NOTES:  SEPTEMBER 11, 1999
     We began by examining worker rights, not as a microcosm but as it fits into a broader picture: the economic, political, ethical consequences.  There will always be two sides to everything and many strong beliefs in cultures that will argue our own universally held belief concepts.  Economic arguments will be intermingled with ethical arguments.
     As a starting point, we looked for anything we could identify as being a necessary norm or standard.  Worker salaries were identified as an area where there should not be an argument/ there should be standards and international norms.  However, overseas there is a perception  that US demands ethical standards but no equity in pay or economics for the citizenry workers of the host nation.  One trick is to count unemployment in creative ways to enhance one's own argument.
     The UNA guide  makes us not so certain that we have it perfect here.  It shakes us up.  We based WWII on this concept of ethics and standards.  The creation of the United Nations came out of the League of Nations.  We must realize that a world without war is a world of rules.  Some of those rules are for trade purposes and some for labor ( ILO.)  Over time we've narrowed these rules, but ethical standards are used as guidelines.  Some people want sanctions when the rules are not followed.  Some say we should question the rules and standards.  Still others are frightened at the thought that  established "rights" are now in question and could be lost or dismantled.
     The problem is often a conflict of cultures.  Every time you open a door for people there is a natural tenancy, no matter who you are, to want rights, to demand rights; these things are not detached.  Would paying more for our imports destabilize our own economy?  Markets are centered on keeping products moving through interest rates.  But look at Europe,... those workers with good jobs are OK.
     There has to be some consideration for political stability.  That has to be a universal norm.  Prevention from corruption and cronieism could be viewed as a standard to reach for. In Europe, one of the large areas of concern GM- genetic production of goods.  Whoever produces controls the world.  That is the potential problem.
     Media is not sharing information  or reporting well around the world.  Different countries have varying priorities.  They respond to U.S. control efforts in a variety of ways.  In Brazil there is a movement not to pay the national debt.  The same is happening in other South American countries.  We don't acknowledge their concerns or even respond, as if their arguments mean nothing.  We have lost industrial capacity so we need to become the national bankers of the world.
    There is a universal feeling that there should be a guideline to temper trade with human and worker rights guidelines.   There is a tenancy to feel that everything we do is self serving, but it's not.  Worker rights are violated in every country (here in the US too.)  Arguments in the U.S. and in the world bank as well as everywhere need to ask how the social concerns being imposed will impact the culture at large.  Education is a good thing, we all agree.  But in some countries, once the general population start learning to count, learning to read... they may be perceived as being dangerous.
     So should we try to regulate the labor market? The overwhelming response was yes, because if it goes unchecked, we will end up with all the abuses we despise in other countries filtering into the U.S.  Ethical , health, labor... all standards: do we want to homogenize and lower them?  India is the #1 country demanding that standards be lowered.  Culturally they say this doesn't fit with their culture or for those who need to work.  India is so diverse that it seems impossible for anyone to generalize in this way.
     Culture is a strange factor in this argument.  Because of culture, values become deeply embedded and accepted.  People come to think certain customs or ways of doing something are part of human nature and they don't question.  These cultural arguments can have serious and devastating effects on factors like the environment.  An example of this is the battle between global warming activists and economic development advocates.  The issues are complicated and serious.   We approach the world part of the time as a patient and a part of the doctor .  We do this all at the same time.  But in any policies or actions we need to focus on our need to do no harm.  This is a principle we should all recognize.  Also economic regulations; the trick is to find a few basic principles and then see how it all shakes out.  Whatever the rules, people will find a way to do business  but you still need a framework or else things get totally out of wack; somebody sells a rainforest and clearcuts it.
     So what are commonly held values of our society... freedom of association?  Every society has that value.  Are there other common values or are all things relative?  One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. is its ability to harness the creative energies of a variety of people and be greater than the sum of its parts.  But does our focus on individualism allow us to justify and deny our own faults as a nation?   Is it fair to have such large discrepancies in income?  Let's look at our own economy.   How can we understand the world without understanding ourselves?  We have been pushed in the direction of protecting the rights of capital.  Communications, TV,  have made propagandizing possible on such a grand scale that they have influenced our culture and many others around the world.  The global marketplace has been a race to the bottom for cost with greed in the drivers seat.
 Is this the way the world has always run?  Over history- if you discovered how to use iron or archers you were in charge for a while and right now we have the global corporate raiders and the rest of the world is stunned until we find a way to overcome that... growth for the sake of growth.. until the world becomes unlivable?  What can be done along the way?
     We wondered why this theme was chosen by the UNA?  Doesn't this discussion fly in the face of their business interests?  We surmised that it might be possible that problems are being anticipated and this may be an effort to face the problems that have potential to blow up or have already blown up in other countries.  As it stands today, the United Nations is blind to multinational companies over seas.  Should there be a role for the UN in enforcing standards?  However, until the U.S. cleans up its act it is difficult to dictate to any standards others.
    Are we satisfied with our own society?  How can we define "worker fairness" in the US?  Look at congress, they want to revamp labor legislation to allow for less control... this is a new economy... values have changed... have they?  Some countries allow workers shares of the company  and ask, why do we need a union?  Unions are often perceived as aggressive and angry..  But without an aggressive tension how can they be taken seriously?
     Do we want full employment?  there was always full employment under slavery.  Shouldn't it be a basic right for workers to withhold their labor?  Government has intervened often with brut force against the union and supporting the company interests.  History has all too often chosen to document the contributions and nobility of the industrial giants and ignore the contributions of labor.
