>Perhaps this is the difference. Do you think the average Chinese worker
>is worse off now than they were 20 years ago? So that sanctions, braking
>this process, is an immediate help to workers?
Many workers are worse off- that is clear from many reports, since the breaking of the "Iron Rice Bowl" may have improved the lives of workers overall (but then if that's the justificatio, are we all capitalist supporters now?) but it's been a loss for the millions of workers laid off who have lost all access to the health care and other benefits tied into having a job.
And the problem is that there is no group allowed to organize to advocate for their interests.
>So do you believe American unions should call for economic sanctions
>against America until it improves its labor laws? Granted, they are not
>as bad as China's. But they are in many ways outrageous when compared to
>Europe. If economic sanctions help amend labor laws, why not here?
Here's is the interesting dillemma. I think it would be in the interest of US workers to have Europe mount sanctions against the US on that basis, although a more targetted boycott of union-busting firms and products might be more beneficial with less cost. But here's the thing, it would be politically hard for US unions to make such a call even if they wanted to, since it would invite a backlash. This is true in many countries where domestic groups may want such sanctions applied but they would risk even greater domestic repression if they made such a call. This is another reason why the LBO rule is a still a bit complicated in measuring the exact desires of domestic groups for sanctions.
-- Nathan Newman