WSJ on A16

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Sun Apr 9 08:33:07 PDT 2000


JK: . . . I'll go with my gut instinct. When you attack China, some Chinese will take it personally, even if they're progressive. If you go the next step and say that you have to control the labor market to keep "our" wages up, some low wage workers will wonder what's meant by "our".

They could avoid these problems by getting the support of ethnic leaders first, and seeding the ethnic press with assurances that it's not directed against them (er, us). It's basic outreach. . . .
>>>>>>>>

MBS I'd say there is outreach going on like crazy. There undoubtedly could have been more and sooner. Sure a criticism of a country will offend some with familial ties, but that doesn't mean the criticism is unfounded or mean-spirited. People criticized France for blowing up the Greenpeace ship but nobody thought there was 'anti-French' chauvinism involved. Obviously when there is 'white-on-non-white' criticism, the potential for bias, or the expectation of it, is heightened.

As for how low-wage workers feel about an appeal for keeping 'our' wages up, I would discount much feeling about being left out. There is some mystery among service workers as to what the flight of manufacturing jobs means to them.


>>>>>>>>>>>
OTOH, the labor market is segmented, and it benefits whites. Who'd willingly give up that kind of advantage? And, immigrantion is part of globalization, and the immigrant identifies with the process of globalization, so arguing against it is an uphill battle. Maybe it isn't worth the effort to do the outreach.
>>>>>>>>

[mbs] There is segmentation and 'it' benefits whites, but if I'm a white worker, exactly how do I make this work for me? My individual feelings about race don't have any import for market organization. I can't exclude minorities from my industry or job classification. The posture of unions is not to encourage any such segregation. I'd say this is true but not very relevant to your argument.

The thrust of anti-globalization in the labor movement is not to argue against immigration, as recent events have shown. I've been telling people here for months that the most dynamic sector of the labor movement is immigrant-driven. Labor cannot be chanvinist. What you will see is an allied understanding that globalization is about reducing labor standards, and that when the manufacturing sector suffers, the service sector will suffer as well.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list