View previous stories
	UN expert presents global standards for human rights in business world by John Ruggie United Nations & agencies   A senior United Nations human rights expert has unveiled a series of global benchmarks aimed at helping businesses and governments to act ethically and protect human rights.   John Ruggie, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, presented the guidelines to the UN Human Rights Council, in Geneva.   In a press release issued after his presentation, Mr. Ruggie said that “The principles seek to provide for the first time a global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse human rights impacts linked to business activity, by outlining what States and business enterprises should do in practice.”   “They also give businesses predictability in what is expected of them, and provide other stakeholders, including civil society and investors, the tools to measure progress where it matters most – in the daily lives of people,” he said.   The 27-page document, the result of six years of effort, and based on visits to 20 countries, and online consultations with thousands of participants from 120 countries, contains dozens of recommendations. They include that:   • States must protect against human rights abuses within their jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises.   • States should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the State.   • Because the risk of gross human rights abuses is heightened in conflict-affected areas, States should help ensure that business enterprises operating in those contexts are not involved with such abuses.   • The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights applies to all enterprises regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership and structure. Business enterprises whose operations pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them.   • Where business enterprises identify that they have contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide remediation.   • States must ensure that when abuses occur within their jurisdiction those affected have access to effective remedy.   • States should ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing business-related human rights abuses. Visit the related web page
	Many Questions to answer before privatizing any public services by Donald Cohen In The Public Interest USA   Too often, a mayor, governor or other public official proposes to sell off a public facility, privatize a public good or contract out a vital service.   For example, former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley rushed the proposal to lease the city"s parking meters for 75 years through the city council in just a few days after they (and the public) were given the details of the deal. Daley made the hard sell promising a buyer with $1.15 billion to fill Chicago"s budget hole if they acted quickly.   Only after the deal was done and the dust settled did they learn that they sold nearly $1 billion too cheaply and that they had given away their rights for 75 years to manage the city"s traffic and land use to investment giants Morgan Stanley, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Allianz Capital Partners. [Note: Daley just joined Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, the law firm that negotiated the deal to privatize Chicago"s parking meters.]   Public officials, public interest advocates and the media should ask these simple ten questions - and get the answers - before any final privatization decision. It"s a test to see if these deals will help, or hurt, the public interest.   1. Does the contract limit our democratic rights?   Buried deep in the contracts and long-term private highway or parking lot leases are so-called "non-compete" clauses and "compensation clauses" that limit or eliminate our ability -- for decades - to make public decisions to improve our cities, our transportation systems and many other public services. Sell off the highway and the contract will prevent you from building mass transit that could compete with the private road operator - decades.   2. Will we still have the "Right To Know"?   The public often loses the right to know important details about public services when private contractors take over. Privatize the health department, the library or the prison, and the CEO"s salary - and lots more - and suddenly it all becomes private and confidential.   3. Are there perverse incentives that could work against our public policy goals?   Private companies are focused on growing revenue, increasing market share and healthy "Return on Investment" for owners or shareholders. That"s fine for the company that makes your breakfast cereal but privatization means that the goals of private interests may take precedence over the public good. For example, prison contracts are based on the number of full prison beds. So more people in prison is good for business.   4. How will we hold the contractors accountable to the public?   When public agencies don"t have enough staff to regularly monitor the contracts, the public loses. Anyone who contracts for services - whether Boeing subcontracting the manufacture of jet components, a city contracting for tree trimming in public parks or a family hiring a contractor to expand the size of their kitchen - knows that if you don"t watch the contractor closely, you get cost overruns, missed deadlines and mistakes.   5. Do we have a Plan B?   Contractors that fail to deliver costs taxpayers millions when contracts have to be cancelled. Legal fees and overtime for public workers or back-up contractors to fix problems add up. And, once a public agency downsizes the front line workers that know how to do the work, it takes time to re-create an in-house team with experience and expertise.   6. Will all the outsourced jobs have health care benefits?   Privatization proponents frequently promise cost savings that come from turning jobs with health benefits into ones that don"t have health care. That"s irresponsible and simply shifts costs to someone else - usually the taxpayers or local hospital emergency rooms.   7. If a private company thinks they can make money owning our parking lots, why can"t we?   Desperate for cash, cities and states are selling off assets and programs that are actually money makers. Former California Governor Schwarzenegger proposed selling and leasing back state buildings that were free of debt and local governments are selling landfills and privatizing recycling programs that generate revenue for cash strapped cities and counties.   8. What are the limits on the private contractor"s ability to raise fees, tolls or rates?   Public officials think that they don"t get blamed when the private contractor raises rates. They"re wrong. Private companies take over and raise rates to meet their financial projections. The result is that we pay higher fees, and the private company gets the money. If we have to raise rates, local governments should keep the money and fund libraries, parks or other public services.   9. 50 years? 75 years? You"re kidding?   Indiana received $3.8 billion from a consortium made up of the Spanish construction firm Cintra and the Macquarie Atlas Roads (MQA) of Australia in exchange for the right to maintain, operate and collect tolls for the following 75 years. That"s a long time and a lot could change - from where we live and work, to how much we drive and much more - all of which could significantly impact revenues and profits. Is this the next generation"s bubble and bailout? Beware of financial projections that predict an unknowable future.   10. Have you read the contract? (the devil is always in the details)   Contracts often have provisions that impact things we all care about - from environmental protection to neighborhood services and everything in between. Take the time and read the contract because once it"s signed, it"s too late to change. Ask Chicago.   Local and state governments are scrambling to fill gaping budget holes. Multinational corporations offering cash and conservative politicians using the crisis as opportunity to downsize government are pushing hard and moving fast. The promise of privatization is always oversold - cost overruns instead of cost savings, information no longer available to the public, and corners cut that impact services. Asking the right questions is the first step to putting the public interest first and avoiding decisions that we"ll regret for seventy five years.
	View more stories