By joining the Fair Labor Association, Apple has embarked on its latest program of auditing its suppliers, ostensibly to investigate and remedy the appalling abuses in its supply chain that have been well documented and widely reported. While Apple claims that it is finally taking the issue seriously, its top-down auditing approach can never be a long-term solution to the systematic violations of labour rights that are occurring every day in the manufacture of electronic products. Indeed, Apple promised in 2006 that auditing would protect the rights of workers in its global supply chain, with results that are all too apparent.

The FLA will likely publish next week some of the results of its audits at Foxconn and the organization will no doubt report that labor rights violations are taking place at these factories. Since violations at Foxconn have been well documented by independent investigators, and in many cases admitted by Apple itself, the FLA could hardly claim that all is well.

We also have no doubt that the FLA’s report will be coupled with another round of promises from Apple and Foxconn that they will finally clean up their act. The question, however, is not whether there are severe labor rights problems in Apple’s supply chain. This has been obvious for years.

And the question is not whether Apple will promise, again, to fix these problems. They surely will. The question is whether anything will actually change.

Because once the audits are over and FLA has gone home, the workers in the factories will again be left to deal, as best they can, with the brutal labour conditions that are imposed on them. Any hope that conditions for workers will improve rests not on the work of auditors, but on the ability of workers themselves to monitor whether their labour rights are being respected and to push for remedies when they are not.

If Apple is genuinely concerned about improving the labour rights of workers that manufacture its products, it must ensure that they can negotiate with their employer to bring lasting change to the way that work is performed and compensated. For the Foxconn workers this means allowing workers to conduct elections to democratically select their own representatives in the workplace who can negotiate with management on the pay and conditions of the workforce. Such elections must be conducted by the workers without interference from management and all managers must be prohibited from taking up union positions. In order for the elected worker representatives to be able to meet management on an equal footing to negotiate on pay and working conditions, they will need support in terms of skills and knowledge. Apple must therefore insist that union representatives be allowed to access training and capacity building that is independent of management, so that they have the knowledge and skills necessary to advocate on behalf of the workers they represent. Collective bargaining is the mechanism that will enable workers to negotiate with management on appropriate levels of pay and decent working conditions and is one of the fundamental labour rights recognized by the ILO. It is especially critical to addressing health and safety problems.

Apple and Foxconn must immediately establish a schedule of negotiations which will lead to a collective agreement that covers all aspects of work including wages and working hours, overtime, health and safety, etc. A collective agreement would help reduce the vast disparity between workers’ pay and the massive profits generated by both Foxconn and Apple, which has announced that it has $45 billion to spend on buying back its own shares rather than on improving pay and conditions for the workers that make its products.

There is no question that giving workers a real say in the way that their work is organized and remunerated will challenge the repressive management practices for which Foxconn is notorious. Foxconn must learn to work together with its employees, through their democratically elected representatives, to find solutions together that reconcile the demands of production with recognition of workers’ rights. This will mean giving access to information on wages, working hours, production schedules and financial information that enable worker representatives to take an equal seat at the table and work with management to resolve the issues. It will also mean that Apple must roll up its sleeves and get involved directly in the bargaining process, so that its demands on unit prices and production deadlines do not undermine agreements on pay and working conditions. Bargaining should take place above a floor of decent minimum standards. This must include an immediate end to illegal overtime hours, coupled with wage increase to ensure that every worker in Apple’s supply chain is paid a genuine living wage that covers basic needs for a family for a statutory work week (40 hours in China). Given Apple’s gargantuan profits and mountainous horde of cash, there is no financial, practical or moral excuse for any worker making Apple products to go another day without being paid a living wage for a normal workweek.

Finally, it is clear that organizations like ours will need to continue to scrutinize conditions in Apple’s supply chain for the foreseeable future, to hold the company accountable and remedy any abuses. For this to be possible, Apple must be more forthcoming about the identity of its suppliers, not just releasing the company names, but the countries and specific factories in which all the components that go into its products are made.