 Again we ask, what kind of society do we want?  If we need an educated citizenry we will surely discourage child labor.  If we want to prioritize family life will we discourage overtime?  Do we really want full employment?  There is a price tag on everything we want as a society.  How much are we willing to pay?
     If we begin focusing on the rights of labor to organize and negotiate in general don't we need to regulate areas of industry not covered by unions?
     What kinds of policy are really going to strengthen a society?  We continue to hear that community involvement is on the decline.  People don't know their neighbors.  When we had extended families we had fewer demands on the broader society.   Do we want all pervasive government? Do we believe community will organize to force government to produce the climate where it is easy to belong and join a union or to support families by paying living wages?  Someone suggested that unions need to tell members to become involved in community, give money to charity.  However, it was pointed out that charities such as the United Way (and many other charities) could not survive without the vast donations garnered from worker paychecks and especially in unionized workplaces.  Another participant relayed the story he heard about McDonalds, when they opened in Bolognia wanting to pay low wages but were forced by the community to change policies.  We often tend to look at the pieces but not at the grand design.  Employers can afford to play the time game and discourage unions until they go away.
     As workers earn more they purchase more goods.  This process builds the economy.  What is a family living wage or living wage and who decides it? How do laws actually get implemented?  What basic rights can we identify as basic for mankind?  Is political will such that those rights will be enforced?  Free speech is not a right, it is a freedom.  So is the freedom to freely petition the government.  Should it be a right or a freedom to  meet and freely form a union?  By law employers would have to recognize a union once its voted in.  This is the right of association and to be recognized in front of the owner.  Doesnt a worker have a right to his own time?  But do we legislate or negotiate these rights?  We agree that we have certain ethics and values that need to be implemented but they are no substitute for industrial democracy.
    So what about child labor?  Should that be negotiable?  What price is paid by a nation for promoting that?  But when you teach, you give power.  We need to define: who are the "people"/ the commoner?  the wealthy? the owners?  People send  donations  and believe they belong to something and are contributing, but are they really?  If we get too broad in policy recommendations will be attacked?  Should we be fearful of attack?
 

NOTES:  SEPTEMBER 18, 1999

     Capital and labor both need regulation to prevent abuse.  Today unions are somewhat marginalized and may need more power to achieve balance.  When people are being mistreated, how can they pass on respect to the customer?  Management talks of employees as partners and shareholders but management doesn't treat employees like partners or stakeholders.  The real analogy of the treatment is closer to slavery, not a partner relationship.  Do we need an outside entity to play referee?  If so, what about federal, state and county governments that often exempt themselves from laws they impose on the private sector?  We used to have civic minded citizens who held office in our community... but nepotism and lack of fairness have all but killed public spirit?
     The political process needs balance too.  Corruption enters into any institution.  We need rules that give us fair play.  People need a sense of fairness.  But if a country is less developed can they be entitled to play by other rules?  Safety hazards, the environment,  human rights are often cast aside.  Workers in these countries say nothing because they are grateful to have a job and afraid of losing it.  But let us examine this further.  Say that you are an employer and you have to pay for gloves for your workers.  In Haiti they can't afford gloves so they work without them.   That's OK.  But when we try to level the playing field world wide are we doing this out of motives for ourselves so that we can more freely compete?
     Organizing attempts typically come from dissatisfaction.  Organizing success usually stems from power within the markets, scarcity.  There is something precious about a productive relationship.  Prior to unions all the jobs were dangerous.  Now that we have international unions maybe they can be the evangelists of safety.  Doctors found that even they needed strength in numbers.
 As we look for universal rights, freedoms and values, what about valuing old age and elders in a community?  Should it be a right to grow old?  Do we support it through our policies and work relationships?   Do we factor it in as a right not to spend old age in poverty, but with dignity?  The boss only considers bottom line.
     In disagreement, some employers know that if they are good to employees they can go farther.  By building a working relationship their workers are more productive and satisfied.  Globalization separates the employer from employee and cuts communication and relationship building.  Global corporations no longer look at relationships but at the bottom line.  The bigger the industry gets, the farther away they get from the worker.  Workers need the universal right to organize.
 There is a tension that exists between mission and democracy models.  In a democracy everyone has a choice and there is some sense of ownership of ones rights.  In a missionary model or patriarchal model, workers or common people are taken care of by the government or the wealthy who make the choices that are "best" for all.  This tension makes it difficult to implement universal standards or rights.  But if we equate the standards to the standard of living,  people have to live like human beings.
     What if you can't afford to pay your workers more?  Sometimes business has risk factors and is in transition.  Business needs to have the ability to decide when to hold and when to cut costs to move forward.  Corruption is not appreciated by business either.  That is the major deterrent from investment in the former Soviet Block nations right now.  Businesses need the freedom to make changes and change jobs.  Most people want a job, not a business.  The human mind works off the "greed factor."  People want to maximize their efforts.
     Today, more and more professionals are realizing they need unions.  The level of unions has gone down in industry but is rising in other sectors because the need is there.  Most countries have some degree of freedom to unionize but is still illegal in some countries.  In Europe workers have more rights because of the rules in those countries.  The U.S. does not have the same rights  and the U.S. is not a good example of worker rights.  Spanish management gives 6 weeks of paid leave.. it's a given!  We, in the U.S., need to admit that we don;t have rights... we need rights!  Certainly we can take things to court but we may not prevail.  Sweden pays families to stay home with a newborn child.
