The statistics are chilling. In a country where workers have no real right to organize a union, they face an ever falling standard of living. The workers’ attempts to organize independent unions are faced with repression – 25% of the companies illegally fire workers who try to organize; active union supporters indeed have a 1 in 5 chance of being fired; over half of the companies threaten to have undocumented, foreign laborers deported during organizing campaigns; over half of the companies threaten to close the plant if it is organized; and nearly half of companies that are unionized never reach a labor contract with the union. Of course, this country is not China, but rather, is, according to the AFL-CIO, the United States.

Notwithstanding this dismal situation for labor rights in this country, the U.S. labor movement is fixated on vilifying China and its human and labor rights situation as a cover for protecting U.S. workers from competition from albeit much lower paid Chinese workers. Of course, U.S. labor has every right, and indeed a duty, to protect the workers it represents. However, the obsession with China as an economic rival – an obsession which sometimes devolves into a racist stigmatization of the Chinese people themselves — is a distraction from the real and most pressing problems of U.S. workers: the ever growing economic and power disparity between capital and workers in this country, and a legal regime in the U.S. which only encourages this disparity.

This was brought home for me by a recent meeting at my union with visiting labor law professors from China. Very tellingly, it was our Chinese guests who were much more candid about the problems facing their working class than their American hosts.

The master of ceremonies (MC) who led the discussion for the U.S. trade unionists – a quite typical labor leader who harbors profound anti-Chinese resentments — met in advance with all of us who would be attending the meeting to go over the ground rules, the primary rule being that, notwithstanding the shortcomings we know to exist in U.S. labor law, we were not to share those openly with our Chinese visitors lest they go back home and use this as propaganda against us. Read the whole article here

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/27/the-us-labor-movement-and-china/

With veteran whafie and NT political leader Brian Manning, I with 40 others attended Darwin’s public meeting on the US military machine in Australia.

I applaud the Basewatch group for an informative meeting over 2 hours on this question of War or Peace.

Basewatch aims to be a part of bringing Darwin into the forefront of planning for this major change in social infrastructure, that has so far been declared but not defined for mutual deliberation with the people of Darwin – local voices keen to set boundaries and criteria for any American military presence in our town.

I intervened at the end when Major General Krause – who is implementing the USA Base or as he says it is not a Base but a ‘joint-facility’ – was asked political questions about why?

I said the Major General does not make these political decisions.

The answer is war with China and an incremental build-up with US vessels, aircraft and marines in Darwin combat ready.

The “new forward-staging base” is a clear signal to China that “the US has quick-response capability in Beijing’s backyard”
(Wall Street Journal 27/1/12). The USS Halsey was here for Anzac Day – check out its impressive capability.

Australia’s Defence White Paper (2009) identifies China as a potential enemy and talks about South East Asia being “a conduit for the projection of military power against us by others.”

But China, our leading trading partner, believes “Australia should beware lest it be perceived as a lackey of Washington” (The Australian 22 Mar 2012).

Indonesia, our near neighbour, has warned that an expanded military presence generates a “vicious circle of tension and mistrust” (SMH 17Nov 2011).

War with China? We don’t want this US build up to war with China.

Rather an Independent Australian policy.

Of course Defence Minister Smith denies this

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/chinese-power-cant-be-contained-smith-20120427-1xpw6.html

Fraser accuse Smith of reliving the cold war

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/fraser-accuses-smith-of-reliving-the-cold-war-20120426-1xmoh.html

and China will take us as a prize

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/china-will-take-us-as-a-prize-fraser/story-fn59niix-1226334814698

Darwin citizens ought to be asked whether we want to be a target – like in the Bombing of Darwin when the Japanese invaded Dili Timor Leste.

Chomsky’s moral imperative is to work to overthrow the power that makes war.

I cited the Sydney group ‘Lets Keep War from Our Front Door’.

But the Major General does not answer these questions, not his to answer, so I asked the speaker the Rev Lee Levitt Olsen who had cited in his moving address that in Adelaide the anti-war movement organised and over 100,000 marched, along with millions in worldwide rallies against the war in Iraq. Slow organising at the community and state level and broad alliances was the key. But Howard went to war under the US. No democracy here. How do we build to overcome this issue?

