----------
> From: Richard K. Moore <rkmoore@iol.ie>
>
> Came across this old post as I've been reading Greider's "One World Ready
> or Not". He points out that some third-world workers, not to mention
> governments, consider the above attitude imperialistic (or arrogantly
> paternalistic) in that these folks see their "comparative advantage" in
> their cheaper and more compliant work force.
Imperialistic (or arrogantly paternalistic)--Is a global union all that?
The original message referred to union members going into third world
countries and organizing the workers to acquire the same marginal benefits
(i.e., health benefits, 40 hour week, vacation time, safe working
conditions, descent wages, etc.) as their counterparts had for doing the
same job. Could these marginal benefits be considered universal global
rights?
..
A "comparative advantage" being that they finally have employment--at least
employment in the academic sense.
>
> Of course there are other third-world workers fighting for better
treatment
> - don't know what the mix of opinion is. But worker-solidarity on a
global
> basis seems to have difficulties of many kinds.
It was a passing thought.
>
>
> rkm
>