     Did this country (the U.S.) make a conscious decision to get rid of unions?  They saw Japan getting ahead... needed to become more competitive.  Reagan made the announcement in 1976 with the airtraffic controllers.  Part-time temp positions are displacing and taking rights away from full-time workers.  Per diem positions are creating disposal workers with no relationship or obligations by the employers.  As long as people are willing to do it and it is legal, it will continue.  That is why the need for unions is greater today than ever before.  Earlier someone mentioned the violence factor in unionism.  That violence has been perpetuated by momentum.
     We need to concentrate on our own house first.  But can we do that without realizing our relationship to the global markets?  There are rules that have been developed in Europe in 18th century that we can well look at.
    People often respond by wanting to put up walls and keep "other" people out; protectionism.  We need to understand our interdependency.  We are just as victimized as the guy in Haiti.  International conventions, Roussonian liberal philosophy has all served to keep us in the dark about labor movements.  Organizing is a matter of power.
     What about homeless? We've given up a part of our social safety net. People are locked in low wage jobs and the state has no provision to take care of them.  There is nothing in the system to bump people up into the good jobs.  People lack the skills to navigate the systems.

    What other rights do people really need?  Maybe people need to know how to become part of the workforce.  Traditionally the role of government has been to provide a safety net and to provide rules to maintain some balance.
     NAFTA is terrifying and "Fast Track" seems to present an even greater  danger to democracy.  What has deregulation really done for the consumer?  None of us can really point to the advantages because none of our bills decreased as a result.  An elite society with cell phones  has become the norm.  The market favors those who can pay.  We, in the U.S., have always subsidized phone services.
     The UN needs to outlaw war as a means of settling disputes.  Use that money to settle problems of the world instead.  Does world peace stem from labor rights, or are labor rights really human rights?  Lack of living wage jobs and lack of food has always created labor unrest.  Is this unrest mainly economic (as in Columbia) or is it mainly ethnic unrest?  The reason people object to ethnic differences is when it is used to create economic unfairness. Buchanan says we don't want international organizations dictating to me and my culture.   He uses dehumanizing tactics which are seen as a necessity.
     People overseas expect us to lower our living standards to meet theirs.  We want to raise theirs.  The argument is that we need to take a little sliver off our living standard to make it work for the rest of the world.  The European Union has invested in human rights and they help others work into the EU.  In the richest moment of the U.S. we refuse to pay any assistance through foreign assistance- human rights, worker rights programs.  We are rightfully cynical but other than military aid we don't pay our fair share in world development.  We have evolved in standards and regulations over time.  Other nations want the ability to pollute like the U.S.did in the 50's so that they can compete.  Others want us to slow down and provide a market to them on their terms and they want part of our living standard.  Ireland - is backward but the EU has pumped millions of dollars into their education and given subsidies.  What did we do with NAFTA?  How did we prepare Mexico?  We drove people into cities, onto the boarders and across the boarders with a huge influx of Mexicans.  The Mexican environment is being contaminated.  Dade farm owners are happy when it profits them.  Is self-interest synonymous with greed?  EU policy is human and integrating.  Once we broke from Europe, but today we need to go back and reintegrate, and learn.
     We need to admit that we are an ethnocentric nation.  The ILO takes the best practice examples to look at and develop standards by internationally.  Standards are then set by consensus.  The way we are investing in other countries cannot last.  We have to think of the world and all the other countries as states within.  Let's upgrade standards of living for all with a respect for the wishes of the citizenry.  But no one wants to share the wealth in a community where they promote individual giving and where they crave tax rebates.

NOTES:  SEPTEMBER 25, 1999

     A new member joined the group and shared her perspectives on global worker issues within the disabled community.  She informed us that in Germany they have quotas in the workplace of 14 able bodied to 1 disabled.
    There are disabled workers rights to consider.  ADA legislation has been called the civil rights amendment for the disabled because it mandates that individuals be treated as different, not the same; “special education.”  The U.S. should do a better job of educating the public on this.  Some may continue to ignore the law.
     What authority do we have as individuals or small interest groups?
Another member responded, “A lot.”  He then explained that what drives the worlds economies is that we purchase the goods the world produces.  We have a right and the power to boycott.  In order to make changes we have to help people develop their own markets.  We have a right to choose purchases from countries that utilize human rights.  The trade deficit is killing us but we aren’t concerned.  Production costs in the U.S. are much too high to be competitive with most of the world.  Unilaterally, we need to make purchase descisions.  Will the average U.S. consumer be willing to pay more because of this?
     When we fought apartide in South Africa we were required to support certain standards.  In South Africa, the U.S. supported the constraint of companies (Sullivan Standards.)  This policy was not about labels but about investments under certain standards.  Municipal standards in Dade county state that the county won’t buy from employers who don’t uphold human rights.  The new living wage ordinance is saying yes we humans have a right to a certain living standard.
 How effective is the process of setting standards in changing practices?  AFL-CIO studies have shown that countries with human rights standards progress more than countries without and this comes after screening for bias from other variables.
     In West Virginia, and the hillbillies produce U.S. military uniforms at minimum wage.  Who’s exploiting in this situation, or is anyone exploiting?  They have people working, is that exploiting?
 It’s like the mindset south of the boarder.   The padron feels the is taking good care of the people.  It’s not that the cultural norm is different because it’s us.  We, in the U.S., refuse to stop exploitation.  We capitalize on short term gains and forget or ignore the fact that people need to earn enough to be able to purchase.  We haven’t done that in our trade agreements, not even for our closest neighbors in Mexico.
