Global Labor Strategies

Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Climate Change

As the global economy hurtles toward Great Recession II, the earth hurtles toward climate catastrophe.  Both represent the results of a neoliberal deregulation that has left humanity no means to shape our economies to serve human needs -- not even the need for economic and environmental survival.

How global movements respond to these intertwined environmental and economic crises will be key to our common survival. The politics will surely be complicated.  A case in point is an article in today's New York Times about the United Steelworkers union's WTO complaint against China for providing "illegal clean energy subsidies" to domestic solar, wind and other green industries.

To promote international dialogue on these questions, we thought it might be useful to post a recent paper, entitled "Globalization, Neoliberalism and Climate Change", which was prepared by GLS at the invitation of Professor Liu Cheng of Shanghai Normal University for an international conference this April on "Global Economic Recession vs. Deregulation" jointly organized by the Peking University Law School and the Shanghai Normal University Faculty of Law and Politics and supported by the ILO Beijing Office.  The paper stresses the interest of workers around the world in cooperating to create an alternative to neoliberalism based on making the transition to a green economy.

Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Climate Change: Toward a New Regulatory Regime

For thirty years, global and national economies have been guided by policies of neoliberal deregulation, often known as the "Washington Consensus." Neoliberalism has been disastrous for workers in most countries, pitting workers against each other in a race to the bottom and making it all but impossible to protect working class interests. There is now a growing consensus that the Washington Consensus has been a failure.

There is also a growing global recognition that we are in the midst of an unprecedented climate crisis. Ready or not, that crisis is affecting every nation, every locality, and every worker. Its effects are already serious, and unless decisive global action is taken to counter it, they will soon be catastrophic. Neoliberal deregulation, by dismantling the means for public steering of society to meet social needs, has also made it nearly impossible to correct global climate crisis.

These twin realizations, the failure of neoliberalism and the climate crisis, will define the struggle for the interests of poor and working people for the next century. At the same time, the necessity to counter climate change may provide an opportunity to address the broader problems of neoliberal deregulation.

This article argues that it is only by rolling back neoliberalism that we can protect the rights of workers globally and solve the crisis of climate change. In Part 1 we provide a short history of globalization. In Part 2 we discuss the climate crisis and its effects on workers. In Part 3 describes proposals for a "global green new deal" to create full employment through climate protection. Part 4 argues that a new global and national regulatory regime is necessary both to counter both climate change and the race to the bottom. Part 5 discussions the role of organized labor nationally and globally in bringing about such a transformation.

Trouble at Wal-Mart: The Rocky Road to Labor Reform in China

The industrial relations system in China is in play as workers, peasants, corporations, and a variety of civil society, state, and party actors vie to determine its future.  Now the collapse of the global financial system and the likelihood of a deep global recession/depression add a whole new dimension to the struggle of Chinese workers and reformers for a more equitable system. Global markets for goods made in China will shrink. Thousands of foreign companies with operations in China could be swept away or be forced to significantly downsize. Indeed, even global giants like automaker GM, one of China's biggest auto producers, are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. China’s banking system—while somewhat isolated from global pressures—is likely to feel the effects of the financial crisis. No one knows what effect the crisis will have on the value of the vast quantities of the US dollars and debt that China currently holds.

Against this back-drop we take a look at aspects of the Chinese industrial relations system before China is sucked into the vortex of a global recession.

Trouble at Wal-Mart

It has been two years since the ferociously anti-union Wal-Mart recognized the ACFTU in its stores. The event made headlines around the world.

Under Chinese labor law if 25 workers petition for a union, a committee can be elected and the union must be recognized. Normally this is a top-down pro-forma affair in which both management and the official union play a part, but in this case, Wal-Mart’s refusal to play by the normal rules forced the ACFTU to actually recruit workers at the workplace and establish the union without management participation. Once Wal-Mart recognized the first union branch, at its Fujian store, recognition quickly followed at Wal-Mart’s other Chinese facilities. Today, the ACFTU says it represents 50,000 Chinese workers at 108 Wal-Mart locations in China. Many hoped the Wal-Mart experience would be a breakthrough in the development of the Chinese industrial relations system and in the evolution of the ACFTU. Things have not turned that way.

We have a good glimpse into the world of Wal-Mart’s workers through voices of the workers themselves as they discuss and debate--and criticize--the actions of Wal-Mart and the ACFTU in on-line blogs. Some of these discussion threads, as well as relevant articles from the Chinese press, have been translated by the excellent, and increasingly indispensible, China Labor News Translations (CLNT). Read them here.

