I would like to add that if the developed nations give up aspects of
development (schooling, universal health care, potable water, etc) then
these trade offs should be made explicit. What are we giving up, why, who
gains and who loses, etc.
My fear is that the trade offs will be made behind closed doors and then we
will all wonder what happened to the middle class. A two tier society is
easy to reach, maintaining a broad middle class (one of the stabilizing
aspects of development) is I think more difficult to maintain.
----------
From: Cordell, Arthur: DPP
To: Judi Kessler; Andrew Straw
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 1:56PM
I guess the question is ---In a globalized world there will be harmonization
(of wages, working conditions, environment, etc.), do we want to try to
achieve upward harmonization or do we allow a drift to lower standards.
There will be harmonization: At what level. I (as you can gather) would
like to have the world harmonize upward to what we call development and as
much as possible not reach harmonization by having the presently developed
give up the hard won gains of development. I think this is what much of the
WTO dispute was about.
arthur cordell
----------
From: Judi Kessler
To: Andrew Straw
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: torn
Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 9:16PM
I share some of the same sentiments. And I am conflicted...
Huffy is closing the last of its US factories in Farmington, MO. Folks
(with years of experience in blue-collar manufacturing jobs) are
scrambling for service sector employment. Their training and employment
history disqualifies them from all but the low-wage positions.
At the same time, Los Angeles-based Garment Services Int'l recently
opened an apparel maquiladora on the outskirts of Tijuana (I have spent a
fair amount of time in the plant). Workers (mostly because the labor
market is so tight in the border region) are earning 2-3 times the minimum
wage, have a decent work environment, access to free on-site child care,
and labor-management relations are quite good. Turnover is about 2%.
Cut, make, and trim work (sewing) is tough, but the GSI employees leave
work to better living environments, more money in their pockets, and don't
have to pull their school-age kids out of school to sustain the family.
These folks are unionized under the CTM (the government "puppet" union).
The AFL-CIO has attempted to work with independent unions to reorganize
the factory. The workers are livid. They want no part of it.
Although I would like to see GSI workers earn 10 times (rather than 2-3)
the prevailing wage, I can't help but question US labor tactics in
relation to developing countries' workplaces.
This bothers me, given that I have been pro-union all my working life.
Am I being overly-critical?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A man who works with his hands is a laborer;
a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman;
but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart
is an artist" Louis Nizer (1902-1994)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*************************************
Judi A. Kessler
Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies
University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0510
La Jolla, CA 92093-0510 USA
(858) 534-4147 or (858) 534-4503
*************************************
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Andrew Straw wrote:
> I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
> trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
> like the US.
>
> On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
> wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do. Making trade
> freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
> our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
> move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc. Of course this is a threat to the
> livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions. I think of it as
> macro-level union busting.
>
> On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
> bad thing either. How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
> built a factory there? People were lining up to work there because jobs
> are scarse in such rural areas. The same happens when an American company
> moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
> because for them, they ARE good jobs. If the jobs paid a relatively awful
> wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
> employee.
>
> In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
> list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
> time--perhaps another 20 years? After which time, the dust will have
> cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
> benefits stockholders the most. Whether or not that result is a living
> wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
> determined.
>
> I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
> It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
> organization is abolished or not. As someone who does care about workers
> both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
> what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
> precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.
>
> Make more people owners. Active owners. Both in core AND in peripheral
> countries.
>
> Any other answers? Concerns?
>
> Andrew U. D. Straw
> Fredericksburg, VA
>