     Why can’t we do that for Mexico? We could, but the then we wouldn’t have the steady flow of cheap labor to do the dirty work and the hard jobs.  These are the people that stay in the ghetto or enclave all their lives and only listen to Spanish radio.  They don’t know how they are being screwed by their own people... the poor, not the middle class.  As a leading world nation we can do better than that.  And we did, we would look and feel better too.  The American people need to take control over our market and not let it become the market of last resort.  But people disassociate themselves.  So this problem grows larger each time we buy something from businesses that do not recognize human rights.  Education should be the answer.  If people were educated wouldn’t they think twice about making such purchases?
     But do we even have an option any more to buy goods “Made In the U.S.A.?”  U.S. goods are drying up and so are our choices.  Let’s suppose I am living in the other country and running my business?  I observe the influx of U.S. businesses, the unions, and I hate you all.  You are going to destroy my culture and my way of life and yet you call me the exploiter.  Chinese claim they would have chaos and kill each other without their current system.  To what degree can one country impose human rights on another?
     Can you impose rights if the people don’t want them?  Typically its not the people that don’t want rights, its the government and the people who are profiting from the exploitation.  Its difficult to gage what the people want across the board.  If one country wants to do the right thing... what will happen to them?  Let us look at Canada, they agreed with all the ILO conventions and  the original trade agreement with the U.S. hurt Canada.  Or let’s take a look at Ireland.  They have to raise standards, not as much as Srilanka, but they have become less competitive.
 Can one nation  decide to raise the standards or must all nations do it in concert?  That is why the ILO is positioned to address standards across the board globally.  Doing it one nation at a time is suicide.  China will eat them up in the marketplace.  China is eating them up anyway.  Srilanka lost its market last year. so to remain competitive they must lower costs and that translates to less for the worker.  Trade development under this model becomes a race to the bottom.  But what if we passed a regulation that we would only trade with countries who have certain minimum human rights standards?  Then the consumer pressure on trade works!  The U.S. has the power over the market to do this.  What holds them back is fear of the consumer response.
     How desperate is business to penetrate cheap labor markets?  First we must define “doing business” because they want to buy, not sell to the Chinese.  But what China wants is  access to our industrial secrets.  Trade in the China market is limited since few have money to buy the goods they produce.  In the example of cell phones- the technology is produced here but it is cheaper to manufacture elsewhere.  NOKIA brand was developed in Finland,but is produced in China today.  In the case of Boeing aircraft, they looked to foreign trade with a big emerging markets approach.  The Chinese told them, if you are going to sell us Boeing jets you must make part of them in China.  Thus, you will give us the technology to produce our own jets in the future.  In most industries technology secrets have been heavily guarded.  At the Corning Glass factory, part of the factory was off limits for touring to protect technological secrets.  China wants the technologies open.  In their Seattle plant, the Boeing technology is kept secret.  The same thing in happened to a Satellite company that did business in the Chinese market and is now under investigation for trading away national secrets.
     How does any of this benefit U.S. workers?  We need to clarify several things here.   U.S.  workers are not necessarily producing U.S. products.  Many U.S. companies produce with foreign workers.  Would consumers be willing to pay more for goods made by U.S. workers?  Our wages have lessened over time but we could still afford to pay a bit more.  But the U.S. culture is heavily driven by a ravaging consumerism.  That’s why people in developing nations hate us.  This concept gets even more complicated from individual to collective levels.  I may have stock in firms overseas that are exploiting workers.  Do I care?  Tourists  from other nations may enjoy visiting us and shopping here but they generally don’t approve .  This concentrated consumer culture is our problem.
     What about most favored nation approach to human rights standards?  The use of this approach seems to be disappearing rapidly.  Every time we sign a trade agreement we need to set these standards.  We need to do it unilaterally or multi-laterally.  We diminish our ability to act individually when we sign onto these things with no regard to human standards and it also diminishes our ability to right wrongs.  The U.S. is currently experiencing this problem within the area of copyrights.  When  another country abuses or violates our laws we want the power to do something about it.  Drug companies, music, videos are some of the  industries currently being undercut by knock-offs produced in foreign countries.  This is what happens when the government does not police laws properly in Honduras or Mexico or Taiwan.  Our government will support dire sanctions in copyright situations, yet continues to close its eyes to human rights violations.
     We need to clean up our own people who are exploiting before we point at others.  Even if we gave literacy to the people and a living wage, we must anticipate that internal revolution is one of the next steps.  The people become our friends and we, as U.S. business and consumers,  need the revolution.
     As we examined the power and impact of various strategies we recalled the farm Worker grape boycotts.  An international example was the boycott of Chilean fruit.  What was their impact on trade and markets?  At best, it was barely negligible.  It wasn’t until ships were being stopped  from entering the harbor that it mattered.  Governments don't fall from that kind of activity.  So what are the methods we can utilize that can make an impact?  There is a new movement from liberals and progressives to “301 case” these trade situations.  301 is a section of the U.S. commercial code for unfair trade practices such as dumping and other infringements.  But 301 has also been used for narrowing sanctions on industrial areas.  Steel dumping was most recent.  A 301 case could it be made for a U.S. company with a branch in Honduras.
     The question arises about how much of a role should government play; where are the limits set?  Government intervention does not replace the need for a civil society that is concerned about social issues.  On the other hand, when you start that educational process and people become aware, people often become numb and overwhelmed, confused, with an attitude of “live for today.”