Lee Levitt Olsen from the Uniting Church has wide international networks, an impressive history of action and a gifted orator and his contribution ought to be listened to.

WA Senator Scott Ludlam argued presented the Greens concerns on the impact of military bases – see also the most reasonable pamphlet.

He carefully worked through important clarifications on what the Australian government is doing and what is happening with this steady build-up.

No ALP politician was present.

Basewatch participants politely questioned Major General Krause on the details on what is happening and he answered them and this exchange is important to continue.

Major General Krause is a straight talker, gave a polished performance and we all found it essential to get his position
on training,not a permanent base and the social and economic impact. I leave it to him and others to go over what we know until now of the US forces in NT.

Live from Okinawa on the large screen Professor Aubay and her supporters gave a detailed explanation of the disaster for the people with the US base. Her contribution means there are many issues to be worked through in the NT, with the government determined to move carefully addressing concerns.

On april 28th Rick Wallace in the Australian wrote “the deal struck to send US marines to Darwin appears to have helped solve a deadlock between Japan and the US over moving US troops away from Okinawa.

Tokyo and Washington reached a deal yesterday to transfer about half of the 18,000 US marines based in the southern island of Okinawa to Guam, Hawaii and Australia.”

June Mills gave the indigenous welcome and talked of her mother Kath Mills and her opposition to war and Kath Mills’ experience in Katherine being bombed by the Japanese. She sang Arafura Pearl.

We are at the beginning of education and debate by the Australian public on the arguments.

This national question of war is on the agenda and opposition growing and can be slowly organised in civil society, in institutions, and with political lobbying. Hundreds of community activities can be organised.

I advocate ‘talking truth to authority’ and encourage challenging the 1%.

But as Chomsky says with US marines there is no point
(see review article in Australian Options 68 on this blog).

What does work in whatever way is to be part of international and local political actions ‘we the people’ as equal citizens collectively in a democracy acting against war and for peace.

I add the following sent to me from a Sydney group

LET’S KEEP WAR FROM OUR DOOR
For discussion
We wish to share a safe home in a region built on friendship, trust and
the peaceful resolution of disputes and differences. However, US troops
are now permanently stationed in Darwin – the “new forward-staging
base”, a clear signal to China that “the US has quick-response capability
in Beijing’s backyard” ( Wall Street Journal 27/1/12).

Australia’s Defence White Paper (2009) identifies China as a potential
enemy and talks about South East Asia being “a conduit for the projection
of military power against us by others.” But China, our leading trading partner, believes “Australia should beware lest it be perceived as a lackey
of Washington” (The Australian 22 Mar 2012). Indonesia, our near
neighbour, has warned that an expanded military presence would generate
a “vicious circle of tension and mistrust” (SMH 17Nov 2011).

Meanwhile, a military solution to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions has also serious implications for Australia while it hosts US combat troops.
In a recent BBC report, Iran’s former lead nuclear negotiator, Dr Seyed Hossein Mousavian, warned Iran would be “confronting Israel directly
and punishing all those countries which advocated war against Iran … I cannot imagine US infrastructure, diplomats or personnel would be safe anywhere in the world.”

Such developments should ring alarm bells for Australia.

Australia has a long history of involvement in global peace efforts. We helped draft the United Nations Charter, which makes it illegal to wage aggressive warfare, and were one of just eight countries to create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have been involved in numerous peace-keeping exercises around the globe.

This is the proud record we should be continuing to expand, not our
military capabilities.

Therefore, We:

• oppose the continuing military build-up in our home region, which threatens to bring war to our doorstep.

• call on Indo-Pacific nations of the to reduce their force levels and military spending.

• call on governments to build regional mechanisms to resolve disputes under the auspices of the United Nations, to stop our differences turning
into flashpoints or pretexts for war.

• call on the Australian government to base the US-Australian relationship on our non military ties.

The increasingly militaristic posture of the US-Australian alliance undermines our national sovereignty and our standing in the region.

Let’s replace confrontation with co-operation. Let’s replace fear with friendship.