Wal-Mart has not engaged in serious collective bargaining and the ACFTU has fallen into a typically cozy relationship with Wal-Mart’s management. After Wal-Mart and the ACFTU signed a substandard contract at a store in Liaoning province, the company presented the agreement as a template for contracts at stores throughout China and essentially refused to bargain any further. Among the contracts provisions were a pay increase that did not keep up with inflation and which will not come into effect until mid-2009.  According to CLNT report, “Many individual store unions were not even given a chance to sign the template themselves. Indeed in Shenzhen City, for example, the Buji store has signed a collective contract on behalf of fifteen other outlets in surrounding areas.”

For its part, the ACFTU defends its approach to bargaining with Wal-Mart. According to Zhang Jianguo, the ACFTU’s director of collective bargaining, the new contracts require annual negotiations, wages above the minimum wage, and contain language on working hours, vacations, and social security and training.

But workers at Wal-Mart’s Bayi store wanted to negotiate a better agreement. A grassroots leader, Gao Haitao, who has become a hero to Wal-Mart workers throughout China for his combative defense of Wal-Mart workers’ interests, organized a fight back and made new demands in negotiations with management. Instead of negotiating, “Wal-Mart simply bypassed Gao by convening the staff and workers’ congress and finding a trade union chair from another store to sign the contract in his place!”, according to CLNT.

The ACFTU—which says it supports Gao—stood by while Wal-Mart refused to bargain leading the CLNT to conclude. “….the experience of Gao Haitao and the farcical top-down collective bargaining contract negotiation procedure shows that there is no genuine collective bargaining by workers’ representatives. When a Wal-Mart union did come out to negotiate a good contract, the ACFTU did not tender its support.” As a result of Wal-Mart’s actions Gao resigned from his job in frustration in September in a move that many see as a blow to authentic union development in China.

A GLS Report Back: The Crisis in Chinese Industrial Relations

Take a walk through Beijing or Shanghai or any big Chinese city and you will experience, in a very tactile way, China’s economic miracle. The forest of construction cranes, the neighborhoods being torn down and rebuilt, the shops bursting with consumer goods, the traffic clogged streets, and a prosperous looking citizenry all speak to the country’s remarkable achievements. China’s 20 year run of nearly double digit growth has transformed an economic basket case into a world economic power.

Look a little closer and you can see another side to China’s spectacular growth. The temporary dormitories on building sites for migrant construction workers, the barracks-like housing in the factory districts, the train stations full of workers with bindles or cheap suitcases coming from or going to their hometowns in the provinces. These images graphically portray the turmoil of life for large segments of the Chinese working class and they beg the big question yet to be answered: what role will workers have in the new economic order?

In this and a following post we offer some observations gleaned from recent conversations by GLS staff with dozens of knowledgeable observers—including workers—in China, in the US, and in Europe about what is currently happening inside and outside of China in the battle for economic fairness and labor rights and why it matters for workers everywhere.

Labor’s Opening to China

The announcement in December by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that it would begin a “dialog” with the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) marks a sea change in global labor’s approach to China.  Equally significant is the endorsement of the talks by the AFL-CIO.  Until now, the ITUC, the AFL-CIO, and most national labor federations shunned official contacts with the ACFTU—China’s sole legal union—because they did not consider the party-state controlled organization a legitimate representative of China’s workers. 

But, according to Guy Ryder, the ITUC’s General Secretary,

“By starting a dialogue with the Chinese trade union, ITUC wants to have more influence on the ground in China….It should enable us also to discuss the role of China in the world.”

The action actually caps a gradual shift toward engagement with China by unions from around the world. Some European unions affiliated with the ITUC have been active in China for over a decade. The Change to Win federation in the US began talks with the ACFTU last year. Officials have exchanged visits and plans are underway to expand contacts in the coming months.

The policy shift by the ITUC, the AFL-CIO, and other global unions is long overdue. Three decades of rapid economic growth have transformed China from an economic backwater into the world’s workshop.  Workers, trade unions, communities, and countries throughout the world are confronting the challenges posed by China’s growing role in the world. Today, about 25% of all the workers employed in the global economy are Chinese.  The “China price” sets the global norm for wages and working standards up and down the value chain, from inexpensive garments to sophisticated electronics.  As a result the hard-won gains of workers in the global North are being rapidly undermined, while the aspirations of workers in the developing world are being dashed, as China becomes the wage setting country in industry after industry.

China’s export oriented development model has had a particular impact on trade unions everywhere. Multinational corporations—the very firms that employ millions of union members around the world—have flocked to China seeking to take advantage of its low wage workers and business friendly policies, reducing labor’s bargaining leverage and the number of union jobs. These firms have been central to China’s development. Roughly 66% of the increase in Chinese exports in the past 12 years can be attributed to foreign owned global companies and their joint ventures. (Stephen Roach, Business Times, Singapore, 8/8/06) These companies account for 60% of Chinese exports to the US. Despite all of the talk in the current presidential campaign, the “Chinese threat” is less about trade with China than it is about “trade” with US based companies like Wal-Mart, GE, or any of the other of the hundreds of Fortune 500 companies that have set up shop in China to cuts labor costs and avoid environmental regulations. Ways, however imperfect, must be found to reach out to Chinese workers to find mutually acceptable ways to halt a global race to the bottom, which in end, hurts all workers.

