility of the ILO supervisory system. They reiterated their concern at the statement made by the Government representative, as there was no doubt that the Government’s conduct would not change and that it was in violation of the Convention. It was essential for the Government, with the legitimate desire to convene and fully consult the social partners, to review the wage-fixing machinery. For those reasons, the Employer members called for the gravity of the situation to be emphasized in the conclusions to the case. They requested the Committee to make an urgent appeal to the Government: (1) to hold full consultations with the social partners on wage fixing and to report on those consultations to the Committee of Experts before its 2018 session; and (2) to accept a direct contacts mission and ILO technical assistance. Lastly, emphasizing the seriousness of the case, they called for the conclusions to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with concern the dysfunctional operation of social dialogue and the current non-compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee recalled the importance of full consultation with the representative organizations of employers and workers concerned, as well as the elements to be taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages as set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee urged the Government without delay to:

- carry out full consultations in good faith with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations with regard to minimum wage setting;

- take into account when determining the level of the minimum wage the needs of workers and their families as well as economic factors as set out in Article 3 of the Convention;

- avail itself of ILO technical assistance to ensure without delay compliance with the Convention in law and practice; and

- accept an ILO direct contacts mission.

The Committee recommended the Government to submit a detailed report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2018 on the progress made in implementing these recommendations.

The Government representative thanked the Committee for its work. He noted the conclusions with concern, finding that they were immeasurable and did not reflect the discussion. The conclusions did not explain which provisions of the Convention were the subject of non-compliance. Social dialogue was said to be dysfunctional without specifying the aspects which were not working. With regard to Article 3 of the Convention, he reiterated that this Article was complied with through the institutional wage-fixing machinery that derived not only from the law and agreements but also from the State’s own Political Constitution, which had been the result of a Constituent Assembly and a referendum to approve it. That information supplied by the Government had also not been taken into consideration. The Committee must adopt technical conclusions and take account of the arguments put forward by the Government. It was regrettable that a Convention that claimed to protect workers’ rights had been manipulated. Proof of that manipulation lay in the fact that the conclusions did not refer to the figures presented by the Government. He said that the Government would analyse the conclusions and consider how to implement them.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. Scope of application. Further to its previous comments on the exclusion of certain categories of workers from the coverage of the minimum wage legislation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its 2004 report that by Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 on agrarian reform, agricultural wage workers had come within the scope of application of the General Labour Act and that a draft Supreme Decree was expected to regulate agricultural wage work and guarantee the general application of the national minimum wage to those workers. The Committee recalls, however, that in some earlier reports the Government had stated that only sugar cane and cotton workers were not excluded from the minimum wage system and that efforts were being made to extend its application to rubber, forestry and Brazil nut workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the situation in this regard, and to transmit a copy of the Decree on agricultural wage workers as soon as it is formally adopted.

Article 3. Determination of minimum wage level. The Committee notes that the minimum wage was last revised in 2003 by Supreme Decree No. 27048 and is presently fixed at 440 bolivianos. According to the information supplied by the Government in its last report, this amount is renegotiated every year and increases proportionately to the evolution of the consumer price index. The Government added that the national minimum wage was used for the calculation of various pay supplements and social security benefits, for instance seniority bonus and maternity allowance, and therefore had an impact on the income of most workers. In this connection, the Committee reminds the Government that the primary function of the minimum wage system envisaged in the Convention is to serve as a measure of social protection and to overcome poverty by ensuring decent minimum levels of wages especially for the low-paid, unskilled workers. Therefore, minimum rates of pay that represent only a fraction of the real needs of workers and their families, whatever their subsidiary importance in calculating certain benefits may be, can hardly fit the concept and the rationale of a minimum wage as this arises from the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that the national minimum wage fulfils a meaningful role in social policy, which implies that it should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable “subsistence level” and that it should maintain its purchasing power in relation to a basic basket of essential consumer goods.

Article 4, paragraph 2. Consultations with social partners. The Committee has been requesting the Government for many years to provide tangible evidence of full consultations held with the social partners with respect to fixing or readjusting minimum wage rates, as required by the provisions of the Convention. In its 2004 report, the Government indicated that no consultations with the Bolivian Labour Federation (COB) had been possible that year due to persistent claims of that organization linked to the participation of the President of the Republic in these consultations. However, negotiations had been held with different organizations at the branch level resulting in wage increases of 3 per cent in several sectors. As regards discussions on minimum wages with employers’ representatives, the Government stated that it could not enter into any such discussions with the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) since section 8 of the statutes of this organization prevented it from negotiating matters related to wages. While taking due note of these indications, the Committee wishes to emphasize once again the fundamental character of the principle of full consultation of the social partners at all stages of the minimum wage fixing procedure. According to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, the process of consultation must precede any decision-making and must be effective, that is to say it must afford the social partners a genuine opportunity to express their views and have some influence on the decisions pertaining to the matters that are the subject of consultation. While recalling that “consultation” should be kept distinct from “co‑determination” or mere “information”, the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances. It therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form. It accordingly asks the Government to provide information on any developments concerning the establishment of the National Council on Labour Relations.

