Labor Rights in Iraq Redux

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well these "disturbances" might be too ****ing bad for us, but Iraqis have to eat too.

I guess we could leave them to their own devices. But you'd ***** about that as well, wouldn't you?

If these industries are totally unprofitable, unions would be no threat to privatization.

Who ever said these industries are TOTALLY unprofitable? If they lay off a certain percentage then they will be profitable.

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.

Bull. Rebuilding totalitarian states starts with rebuilding the infrastructure. Worker organization can come later. At this moment in time it is not needed, unless they agree not to strike (which will never in 1000 years happen).

[chequita guevara]

Who said they were unprofitable at all?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is easy to suspend instead of forbidding, then to start the discussion about the organization of the future unions

From the article it seems the intention is to suspend unions. At least until the reorganization of the government (privatization, etc.).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who said they were unprofitable at all?

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The country's businesses were solvent until the war and embargo.

i.e. ten years ago

[chequita guevara]

That doesn't say it was unprofitable. The company was making money hand over fist under Saddam. Just because it could make an even greater profit doesn't mean it isn't making one.

[Ramo]

That doesn't mean it's unprofitable. That just means it could be more profitable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That doesn't say it was nuprofitable. The company was making money hand over fist under Saddam.

Obviously it is unprofitable NOW. That's why they would have to lay off workers. Maybe they were making money under Saddam, but not anymore.

[chequita guevara]

There's nothing obvious about it.

[Kidlicious]

The're going to open the market to foreign competition. That's why they will have to lay off workers

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There's nothing obvious about it.

Yes there is. If they were profitable, why would they "have" to lay off workers?

[Ramo]

I guess we could leave them to their own devices. But you'd ***** about that as well, wouldn't you?

I won't be content until there's anarcho-sydnicalism in Iraq. That should've been a given.

Bull. Rebuilding totalitarian states starts with rebuilding the infrastructure. Worker organization can come later.

At which point it may very well be too late. There's no reason they can't happen simultaneously.

At this moment in time it is not needed,

Not needed by whom? It's needed for the average Iraqi if not Bremer.

unless they agree not to strike (which will never in 1000 years happen).

Strikes are good things if workers' welfare is being protected, if democracy is being established.

[Ramo]

Yes there is. If they were profitable, why would they "have" to lay off workers?

Increasing profit due to the demands of foreign owners.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's no reason they can't happen simultaneously.

It is greatly more difficult.

Not needed by whom? It's needed for the average Iraqi if not Bremer.

Not needed by our efforts to get the country up and working.

Strikes are good things if workers' welfare is being protected, if democracy is being established.

Are they a good thing if they paralyze a nascent government which hasn't even been established, all the while terrorist groups are making things sticky in the boonies? I don't think so.

Workers' welfare can wait.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker


Yes there is. If they were profitable, why would they "have" to lay off workers?

I work for Vistakon, the most profitable division of Johnson & Johnson. We made $1.4 billion in profits last year. Since I've been working here, the company has laid of hundreds of employees. Just because you are making a profit doesn't mean you can't make more of one.