💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001133.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:48:22.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

2 articles

	
******************************************************


       **  Can we take on the multinationals?  **

PACKARD HIGHLIGHTS the power of the multinationals.  
Owned by the giant General Motors, they laid down the 
law and got away with it.  38 people who had already 
been laid off were made redundant, 400 more laid off 
(and are not expecting to be called back), and the 
remaining 450 are working a 41 hour week for 39 hours 
pay.  The firm is promising to pay retrospectively for 
the extra two hours at some undefined later date.  In 
the meantime the unpaid hours have been used to finance 
the redundancies.  And ironically, as the laid off 
workers left the plant on June 23rd, some of the 
remaining staff were put on overtime. 

With 40% of the workforce in manufacturing industry 
employed by multinationals a realistic strategy is 
needed to stop them playing off workers in different 
plants against each other.  Without a strategy the 
bosses can get away with wage and job cuts by 
threatening to move production to other locations if 
they don't get their way.

Most negotiations between big multinational firms and 
their workers are dealt with on either a plant-by-plant 
or a national basis.  However times do arise when the 
head office decides to "draw a line in the sand" and 
make no concessions.  This can happen as part of a cost 
cutting programme (to boost profits) or as a lesson to 
their staff everywhere that management make the rules 
and woe betide any worker who gets in their way.  

Employers (are) offensive

For the past few years the employers have been on 
the offensive against us.  They want lower wage costs, 
lower staffing levels, more casualisation, more mega-
profits.  In 1993 the Financial Times spoke for many 
bosses when it wrote that one of the good things it saw 
going on in the "third world" was the pauperisation of 
the workforce and a high level of unemployment.  These 
were offering new ways to undercut what they called the 
"pampered Western European workers" with  their 
"luxurious lifestyles".  

So how do we deal with powerful multinational firms who 
often have an international income greater than the 
Irish government?  If we end up having to strike they 
can often pack their bags and move to another country; 
where they will receive another round of tax breaks, 
free workforce training and preferential treatment.  
They can't always do this, especially if they have a lot 
of investment tied up in the plant, but it is sometimes 
a real threat.  

Give 'till it hurts

And where there is no resistance to their demands 
they will keep coming back to insist on more 
concessions.  So what can be done?  In times when there 
is a higher level of militancy and solidarity among 
workers, action can be taken against their imports if 
they threaten to shut down their Irish plants. 

 This would entail winning the support of ferry 
crews, dockers, airport staff and road haulage drivers.  
Because this would run foul of both the Industrial 
Relations Act and the British anti-union laws it will 
not be organised by the union leaders.

Not only have most of them bought into "social 
partnership" politics but they also are afraid to risk 
their unions' funds.  They know that the state would 
seek to financially cripple them as a warning to others.  

The last time such an approach was tried was almost 
fifteen years ago during the Talbot Motors dispute.  It 
worked, with government forced to intervene and create 
jobs for the workers.  The key was not whether such 
action was legal or illegal but how much support it 
enjoyed from other trade unionists.  

Trusting the state?

Another tactic that is suggested at regular 
intervals is pressurising the government to save jobs.  
This suggests that the state is some neutral body that 
can be influenced to take the workers' side.  It isn't 
and it can't.  While on rare occasions we can take 
advantage of splits in government or impending elections 
to make small gains, we should remember that the state 
serves the interests of the bosses.  It has been called 
"the executive committee of the ruling class".

It is the state which entices multinationals to 
come here, which promotes Ireland as a country with low 
wages, generous tax incentives and the promise of a 
higher than average return on investment.  It makes no 
sense to expect this same state to turn around and 
support workers against their bosses.

As employers organise across borders, so should workers.  
There are international trade union federations for most 
industries (food, transport, chemicals, etc.).  
Unfortunately these are of little use when big business 
decides to play tough.  These federations do a useful 
job of collating information about health & safety 
legislation, making submissions to international 
conferences, and exchanging information about new work 
practices, but that is about all they do that is useful 
to rank & file union members.  They are run by senior 
union officials, members have little or no input into 
them.  The vast majority don't even know they  exist.

Break through the borders

Real face-to-face links are needed with workers who 
share the same bosses.  Shop stewards meeting shop 
stewards is the first step.  We need to reach a 
situation where if one plant is threatened the others in 
the multinational refuse to take on their work.  In most 
unions the leadership will not help to build such links, 
they are afraid of losing control over their members.  
Rather than support for such sensible initiatives we 
will be faced with condemnations of "unofficial" 
activity.  

Yet workers in GEC, IBM, Ford and many other firms 
have built links in the past.  The best way to start is 
for shop stewards to contact their counterparts in other 
parts of the firm, and then arrange to visit them.  A 
small levy on union subscriptions or a couple of 
shopfloor collections per year would pay for travel 
expenses.  From here we can work towards increasing co-
operation.  This could take the form of sharing 
information about what the firm is doing, what actions 
have worked in winning claims and ensuring effective 
blacking during disputes.

From there we can move on to extending co-operation 
and solidarity against the employers offensive.  Such 
organising should not be in opposition to the unions but 
should be independent of the officials - workers' 
organisation that is truly answerable to workers.

Alan MacSim?in


	
**********


          The Land of Opportunity

US LABOUR Secretary, Robert Reich, recently told an 
international gathering that sanctions should be 
enforced against only the very worst violators of 
workers rights.  

This means countries that rely on prison labour, 
suppress independent unions, or use force to break 
strikes.  The US fails even this relaxed standard.  
The economy increasingly uses prison labour (such as 
making furniture, processing airline and hotel 
reservations, and doing outsourced clerical work for 
wages ranging from $1 to $10 a day).  The government 
routinely suppresses strikes (airline attendants, 
railroad workers and teachers have all been ordered 
back to work by government decree in recent months).  
A growing number of US unions operate under court-
appointed "leaders".

Source: Libertarian Labour Review