Let’s Keep War From Our Door.
___________________________________
c/- KWFD, 499 Elizabeth St, Surry Hills NSW 2010

Please distribute this message on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVU5-PRWQyo&feature=email

A number of people unable to attend wondered if there were handouts or if it was videotaped. The nature of the session was a conversation so it wasn’t recorded, but this youtube videotape from a previous presentation is useful and will give you a sense of the discussion that took place.

The video is called “Rethinking US Labor’s Policy Toward China and Its Union” It addresses the questions: What does China’s economic boom and political transformation mean for workers and unions? What should the AFL-CIO policy be toward unions in China?

The following article was first published in New Labor Forum and this article is found at: http://www.coloursofresistance.org/304/rethinking-the-china-campaign/

“The most recent campaign to deny China PNTR and admission to the WTO has been a step backwards in the campaign against corporate sponsored “globalization” and for fair trade, development and global solidarity. The AFL-CIO advanced the slogan, “No Blank Check for China.” Not only was this slogan misleading, as PNTR was hardly a “blank check” but merely giving China the same status that the US gives other nations it trades with, but it also shifted the focus of the debate on globalization from corporations and the actions of the U.S. government to China.”

Rethinking the China Campaign

by Kent Wong and Elaine Bernard

First published in New Labor Forum (Fall/Winter 2000)

On May 24, 2000, the American labor movement suffered a significant defeat in their attempt to block Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status for China. The House of Representatives voted 237-197 to approve PNTR for China. This was the labor movement’s largest legislative campaign in years, which mobilized resources of the American labor movement from coast to coast. But was this the best step to take on the heels of the powerful anti-WTO coalition that emerged in Seattle last November?

Why did this relatively narrow legislative issue (PNTR) deserve such prominence on the labor movement’s agenda? The debate around China became a symbol for the American labor movement. It emerged as a test of labor’s ability to influence Congress, and established a litmus test for politicians. The American labor movement’s campaign against granting China PNTR as a prelude to its admission to the World Trade Organization became a symbol of labor’s opposition to the threat of globalization and unfair trade agreements.

Fundamentally, however, this approach and this campaign were counter-productive. While the campaign was launched with the intent of promoting internationalism and avoiding China- bashing, we fear that the ultimate impact of the campaign has been to fuel cold war politics, encourage an unholy alliances with the right wing, and has resulted in racially offensive messages. As well, the campaign has weakened the strong anti-corporate and international solidarity focus coming out of the anti-WTO protests in Seattle and dissipated some of the positive momentum from the Seattle action.

Historic Perspective

History is important, and though we might wish it to be otherwise, we need to examine the recent campaign against PNTR for China in the context of the long history of the American labor movement’s policies towards China. Running as a fault line throughout its history, the US labor movement has been hostile to Asian workers. The early AFL had an explicit policy of forbidding Asian members from joining the ranks of the American labor movement. In 1903, for example, the Japanese Mexican Labor Association in California was denied charter membership with the American Federation of Labor, solely because they had numbers of Japanese American members. The American Federation of Labor under its first President Samuel Gompers embraced an exclusionary policy towards China and Chinese workers. This policy of exclusion and hostility continued well into the 20th century. American unions were major proponents of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which for the first time in U.S. history enacted racially exclusive immigration policies against a single country, China. Subsequently, these racist immigration laws were expanded to include other immigrants from Asia.

While hostility to China declined somewhat during the Second World War with nationalist Chinese as allies in the war against Japan the post war victory of Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist Party marked the beginning of the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. attitudes towards China led to renewed racist portrayals of China and Chinese people as “inscrutable”, sinister, untrustworthy, and ruthless killers who do not value life. The “yellow hordes” of “coolies,” “low wage workers” and “strike breakers” of the 19th century, were transformed into the “red hordes” of the 20th century as Americans were taught to fear the hundreds of millions of “Red Chinese” who were considered a threat to U.S. security. The FBI was convinced that there were “Red Chinese” spies, and launched special investigations targeting Chinese American communities.