On this the first anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster questions remain to be adequately and correctly answered on: is life in Japan back to normal? What lessons were learnt about the hugely funded nuclear industry? What do we really know about radiation and nuclear energy, what impacts do these have on our lives?

source: http://world.pressenza.org/npermalink/no-nukes-forum-cracking-the-nuclear-labyrinth

lively and interested young crowd at the Polytechnic

<

Pressenza Hong Kong, SAR, China, 3/11/12 This International Forum got off to a timely start at Hong Kong’s Polytechnic University with the slogan: “Let’s crack the nuclear labyrinth together!” The speakers assembled early on Saturday morning March 10, including an ex-Fukushima resident and unionist, nuclear experts from Canada and the US, two Taiwanese activists against nuclear power, and an industry commentator from Germany speaking on the state-of-nuclear-play in Germany.

The keynote address was given by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President, “Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility” who aptly titled his talk: “The Labyrinth of Challenges and Choices”. He gave a rundown on what is important to know about radiation and radioactivity and how the nuclear power industry is suffering under delusions, owing to self-deception.

After the break, Dr Kang Shih-hao, a representative of “Green Citizens’ Action Alliance”, Taiwan, spoke on “The lies and deception of Taiwan’s Nuclear-free Homeland Policy”, speaking about the power structure of technology decision-making in Taiwan.

Alongside Dr Kang was Fukushima resident and unionist Iwakura Miho, who gave a brief introduction to the Japanese anti-nuclear movement and how workers and unions have engaged in the movement, titled: “Nuclear workers in Japan”. Also, her personal experience of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, including how the Japanese government lies to the public.

After the press conference titled: “The Tragedy of Fukushima” where each panelist gave a brief introduction to their standpoint, Robert Gould, M.D., Physicians for Social Responsibility, gave a talk on global warming and the nuclear renaissance, and on how the health impacts of nuclear energy production have been hidden from the public.

Further, Prof. Achin Vanaik, recently retired as Professor of International Relations and Global Politics in the Political Science Department of Delhi University, introduced, via Skype, in some detail the anti-nuclear movement against Kudankulam Power Plant (located in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu and built with Russian collaboration that has run into trouble with activists and locals staging massive protests citing safety concerns in the wake of the Fukushima disaster) telling of the mass participation, hunger strike, and how the action spread through various Indian communities, with some reflections on the meaning of the anti-nuclear movement in Asia.

This reporter left after the video conference but the day continued with Lill Liu, resident of Japan, former journalist of China Times, writer on gender, culture and nuclear power who spoke on “Nuclear power in Japan - Taiwan - Mainland China - Hong Kong: a perilous belt in East Asian”. Finally, Wolfgang Pomrehn, German freelance journalist and author writing on energy and climate issues spoke on: “The nuclear endgame - alternatives and actions”.

Note: Related Activities in Hong Kong was a concert on 7th March titled: “HOWL - paintings and music”; March 9, a “Nuclear Concern Day”; and March 11, Hong Kong Alliance Against Nukes: Anti-Nuclear Rally and March and Visual and Performance Art and Music.

Organisers: Globalisation Monitor, C in C Learning Centre, Siu Lek Yuen-Yuen Chau Kok Environment Concern Group, World Student Christian Federation (Asia-Pacific), in cooperation with: the Department of Applied Social Sciences Centre for Social Policy Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Hong Kong Alliance Against Nukes

http://nonukesforumen.blogspot.com/ Enquiries: nuke.globalmon@gmail.com

We would like to invite you to take part in <<Cracking the Nuclear Labyrinth>> International Forum. Among the speakers are ex-Fukushima resident/unionist, nuclear experts from Canada and the States, let’s crack the nuclear labyrinth together!

Date: Saturday 10th March 2012

Time: 10am - 5:15pm

Place: Hong Kong Polytechnic University GH201

Details: http://nonukesforumen.blogspot.com/

Enquiries: 6129 4090 or  nuke.globalmon@gmail.com

Interpretation will be provided

The new draft National Water Policy (NWP) circulated by the Ministry of Water Resources to water experts suggests that the government is poised to withdraw from its responsibilities of water service delivery, and that multinational corporations and financial institutions might have too big a say in water allocation and policy.