Article 5. Enforcement measures. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications in its report of 2004, it intended to amend section 121 of the General Labour Act to provide for the periodic readjustment of the amount of fine to be imposed in the event of infringement of the minimum wage rates in force. The Committee requests the Government to supply up to date information in this regard.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments on the exclusion of certain categories of workers from the coverage of the minimum wage legislation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its 2004 report that by Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 on agrarian reform, agricultural wage workers had come within the scope of application of the General Labour Act and that a draft Supreme Decree was expected to regulate agricultural wage work and guarantee the general application of the national minimum wage to those workers. The Committee recalls, however, that in some earlier reports the Government had stated that only sugar cane and cotton workers were not excluded from the minimum wage system and that efforts were being made to extend its application to rubber, forestry and Brazil nut workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the situation in this regard, and to transmit a copy of the Decree on agricultural wage workers as soon as it is formally adopted.

Article 3. The Committee notes that the minimum wage was last revised in 2003 by Supreme Decree No. 27048 and is presently fixed at 440 bolivianos. According to the information supplied by the Government in its last report, this amount is renegotiated every year and increases proportionately to the evolution of the consumer price index. The Government added that the national minimum wage was used for the calculation of various pay supplements and social security benefits, for instance seniority bonus and maternity allowance, and therefore had an impact on the income of most workers. In this connection, the Committee reminds the Government that the primary function of the minimum wage system envisaged in the Convention is to serve as a measure of social protection and to overcome poverty by ensuring decent minimum levels of wages especially for the low-paid, unskilled workers. Therefore, minimum rates of pay that represent only a fraction of the real needs of workers and their families, whatever their subsidiary importance in calculating certain benefits may be, can hardly fit the concept and the rationale of a minimum wage as this arises from the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that the national minimum wage fulfils a meaningful role in social policy, which implies that it should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable “subsistence level” and that it should maintain its purchasing power in relation to a basic basket of essential consumer goods.

Article 4, paragraph 2. The Committee has been requesting the Government for many years to provide tangible evidence of full consultations held with the social partners with respect to fixing or readjusting minimum wage rates, as required by the provisions of the Convention. In its 2004 report, the Government indicated that no consultations with the Bolivian Labour Federation (COB) had been possible that year due to persistent claims of that organization linked to the participation of the President of the Republic in these consultations. However, negotiations had been held with different organizations at the branch level resulting in wage increases of 3 per cent in several sectors. As regards discussions on minimum wages with employers’ representatives, the Government stated that it could not enter into any such discussions with the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) since article 8 of the Statutes of this organization prevented it from negotiating matters related to wages. While taking due note of these indications, the Committee wishes to emphasize once again the fundamental character of the principle of full consultation of the social partners at all stages of the minimum wage fixing procedure. According to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, the process of consultation must precede any decision-making and must be effective, that is to say it must afford the social partners a genuine opportunity to express their views and have some influence on the decisions pertaining to the matters that are the subject of consultation. While recalling that “consultation” should be kept distinct from “co‑determination” or mere “information”, the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances, and therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form. It accordingly asks the Government to provide information on any developments concerning the establishment of the National Council on Labour Relations.

Article 5 of the Convention and Part V of the report form. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s indications in its report of 2004, it intended to amend section 121 of the General Labour Act to provide for the periodic readjustment of the amount of fine to be imposed in the event of infringement of the minimum wage rates in force. The Committee would be grateful to the Government for supplying all available information on the application of the Convention in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments on the exclusion of certain categories of workers from the coverage of the minimum wage legislation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that by Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 on agrarian reform, agricultural wage workers have come within the scope of application of the General Labour Act and that a Supreme Decree, which is currently in the process of adoption, is expected to regulate agricultural wage work and guarantee the general application of the national minimum wage to those workers. The Committee recalls, however, that in some earlier reports the Government had stated that only sugar cane and cotton workers were not excluded from the minimum wage system and that efforts were being made to extend its application to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the situation in this regard, and to transmit a copy of the Decree on agricultural wage workers as soon as it is formally adopted.

Article 3. The Committee notes that the minimum wage was last revised in 2003 by Supreme Decree No. 27048 and is presently fixed at 440 bolivianos. According to the information supplied by the Government, this amount is renegotiated every year and increases proportionately to the evolution of the consumer price index. The Government adds that the national minimum wage is used for the calculation of various pay supplements and social security benefits, for instance seniority bonus and maternity allowance, and therefore has an impact on the income of most workers. In this connection, the Committee reminds the Government that the primary function of the minimum wage system envisaged in the Convention is to serve as a measure of social protection and to overcome poverty by ensuring decent minimum levels of wages especially for the low-paid, unskilled workers. Therefore, minimum rates of pay that represent only a fraction of the real needs of workers and their families, whatever their subsidiary importance in calculating certain benefits may be, can hardly fit the concept and the rationale of a minimum wage as this arises from the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that the national minimum wage fulfils a meaningful role in social policy, which implies that it should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable “subsistence level” and that it should maintain its purchasing power in relation to a basic basket of essential consumer goods.