The Smithfield and Wackenhut RICO Suits: Forward into the Past

(second in a series)

In our last post we described how the RICO suits filed by Smithfield Packing and Wackenhut Corporation represent a sharp escalation in the long standing corporate assault on human and labor rights. Not content with stripping workers and their organizations of fundamental labor rights, big corporations are now going after basic constitutional rights. We argued that these suits threaten the civil rights not just of unions but of everyone.

There is a back story to these suits that stretches to the birth of the US labor movement over 200 years ago when conspiracy laws were first used to prevent workers from forming unions.

Unions as conspiracies

In 1806, members of the Federal Society of Journeyman Cordwainers—an association of Philadelphia shoemakers--— went on strike to demand higher wages.  In response, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania went to court charging that the action by the 12 year old union was a “criminal conspiracy” since, according to prosecutors, the union used unlawful coercion to achieve its economic goals—for instance, union shoemakers refused to do business or associate with bosses or workers who did not abide by its wage rates and standards.  In a sign of the anti-labor legal bias that would inform much of US history, the prosecution was instigated and paid for by the employers. The government won. The union was broken and its leaders fined. 

In those bad old days, courts defined the effort of workers to organize  as a purely economic question. According to prevailing elite views, unions interfered with the  smooth functioning of the labor market, making them a restraint of trade.  The labor market was viewed like any other market with labor as a commodity like any other commodity.  For most of the 19th century and part of 20th century courts with few exceptions ruled that whenever workers banded together “in combinations” they were engaged in illegal conspiracies. Injunctions generally followed.

Smithfield Packing v. The Constitution

(first of a series)

A Federal court in Virginia ruled on January 29th that Smithfield Packing could proceed with a civil lawsuit filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against the United Food and Commercial Workers, Jobs With Justice, and others. At issue is a corporate campaign spearheaded by the union to support its organizing drive at Smithfield’s Tar Heel North Carolina pork processing plant. The action if successful could push the US labor movement into a legal black hole in which it could vanish.

The suit is one of two recently filed by corporations that threaten to turn the US labor rights clock back to the 19th century by dusting off the use of conspiracy laws to stop union activities. The suit attacks basic rights of free speech, free association, and criminalizes the legislative process by undermining the right to petition government. It affects not just unions but activists and advocacy organizations engaged in corporate campaigns no matter what the cause.

In what appears to be a new corporate legal offensive against organized labor, in November, the Wackenhut Corporation, a US subsidiary of the British based Group 4 Sericour, filed another RICO  suit, this one against SEIU for activities surrounding the union’s attempt to organize workers employed as security guards by the company. In this and subsequent posts we will mainly focus on the Smithfield Packing suit since the brief has been made public and is posted on-line.

Beyond China's New Labor Contract Law

China’s new labor code went into effect on January 1. It could have important consequences for workers in China and in the rest of the world.

The Financial Times on January 2 reports that,

Employers in China fear that a new labour contract law that took effect on Tuesday will intensify growing pressures on manufacturing costs by enhancing the bargaining power of workers.

We estimate that, added together, labour costs [in mainland China] will be close to 40 per cent higher for this year [2008],” said Willy Lin, Hong Kong-based managing director of Milo’s Knitwear (International) Group.

Mr Lin says the new labour contract law, which will make it harder to dismiss workers, could increase costs by about 8 per cent this year, with the rest of the increase caused by higher minimum wages, social security payments and the renminbi’s steady appreciation against the US dollar.

The new law was designed to address some of the rampant abuses in Chinese industry including long hours, dangerous working conditions, and employers that cheat workers out of wages or delay payments.  But like all laws everywhere, the new law will be worth little if it is not interpreted broadly and enforced strictly. If the past is any guide, this could be a problem. China has been notoriously lax in enforcing labor laws. Absent vigorous enforcement, the new law could lead to workers being squeezed even harder in an effort to keep labor costs down. 

A Call to Action

China’s new Labor Contract Law will become effective on January 1, 2008. At that time companies will be required to provide a written contract to each employee and to provide a handbook of company policies and procedures developed in consultation with worker representatives.

The new law gives new rights to employees and imposes new responsibilities on employers. There is evidence that some companies are taking evasive action to avoid complying with both the letter and the spirit of the law. This has provoked a great deal of controversy in China.