     We have been considering vast cultural changes.  Where and how do we begin?   As we discussed earlier, we must begin across the board developing understanding  and concensus among workers as to why the trade off are necessary for all to survive.  We need to educate ourselves as workers on our global interdependence.  We are not alone.   We are not the best.  We have limitations.  We think we are on top of things and that we are keeping the world stable right now by buying everything up.  But once we have done that, what then?  How will we deal with the the worst cases?  Will we beef up our ability to intervene?  Will we formulate agreements with multilateral trade organizations to police conditions by  linking trade issues to worker rights?  We must convince our government to re-prioritize the issue of working conditions to produce a product.  This is always on the agenda but gets cut.  Europe needs to back this with money as well.  We need to establish some limits on CEO salaries.  Some say this is anti-American, however, they do not say it when it comes to limiting wages for auto workers or bus drivers.
     Will the US gov. force some sort of human rights within its trade agreements?  In the first GAT go-around in Uruguay, the U.S. government helped to develop some standards.  However, these were later put down by the liberal socialist governments of Europe.  While the Europeans are anxious to promote social equity within their own countries, they don’t offer their support of equity and human rights with their Asian trading partners.
    The U.S. becomes isolated so that when the moment comes to negotiate and settle on the trade issues, human rights is still dangling.  The language stays ambiguous and never becomes precise.  No one says, “ we refuse to leave the table until this thing gets decided!”  Europe doesn’t appear to have  made the transition to understand that they need to make these decisions across the board and raise all boats.  European economies are not as open as the U.S. economy.  Japan is leveling its economy by exploiting more and more in Southeast Asia.
     Why do “other” countries “exploit” but we need to be free to “develop?”  Why is it so important to fight for ILO standards?
     We need to fight for these standards because it would benefit us as workers in the U.S.  We don’t recognize this.  We think we don’t believe we need these standards.  We are told and we believe that our small businesses would soon become bankrupt if we imposed such standards on ourselves.  Looking at ourselves, health care at FIU has risen to 27% of our wage package.  National health care is still viewed as a socialist concept and as such is “un-American.” That is another powerful cultural argument against the ILO conventions.
     The largest problem with the ILO conventions is that the arguements have no teeth and serve to provide merely a little bit of sunshine and transparency.  It may seem that this is the nature of any legislation around worker rights.  However, new trade agreements are striving to become even more restrictive of worker rights such that they will have the ability to constrain democratic rights from a citizenry.  Trade agreements encourage language that restricts anything laws or policies that might take away from a corporation’s ability to compete.  This would give corporations  a preference over the democratic voice of the people in working with the citizenry of a nation to get them to comply.  This sounds like something unions should be worried about.  They are, but all people invested in democracy should be worried about this as well.
     In Miami, as in other cities, waiters have become age slaves, not professionals.  They grovel for tips.  This is a human rights issue.  Other countries have other issues.  Literacy is a major issue for many  women overseas.
     Looking at the ILO conventions, which would be more likely to be passed in our U.S. Senate?  Abolition of forced labor is the only one that has passed so far.  As a people we think our systems are doing fairly well.
    We assume that we have the right to organize and the right to a minimum wage.  However, these rights hinge on the ability of workers to obtain strength in numbers.  This is not a guaranteed right.
     What about the ILO convention on equal pay?  It describes standards based on comparable work in classes dominated by one or the other sex.
What is the message and effect on white males?  In Dade County there has been a problem for young able bodied white males who have been forced into occupations such as home health aids is that good?  Service industries and health care  may have some higher paying jobs but that is only because they are less attractive jobs with little room for advancement.  Years ago, white males had more opportunity.   20 years ago one could get a good paying, professional county job.  But conditions have changed in the county. First blacks, then women.  Why should white males be disadvantaged when they put their time in long ago?
     There were several reponses to this question.  First, we must recognize we are currently experiencing a depression in the economy .  To regain power within any industry  unions are necessary for workers.  Join a union or form one.  White males are the most difficult group to organize (according to AFL-CIO studies.)  The main factor contributing to this is that many white males believe they can negotiate better on their own.  They believe they are worth more on the open market and can thus demand more individually.  It is this same sense of arrogance and entitlement that leads to the second argument: who ever said the good jobs belonged to white males? Especially in the case of county jobs where wages are paid out of public tax dollars, everyone needs to have equal access to those good paying jobs.  No singular group has rights over others to access those jobs.  That last argument is mirrored in the way U.S. workers have often viewed foreign workers:  they are taking our jobs.  We have no rights to the jobs.  Now they are Korean jobs.  Tomorrow they may be Srilankan jobs.  We must recognize our interdependence and join together to act globally as workers.  That is why we need global standards and global rights.
     Attitudes and ethics are imported from your cultural background.  There is an Italian company in Miami where workers are treated as family.  They work at minimum wage and by the barter system.  Some companies lead by use of fear and intimidation.  They require 10-12 hour shifts and are strongly anti-union.  Conditions are dangerous with no job security.
     Unions need to prioritize on what is most winable.  There is a need to rise above the needs of just their own group and to promote the rights of all workers globally.  The advantages are demonstrated in local examples where the workforce reflects the diversity of the community as a whole.  We all become invested and we all benefit.  We must face the reality that we need each other and we can best help ourselves by helping each other.
     Each country faces its own challenges in overcoming trade barriers.