At first glance, it appears as if the policy takes a holistic approach to water resources management, with a clear recognition of India’s water woes. It accords pre-emptive priority for safe and clean drinking water and sanitation to all and prioritises meeting the water requirements for ecosystems.

However, a closer look shows that some important points are missing. To begin with, water is not articulated strongly enough as a fundamental human right in this draft. This is despite India voting in favour of the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Right to Water, in 2010. But there are various suggestions to institutionalise the treatment of water as an economic good. In addition, the draft NWP proposes to limit the role for government in public services. When in other parts of the world water services are being brought back into public realm due to negative experiences with private sector water provision, this policy suggests that the government should function simply as a service facilitator, and that service delivery should be handed over to local communities or the private sector.

Crisis and conservation

While such proposals are not new, what is new is that these policies are justified in the name of dealing with the water crisis and in the name of conservation!

The draft also recommends “full cost recovery” of water used as the means for achieving efficient use of water. While full cost recovery will help meet the costs of water delivery, it does not deter water use among those who can afford to pay. In that sense it works particularly against lower income groups, and groups that use water for activities that have low economic returns. Full cost recovery needs to be accompanied by protection of the right to water for basic needs, including that for basic livelihood strategies.

Moreover, in the area of water quality conservation, the important “polluter pays principle” has disappeared. It has been replaced with “incentives” for effluent treatment and for reuse of water. While reclaiming wastewater is necessary to bridge the water deficit, in the absence of strong regulations to limit polluting activities, such incentives to polluters (to treat effluents), might work as a perverse incentive to pollute more. These are also opportunities for some of the worst water polluters to profiteer: companies such as Dow Chemicals are developing patented water purification technology. If these policies are unlikely to protect the basic right to water, it begs the question: who are the advocates and beneficiaries of these policies?

New report

It is likely that a recent report, “National Water Resources Framework Study: Roadmaps for Reforms,” might have had some influence on this draft NWP. There are striking convergences between sections of this report and parts of the draft water policy. This report, by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), was commissioned at the request of the Planning Commission of India to the 2030 Water Resources Group (WRG), via the International Finance Corporation. The report was commissioned even while several Planning Commission constituted working groups were preparing reports on various aspects of water governance.

The CEEW is one of the main Indian partners of the WRG, a high profile public-private partnership housed in the International Finance Corporation (of the World Bank Group). Financed by multilateral banks and bilateral aid organisations among others, the WRG’s strategic partners include the multinational firms Cargill, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Unilever and McKinsey & Company.

Influencing policy

The WRG is systematically trying to influence how the world’s water will be allocated in future. It is seeking to influence the water policy in India, South Africa, Mexico, Jordan, China and Mongolia, where it is targeting public officials in water and environmental ministries. For India its targets were more ambitious: the states of Karnataka and Maharashtra, and “potentially the National Planning Commission.” In their efforts to make inroads into national and regional policy making arenas, they seem fairly successful. For example, in India, since 2010, the WRG has successfully been collaborating with the Confederation of Indian Industry and the CEEW to influence water policy in Karnataka, and now it appears, at the Centre.

The WRG is particularly interested in influencing agricultural policies, especially crop choices and agricultural water allocation in the countries they target. The reason for its focus on a “water-efficient,” “productivity-oriented” agriculture, and the importance they place on the role of food value-chain players is self-evident: the WRG is led by the transnational agriculture and food related businesses that constitute its main members. However, such water sector reforms will become yet another way to push already vulnerable peasant agriculturists further into poverty. Civil society groups in Karnataka are aware of and oppose the dangerous path their State is tempted to take.

But it is not going to be easy for them in Karnataka or elsewhere. For example, a quote ascribed to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, suggests that he sees the WRG as an answer to the problems in international water governance: “The problem is that we have no coordinated global management authority in the U.N. system or the world at large. The World Economic Forum’s effort to develop the economic and geopolitical forecast on water is essential. For the first time, all the different perspectives and expertise required to define the full dimension of the problem are brought together.”