Article 4, paragraph 2. The Committee has been requesting the Government for many years to provide tangible evidence of full consultations held with the social partners with respect to fixing or readjusting minimum wage rates, as required by the provisions of the Convention. In its reply, the Government indicates that no consultations with the Bolivian Labour Federation (COB) were possible this year due to persistent claims of that organization linked to the participation of the President of the Republic in these consultations. However, negotiations were held with different organizations at the branch level resulting in wage increases of 3 per cent in several sectors. As regards discussions on minimum wages with employers’ representatives, the Government states that it cannot enter into any such discussions with the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) since article 8 of the Statutes of this organization prevents it from negotiating matters related to wages. While taking due note of these indications, the Committee wishes to emphasize once again the fundamental character of the principle of full consultation of the social partners at all stages of the minimum wage fixing procedure. According to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, the process of consultation must precede any decision-making and must be effective, that is to say it must afford the social partners a genuine opportunity to express their views and have some influence on the decisions pertaining to the matters that are the subject of consultation. While recalling that “consultation” should be kept distinct from “co-determination” or mere “information”, the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances, and therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form. It accordingly asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning the establishment of the National Council on Labour Relations.

Article 5 and Part V of the report form. The Committee notes that the Government intends to amend section 121 of the General Labour Act to provide for the periodic readjustment of the amount of fine to be imposed in the event of infringement of the minimum wage rates in force. The Committee would be grateful to the Government for supplying all available information on the application of the Convention in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments on the exclusion of certain categories of workers from the coverage of the minimum wage legislation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that by Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 on agrarian reform, agricultural wage workers have come within the scope of application of the General Labour Act and that a Supreme Decree, which is currently in the process of adoption, is expected to regulate agricultural wage work and guarantee the general application of the national minimum wage to those workers. The Committee recalls, however, that in some earlier reports the Government had stated that only sugar cane and cotton workers were not excluded from the minimum wage system and that efforts were being made to extend its application to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the situation in this regard, and to transmit a copy of the Decree on agricultural wage workers as soon as it is formally adopted.

Article 3. The Committee notes that the minimum wage was last revised in 2003 by Supreme Decree No. 27048 and is presently fixed at 440 bolivianos. According to the information supplied by the Government, this amount is renegotiated every year and increases proportionately to the evolution of the consumer price index. The Government adds that the national minimum wage is used for the calculation of various pay supplements and social security benefits, for instance seniority bonus and maternity allowance, and therefore has an impact on the income of most workers. In this connection, the Committee reminds the Government that the primary function of the minimum wage system envisaged in the Convention is to serve as a measure of social protection and to overcome poverty by ensuring decent minimum levels of wages especially for the low-paid, unskilled workers. Therefore, minimum rates of pay that represent only a fraction of the real needs of workers and their families, whatever their subsidiary importance in calculating certain benefits may be, can hardly fit the concept and the rationale of a minimum wage as this arises from the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that the national minimum wage fulfils a meaningful role in social policy, which implies that it should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable “subsistence level” and that it should maintain its purchasing power in relation to a basic basket of essential consumer goods.

Article 4, paragraph 2. The Committee has been requesting the Government for many years to provide tangible evidence of full consultations held with the social partners with respect to fixing or readjusting minimum wage rates, as required by the provisions of the Convention. In its reply, the Government indicates that no consultations with the Bolivian Labour Federation (COB) were possible this year due to persistent claims of that organization linked to the participation of the President of the Republic in these consultations. However, negotiations were held with different organizations at the branch level resulting in wage increases of 3 per cent in several sectors. As regards discussions on minimum wages with employers’ representatives, the Government states that it cannot enter into any such discussions with the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) since article 8 of the Statutes of this organization prevents it from negotiating matters related to wages. While taking due note of these indications, the Committee wishes to emphasize once again the fundamental character of the principle of full consultation of the social partners at all stages of the minimum wage fixing procedure. According to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, the process of consultation must precede any decision-making and must be effective, that is to say it must afford the social partners a genuine opportunity to express their views and have some influence on the decisions pertaining to the matters that are the subject of consultation. While recalling that “consultation” should be kept distinct from “co-determination” or mere “information”, the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances, and therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form. It accordingly asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning the establishment of the National Council on Labour Relations.

Article 5 and Part V of the report form. The Committee notes that the Government intends to amend section 121 of the General Labour Act to provide for the periodic readjustment of the amount of fine to be imposed in the event of infringement of the minimum wage rates in force. The Committee would be grateful to the Government for continuing to supply all available information on the application of the Convention in practice.