Throughout this period, the US labor movement was at the forefront in supporting US Cold War policy. And while labor today has made an important change in its attitude towards immigrants, siding with undocumented workers and their right to organize many Cold War, anti-Chinese vestiges still are alive and well within U.S. society. China continues to be a major target of the conservative and religious right, who maintains this Cold War ideology in their crusade against China. The discrimination against Chinese Americans and Asian Americans continues. A few years ago, due to a handful of Asian Americans, donors with Asian surnames were singled out by the Democratic National Committee and requested to produce proof of their ability to contribute to the DNC. Currently Dr. Wen Ho Lee of Los Alamos is being prosecuted for mishandling classified information. This case has generated national outrage from the Chinese American community amid charges of racial profiling, and unfairly scapegoating Chinese Americans because of their suspected disloyalty to this country.

This historical context is vital for labor to take into consideration when deciding on tactics. It doesn’t mean that labor cannot criticize actions by the Chinese government, but it does mean that extra care must be taken because of the legacy of racism and hostility against Chinese and Asian workers.

Singling Out China

The most recent campaign to deny China PNTR and admission to the WTO has been a step backwards in the campaign against corporate sponsored “globalization” and for fair trade, development and global solidarity. The AFL-CIO advanced the slogan, “No Blank Check for China.” Not only was this slogan misleading, as PNTR was hardly a “blank check” but merely giving China the same status that the US gives other nations it trades with, but it also shifted the focus of the debate on globalization from corporations and the actions of the U.S. government to China. And China is hardly driving globalization. Whether or not China is granted PNTR does not change the fundamental problems of corporate control of trade policies. Whether or not China is admitted to the WTO does not change the fundamental problems of the WTO’s refusal to address issues of labor, human rights, and environmental standards.

China is not a major player in establishing international trade policies, nor have they been beneficiaries of corporate global domination. Historically, like other developing nations, China has been exploited for its natural resources and cheap labor by other countries. The campaign against China shifts the attention from the structural problems of the global economy created by unregulated corporate power, to targeting one country, China. Trade unionists and all people of conscious must actively oppose human rights abuses, labor rights abuses, and environmental degradation in China. Workers in China should be supported in their struggle to build democratic trade unions and to fight for social and economic justice. But the American labor movement must have a clear, consistent policy on global trade and development and human rights that does not unfairly single out China.

The violations of political, labor, and human rights do not distinguish China, alas, from other countries that have permanent trade status with the U.S., or some of the 135 governments who are presently members of the World Trade Organization. The U.S. government itself has a deplorable track record of supporting repressive regimes from Indonesia, Iran, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and the list goes on. In many instances, the U.S. has used armed intervention to support military dictatorships.

For the U.S. to challenge China’s entry into the WTO because of political and human rights abuse amounts to hypocrisy. China should not be singled out for some of the very same human rights abuses that occur in the U.S., such as widespread use of prison labor. For union leaders to lead the campaign against China implies that China is the biggest threat to US workers, not corporate driven globalization, and the corporate dominated institutions driving the race to the bottom such as the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. Worse yet, the campaign inevitably builds on the Cold War framework and racially hostile sentiment against China. The April 12, 2000 demonstration against China held in Washington, D.C. had the embarrassing consequence of providing a forum for Teamster President James Hoffa, Jr. and right-wing demagogue Pat Buchanan to address union members from the same stage. At the AFL-CIO rally, union leaders denounced China as a “godless” society. Unionists wore T-shirts demonizing China and Chinese people, promoting an image of Chinese as ruthless killers and torturers. At another rally in Washington, D.C. immediately preceding the congressional vote, union members joined a rally being chaired by an ally of right-wing Republican Gary Bauer.

The new leadership of the AFL-CIO has done much to break with the Cold War positioning of the labor movement, and to construct a new alliance with communities of faith, immigrants, and social movements, on international as well as domestic issues. Unfortunately, the anti-China campaign has undermined some of these efforts.

Evaluating Arguments Supporting the Anti-China Campaign

Progressive proponents of the anti-China campaign argue that this was an important tactical battle in the fight against corporate-led globalization. Because major U.S. corporations are at the forefront of advancing PNTR, labor should oppose it. They also argue that this campaign could undermine the corporate agenda, and force change within the WTO and in future trade negotiations.

Progressives further argue that granting China PNTR and allowing its entry into the WTO would adversely affect the lives of workers in both China and the U.S. As they correctly point out, policies of corporate globalism have resulted in greater economic inequality, dislocation of workers, and more opposition to worker rights and organized labor. Finally, they argue that China is a major human rights violator and that its entry into the WTO will make it difficult if not impossible to include labor and human rights in trade relations.