In many ways the draft national water policy epitomises not only what is being advocated in the area of water governance, but also the problems with the initiatives being pursued around the world. Multinationals are no longer content with profiteering from their traditional areas of businesses: they want to play a larger role in the allocation of the world’s natural resources, which have so far been in the public realm. The actual water users and their representatives are marginalised. In the context of the climate crisis that the draft policy seeks to address, it is important to remember that a large number of water users, farmers and local communities have been taking prudent decisions in the area of effective water management and adaptation. There is substantial practical knowledge that they can bring to the table that would completely change the way to look at issues. Rules governing the use of water, an essential part of life itself, must be the result of careful consultation with all stakeholders, especially the least powerful, and should not be driven by corporations and international finance. This is important not only in India, but for what it could mean for the future of water governance globally.

(The writer is a Minneapolis-based analyst working on global water policy initiatives at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a U.S. NGO. Email: svarghese@iatp.org)

Keywords: National Water Policy, CEEW, Water Resources Ministry

Issue: Dec 31, 2011 Asian Development Bank’s new plan insists on the private sector answer to water woes

TAKING stock of its water operations, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has set guidelines for an investment of US $2-2.5 billion annually in the water sector for the next 10 years. The guidelines, called Water Operation Plan, however, do not define the exact approach to water operations.

Critics say the plan gives countries the option to seek financial help and expertise from the private sector on water projects. This facilitates and encourages governments like India to allow private investments to address the issue of water scarcity and find markets for companies based in donor countries.
The first-of-its-kind guidelines, approved in October, are based on the understanding that water has an economic value. “These guidelines prove that ADB’s plans have been unsuccessful until now due to public opposition to water service charges,” says Hemantha Withanage, executive director of Centre for Environmental Justice, a non-profit in Sri Lanka. An ADB evaluation of its water projects in 2008 found that attempts at tariff reform, achieving cost recovery in services, initiating regulatory reforms and involving the private sector remained “intractable”. Another assessment in 2010 found that nearly half of the projects failed to meet targets like increased tariff and cost recovery.

The guidelines make clear that countries cannot risk waiting for investments, and can seek to advocate projects involving investment and expertise from the private sector. “They are attempting to commodify water in Asia,” says Withanage.

ADB has for long held that limited participation of the private sector in water services is a cause for concern because of the limitations of the public sector to expand investments. The drive to foster a culture of payment for water as a service has suffered from a general unwillingness to charge. Providers therefore remain short of capital. “The public and private both have failed,” says Avilash Roul, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, a network of 250 non-profits formed to make ADB accountable to the impacts of its projects. The governments cannot outsource their responsibility to provide basic services to the people. Private players can at best invest their money for such activities which must be controlled, managed and owned by the public sector enterprises, adds Roul.

Through the guidelines, ADB intends to make the relationship between water, food and energy stronger. “Many Asian countries are experiencing chronic water shortages. Since nearly 80 per cent of the region’s water is used in agricultural production, water shortages can contribute to shortages of food,” says Alan Baird, senior water supply and sanitation specialist with ADB.

Combined with energy insecurity, the increasing shortages in water and food may reverse Asia’s hard-won gains in poverty reduction, he adds. Therefore ADB is committed to funding hydropower development. “Integrated water resources management has transformed into this so-called nexus which ADB adopted last year. This points to how smoothly ADB policies can morph, for instance, to support hydropower structures in the eastern Himalayan rivers,” says Roul.

According to ADB, the water-food-energy “nexus” is critical in achieving equitable water security across Asia. “It is not an exercise to promulgate dam building,” says Baird. ADB works with a broad range of stakeholders. In 2010, 80 per cent of loans, grants, and related project preparatory technical assistance approved included some form of participation from civil society organisations, says Baird. “Despite ADB’s proclamation of a multi-stakeholder to help prepare this ‘magna carta’ on water, its definition of stakeholders mainly involves governments who oblige the bank, private sectors and institutions who have already partnered with the bank’s funds in implementing its activities,” says Roul.