    The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and wishes to draw its attention to the following points.

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments on the exclusion of certain categories of workers from the coverage of the minimum wage legislation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that by Act No. 1715 of 18 October 1996 on agrarian reform, agricultural wage workers have come within the scope of application of the General Labour Act and that a Supreme Decree, which is currently in the process of adoption, is expected to regulate agricultural wage work and guarantee the general application of the national minimum wage to those workers. The Committee recalls, however, that in some earlier reports the Government had stated that only sugar cane and cotton workers were not excluded from the minimum wage system and that efforts were being made to extend its application to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify the situation in this regard, and to transmit a copy of the Decree on agricultural wage workers as soon as it is formally adopted.

Article 3. The Committee notes that the minimum wage was last revised in 2003 by Supreme Decree No. 27048 and is presently fixed at 440 bolivianos. According to the information supplied by the Government, this amount is renegotiated every year and increases proportionately to the evolution of the consumer price index. The Government adds that the national minimum wage is used for the calculation of various pay supplements and social security benefits, for instance seniority bonus and maternity allowance, and therefore has an impact on the income of most workers. In this connection, the Committee reminds the Government that the primary function of the minimum wage system envisaged in the Convention is to serve as a measure of social protection and to overcome poverty by ensuring decent minimum levels of wages especially for the low-paid, unskilled workers. Therefore, minimum rates of pay that represent only a fraction of the real needs of workers and their families, whatever their subsidiary importance in calculating certain benefits may be, can hardly fit the concept and the rationale of a minimum wage as this arises from the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures it intends to take to ensure that the national minimum wage fulfils a meaningful role in social policy, which implies that it should not be allowed to fall below a socially acceptable "subsistence level" and that it should maintain its purchasing power in relation to a basic basket of essential consumer goods.

Article 4, paragraph 2. The Committee has been requesting the Government for many years to provide tangible evidence of full consultations held with the social partners with respect to fixing or readjusting minimum wage rates, as required by the provisions of the Convention. In its reply, the Government indicates that no consultations with the Bolivian Labour Federation (COB) were possible this year due to persistent claims of that organization linked to the participation of the President of the Republic in these consultations. However, negotiations were held with different organizations at the branch level resulting in wage increases of 3 per cent in several sectors. As regards discussions on minimum wages with employers’ representatives, the Government states that it cannot enter into any such discussions with the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (CEPB) since article 8 of the Statutes of this organization prevents it from negotiating matters related to wages. While taking due note of these indications, the Committee wishes to emphasize once again the fundamental character of the principle of full consultation of the social partners at all stages of the minimum wage fixing procedure. According to the letter and the spirit of the Convention, the process of consultation must precede any decision-making and must be effective, that is to say it must afford the social partners a genuine opportunity to express their views and have some influence on the decisions pertaining to the matters that are the subject of consultation. While recalling that "consultation" should be kept distinct from "co-determination" or mere "information", the Committee considers that the Government is under the obligation to create and maintain conditions permitting the full consultation and direct participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations in all circumstances, and therefore urges the Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the requirement for meaningful consultations set forth in this Article of the Convention is effectively applied, preferably in a well-defined, commonly agreed and institutionalized form. It accordingly asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments concerning the establishment of the National Council on Labour Relations.

Article 5 and Part V of the report form. The Committee notes that the Government intends to amend section 121 of the General Labour Act to provide for the periodic readjustment of the amount of fine to be imposed in the event of infringement of the minimum wage rates in force. The Committee would be grateful to the Government for continuing to supply all available information on the application of the Convention in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report in response to the Committee’s previous comments.

Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has secured no changes regarding the categories of workers excluded from the coverage of the provisions on minimum wages. The Committee recalls that one of the purposes of the Convention is to protect groups of wage earners whose terms of employment or vulnerability are such as to make the application of minimum wages necessary as a protection. The Committee points out that, in principle, any determination of categories of workers to be excluded from minimum wage coverage should occur after the representative organizations of workers and employers have been fully consulted, and that these organizations should also be consulted prior to periodic reviews to determine whether such exclusions should be maintained. The Committee requests the Government to report on any developments regarding the groups of workers excluded from the coverage of minimum wage provisions, and to provide additional information on the reasons for the exclusions and on the number of workers affected and their conditions of work.

Article 3. The Committee also notes with regret that the Government’s response to its previous comments concerning the manner in which workers’"basic subsistence needs" are assessed for the purpose of fixing minimum wage rates, is simply to say that the minimum a worker would need in order to live decently is 2,000 bolivianos per month, an amount five times the current minimum wage. The Committee recalls that the minimum wage becomes meaningless when it fails to provide workers with an income that affords them a decent standard of living and is sufficient to cover the vital necessities of food, clothing, housing, education and rest for both workers and their families. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the relation of the current minimum wage to workers’ purchasing power in terms of a basket of basic goods, and to provide information on the evolution of minimum wage rates in comparison with the evolution of inflation.

