>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>Is the FT right?
>>
>>>Independent unions are banned in China, and the federation unions
>>>have traditionally been an instrument for the communist party to
>>>control workers, not a vehicle for agitation and strikes, which
>>>are almost never allowed.
>
>If 'communist party control' means that (very progressive) labor
>laws are enforced, what's to be opposed?
Does that mean there are few abuses of workers in China, because of the enforcement of those very progressive labor laws?
> Also, don't the labor laws of every country make it difficult to
>hold strikes? Should we retract our support for possible organizing
>by Wal-Mart in the US because the AFL-CIO has historically been an
>instrument for Capital to control workers? And if we accept the
>thesis that labor is not 'free' in China, but 'free' in the US, then
>we commit ourselves to the position that workers in the US must
>actually not want unions, since union participation rates are
>fallling. So no, the premise of the FT article - free/non-free labor
>- is wrong.
Well that wasn't my point. Of course, U.S. labor law stinks. But would the recognition of a union at Wal-Mart China make any difference to the workers at all?
Doug