Oct. 14, 2006 - 17:27 MDT

SEEMS TO BE CLEAR

Dog and pony show reflected through smoke and mirrors, yet I think I begin to get the idea. An article in the Rocky Mountain News, Oct. 13, 2006 by David Barboza of The New York Times quoted in full herein:

CHINA TARGETS SWEATSHOPS

Proposed labor law sparks conflict with foreign companies

Shanghai, China --- "China is planning to adopt a new law that seeks to crack down on sweatshops and protect workers rights by giving labor unions real power for the first time since Beijing introduced market forces in the 1980s."

"The move, which underscores the government's growing concern about he widening income gap and threats of social unrest, is setting off a battle with American and other foreign corporations that have lobbied against by hinting that they may build fewer factories here."

"The proposed rules are being considered after the Chinese Communist Party endorsed a new doctrine that will put greater emphasis on tackling the severe side effect of the country's remarkable growth."

"Whether the companies will follow through is unclear because of the many advantages of being in China -- even with restrictions and higher costs that may stem from the new law."

"It could go into effect as early as May and would apply to all companies in China, but its emphasis is on foreign-owned companies and the suppliers to those companies."

"The conflict with foreign corporations is significant partly because it comes at a time when labor, energy and land costs are rising here, all indications that doing business in China is likely to get much more expensive in the coming years."

"It is not clear how effectively such a new labor law would be carried out through this vast country, because local officials have tended to ignore directives fromt he central government or seek ways around them."

"Some of the world's big companies have expressed concern that the new rules would revive some aspects of socialism and borrow too heavily from labor laws in union-friendly countries like France and Germany."

"The Chinese government proposal, for example, would make it more difficult to lay off workers, a condition that some companies contend would be so onerous that they might slow their investments in China."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

From what I have read in the past French and German unions have come closer to "killing the goose that lays the golden egg," than even we did in the U.S.

The drive to get a big raise every contract negotiation rather than assure working conditions and fair treatment on U.S. citizens part is, I guess, part of the reason that our dear corporations chose to go overseas than tell unions that everyone is making a living wage, we will make sure working conditions and employee treatment is fair and minor requested adjustments will be made. It would have been tough, but possible I think. After all forty hours a week, time and a half for overtime, lunch times and coffee breaks and prime two weeks vacation each year, as well as other benefits should be enough.

Along that line, I doubt if China will go to that extent.

Makes me laugh the bit, "Some of the world's big companies have expressed concern that the new rules would revive some aspects of socialism," heh, socialism in a communist country ? ? ? ? ? The big companies aren't revealing their real motives perhaps.

It appears to me that the companies are against anything that will get fair treatment for the working people. So where will the corporate brains go next if China gets expensive ? ? ? ? The Matto Grosso ? Mid Africa ? Or maybe help make Iraq a livable country ?

Corporations and companies have in their collective minds one thing and one thing only, I think, the bottom line for them, SEEMS TO BE CLEAR . . . . . . . . .

Blog