In South Florida we are in a good position to understand these issues and their consequences.  A collective effect takes place.  We in the U.S. value autonomy but don’t want to be accountable to government; “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
     We need to work with the ILO to examine the best practices from around the world, recognizing that we have a lot to learn from others.  We (the U.S.) can agree to a point, but with individual workers and consumers the issues get far more complicated.  We begin to realize that these policies impact not only the economy, but also, values about work and our social and cultural fabric.  We help but impact other nations and become impacted by other nations in this process.  Germany was cited as an example of this.  Since the fall of the Berlin wall,  East Germany  and West Germany have had many encounters of cultural differences that have impacted their productivity and social and cultural norms.  One such example was that of the construction trades.  In East Germany it was common practice for workers to sit at a job site waiting for materials to arrive.  In the West, workers would go to the providers to get the materials if they hadn’t been delivered.  All of Germany supports the restructuring effort.  However, prioritizing this collective effort at a national level  does not come without certain costs to the individual.

NOTES:  OCTOBER 2, 1999

     Reflecting on the discussion from last week,  families are being atomized and broken up.  Every member has a TV set, computers, their own phone. Families lose their unity and are separated.  So all have become consumers which is great for business but terribly destructive for society.
 Back to the broader issues, how useful are the ILO’s monitoring mechanisms in winning respect for the rights and standards written into its conventions?  Give the ILO the power to wage war?   Right now the ILO has the power to threaten.  So does the ILO try to force economic niceties?  The enemy is us but we are trying to leading the world, tell other how to do business.   Japanese companies can pay employees well because they produce high quality products.  As companies become more economically strong they are able to produce higher quality goods.  But it was the U.S. that brought the high tech to Japan; our robotics, our computers.  Germany  was the same story.
     The Muslim religion is against modernity as a mean to control their culture.   The U.S. has developed a new idea in world colonization.  U.S. corporations control nations without having the responsibilities of ruling or educating the citizens.  Do the people in these countries want the U.S. to bring opportunities have no control?  Who are those people?  Are they the common citizens or are they the ones in control?  What do they really want from the U.S.?  People want to keep their identity but they do not want to change their culture.  People want their children educated rather than working.  We all want things but we don’t want anybody to tell us what to want.
     There are people who are extremely wealthy,  the international jet set.  They have the power to set the rules and bring things together.  They impact culture and let us know what to need.  The U.S. culture is invasive and addictive.  People on an ordinary level are often shocked as our music  as it enters their environment.   A family in Afghanistan listens to it, looks at it and says, stop- I don’t want my child to be tattooed and morally bankrupt.
    Can we learn lessons from any other interventions?  How do you respect and not erode the morals of another society, yet not compromise on the abuses to human rights that might be part of that society?  The best advice may be what the natives should have done when the pilgrims landed, don’t allow anyone to land... kill them all.  But how can you compete, take risks, trade and be sure no one will take advantage?  It’s just too easy to do it.
     It was always so much easier on Star Trek where you had to follow the prime directive.  There is a need to have ethics that are built into your processes, and respect and nonintervention.  The codes of ethics in Star Trek always began with their own galaxy.  When businessmen travel somewhere to protect copyrights.... they exude America, American culture.  Even the Peace Corp people were not good ambassadors.  They sped through muddy back roads, spraying water onto the women in their special dresses coming home from the celebration.
     How do we view ourselves as we interact with people from other countries?  How is the ILO viewed by other countries?  First, we must remember the the U.S. is not the ILO, nor does it control the ILO.  The ILO headquarters is in Geneva, in Europe.  In Europe, the unions are stronger with a much higher rate of membership.  There is a strong history of social welfare and co-determination.  In the U.S., unions are not as powerful as management, especially the global corporations.
     Unions have played a vital role in the balance of power which determines social welfare standards.  Unions have increased living standards and serve as important buffer to labor unrest.  For some, all they know about unions is what they read in the newspapers about union bosses and big union crime.  Crime is not specific to any special group and no group is exempt.  And unions have had some criminals.  But most trade unionists are hard working people who never get notoriety for the good they are doing in the community.
     Why is it that we judge unions by a different standard?  We are incensed when we hear that teachers or, police or nurses want more money in their contracts, yet when CEOs or sports stars receive huge, multi-million dollar contracts we don’t even blink.  Many consider this to be fair because they’ve earned it.  To “earn” something implies that you acquire something that is owed to you.  It seems that there should be a point at which profits become excessive and the term “earn” no longer applies.  At that point ticket sales become too high for the average person to afford them, products cost too much or not enough money is being put back into renewing technologies and resources or paying workers.
     How do people get lured into this sense of entitlement?  Let’s call these people the arrogant elite.  These are the people who have so much money that they don’t believe they have to follow the same rules as the general population.  They are above the law with an assumption of entitlement.  Along with that notion is the sense of knowing what is best for the workers.  “I’m bringing this to the workers and increasing their standard of living.”  Certainly the Nike plant has changed the way of life for workers in Mexico but does anyone ask if it is for the better?  Has it raised the living standards?  We merely assume that it has.  But those Mexican workers cannot afford to buy the goods they produce.  We need to talk about more incrementalism, how it could work.  How about working with nations to develop a plan or process rather than absolute?  Some world leaders say that could throw the economy into chaos.