[WASHINGTON, DC]: Today, the World Bank launched a new partnership with global corporations including Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Veolia. Housed at the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), the new venture aspires to “transform the water sector” by inserting the corporate sector into what has historically been a public service. The new partnership is part of a broader trend of industry collusion to influence global water policy.
The venture — called the 2030 Water Resources Group Phase 2 Entity —  aligns global corporations that have major financial stakes in water governance with the World Bank, one of the world’s leading development institutions. Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe has been appointed to chair the Water Resources Group, which has already received $1.5 million in IFC funding. Nestlé is the world’s largest water bottling corporation.

Advocates for people’s access to water point to this as the latest example of water corporations’ efforts to interfere in legitimate, democratic water governance. The Water Resources Group presents a conflict of interest to the World Bank’s goal of poverty alleviation. It also advances an approach to water governance that is in incompatible with the U.N. recognized human right to water.
“This is an unmistakably activist campaign by the private water industry to gain funding and credibility for a radical power grab, with the help of the World Bank,” said Corporate Accountability International’s Senior Organizer Shayda Edwards Naficy. “According to the World Bank, 34% of private water contracts are in distress or terminated before maturity. Last April, the IFC’s Compliance Advisor Ombudsman reported that an astounding 40 percent of complaints received from all regions and sectors were water-related. This is evidence that water privatization has been fraught with a range of problems, including broken promises for expanded service, wasted public funds and threats to human rights, especially for the lowest income families. For the Bank to sanction this approach despite a track record of failure points to compromised decision-making at the Bank due to pervasive partnerships with and financial stakes in corporations.”
Currently, 90 percent of the world’s water-users access water through public delivery. Turning these systems over to private corporations would result in rate hikes, cutoffs  and significant layoffs of water sector employees. Focusing on the private sector also distracts from the need to support governments in protecting human rights.

The Water Resources Group aims to “develop new normative approaches to water management,” paving the way for an expanded private sector role into best and common practices, worldwide. In order to be eligible for support from this new fund, all projects must “provide for at least one partner from the private sector,” not simply as a charitable funder, but “as part of its operations.” The group’s strategy is to insert the private sector into water management one country at a time, through a combination of industry-funded research and direct partnerships with government agencies. Currently, the Water Resources Group is formally working with the governments of Jordan, Mexico, and the Indian state of Karnataka, and discussions are ongoing with the governments of South Africa, China and several other countries slated for participation in the next phase.

“Corporate Accountability International has consistently demonstrated the World Bank’s inherent conflicts of interest, acting as an investor, a government advisor, an arbitrator and a public relations vehicle in support of profiteering in the water sector,” said Naficy. “Global water corporations must not be allowed to tap into public ‘development funds’ to promote their private agenda because case after case shows that profitability and fulfillment of human rights in the water sector are at odds.”

Corporate Accountability International (formerly Infact) is a membership organization that has, for the last 34 years, successfully advanced campaigns protecting health, the environment and human rights. Through its Campaign Challenging Corporate Control of Water, Corporate Accountability International is playing a leadership role in the global movement to secure the human right to water, and people’s access to water; prevent corporate control of water; preserve and protect water resources and systems for the public good; and preserve water resources as an ecological trust.