With regard to the first argument, the tactical campaign against PNTR has failed. Worse than just losing an important campaign, however, the loss has left some in labor tactically aligned with the conservative right. Further, it has continued the long tradition of demonizing China, without adequately
educating American workers on the true nature of the global economy.

The campaign was also tactically flawed, because it undermined labor’s own political agenda in this crucial election year. It has promoted greater divisions within labor and with labor s efforts in working with the Democrats to recapture the House and Senate. Industrial unions have been the most vocal in denouncing the White House’s campaign for PNTR. These same unions have historically been strongest in the Midwest states, which have emerged as the central battleground for the November Presidential election. If this conflict is not brought under control, the resulting political fallout could be considerable. Finally, while PNTR was clearly an important issue for business, for labor even a victory in denying China PNTR status would be a Pyrrhic victory at best. If labor had won, it would simply mean that the debate over China would have continued annually on the renewal of its Most Favored Nation (MFN) status.

With regard to the negative impact of China’s PNTR status, the verdict is still out. Increased trade with China may cause downward pressure on wages in the United States, though trade with China has been on the increase without PNTR. Clearly, the US corporate agenda of free trade,
privatization and deregulation are taking their toll on workers domestically. But to blame China for U.S. capital flight, and U.S. corporations shifting production to the Third World, is neither fair nor accurate.

China’s admission to the WTO may have a negative impact on Chinese workers. However, it is problematic for the U.S. labor movement to attempt to speak on behalf of Chinese workers. When we advance international policy, it must be in the spirit of internationalism. There is no clear consensus among human rights and labor activists in China with regard to PNTR or WTO. It is chauvinism for the American labor movement to unilaterally speak on behalf of Chinese workers, without even engaging in dialogue with Chinese workers. Within the international labor arena, there clearly is no consensus of support on the U.S. labor movement’s anti-China campaign. The campaign amounts to unilateralism, not internationalism.

China will no doubt oppose the inclusion of human rights and worker rights in trade agreements. China, however, is not alone in this stance. Most Asian countries, indeed, most third world governments oppose such linkage. China will not have a veto within the WTO, and like all 135 member countries will be expected to follow its rules. The WTO has unequivocally opposed inclusion of labor and human rights in its mandate, and while this will hardly change with China’s inclusion in the WTO, it’s hard to imagine that rejection of PNTR status to China would have forced a change in the WTO’s stance.

Where do we go from here?

With or without PNTR trade with China is increasing, and relations between our two countries will grow. Labor needs to encourage critical engagement with China, not isolation. This does include criticism of China’s human rights practice. But China is too important for the US labor movement to simply speak to via the US media alone. The American labor movement should take a bold step and seek to open up dialogue and cultivate relationships with workers and trade unions in China. While American labor leaders should continue to meet with Chinese political dissidents, it would also be important to meet with other union leaders
and workers in China.

China is home of the largest trade union confederation in the world. While it is true that Chinese trade unions are not independent from the government, they are legitimate worker organizations with 100 million members, and reflect great diversity depending on the industry, sector, geographic area, and individual union leadership. The policies of the Cold War have prevented the American labor movement from establishing fraternal relations with trade unions in China. Decades after President Nixon went to China, opening US relations with the People’s Republic of China, maybe it’s time for AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to consider such an initiative and reach out to Chinese workers.

As recently as 1995, American labor movement representatives were discouraged from attending the Beijing Women’s Conference, sponsored by the United Nations, because China was hosting it. To this day, the AFL-CIO does not recognize the Chinese trade union movement, and Chinese trade unionists cannot visit the United States as official representatives of their unions.

The reality is that China has undergone tremendous change in the past few decades. The Chinese economic system has rapidly transformed from one that was centralized and state- run towards a mixed economy, with a growing market and increasing foreign investment. The results have been both positive and negative for Chinese workers. The economy has experienced significant growth and development, along with dislocation and growing economic inequality. Human rights, political repression, and environmental degradation are crucial issues.