Last year, as the new law was being drafted, foreign corporations and their business associations took strong exception to some of its provisions. As a result changes were made in later drafts to address corporate concerns. Following passage, foreign corporations and their business associations pledged to support the law and abide by its provisions.

Given the public controversy in China over corporate compliance with the new law, it is time for trade unions, worker rights advocates, and political figures around the world to insist that foreign companies and their suppliers prove compliance with the new law and respect for their employees’ rights under the new law. They should demand that foreign corporations take the following 3 steps to prove compliance:

1. Make public the templates of the contracts that they are offering to their employees.
2. Make public copies of company policies and procedures handbooks with a description of how they were written.
3. Make public any instructions that they have issued to their suppliers and the measures that they plan to take to insure compliance by their suppliers.

Foreign companies and their business associations regularly insist that they are law abiding and committed to promoting strong labor rights and legal standards in China. By making key documents public they can demonstrate that commitment, on paper at least.

The time to act is now in the run-up to the Labor Contract Law’s implementation date on January 1, 2008. How the new labor law is implemented in China should be of concern to everyone who supports labor rights and adherence to the rule of law. Trade unions around the world should demand compliance and transparency from the companies that employ their members, from companies which they hope to organize, and from companies in the industries in which they are active. Non-Governmental Organziations working on labor and human rights issues should demand compliance from the companies and industries that they target. And governments in countries around the world should take steps to insure that multinational companies headquartered in their jurisdictions comply fully with both the letter and spirit of China’s Labor Contract Law.

The Battle for Labor Rights in China: New Developments

Here is a review of the fast moving and important developments in the run-up to the January 1, 2008 implementation of China’s new Labor Contract Law.

As we reported in our last post, Huawei—the Chinese owned telecommunication company with ties to many foreign firms—recently instituted a personnel program widely believed to be an effort to avoid a key provision in China new Labor Contract Law.  That provision automatically grants open ended contracts to workers with either 10 years of service or two consecutive fixed term contracts.  Open ended contracts allow workers much more job security—since there is no renewal date and workers can only be removed for just cause—and they provide for more severance pay should a layoff occur. Under Huawei’s program 7,000 long term workers were offered economic incentives to quit and be rehired on 1 to 3 year fixed term agreements. The layoff program was widely reported in the Chinese press and roundly criticized by labor rights advocates inside and outside the government.

Now, under intense pressure from the public and the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), China’s sole legal union, Huawei has suspended the program.

There is a widespread sense that many firms are engaging in similar practices as they position themselves for life under the new law.

And it's not just Chinese owned firms. Wal-Mart has also come under scrutiny in the Chinese media for some staff reductions. According to the independent on-line Asia Sentinel:

Dong Yu Guo, Public Relations director of Wal-Mart China, told the Jing Hua Times newspaper that the reshuffle of its employees is not aimed at the new labor contract law. Dong noted that Wal-Mart China has two business areas ‑ procurement for its worldwide operations and stores for the local market. Yu said the staff reduction is not going to affect its nearly 100 department stores and Sam’s Clubs, and that more hiring beyond the current 44,000 employees in the retail division is expected.

However, on October 22, the Global Procurement Center for Wal-Mart announced in an internal meeting that more than 100 employees had been laid off, including 40 in Shanghai and 60 in Shenzhen. A woman who works in the Shenzhen center, who asked not to be named, said she has been working there for four years and was laid off last month. She was told she would receive three months salary plus some additional compensation. She said she expected to be off for one to two months before returning to the company.”

Are US and EU Corporations Complicit in Evading China’s New Labor Law?

Evidence is mounting that they are. In a recent post we reported that some firms in China are firing workers in the run-up to the implementation of China’s new labor contract law which grants more rights to workers. Now it appears the problems are widespread and that foreign corporations--including Walmart--may be complicit.

In the interim period between the law's passage on June 29th, 2007 and its effective date on January 1, 2008 employers must bring personnel policies into compliance. Among its provisions, the new law requires a written contract for each employee; encourages open ended contracts rather than fixed term agreements; makes dismissals more difficult; automatically grants open-ended contracts to workers with 10 years of service; and requires that many company policies and procedures be negotiated with employee representatives.

Corporations are looking after their own interests: as 2008 nears, law firms and HR consultants are hard at work giving advice and holding seminars on how to best deal with the new law and HR staffs are drafting new contracts and policies. For workers it’s a different story. At a meeting here in the US last week a visiting Chinese scholar called the current situation “a-symmetrical”.  Citing the example of one firm that has laid off workers to avoid provisions of the new law he asked, “Who is looking out for the interests of the employees?”  Who indeed!   Against the power of the employers, workers have been left to their own devices.