CY GONICK

1. Profit maximization is the iron rule of capitalism, setting limits to ecological reform. A profit-based economy that requires continuous economic growth makes ecological catastrophes inevitable.
2. Voluntarism, technological fixes and market incentives as they have been constructed cannot achieve even the weak Green House Gas targets gov­ernments have committed to. Even so, many govern­ments such as ours and that of theUSA, haven’t even initiated these market mechanisms like carbon taxes or cap and trade.
3. We need to accept that we WILL pass the terrible tipping points that climate scientists like James Han­sen have been talking about for at least a decade now. And that the catastrophes they predict will happen, gradually at first and then rapidly as the feedbacks kick in.
4. As the consequences of passing the tipping points eventuate, with droughts, floods, rising sea levels, growing numbers of climate refugees – states every­where will begin to exercise authoritarian measures to preserve order and to ensure that increasingly scarce water, food and energy resources are pre­served for the rich and to feed the material require­ments of corporate enterprise. Robert Heilbroner predicted this outcome back in 1974 in his Inquiry into the Human Prospect. Joel Kovel discussed the prospect more recently.
5. We can already see the beginnings of the move towards authoritarianism – the xenophobic response to immigration throughout Europe, the attempt to destroy unionism in the USA, the harsh way protest­ers against austerity measures are being treated, to say nothing of police repression against G20 pro­testers inToronto. And Stephen Harper’s deliberate efforts to silence his critics by shutting down or reori­enting research and advocacy organizations.
6. It is essential for us to be critiquing market-based solutions and those, including most mainstream environmental organizations, who promote these solutions and insist on working within the system. We need to expose environmental organizations who accept funding from corporate-based foundations that are extensions of the energy industrial complex and thus allow themselves to be used by the perpetrators of climate change and bolstering their legitimacy.
7. We need to be putting forth more structurally based solutions such as stopping the tar sands, massive investment in solar, wind and geothermal renewables and expanding public transit. Yet, we should accept that these solutions are and will be totally rejected by capitalist states and that, in any case, renewable energy cannot meet the mass energy requirement of consumerism and relentless economic growth especially in the light of ongoing neoliberal globalization.
8. We need to be talking now about how we will respond to the ecological catastrophe as it unfolds and to the authoritarian actions of capitalist states to repress popular resistance against harsh austerity measures and to increasingly destructive methods of extracting oil and natural gas from less accessible sources.
9. It will be essential to show how the economy can be transformed so that it does not require continuous growth and yet provides for the basic requirements of all citizens.
10. Intellectual argument is not sufficient. Our move­ment will have to turn towards widespread forms of direct action to stop the ecocide and the austerity measures that shift the burden of the ecological crisis onto the lower and working classes.

The United Nations says that the world’s population will reach 7 billion people this month.

The approach of that milestone has produced a wave of articles and opinion pieces blaming the world’s environmental crises on overpopulation. In New York’s Times Square, a huge and expensive video declares that “human overpopulation is driving species extinct.” In London’s busiest Underground stations, electronic poster boards warn that 7 billion is ecologically unsustainable.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s bestseller The Population Bomb declared that as a result of overpopulation, “the battle to feed humanity is over,” and the 1970s would be a time of global famines and ever-rising death rates. His predictions were all wrong, but four decades later his successors still use Ehrlich’s phrase — too many people! — to explain environmental problems.

But most of the 7 billion are not endangering the earth. The majority of the world’s people don’t destroy forests, don’t wipe out endangered species, don’t pollute rivers and oceans, and emit essentially no greenhouse gases.

Even in the rich countries of the Global North, most environmental destruction is caused not by individuals or households, but by mines, factories, and power plants run by corporations that care more about profit than about humanity’s survival.

No reduction in U.S. population would have stopped BP from poisoning the Gulf of Mexico last year.

Lower birthrates won’t shut down Canada’s tar sands, which Bill McKibben has justly called one of the most staggering crimes the world has ever seen.

Universal access to birth control should be a fundamental human right — but it would not have prevented Shell’s massive destruction of ecosystems in the Niger River delta, or the immeasurable damage that Chevron has caused to rainforests in Ecuador.

Ironically, while populationist groups focus attention on the 7 billion, protestors in the worldwide Occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: not the 7 billion, but the 1%, the handful of millionaires and billionaires who own more, consume more, control more, and destroy more than all the rest of us put together.

In the United States, the richest 1% own a majority of all stocks and corporate equity, giving them absolute control of the corporations that are directly responsible for most environmental destruction.

Read more from Angus and Butler in their new book Too Many People?A recent report prepared by the British consulting firm Trucost for the United Nations found that just 3,000 corporations cause $2.15 trillion in environmental damage every year. Outrageous as that figure is — only six countries have a GDP greater than $2.15 trillion — it substantially understates the damage, because it excludes costs that would result from “potential high impact events such as fishery or ecosystem collapse,” and “external costs caused by product use and disposal, as well as companies’ use of other natural resources and release of further pollutants through their operations and suppliers.”