In this context of change, would not more worker-to-worker and union-to-union exchange be positive? Inevitably, the problems facing China will have to be addressed by the Chinese people themselves. There is a wide range of political and philosophical perspectives among Chinese trade unionists. There is a major generational transition taking place in China, and a new emerging leadership within the government and within labor unions. Through engaging in more dialogue and exchange with Chinese workers and unions, the American labor movement could identify new leaders of China who embrace a similar perspective on global corporate domination, and the need to defend human rights and labor rights.

The main threat to economic security, dignity and human rights of U.S. workers is domestic and global corporations and their institutions: the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank. We need to keep our eyes on the prize, move beyond the Cold War, move beyond unilateralism, and move toward genuine international labor solidarity.

Kent Wong is the Director of the UCLA Center for Labor Research, and Elaine Bernard is the Executive Director of the Harvard Trade Union Program.

Copyright (c) 2000 Kent Wong and Elaine Bernard.

http://monthlyreview.org/2005/11/01/rethinking-capitalist-restoration-in-china

China and neo-liberalism
by Martin Hart-Landsberg
http://media.lclark.edu/content/hart-landsberg/2012/03/02/china-and-neoliberalism/

China’s workers emboldened: Strikes escalate in March

Search form Search
8 April, 2012
By Jennifer Cheung

The number of strikes recorded by China Labour Bulletin in March 2012 reached its highest monthly total since we started monitoring worker protests on a day to day basis 15 months ago. A total of 38 strikes were logged across China, primarily in the manufacturing and transportation sectors. Half of the strikes, 19 in all, were related to pay demands, three concerned factory relocations, three strikes were in protest at merger or restructuring plans, and four were related to the payment of overtime.

Reports indicate that police were present at 13 of the protests and detained workers in two of them. Eleven protests led to collective bargaining or negotiations with management and in two of those cases the workers’ demands were fulfilled.

There were 17 strikes in the manufacturing sector, five more than in February. Quite a few of these factory strikes occurred in foreign or Hong Kong or Taiwan-owned manufacturers in the Pearl River Delta, and normally involved at least 1,000 workers blocking factory gates or public roads.

Taxi and bus drivers in at least ten cities went on strike in March, with a spate of strikes between 26 and 27 March primarily due to the government’s 19 March fuel price hike. Surveys estimate that taxi drivers will have to pay an extra 400 yuan every month and bus drivers an extra 1,000 yuan per month as a result of the price rise. The Chinese government has pledged to help transport workers cope with rising oil prices by providing subsidies, promoting collective bargaining in taxi companies and regulating the taxi leasing fees that usually take up nearly one half of drivers’ monthly income.
Read the article here from China Labour Bulletin:

http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/110033

Fall of Bo Xilai
By Chinaworker.info
March 18, 2012 — Chinaworker.info, posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission — Dramatic events are unfolding as China’s once-in-a-decade leadership transition gets underway. A serious schism in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) top ranks has come into full public view – something unprecedented since the mass anti-government protests of 1989. Bo Xilai, standard-bearer of the neo-Maoist “new left”, has been dismissed as provincial party chief of Chongqing.
While dramatic, these developments are not completely unexpected. As we explained last year on chinaworker.info, “Still, the [populist] campaign of Bo is an important development signifying that the relative cohesion of the ruling group – in public at least – since the 1989 Beijing massacre is beginning to unravel.” (“China: Repression or ‘reform’?”, chinaworker.info, July 11, 2011).
Bo’s exit follows a major scandal resulting in the arrest of his former right-hand man, Wang Lijun, who until six weeks ago was vice-mayor and police chief of Chongqing. Wang has been labelled a “traitor” by the regime after what was possibly a defection attempt at the US consulate in Chengdu on February 6. He is also widely suspected of corruption. “The Wang Lijun saga has evolved into one of the biggest political scandals over the past 60 years”, argues political commentator Chen Ziming. The fall of both men is part of a wider power struggle within the regime, rather than merely an anti-corruption “clean up”. Read more

http://links.org.au/node/2799

From IMF: Apple fails to have workers a voice
http://www.imfmetal.org/index.cfm?c=29539&l=2

http://www.imfmetal.org/index.cfm?c=29539&l=2

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/29/2912210/fair-labor-association-apple-foxconn-investigation-labor-report

On February 13, FLA launched an independent investigation into labor rights allegations at Foxconn, an Apple supplier in China.

