 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
An interesting article on labor and privatization in Iraq: http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=9408
Most interesting snippets:
quote:
Iraqi workers look at the prospect of privatization with dread. Dathar Al-Kashab, manager of Baghdad's Al Daura oil refinery, predicted that privatization would have an enormous effect. "A worker starting here today has a job for life, under the old system," he explains, "and there's no law which permits me to lay him off. But if I put on the hat of privatization, I'll have to fire 1500 [of the refinery's 3000] workers. In America when a company lays people off, there's unemployment insurance, and they won't die from hunger. If I dismiss employees now, I'm killing them and their families. |
quote:
In 1987, Saddam had another unpleasant surprise for Iraqi workers. He issued a law declaring that the class struggle was over. Workers in state-owned enterprises were no longer to be considered workers at all, but civil servants. As such, Saddam said, they had no right to organize unions or bargain. On the Umm Qasr docks and in factories and refineries throughout the country, unions were effectively banned.
Anti-Union Law Upheld by Occupation
Today that 1987 law is still being enforced by the US occupation authority. The law affects workers employed in the enterprises set to be privatized, and that is why it hasn't been repealed as hundreds of other Saddam-era laws have been. If those workers have no legal union, no right to bargain, and no contracts, then privatization and the huge job losses that will come with it, will face much less organized resistance.
On June 5 CPA head Paul Bremer put another weapon into the anti-union arsenal. He issued a decree called Public Notice Number One, prohibiting "pronouncements and material that incite civil disorder, rioting or damage to property." The phrase can easily be interpreted to mean strikes or other organized labor protest. Those who violate the decree "will be subject to immediate detention by Coalition security forces and held as a security internee under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949" - in other words, as a prisoner of war.
US occupation forces in Iraq escalated their efforts to paralyze Iraq's new labor unions on December 6, when soldiers arrested eight members of [an umbrella labor group's, the Workers Democratic Trade Union Federation's,] executive board, and took them into detention. Although the eight were released the following day, there was no explanation from the Coalition Provisional Authority. |
As some of y'all might remember, a couple months ago I posted an article about leaders and members of the Union of the Unemployed being detained. Looks like the practice is continuing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
but this "On June 5 CPA head Paul Bremer put another weapon into the anti-union arsenal. He issued a decree called Public Notice Number One, prohibiting "pronouncements and material that incite civil disorder, rioting or damage to property." The phrase can easily be interpreted to mean strikes or other organized labor protest." is twisting something out of context - it sounds more like a measure against sabotage, and as such is quite reasonable. If its being abused Id like to hear about it. Your source provides no evidence that it is. |
How do you think these sorts of laws usually work? They generally don't say "calling for strikes is illegal." Even we have a much more intricate anti-striking law with Taft-Hartley - using court injunctions and whatnot.
The proclamation was intended to tie into attacking worker organization:
quote:
Again, the ghost of the 1987 anti-Union Ba’athist law which exterminated workers, turning them all into ‘civil servants state employees, persists unchanged. Communiques on management pinboards remind workers that the CPA (Under their Public Notice on Organisation in the Workplace issued June 6 which states that the ‘CPA respects Iraqi Law’, especially worker repressing Ba’athist regime law, and has therefore not changed any laws regarding labour legislation. |
http://www.labournet.net/world/0312/iraqtu2.html
Last edited by Ramo on 18-12-2003 at 03:21
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
While generally causing a disturbance, which is not needed right now while dealing with terrorisms. |
Well these "disturbances" might be too ****ing bad for us, but Iraqis have to eat too.
quote:
Isn't this what they are doing and what you are arguing against? |
You misunderstood. If these industries are totally unprofitable, unions would be no threat to privatization. So, why would there be laws agains them?
quote:
That's one of the main problems with this line of argument. There is no democracy yet. Let's wait until we get a working government in Iraq before we bestow union rights. |
Unions are a common factor in pre-democratic societies. Look at France, the German states, the Italian states, Spain, etc., etc. They are the basis of democracy, and in fact they are the basest form of democracy. Rebuilding a totalitarian society starts with rebuilding worker organization. See how the New Dealers dealt with a place like Japan. Unfortunatly, our gov't is extremely hostile to unions unlike the New Dealers so that isn't happening.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2003 02:37
what's efficient about corporate CEO's stealing millions from investors, getting golden parachutes for driving a company into financial ruin, gutting a workforce which erodes consumer base...
. If that's what you want to call it, go ahead. I wonder if you'd say Berzerker has fascist tendancies as well?
|