So in the case of oil companies, the figure covers “normal operations,” but not deaths and destruction caused by global warming, not damage caused by worldwide use of its products, and not the multi-billions of dollars in costs to clean up oil spills. The real damage those companies alone do is much greater than $2.15 trillion, every single year.

The 1% also control the governments that supposedly regulate those destructive corporations. The millionaires include 46 percent of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 54 out of 100 senators, and every president since Eisenhower.

Through the government, the 1% control the U.S. military, the largest user of petroleum in the world, and thus one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Military operations produce more hazardous waste than the five largest chemical companies combined. More than 10 percent of all Superfund hazardous waste sites in the United States are on military bases.

Those who believe that slowing population growth will stop or slow environmental destruction are ignoring these real and immediate threats to life on our planet. Corporations and armies aren’t polluting the world and destroying ecosystems because there are too many people, but because it is profitable to do so.

If the birthrate in Iraq or Afghanistan falls to zero, the U.S. military will not use one less gallon of oil.

If every African country adopts a one-child policy, energy companies in the U.S., China, and elsewhere will continue burning coal, bringing us ever closer to climate catastrophe.

Critics of the too many people argument are often accused of believing that there are no limits to growth. In our case, that simply isn’t true. What we do say is that in an ecologically rational and socially just world, where large families aren’t an economic necessity for hundreds of millions of people, population will stabilize. In Betsy Hartmann’s words, “The best population policy is to concentrate on improving human welfare in all its many facets. Take care of the population and population growth will go down.”

The world’s multiple environmental crises demand rapid and decisive action, but we can’t act effectively unless we understand why they are happening. If we misdiagnose the illness, at best we will waste precious time on ineffective cures; at worst, we will make the crises worse.

Read more on population. Check out our series 7 billion: What to expect when you’re expanding.The too many people argument directs the attention and efforts of sincere activists to programs that will not have any substantial effect. At the same time, it weakens efforts to build an effective global movement against ecological destruction: It divides our forces, by blaming the principal victims of the crisis for problems they did not cause.

Above all, it ignores the massively destructive role of an irrational economic and social system that has gross waste and devastation built into its DNA. The capitalist system and the power of the 1%, not population size, are the root causes of today’s ecological crisis.

As pioneering ecologist Barry Commoner once said, “Pollution begins not in the family bedroom, but in the corporate boardroom.”

Ian Angus is coauthor of Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis. He is editor of the ecosocialist journal Climate and Capitalism.Simon Butler is coauthor of Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis. He is editor of Green Left Weekly.

BYD may face class action lawsuits if unable to solve dispute.

15/10/2011

Globalization Monitor

Yesterday, October 14, about three hundred “redeployed” BYD’s sales workers protested against BYD at the front gate of its plant in Pingshan, Shenzen. The protest was soon stopped by the company security. BYD, the Chinese battery and auto maker backed by billionaire Warren Buffett, started to restructure its sales department and “redeploy” its employees to other departments or stop their duties in September this year.

October 14, about three hundred "redeployed" BYD's sales workers protested against BYD at the front gate of the plant and they was soon stopped by the company security.

The “redeployed” employees are still very angry with BYD’s arrangement and its refusal to admit and announce its layoffs openly. Recently, BYD called the employees to offer them back their positions; however, the employees do not trust BYD anymore and think they will be laid off after they come back to work.

The workers raised the following questions and demands to the management, as follows:

1.  The company should admit that it has violated labor Contact Law when the management unilaterally modify labor contract to repositioning employees.

2.  The management must fix the above problem by:

a. paying financial compensations to those leaving the company because of its decision to redeploy them.

b. for those who wish to stay in the company BYD should ensure that their wages and work post should remain the same as enshrined in the contract.

3.  Employees who have joined protest shall not be penalized by BYD

4.  Re-election of union representatives is needed to ensure trade union representing employees’ interest.

The employees claim that BYD has violated the Labor Contract Law as they were unilaterally “redeployed” without their prior consent. At first the employees wanted collective bargaining with the management to force BYD to give a concrete response to their complaints, but there was no reply from BYD.