Article 4, paragraph 2. The Committee is bound to note with regret that, despite the Committee’s repeated requests, the Government has still not sent information on full consultations held with the social partners in order to fix and adjust minimum wages, as required by the provisions of the Convention. The Committee again recalls that one of the central requirements of the minimum wage instruments is that the minimum wage-fixing machinery must be set up and operated in consultation with organizations of employers and workers, whose participation should be effective and should take place on an equal footing, if possible on a regular basis and within an institutionalized framework. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps without delay to bring national law and practice into line with the requirements of the Convention, particularly as regards consultation of the social partners.

Article 5 and Part V of the report form. The Committee notes that Supreme Decree No. 26547 of 20 April 2000 establishes a national minimum wage of 430 bolivianos for the public sector and the private sector as from 1 January 2002. The Committee also notes the information supplied by the Government on the inspection system and the penalties established by law with a view to enforcing minimum wage provisions. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the practical effect given to the Convention, including statistical information on the results of inspections for minimum wage purposes (contraventions reported, penalties imposed, etc.) and the approximate number of workers covered by minimum wage rates together with any other relevant information on the application of the provisions of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

  Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Committee recalls that the system of minimum wages still does not cover "all groups of wage earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate" since, according to the Government’s previous statements, agricultural workers, other than sugar cane and cotton workers, are excluded from the minimum wage system. In its report for 1986, the Government stated that it was examining the extension of the system to agricultural workers producing rubber, wood and chestnuts. The Committee has requested the Government in successive direct requests (1989, 1993, 1997, 1999) to indicate whether these workers or any other groups of wage earners had been excluded from the coverage of the national minimum wage established by Supreme Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, which is considered by the Government to be the fullest and most up-to-date legal provision respecting wage fixing. The Committee notes that the Government still has not provided specific information on the results of the measures taken to extend the system of minimum wages to all workers and, in particular, agricultural workers producing rubber, wood and chestnuts. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide the information requested concerning the workers covered by minimum wages in its next report.

  Article 2. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with section 23 of Supreme Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, increases in wages in the private sector are negotiated between employers and workers in each enterprise. Wage agreements concluded in this manner have to be registered with the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion. If no such wage agreement is concluded, the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion "shall examine and process the relevant clauses". The Committee notes that, according to the statements made by the Government in its latest report, "in practice it is the Government which determines annually the national minimum wage". The Committee refers to its observation and requests the Government to indicate the provisions which exist to prevent the minimum wages determined in this way from being reduced and the penalties applicable in the event of failure to comply with these minimum wages. The Committee hopes that this information will be provided in the Government’s next report.

  Article 5. The Committee recalls the information provided by the Government that the total number of inspectors had been increased (from 63 in 1991 to 73 in 1992). At that time, the Committee requested the Government to continue providing information on the efforts made to extend and improve the labour inspection services and to provide information on the outcome of the work of these services in relation to the application of minimum wages (including, for example, data on the violations reported and the penalties imposed). The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report showing that proper effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report relating to the previous observation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, although Supreme Decree 21060 of 29 August 1985 guarantees the fixing of the minimum wage through collective bargaining between employers and workers, in practice the "national minimum wage" is established each year by the Government by means of a Supreme Decree, for both the public and the private sectors, and the amount is considered to be the limit below which wages cannot be fixed. The Committee notes that, in accordance with section 23 of Supreme Decree 23093 of 16 May 1992, which provides for wage increases, in the private sector such increases are to be negotiated directly in each enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether or not this provision repealed section 62 above of Supreme Decree 21060 of 29 August 1985. Furthermore, the Committee also notes that, according to the Government, in the private sector the annual setting of the national minimum wage serves as a basis for the adoption of higher minimum wages which, to distinguish them from the former, may be called "institutional basic wages". These wages are fixed on the basis of machinery and specific factors in each sector of work and on the production capacity of each production unit. Taking into account the above information, the Committee recalls that when a member State ratifies a Convention, it is under the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to its provisions. The Convention provides in Article 4, paragraph 2, for full consultation with representative organizations of employers and workers concerned or, where no such organizations exist, representatives of employers and workers concerned for the fixing and adjustment of minimum wages.

The Committee recalls that, since its first comments on the application of this Article of the Convention, it has been requesting the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full consultations with the representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation made by the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXVIII, 1985, Series B, Special Supplement 1/1985) alleging non-observance of the Convention, with reference to the consultations which must be held, reiterated that the Government should adopt appropriate measures to ensure such consultations. The Committee has continued to make this request. However, the Committee regrets to note that the Government has not taken any measures in this respect, and indeed has confirmed in its latest report that the machinery in force for the fixing of wages does not appear to involve the consultations required by Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures and to hold full consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers concerned when determining the level of minimum wages and to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee notes the information concerning the elements taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that from the social and juridical perspective, the minimum wage is understood as the vital support of a worker enabling him to meet his basic subsistence needs. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which "basic subsistence needs" are assessed, or on the basis of which minimum subsistence products such needs are determined.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee is raising in a direct request other points relating to the Convention on which it has not received a reply from the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any reply to its previous comments. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide full particulars in its next report on the matters raised in its previous direct request concerning the following points.