FLA assessors logged more than 3,000 staff hours inside the factories. They evaluated conditions based on visual observation and review of policies, procedures and documentation (payroll and time records, production schedules, employee records); interviewed hundreds of Foxconn workers and managers both on- and off-site;

and conducted an anonymous worker perception survey of 35,500 randomly-selected Foxconn workers – providing an in-depth understanding of working conditions, particularly during peak production of Apple products.

FLA found excessive overtime and problems with overtime compensation; several health and safety risks; and crucial communication gaps that have led to a widespread sense of unsafe working conditions among workers.

FLA Report on Foxconn can be found at:

http://www.fairlabor.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/foxconn_investigation_report_0.pdf

Unions and workers best able to monitor conditions

http://www.imfmetal.org/index.cfm?c=29391&l=2

The first signs of real trade unions and factory strikes may signal the end of China’s low cost, low human rights advantage.

Two weeks ago, Foxconn Technology, an electronic giant, announced it would increase its workers’ salaries by as much as 25%. The move was probably the result of pressure from the increasingly rights-conscious workers and international concerns about the factory’s working conditions.

Shortly before that, Apple had sent an independent labour group to investigate its suppliers, including Foxconn.

Whatever the case, it is high time to improve the lot of workers, a marginalised group in China.

When I became a worker at a rocket factory back in 1980, aged 16, workers enjoyed cradle-to-grave social welfare and a much higher status. We were hailed as “the masters of the nation”. Read more

http://www.alternet.org/world/154402/chinese_workers_demanding_better_wages,_conditions,_real_union_protections

http://media.lclark.edu/content/hart-landsberg/2012/03/02/china-and-neoliberalism/

By John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney
February 2012 — Monthly Review

Five years after the Great Financial Crisis of 2007–09 began there is still no sign of a full recovery of the world economy.

Consequently, concern has increasingly shifted from financial crisis and recession to slow growth or stagnation, causing some to dub the current era the Great Stagnation.1

Stagnation and financial crisis are now seen as feeding into one another. Thus IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde declared in a speech in China on November 9, 2011, in which she called for the rebalancing of the Chinese economy:

The global economy has entered a dangerous and uncertain phase. Adverse feedback loops between the real economy and the financial sector have become prominent. And unemployment in the advanced economies remains unacceptably high. If we do not act, and act together, we could enter a downward spiral of uncertainty, financial instability, and a collapse in global demand. Ultimately, we could face a lost decade of low growth and high unemployment.2

To be sure, a few emerging economies have seemingly bucked the general trend, continuing to grow rapidly—most notably China, now the world’s second largest economy after the United States.

Yet, as Lagarde warned her Chinese listeners, “Asia is not immune” to the general economic slowdown, “emerging Asia is also vulnerable to developments in the financial sector.”

So sharp were the IMF’s warnings, dovetailing with widespread fears of a sharp Chinese economic slowdown, that Lagarde in late November was forced to reassure world business, declaring that stagnation was probably not imminent in China (the Bloomberg.com headline ran: “IMF Sees Chinese Economy Avoiding Stagnation.”)3

Nevertheless, concerns regarding the future of the Chinese economy are now widespread. Few informed economic observers believe that the current Chinese growth trend is sustainable; indeed, many believe that if China does not sharply alter course, it is headed toward a severe crisis. Stephen Roach, non-executive chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, argues that China’s export-led economy has recently experienced two warning shots: first the decline beginning in the United States following the Great Financial Crisis, and now the continuing problems in Europe. “China’s two largest export markets are in serious trouble and can no longer be counted on as reliable, sustainable sources of external demand.”4

In order to avoid looming disaster, the current economic consensus suggests that the Chinese economy needs to rebalance its shares of net exports, investment, and consumption in GDP—moving away from an economy that is dangerously over-reliant on investment and exports, characterized by an extreme deficiency in consumer demand, and increasingly showing signs of a real estate/financial bubble.

But the very idea of such a fundamental rebalancing—on the gigantic scale required—raises the question of contradictions that lie at the center of the whole low-wage accumulation model that has come to characterize contemporary Chinese capitalism, along with its roots in the current urban-rural divide.

