Seattle, WTO and worker-nationalism

Dear WSNers: I too was watching the news with interest concerning Seattle 
and
the WTO. I am both heartened by the protests (since they suggest the need 
for
more voices at the table on world trade) as well as sceptical. One strong
sentiment seems to be dominant: protecting North American Union workers 
from the
competition of non-Union workers in the periphery. Why favor N.Americans?
Because China has used slave labor? Because of some unscrupulous companies 
using
child labor and underpaid adult labor? Because of easier standards on 
pollution
in the periphery? My guess is that the poor of, say, India would be happy 
to be
underpaid and polluted by N.American standards. Here is a thought 
experiment:

Imagine a company choosing between the workers of Seattle and Bombay, India.
Let's also assume that the company can do slightly better by moving to 
Bombay,
but only slightly better because of higher infrastructure costs, supply 
problems
etc. Let's also assume the Bombay workers won't be too exploited. They are 
paid
less than the Seattle workers, but they aren't as productive either. They 
are
paid substantially more, however, than most of their fellow Bombay workers. 
Why
shouldn't the company move? Why shouldn't the Bombay workers welcome the 
work? I
realize this is quite an oversimplification, but it does focus us on the 
justice
issue that is going to very difficult to work out. Even if we did manage to 
get
some modicum of control over global business, what should our policy be with
regard to the competing interests of workers from different parts of the 
world?
I find it hard not to predict a rabid nationalism (Buchanan)leading to 
conflict
between workers of different nations. The logic of the situation doesn
't seem to bode well for worker solidarity. I would be happy to be refuted 
on
this point (seriously).

Randy Groves