Article 1(1) of the Convention.  The Committee recalls that the system of minimum wages still does not cover "all groups of wage earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate" since, according to the Government’s previous statements, agricultural workers, other than sugar cane and cotton workers, are excluded from the minimum wage system. In its report for 1986, the Government stated that it was examining the extension of the system to agricultural workers producing rubber, wood and chestnuts. The Committee has requested the Government in successive direct requests (1989, 1993, 1997, 1999) to indicate whether these workers or any other groups of wage earners had been excluded from the coverage of the national minimum wage established by Supreme Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, which is considered by the Government to be the fullest and most up-to-date legal provision respecting wage fixing. The Committee notes that the Government still has not provided specific information on the results of the measures taken to extend the system of minimum wages to all workers and, in particular, agricultural workers producing rubber, wood and chestnuts. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide the information requested concerning the workers covered by minimum wages in its next report.

Article 2.  The Committee recalls that, in accordance with section 23 of Supreme Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, increases in wages in the private sector are negotiated between employers and workers in each enterprise. Wage agreements concluded in this manner have to be registered with the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion. If no such wage agreement is concluded, the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion "shall examine and process the relevant clauses". The Committee notes that, according to the statements made by the Government in its latest report, "in practice it is the Government which determines annually the national minimum wage". The Committee refers to its observation and requests the Government to indicate the provisions which exist to prevent the minimum wages determined in this way from being reduced and the penalties applicable in the event of failure to comply with these minimum wages. The Committee hopes that this information will be provided in the Government’s next report.

Article 5.  The Committee recalls the information provided by the Government that the total number of inspectors had been increased (from 63 in 1991 to 73 in 1992). At that time, the Committee requested the Government to continue providing information on the efforts made to extend and improve the labour inspection services and to provide information on the outcome of the work of these services in relation to the application of minimum wages (including, for example, data on the violations reported and the penalties imposed). The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report showing that proper effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report relating to the previous observation.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, although Supreme Decree 21060 of 29 August 1985 guarantees the fixing of the minimum wage through collective bargaining between employers and workers, in practice the "national minimum wage" is established each year by the Government by means of a Supreme Decree, for both the public and the private sectors, and the amount is considered to be the limit below which wages cannot be fixed. The Committee notes that, in accordance with section 23 of Supreme Decree 23093 of 16 May 1992, which provides for wage increases, in the private sector such increases are to be negotiated directly in each enterprise. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether or not this provision repealed section 62 above of Supreme Decree 21060 of 29 August 1985. Furthermore, the Committee also notes that, according to the Government, in the private sector the annual setting of the national minimum wage serves as a basis for the adoption of higher minimum wages which, to distinguish them from the former, may be called "institutional basic wages". These wages are fixed on the basis of machinery and specific factors in each sector of work and on the production capacity of each production unit. Taking into account the above information, the Committee recalls that when a member State ratifies a Convention, it is under the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to its provisions. The Convention provides in Article 4, paragraph 2, for full consultation with representative organizations of employers and workers concerned or, where no such organizations exist, representatives of employers and workers concerned for the fixing and adjustment of minimum wages.

The Committee recalls that, since its first comments on the application of this Article of the Convention, it has been requesting the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure full consultations with the representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee set up by the Governing Body to examine the representation made by the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXVIII, 1985, Series B, Special Supplement 1/1985) alleging non-observance of the Convention, with reference to the consultations which must be held, reiterated that the Government should adopt appropriate measures to ensure such consultations. The Committee has continued to make this request. However, the Committee regrets to note that the Government has not taken any measures in this respect, and indeed has confirmed in its latest report that the machinery in force for the fixing of wages does not appear to involve the consultations required by Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures and to hold full consultations with representative organizations of employers and workers concerned when determining the level of minimum wages and to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee notes the information concerning the elements taken into consideration in determining the level of minimum wages, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that from the social and juridical perspective, the minimum wage is understood as the vital support of a worker enabling him to meet his basic subsistence needs. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which "basic subsistence needs" are assessed, or on the basis of which minimum subsistence products such needs are determined.

The Committee is raising in a direct request other points relating to the Convention on which it has not received a reply from the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to the previous request concerning the results of the measures the Government intended to take in order to extend the minimum wage system to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers. It requests the Government to indicate whether these workers or any other groups of wage earners have been excluded from the scope of the national minimum wage fixed by Supreme Decree No. 23093.