    How can we equalize or create any plan to get back on track?  Nations and people are at so many different levels of development.  So much depends on educational level.   Are they ready to move forward?  In prewar Germany, subsidized markets developed.  Worker attitudes and work ethics and practices supported that model.  40 years of communism changed the attitudes and ethics of workers in East Germany.  When the Berlin wall came down, West Germans became critically aware of these differences.  The attitude in East Germany was, “they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”  That was the joke, but it reflected a lot of truth about how workers had become accustomed to being taken care of.  They got paid whether they worked or not.  Some people lost their sense of initiative with no incentive to be productive.  This made East Germany extremely disadvantaged once they were thrown together with their West German counterparts.  You can see the same is happening with Cubans.  Recent Cuban immigrants don’t have the same incentives to fight for survival.  They feel entitled to be taken care of, that the U.S. should provide for them.  But with our social welfare mechanisms we promote that in terms of subsidies and food stamps that help create that mind set.
    It is a common perception that the first wave of Cubans to come to the U.S. were the oppressors or ruling class in Cuba.  They had plenty of money and they brought with them as much as they could.  This is they myth, but in reality many of the first Cubans were in favor of the revolution and had funded it.  The problem came when Castro took the leadership in the revolution.  He was not supposed to be the leader.  The people expected someone else to be in power.
     Today, German youth are angry.  Guest workers were subsidized for years to work the jobs that no one else wanted to.  But now the job market is tight.  Racism and ethnocentricity have been developing.  Germany has had a long history of bringing people in to do the work while their men went off to war.  Tensions are rising again as before each of the other two world wars.
 In the U.S. we face similar tensions.  Some of this is caused by the fact that baby boomers occupy the majority of the good jobs.  These boomers are not due to retire any time soon.  So what hope does this leave for America’s youth?  Also, we continue to import workers into the fields, factories and Silicon Valley because American workers are unable or unwilling to do the work.  We are also seeing racism and ethnocentricity building as a response to these factors.
     The United Nations is sponsoring a conference on the International Year of Older Persons, that will address the importance of developing a society that supports all ages.  The conference will be held on November 17, 8:00 A.M.-3:00 P.M., at the Biscayne Bay Marriott Hotel.
     How do you address issues of workers and whole economies of nations being forced out?  Should corporations be held accountable.  Can CEOs be held accountable on an individual level?  When there is massive pollution can we hold the oil companies accountable? Should salaries be controlled? When foreign corporations come into a country, should they pay fees for social service needs?  Should they sign contracts of corporate responsibility?
     In the newspaper, they recently ran an article about how the U.S. is allowing countries to default on their debts.  If you look at  the numbers of amounts owed, they are small comparatively.  Servicing debts is a high cost to these developing nations.  Some are paying 40-50% of their GNP just to back debt.  The U.S. has watched as loaned monies served to make the rich even richer; building palaces, buying Mercedes.  But is it fair to bankrupt the workers and common people by demanding repayment now?  What guarantee do we have that this will not continue?  Can we require a country to use the former debt money to go toward education and health care?  Some countries claim they have already paid back their debt.  But who is it that will not be repaid?  Is it the U.S. banks?  No, it is the American people since the government has underwritten the loan agreements.
     The International Monetary Fund has a program whereby a country has to agree to privatize within 5 years.  This results in the people of that country going without service for that period of time.  But the tradeoff is that the IMF says there will be no debt service for those 5 years.  So who monitors those processes and agreements?  When country X in Latin America defaults on its loans, under the Bradey Bill,  bank loans are guaranteed so that it is the people of the U.S. who have to pay if that country defaults.  The Pope has advocated for developed countries to wipe out debt.  But it is not the poor who will be shepherding the money.
     Developing nations are like the company towns of old.  The company gave you a job but they also owned your home, the store and anything else you needed.  If you got a raise, they merely increased your rent.  This method of control insured that you could never afford to leave.
     How can we exert any kind of controls on other countries?  Should we try?
     We, as members of a global society and as humans need to exert some control over atrocities: abuse of individuals, ethnic cleansing.  We might not agree with some suppression of rights but that does not rise to the level of an atrocity.  Custer’s last stand was considered an atrocity.  He met the Sioux on a battleground, lost and the U.S. declared it an atrocity, then wiped out the Sioux Nation.  Who decides what constitutes an atrocity; things offensive to me as a human being?  Another recent article in the daily paper described how a Korean woman tried to sue the Japanese government for sex slavery under Japanese occupation.  However, international law states that only governments can sue another government.  If GM moves to Mexico and mistreats employees I do not have a right to sue GM unless the laws in my country allow for that.
     Many countries have protectionist legislation favoring the  workers who are citizens of that nation.  When landed immigrant status laws passed in Canada in 1978, Canadian workers were given favor in hiring practices.
    Immigration has the potential for putting lots of people out of jobs.  Our computer companies continue to bring immigrants into the U.S.  Many of our U.S. students are pushed through schools without learning certain basic skills.  They haven’t got the skills needed for those computer jobs or else they are not willing to work for the low wages that someone from Asia or Southeast Asia might find acceptable.  Currently to import labor, the employer has to show an attempt to advertise and get affidavits that the position was unable to be filled within the U.S. labor pool.  The average American worker won’t take that job in Silicon Valley  at $30,000 because the cost of living is too high.  However, workers from other cultures are more likely to pool resources and make the sacrifices necessary to adapt.  $30,000 is a lot of money to many Southeast Asians.  This example extends to nurses.  If a hospital wants nurses to work for $35,000 per year and local nurses refuse, employers recruit Canadians and Philippinos.  U.S. nurses may be unemployed by these strategies.  Silicon Valley and most employers don’t care what color you are as long as you can do the job.
