It has never been and never will be about human/workers rights and all that "sappy" stuff...it has always been about the bottom line and always will be about the "bottom line"...$$$  And unions/workers rights just get in the way of that. Sorry to be so cynical but corporate America repeatedly has given no reason but to be...

Oh I don't know. It seems to have worked.

After all the benefits of Western workers only came about because corporations beat them so far into the mud it was revolt or die.

Of all the progressive issues, I understand "labor rights" the least and, typically, I agree with the US stance of "hands off."

Certainly, US and European workers, who negotiated a higher up place on the foodchain, via pensions, rely on the proletariat classes in China and other places...

I don't understand why corporations like Nike, and others, are blamed when their US and European workers, in reality, make demands of unequal economic treatment.

As much as I don't admire Hilliary, she's talked about the "plantation econonmy" and, as far as I can tell, that issue trumps edward's "two americas" theme by far.

In my opinion, cheap foreign labor isn't a threat to the US labor market but our ability to stay competitive is because it takes so much focus and energy. We must, I think, understand that labor, and its products, have a political component and, of course, we have our egos and expectations too since nobody wants to be part of the proletariat class.

We've ignored MLK's observation that violence contains military, racism and poverty and we're in the thick of all of these right now.

Instead, we should take heed of information like Jared Diamond's book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed [Discussed On Living Room]."

We have bigger things to care about than ourselves and our jobs and, paradoxically, those other things will bring us prosperity...

Libertine, I think your cynicism is entirely correct, but hardly a reason for despair. China's government appears to be instituting labor reforms not due to a change of heart but over concerns that its workers will revolt if their concerns are not met. It is in the Communist Party's narrow political interest to do a better job of sharing the profits from foreign factory investment. MNPundit's wry assessment of the situation is essentially correct, as China's widening income gap and despicable labor conditions would not be nearly as dramatic, nor as (presumably) unpalatable to workers without massive foreign investment. Success for some, rather than universal poverty, seems to me a much more likely environment to foster labor unrest.
The corporations benefiting from low wages and tyrannical factory administration will certainly fight these reforms, and so will factory supervisors who benefit from high levels of investment. They could hardly be expected to do otherwise. Draw attention to and express your displeasure with their choices, by all means. Economic growth, particularly unequal economic growth, is famously destabilizing for any regime. I expect this sort of reform to continue, not because corporations got all lovey or because a Chinese leader belatedly noticed that Marx said something about workers being important, but to reduce the likelihood of unrest.

Gettysburg:

You are mostly correct, but whether prices rise or not is only partially controlled by increases in wages. Sometimes companies just accept a lower profit margin instead. This depends upon competition and other market forces.

This is one of the reasons Walmart is held in such low esteem, with their enormous profits they could afford to treat their workers better, other smaller competitors like Costco do so.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I'm a little confused by your post.

I fail to see how the efforts of US corporations to undermine Chinese labor protections disproves the theory that free trade will lead to a more free society in China.

Are you equating laws protecting labor with a more free society?

Do you understand that such a definition of freedom is a Marxist one not held by much of the free world and probably not held by those who advocate the theory you're trying to disprove?

In fact, in a politically free society both sides of an issue such as labor policy generally have the right to push for their view. Companies fighting against these labor policies is therefore not inconsistent with a politically free society so long as laborers have the right to push for what they want too.

Frankly, I don't think any of what you've written disproves anything about the theory you refer to. What the companies are doing is normal politics in a free society. They do it here all the time.

In short, you're confusing and mixing up too different issues -- freedom and justice. The absence of justice doesn't mean that a society isn't free and freedom is no guarantee of justice. But justice is unlikely where there is no freedom.

Labor rights are a basic part of international law represented by almost all nations as part of the International Labor Organization.

The idea that this is "Marxist" is a bizarre artifact of American rightwing ideology.   We aren't talking about the government owning the means of production, just the freedom of workers to advocate for unions and negotiate together for better wages-- not a definite result just the right to talk without being fired.

That's is freedom of the basic sort.

The freedom part resides in the freedom to associate, on the part of both companies and workers. The lack of freedom occurs when workers are prevented from associating.

An old argument, actually. In Socrates' time they were debating who had the right to govern: The rich or the citizen. Pericles came down for the latter; Socrates for the former. Which do we celebrate?

I. F. Stone's "The Trial of Socrates" highlights this divide, and shows how despots since have used Socrates and Plato to justify elite rule. While this rule-by-the-already-powerful vein was present at the founding of American Democracy, it has never been morally secure, only practically argued.

Only an equality of the rich and poor has been codified in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Human Rights, or our Declaration of Independence. Rule by money/influence always happens but let's not make that a moral justfication.

I belong to a union.

Of all the progressive issues, I understand "labor rights" the least and, typically, I agree with the US stance of "hands off."

This says nothing about how these companies treat their workers, which if James Galbraith is anything to go by, is surprisingly good by the standards of the country not to mention the wages of chinese working in western owned facotires have generally been higher than the state median. But these new tougher labor laws would go towards directly raising wages & making it tougher to fire workers for poor performance. No self respecting amoral bottom dollar Profit seeking company would look forward to something like that. The object of Labor is to get the most it can for the least amount of work. The object of Capital is to get the most it can out of labor with the least amount of compensation. That's how class war works.

And regardless of this situation, keep in mind that these tougher labor regulations in China are being put forward by the Chinese government themselves, saying to Western companies that if they want to operate there, they have to abide by such standards. A much better way than Western countries telling other countries what policies they have to adopt.

There's nothing wrong with sensible markups, that's economics. But when the price of the goods is raised so that profits can rise from 100% to 150% it's time to step in.

We're living in an age where corporate profitability is higher than it's ever been and there's a reason for that.

If you've been following China or know anything about its history, there was nothing shocking about the Chinese Government's decisions. Two more from the Times:

"BEJING, Oct. 11 — China’s Communist Party, devoted in recent years to expanding the economy at any cost, on Wednesday endorsed a new doctrine that puts more emphasis on tackling the severe side effects of unrestrained growth.

The annual meeting of the ruling party’s Central Committee formally adopted President Hu Jintao’s proposal to “build a harmonious socialist society,” a move some analysts said was one of most decisive shifts in the party’s thinking since Deng Xiaoping accelerated the push for high growth rates in the early 1990’s.

The leadership declared that a range of social concerns, including the surging wealth gap, corruption, pollution and access to education and medical care, must be placed on a par with economic growth in party theory and government policy.

“There are many conflicts and problems affecting social harmony,” the Central Committee said in a statement released Wednesday after the close of its four-day planning session. “Our party has to be more proactive in recognizing and dissolving these contradictions.”

-----------

Co-editor of China’s leading intellectual journal, Dushu (Reading), and the author of a four-volume history of Chinese thought, Wang, still in his mid-40’s, has emerged as a central figure among a group of writers and academics known collectively as the New Left. New Left intellectuals advocate a “Chinese alternative” to the neoliberal market economy, one that will guarantee the welfare of the country’s 800 million peasants left behind by recent reforms. And unlike much of China’s dissident class, which grew out of the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and consists largely of human rights and pro-democracy activists, Wang and the New Left view the Communist leadership as a likely force for change. Recent events — the purge of party leaders on anticorruption charges late last month and continuing efforts to curb market excesses — suggest that this view is neither utopian nor paradoxical. Though New Leftists have never directed government policy, their concerns are increasingly amplified by the central leadership."