Article 2. The Committee notes that, under section 23 of Supreme Decree No. 23092, the wage increase for 1992 in the private sector should be negotiated at each enterprise, which is obliged to register the wages agreements at the Ministry of Labour, and that in the case of failure to reach agreement, the Ministry should process the relevant clauses in conformity with the labour law and regulations. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on measures taken to ensure that the minimum wage fixed under its section 2 should not be subject to abatement, and to indicate the sanctions applicable for failure to apply the minimum wage.

Article 5. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in the report as well as the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee in June 1992 concerning the application of Convention No. 81. It notes in particular that the total number of inspectors increased from 63 in 1991 to 73 in 1992. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue its efforts to extend and improve labour inspection activities and that it will be able to communicate the outcome of such activities regarding the application of the minimum wages, including, for example, the data on the infringements observed and the sanctions imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia under article 24 of the ILO Constitution (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXVIII, 1985, Series B, special supplement 1/1985). It noted the Government's reference to section 62 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 of 30 August 1985 which guarantees the fixing of wages through collective bargaining and pointed out that the free determination of wages by negotiation between employers and workers would not appear to constitute an adequate minimum wage-fixing system in the meaning of the Convention, in so far as it does not cover all the groups of wage-earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate. The Committee notes that the Government repeats its reference to Supreme Decree No. 21060, and states in reply to the previous comments that Supreme Decree No. 19462 of 15 March 1983 was repealed in virtue of section 170 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 and that the National Wages Council was not consulted, since Supreme Decree No. 11706 of 16 August 1974, which set up this Council, was also of transitional nature. The Committee also notes Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, section 2 of which fixes a new rate of the national minimum wage applicable to both public and private sectors. The Committee recalls that the conclusion of the Committee set up to examine the abovementioned representation, which was adopted by the Governing Body, was that measures should be taken by the Government to ensure consultation with both employers' and workers' organizations in connect with the establishment, operation and modification of the minimum wage-fixing machinery (Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention), as well as the participation of these organizations in the operation of such machinery (Article 4, paragraph 3). The Committee requests the Government to communication information on any measures taken or envisaged for such consultation and participation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the following matters raised in its previous direct request:

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee has noted the information supplied in the Government's report as well as the attached text of Supreme Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992.

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to the previous request concerning the results of the measures the Government intended to take in order to extend the minimum wage system to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers. It requests the Government to indicate whether these workers or any other groups of wage-earners have been excluded from the scope of the national minimum wage fixed by Supreme Decree No. 23093.

Article 2. The Committee notes that, under section 23 of Supreme Decree No. 23093, the wage increase for 1992 in the private sector should be negotiated at each enterprise, which is obliged to register the wages agreements at the Ministry of Labour, and that in the case of failure to reach agreement, the Ministry should process the relevant clauses in conformity with the labour law and regulations. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on measures taken to ensure that the minimum wage fixed under its section 2 should not be subject to abatement, and to indicate the sanctions applicable for failure to apply the minimum wage.

Article 5. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in the report as well as the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee in June 1992 concerning the application of Convention No. 81. It notes in particular that the total number of inspectors increased from 63 in 1991 to 73 in 1992. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue its efforts to extend and improve labour-inspection activities and that it will be able to communicate the outcome of such activities regarding the application of the minimum wages, including, for example, the data on the infringements observed and the sanctions imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation concerning the following points:

In the previous comments, the Committee referred to the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia under article 24 of the ILO Constitution (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXVIII, 1985, Series B, special supplement 1/1985). It noted the Government's reference to section 62 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 of 30 August 1985 which guarantees the fixing of wages through collective bargaining and pointed out that the free determination of wages by negotiation between employers and workers would not appear to constitute an adequate minimum wage-fixing system in the meaning of the Convention, in so far as it does not cover all the groups of wage-earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate. The Committee notes that the Government repeats its reference to Supreme Decree No. 21060, and states in reply to the previous comments that Supreme Decree No. 19462 of 15 March 1983 was repealed in virtue of section 170 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 and that the National Wages Council was not consulted, since Supreme Decree No. 11706 of 16 August 1974, which set up this Council, was also of transitional nature. The Committee also notes Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, section 2 of which fixes a new rate of the national minimum wage applicable to both public and private sectors. The Committee recalls that the conclusion of the Committee set up to examine the above-mentioned representation, which was adopted by the Governing Body, was that measures should be taken by the Government to ensure consultation with both employers' and workers' organizations in connection with the establishment, operation and modification of the minimum wage-fixing machinery (Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention), as well as the participation of these organizations in the operation of such machinery (Article 4, paragraph 3). The Committee requests the Government to communicate information on any measures taken or envisaged for such consultation and participation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee has noted the information supplied in the Government's report as well as the attached text of Supreme Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992.

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to the previous request concerning the results of the measures the Government intended to take in order to extend the minimum wage system to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers. It requests the Government to indicate whether these workers or any other groups of wage-earners have been excluded from the scope of the national minimum wage fixed by Supreme Decree No. 23093.