BYD employees have called for a joint class-action lawsuit against BYD. They also call for the reelection of the workplace union.

BYD’s share price has fallen significantly since June this year, dropping from 33 yuan (US$5.17) to 17.98 yuan (US$2.81), falling below its issuance price of 18 yuan (US$2.82). If BYD does not address the workers’ grievances properly, it may face another big financial crisis.

This is the video made by workers after strikes:

To ThyssenKrupp Elevator (HK) Limited,

Work 33 hours a Day? No More Toleration! Strike and Get What We Deserve! Fight for Reasonable Pay and Secure Public Safety

ThyssenKrupp Elevator (HK) Limited is one of the three biggest elevator production company in the world and the sales record was 5.2 billion euro last year. While the company earns tremendous amount of money, she fails to treat her workers fairly.

During past few years, inflation erodes what workers can benefit from the enforcement of the statutory minimum wage. However, what we get is even worse than average workers in Hong Kong. Our salary has only increased by 0.5% in 2010 and 3% in 2011.

Generally in elevator maintenance industry, the salary of a newly-admitted assistant technician is 8500 HK dollars per month, while that for 4-to-10-year experience technician and 10-year experience technician are 12000 dollars and 14000 dollars respectively. Yet our salary is much lower than the average standard. A worker with 8-year experience only gets 7100 dollars per month. On the other hand, a newly-hired technician can get 8500 dollars. It is simply unfair. The company knows she can only compete for other company by increasing the salary for the new-comers, but this amounts to exploitation to the current workers who work so hard for the company.

As an elevator maintenance technician, our job is to ensure smooth operation of the elevator so that the people can use it safely. If we can work in pairs, not only the maintenance can be operated more smoothly, the working safety of workers can also be ensured. The company fails to enforce the labour law, since we often have to work alone, which tremendously increase the danger of operation. Three years ago, the company promised to increase workforce so as to enforce what labour law requires. Nevertheless, the company fails to do so and the problem persists.

As there is not enough workforce, we have to work overtime at night in case of any emergency. We also work to get overtime pay to compensate for the extremely low salary. As the company will not compensate a full-pay leave for our overtime work, we have to work continuously for 33 hours if we have to be on duty at night shift. This obviously threatens our health. What’s worse, this adversely affect the quality of services provided and may mean an increase of chance of elevator operation problem, which may in turn increase the chance of accident and impede public safety.

We strike to get what we deserve and a reasonable pay. We also fight for the safety of ourselves and of our society. Belows are our demands:

1.      Increase salary to a reasonable level

2.      Increase the number of workforce and make sure we can work in pairs

3.      Limit the working hours to less than 24 hours without lowering the salary

Thyssen Elevator Staff Union

Contact: Mr. Simon Leung (Union Organizer / 6443 5090), Mr. Cheng (Union Representative / 9833 5737)

What You Can Do:

You can support workers by contacting Mr. Peter Walker, the CEO of ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Asia/Pacific) Limited or Mr. Guenther Rittner, the Chairman of ThyssenKrupp Elevator HK Limited. You can either send an email to or telephone them to voice out our demands.

Their contacts are as follows:

Mr. Guenther Rittner

Chairman of ThyssenKrupp Elevator HK Limited

Tel: +852 3181 7888  Fax: +852 2861 2521

Email: tkhk@thyssenkrupp.com

Mr. Peter Walker

CEO of ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Asia/Pacific) Limited

Tel: +852 3511 0688   Fax: +852 3511 0678

Email: peter.walker@tkeasia.com

The Chairman of the Executive Board is Dr. -Ing. Heinrich Hiesinger, P.O. Box, 45063 Essen,

Below is a sample letter for your reference:

Dear Mr. Guenther Rittner / Mr. Peter Walker,

I hereby write to you to support for the union strike. I fully support the three demands by the Thyssen Elevator Staff Union and I urge you to response their requests immediately.

Yours sincerely,

Your name & your organization

Here is the latest news of today’s action: http://www.worldlabor.org/eng/node/494