![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Issue No. 131 | 12 April 2002 |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Cry Freedom
Interview: Cross Wires International: Two Tribes Activists: Beneath the Veil Unions: Terror Australis History: A Labor Footnote To The Royal Funeral Economics: Private Affluence, Public Rip-Off Review: The Great Hall of the People Poetry: Waiting for the Living Wage Satire: Israel Recruits NAB To Close West Bank
The Soapbox The Locker Room Week in Review
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
![]() |
Editorial Cry Freedom
While the departure of textile and manufacturing sectors to lower wage nations is old news, the new victims are workers who provide services that were once considered tied to a particular geographical center. Mariners fighting Ships of Shame off the Australian coast, cabin crew imploring Qantas to keep an Aussie face, NAB workers facing the axe to make up for a disastrous US investment - all are participants on a new battlefield. Even media workers, employed to present the world to their people, are squeezed by share prices as the masters play on a broader stage. These are not your old-style employee-employer stoushes over wages, conditions and who shares the profits but a far more complex beast; Australian companies and workers attempting to survive in a world without economic borders. Under this new orthodoxy workers are told to take pain - either lower wages and conditions or loss of jobs altogether - so their employer can be 'internationally competitive'. It's presented as a Catch-22 - to demand a fair go for workers is self-defeating because it will lead to the ultimate loss of those very jobs. The experts tell us the Australian economy has brought many benefits - there are undoubted winners individually and the economy as a whole. But there are also many losers who want to see some evidence. The Free Trade versus Fair Trade debate may be too glib a dichotomy, but it does stake out the territory for a new and maturing dialogue. At one extreme of the debate is the unlikely alliance of economic nationalists and anti-globalisation protestors who would close down global trade and build barricades around their own block of the world. At the other lurk the corporate cowboys and mega-corps, for whom any regulation or responsibility is a restraint of their freedom to scour the globe for a quick buck. Somewhere in the middle lies the solution - establishing ground rules that bind the corporations that increasingly control the world economy. The agreement secured by the International Union of Foodworkers and NZ multinational Fonterra could be a first step in this direction. Based on ILO standards, it binds Fonterra and its subsidiaries to respecting worker and union rights. The IUF's success comes from engaging with a large corporation, showing how it can benefit from an ethical labour framework and then developing a practical framework to that delivers equity without killing the company. You could call it enlightened self-interest. Whatever you call it, it's is an interesting development actually exposes the limits of the term 'Free Trade'. As workers are fast discovering there is no freedom without rules. The challenge is to develop rules that give people a stake in the game. Peter Lewis Editor
![]()
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online ![]() |
|