I welcome the involvement of new people in the programme. The involvement of a student leader and a Workers’ Education officer in the case of the Indian ISC can only improve the level of participation and move the study circle closer to the experience of people in the workplace and the community. The new colleague in the Australian study circle will bring not only experience of another TNC but also of software development which can broaden our understanding beyond industrial workplaces.

We must try and keep all participants committed to ongoing involvement.

For instance I find a good example generated by Tony from the Philippines. For instance, Tony, in your report you say that (and I’ll quote you) "The government is implementing trade liberalization, to the detriment of workers. Customers are buying imported goods because they are cheaper even as the quality is better" (Page 2).

Is this true ? Are workers not also consumers who would like to have cheaper and better quality goods ? This is precisely the kind of issue that can be debated and where you can ask colleagues in the other ISCs for their views. Remember that debate is often the best educational approach for helping people to come to understand issues.

With regard to 2 other issues I feel that KC should elaborate a bit more as these are quite crucial in understanding recent developments internationally. One is the issue of union density - a term saying what percentage of working people are members of unions. What is the case in India (approximately) and is this increasing figure or decreasing at the moment ? The other issue is about what we in South Africa call centralised bargaining. This is the case where trade unions bargain with a group of employers in an industry or a country at one time as opposed to bargaining with an individual employer at one company. One of the features of neo-liberalism is that it calls on governments to act against centralised bargaining and, insofar as unions are still tolerated, promote plant or enterprise level bargaining.

It appears that in Australia centralised bargaining is still very common whereas in Korea it is less so. What is the case in India ?

I like the discussion being opened by the Korean example of "labour - management councils /consultative committees". Whereas Yoon of Korea raised these as an example of how employers are defeating workers, Don has experience of how unions in Australia used these structures to win demands. In Europe there are good and bad experiences that workers have had with what are called Works Councils. Maybe these can be further debated along with the issue of the good and bad experiences of centralised bargaining.

3.1.
The reading "What is Globalisation" strongly argues that national governments are becoming outdated and that TNCs and agencies such as the World Bank/IMF etc are taking over. Yet the facilitators notes says that there is debate as to whether this is true and to what extent. In other words, has globalisation made national governments irrelevant ?

Now within the international labour movement there are some who argue that national governments have been overtaken and therefore trade unions and community organisations must seek other sites for struggle. But others argue that national governments still play a decisive role, although in a different form, and in some cases they have been strengthened by globalisation and are the agents of TNCs. This is not an academic debate as unions and community organisations can have different strategies depending on the answers to the above question.

Unfortunately nobody answered that question or debated it. Is this because there were no education materials on the opposing view ? See whether participants are prepared to debate the matter and if so contact me so that I can assist with education materials.

3.2
The second interesting point is whether globalisation only attacks workers and communities and benefits capitalists. Or whether there are cases of particular capitalists who are also under attack from globalisation - such as those who lose out when trade is liberalised e.g. local clothing manufacturers or industrialists who use to rely on high government spending.

If so we may come to understand why there are other powerful voices which try to appeal to workers and the poor on the grounds of nationalism and protectionism. In many cases the unions themselves can find themselves in alliance with such forces as people’s jobs get threatened. What would therefore be the differences between a trade union fighting to protect workers against the negative effects of globalisation and a local capitalist who is losing profits as a result of globalisation?

Send mail: to all participants [asia@tsl.fi] For problems or questions regarding this site contact [Alana Dave] Technical problems and ideas contact [Technical staff]