Giving life to these abstract realities is the burgeoning public protest in China, now consisting of literally hundreds of thousands of mass incidents a year—threatening to halt or even overturn the entire extreme “market-reform” model.5

China’s reliance on its “floating population” of low-wage internal migrants for most export manufacture is a source of deep fissures in an increasingly polarized society.

And connected to these economic and social contradictions—that include huge amounts of land seized from farmers—is a widening ecological rift in China, underscoring the unsustainability of the current path of development.

Nor are China’s contradictions simply internal.

The complex system of global supply chains that has made China the world’s factory has also made China increasingly dependent on foreign capital and foreign markets, while making these markets vulnerable to any disruption in the Chinese economy. If a severe Chinese crisis were to occur it would open up an enormous chasm in the capitalist system as a whole. As the New York Times noted in May 2011, “The timing for when China’s growth model will run out of steam is probably the most critical question facing the world economy.”6 More important than the actual timing, however, are the nature and repercussions of such a slowdown.

Capitalist contradictions with Chinese characteristics

For many the idea that the Chinese economy is rife with contradictions may come as something as a surprise since the hype on Chinese growth has expanded more rapidly than the Chinese economy itself.

As the Wall Street Journal sardonically queried in July 2011, “When exactly will China take over the world? The moment of truth seems to be coming closer by the minute. China will become the largest economy by 2050, according to HSBC. No, its 2040, say analysts at Deutsche Bank. Try 2030, the World Bank tells us. Goldman Sachs points to 2020 as the year of reckoning, and the IMF declared several weeks ago that China’s economy will push past America’s in 2016.” Not to be outdone, Harvard historian Niall Ferguson declared in his 2011 book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, that “if present rates persist China’s economy could surpass America’s in 2014 in terms of domestic purchasing power.”7

This prospect is generally viewed with unease in the old centers of world power. But at the same time the new China trade is an enormous source of profitability for the Triad of the United States, Europe, and Japan. The latest round of rapid growth that has enhanced China’s global role was an essential component of the recovery of global financialized capitalism from the severe crisis of 2007–09, and is counted on in the future.

There are clearly some who fantasize, in today’s desperate conditions, that China can carry the world economy on its back and keep the developed nations from what appears to be a generation of stagnation and intense political struggles over austerity politics.8

The hope here undoubtedly is that China could provide capitalism with a few decades of adequate growth and buy time for the system, similar to what the U.S.-led debt and financial expansion did over the past thirty years. But such an “alignment of the stars” for today’s world capitalist economy, based on the continuation of China’s meteoric growth, is highly unlikely.

“Let’s not get carried away,” the Wall Street Journal cautions us. “There’s a good deal of turmoil simmering beneath the surface of China’s miracle.” The contradictions it points to include mass protests (rising to as many as 280,000 in 2010), overinvestment, idle capacity, weak consumption, financial bubbles, higher prices for raw materials, rising food prices, increasing wages, long-term decline in labor surpluses, and massive environmental destruction. It concludes, “If nothing else, the colossal challenges that lie ahead for China provide an abundance of good reasons to doubt long-term projections of the country’s economic supremacy and global dominance.” The immediate future of China is therefore uncertain, throwing added uncertainty on the entire global economy. As we shall see, not only might China not bail out global capitalism at present, an argument can be made that it constitutes the single weakest link for the global capitalist chain.9

At question is the extraordinary rate of Chinese expansion, especially when compared with the economies of the Triad. The great divergence in growth rates between China and the Triad can be seen in Chart 1 (below), showing ten-year moving averages of annual real GDP growth for the United States, the European Union, and Japan, from 1970 to 2010. While the rich economies of the United States, Western Europe, and Japan have been increasingly prone to stagnation—overcoming this in 1980–2006 only by means of a series of financial bubbles—China’s economy over the same period (beginning in the Mao era) has continually soared. China managed to come out of the Great Financial Crisis period largely unaffected with a double-digit rate of growth, at the same time that what The Economist has dubbed “the moribund rich world” was laboring to achieve any positive growth at all.10

From Links International

Read further
http://links.org.au/node/2740