     This sounds like we are agreeing that companies should be allowed to continue to use: use labor, use people up unconstrained.  Do we agree that our economy and that of the world should be solely a profit driven free-market model?  Universities are moving to Research models which are basically a business model, driven by research dollars.  Ask anyone in Europe and they all know how good our universities are and how poor our K through 12 systems is.  Foreign students are big business for U.S. universities.  We do a poor job of preparing our own children for the university level and we don’t want to invest our tax dollars to improve the educational system.
     Everyone who cashes a social security check should be required to provide a certain amount of hours to aid to the schools and community.  The lottery was never supposed to supplant existing services.  It was supposed to give extra monies to education.  But now we use it as an excuse not to  increase educational funds in Florida.
     How do we make people and industries accountable for the social welfare?  The latest move to part time employment is killing our economy.  The fabric of our social safety net is wearing thin.  Many have no health care plans available and even when they do it is often too expensive to access.  A case in point: an undocumented Nicaraguan woman was treated for prenatal care right up until two months before giving birth.  Her doctor advises her to go to the emergency room at Jackson Memorial Hospital when she is ready to deliver because they are obligated to take her there.
     It is always easier to solve problems elsewhere, for other people.  It is difficult to go to another country and ask, “what do you want us to do for you?”  We need to take care of ourselves and our own problems.  We need to control our own people; develop solutions for our own people.  We keep thinking that we have to help others.  We have to recognize what we need to improve is us.  We don;’t educate our poorest for the workplace, we don’t provide health care for all.  We allow tremendous discrepancies between our most affluent and our poorest citizens.  If you were Castro, how would you answer that question,...”what can we do for you?”  Would the answer be,  leave us alone?
     The alien has landed and has the cure for cancer .  What means will we use to try to obtain it?  Why aren’t we liked in other countries?  That arrogance and sense of entitlement has produced the image of the ugly American around the world.  We need to clean up our own act first.  But this kind of thought sounds rather ethnocentric and protectionist.  Can we concentrate our efforts like this in a global economy?
     The U.S. can’t do it alone.  There needs to be a common effort.  It has to have some sense of profitability or some motivating factors that are valuable to all individuals.  We need to develop a sense of international ethics.
     Shouldn’t universities have a role in setting ethics?  What about when universities are embodying a corporate model; set up to make money, controlled by federal research grants?  Studies show that as more funding development is being picked up by pharmaceuticals there is more productive research being done.  However, if the development is for a limited market the companies may not fund it and those medications lag behind in development.  Under government control there is an expectation to resolve some of those inequities in the channeling of funds.  Millions die from malaria  each year, but its not our disease in the U.S. so its research is not well funded.  When AIDS was first thought to be a homosexually transmitted disease, the response was blaming and generally unsupportive.

NOTES: OCTOBER 9, 1999

     How are worker rights to be enforced?  A lot of people come to the us for economic reasons.  Mexico, Brazil, Columbia, all have dislocated workers who come to the U.S.A.   For those countries who are trading this creates a brain drain on their economy.  They should be creating their own social safety nets and be aided by us in doing that.  This is not tan anti-immigrant stance, but a pro-development one that should be supported by financial obligations.  Riches created by trade should go back and fund these obligations.
     Better tax flow, and better aid flow to other countries would help to make sure that trade is created on positive factors rather than negative factors.
     The UN needs to do some strategic planning on where they want to go and then figure out how to get there, what will need to be in place?  This needs to be done multi-laterally.
     Gag Jesse Helmes.  He has served as one of our biggest impediments to progress in the area of human and worker rights.
     What does the general public in the U.S.A. want?  How much do we want others to achieve.  We donimmigration because it lowers standards.  But is our prosperity is based on the exploitation of others?
    The other theory is that if the whole world was growing, we would grow also
are we willing to spread the wealth
     Trade policies must be adjusted to include with worker rights.  Major companies can set standards, they control enough of the monetary flow to secure that.  It will be necessary to address these business concerns through government regulation.  But to get the government to respond will require mass movements.  What is the relationship between business and government?
Business uses government to understand what civil society is unhappy with  How do we increase that pressure?
     The UN needs to market itself better.  The fact that NGOworking.  They attack the market by using the consumer power and they privatize labor relations.  The UN may need to admit the role of the NGOin business and I had a choice to deal with an NGO or a labor union, I would work with the union .
    But there is something wrong with the way NGOtake care of people instead of enhancing people
     You need leadership that will take the organizations to the next level.  The middle class is capable of assisting but cannot take the lead.  it has to be the peopleand other broad based community organizations that lead.  If you want mass based organizations to be strengthened, choose groups like the NAACP.
     The KKK is a broad based community organization.  Does KKK belong at the meetings?  No, ILO and UN have developed human rights criteria.  Apply that criteria to the NGOs and develop partnerships.
     What role would UN have as far as NGOUN partners with NGOto speak out more on worker rights issues, environmental rights and human rights.  They need to speak out on the issues of civil rights, industrial rights, cultural and political backlash to markets due to trade policies.
     There is currently a group forming called the Alliance for Responsible Trade.  We should form a local chapter to promote worker rights and promote sustainable development.
     What is the level of activism on college campuses?  Universities should be part of a body formed to help set ethical standards.  It is important to form these groups so that you donthese issues.  Without educating ourselves on these issues, typically, people accept the common wisdom that trade is good.  People need education and opportunities for dialogue to think about these issues as a people, together.  As a final recommendation, people need help in developing trust in government again by increasing community involvement and knowledge.
     The UN must create criteria that is not of one nation but must stand on universal principles.  ART promotes trade, but managed trade, like regulating any business.
 
 

Return to Publications                 Return to CLR&S Home Page

Last Update 11/11/99.