Article 2. The Committee notes that, under section 23 of Supreme Decree No. 23093, the wage increase for 1992 in the private sector should be negotiated at each enterprise, which is obliged to register the wages agreements at the Ministry of Labour, and that in the case of failure to reach agreement, the Ministry should process the relevant clauses in conformity with the labour law and regulations. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on measures taken to ensure that the minimum wage fixed under its section 2 should not be subject to abatement, and to indicate the sanctions applicable for failure to apply the minimum wage.

Article 5. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in the report as well as the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee in June 1992 concerning the application of Convention No. 81. It notes in particular that the total number of inspectors increased from 63 in 1991 to 73 in 1992. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue its efforts to extend and improve labour-inspection activities and that it will be able to communicate the outcome of such activities regarding the application of the minimum wages, including, for example, the data on the infringements observed and the sanctions imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

In the previous comments, the Committee referred to the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia under article 24 of the ILO Constitution (Official Bulletin, Vol. LXVIII, 1985, Series B, special supplement 1/1985). It noted the Government's reference to section 62 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 of 30 August 1985 which guarantees the fixing of wages through collective bargaining and pointed out that the free determination of wages by negotiation between employers and workers would not appear to constitute an adequate minimum wage-fixing system in the meaning of the Convention, in so far as it does not cover all the groups of wage-earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate.

The Committee notes that the Government repeats its reference to Supreme Decree No. 21060, and states in reply to the previous comments that Supreme Decree No. 19462 of 15 March 1983 was repealed in virtue of section 170 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 and that the National Wages Council was not consulted, since Supreme Decree No. 11706 of 16 August 1974, which set up this Council, was also of transitional nature. The Committee also notes Decree No. 23093 of 16 March 1992, section 2 of which fixes a new rate of the national minimum wage applicable to both public and private sectors.

The Committee recalls that the conclusion of the Committee set up to examine the above-mentioned representation, which was adopted by the Governing Body, was that measures should be taken by the Government to ensure consultation with both employers' and workers' organizations in connection with the establishment, operation and modification of the minimum wage-fixing machinery (Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention), as well as the participation of these organizations in the operation of such machinery (Article 4, paragraph 3). The Committee requests the Government to communicate information on any measures taken or envisaged for such consultation and participation.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government regarding certain points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee again requests the Government to report on the results of the measures it intended to take in order to extend the minimum wage system to rubber, forestry and chestnut workers.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that section 61 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 prohibited increases in the remuneration of workers in public sector enterprises up to 31 December 1985. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted since that date to establish a minimum wages system and on the resulting increases for workers in the public sector.

Article 2, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that section 62 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 guarantees the fixing of wages through collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number and category of workers whose wages have been fixed by collective bargaining.

Article 5. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, and in its comments on Convention No. 81, it pointed out that, according to the information supplied by the Government, the number of labour inspectors had been greatly reduced, and expressed the hope that it would be possible to increase their number so that they could carry out their duties more effectively. In this connection, the Committee takes note of the information concerning periodic training for labour inspectors; at the same time, the Committee reiterates the hope that the Government will report on the measures adopted or contemplated to extend and improve labour inspection activities for monitoring observance of the minimum wage system.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the consultation of employers' organisations with regard to the minimum wage-fixing machinery, and to the conclusions of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the Confederation of Private Employers of Bolivia, under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, which were approved by the Governing Body of the ILO at its 228th Session. The Committee refers in particular to the recommendations that the Government should adopt measures to ensure the required consultations with both employers' and workers' organisations concerning the establishment, operation and modification of wage-fixing machinery, and to provide information on this matter. The Committee noted the Government's statement concerning the minimum wage-fixing machinery which is based on a sliding scale of wages and salaries linked to the variations registered by the Consumer Prices Index (IPC).

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government states that the principle of individual or collective bargaining is fully applied pursuant to the provisions of section 62 of Supreme Decree No. 21060 of 30 August 1985, designed essentially to avert inflation and the multiplicity of minimum wages formerly fixed under pressure from the workers without regard for the economic variables which should normally be taken into consideration in establishing a coherent policy suited to the circumstances and factors of a global economic crisis. The Committee observes that, under Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention, each Member which ratifies this Convention undertakes to establish a system of minimum wages which covers all groups of wage-earners whose terms of employment are such that coverage would be appropriate. The free determination of wages by agreement of the parties concerned or by negotiation between employers and workers would not appear to constitute an adequate minimum wage-fixing system in the meaning of the present Convention. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the sliding scale of wages is no longer in force and that a single national minimum wage has been established which will increase annually in proportion to the Consumer Prices Index.

The Committee requests the Government to state whether the National Wages Council set up by Supreme Decree No. 11706 of 16 August 1974 was consulted regarding the establishment of a national minimum wage which has replaced the sliding scale system, and whether the workers' and employers' organisations concerned were consulted, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Convention. It also requests the Government to provide a copy of the text repealing Supreme Decree No. 19462 of 15 March 1983.

The Committee refers to other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.