EU Trade Union Solidarity

Frankie Lee

Why is this not taking place more? I know that the there is a european trade union confederation but why do they seem so useless.

I think its a shame there is no movement to try push up wages in eastern bloc countries. The free market is a downward force workers conditions across the EU.
I firmly believe that there should be movement towards a universal minimum wage for the EU and protectionism from goods being imported into the EU until workers conditions have been guaranteed.

Sorry for waffling a bit, didn't sleep last night and am very tired.

nesf

And you're not bothered by such protectionism creating huge hardship in the poorer parts of the world? I've always found it bizarre that people can rant about the free market pushing down worker's living standards as being a bad thing while simultaneously arguing for policies that destroy the living standards of workers in other parts of the world.

thebman

Well thats because people are just looking out for themselves.

If such a minimum wage was brought in across the EU, it would have to be at such a low level that the state with the lowest cost of living wouldn't be adversely affected and that's what we have now anyway without a minimum wage agreement.

You can't force people in these countries to take higher wages considering goods cost less in their country. Its our own fault for allowing our cost of living to rise so high.

Frankie Lee

nesf wrote: »

And you're not bothered by such protectionism creating huge hardship in the poorer parts of the world? I've always found it bizarre that people can rant about the free market pushing down worker's living standards as being a bad thing while simultaneously arguing for policies that destroy the living standards of workers in other parts of the world.

Conversely, I would think implementing such protectionism would improve workers conditions, for instance if Nike want to sell runners in europe they would first have to prove they pay workers €3 an hour instead of 20cent an hour. There obviously is flaws in this idea but the way the system is working at the moment is not doing anything for the third world.

Frankie Lee

brim4brim wrote: »

Well thats because people are just looking out for themselves.

If such a minimum wage was brought in across the EU, it would have to be at such a low level that the state with the lowest cost of living wouldn't be adversely affected and that's what we have now anyway without a minimum wage agreement.

You can't force people in these countries to take higher wages considering goods cost less in their country. Its our own fault for allowing our cost of living to rise so high.

I see what you are saying but I think implemnting the changes would have to be done in a step by step process bringing the lower minimum wages up in line with the higher countries.

I also think there is a bigger discrepancy between the cost of living and wage levels in parts of the EU

thebman

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I see what you are saying but I think implemnting the changes would have to be done in a step by step process bringing the lower minimum wages up in line with the higher countries.

I also think there is a bigger discrepancy between the cost of living and wage levels in parts of the EU

I agree with the idea.

I think the cost of living goes up anyway after joining the EU and I think wages generally go up with this. I think it goes up to a sufficient level because peoples expectations go up when they get access to the EU.

I'm not sure how feasible the idea is basically or how much of an affect it would have.

I think something does have to be done about this as you have migration of people across the EU to where the jobs are or to where they can earn the largest wage.

This migration back and forth doesn't really make sense and we should try to evenly distribute the wealth among the union IMO as this migration of so many people doesn't benefit the people really. Just look at the Polish in Ireland, they never fully integrated (most of them) and never really saw Ireland as a place they'd like to stay long term. Sure they are wealthier but are they happy with this scenario? I don't think so.

I know its easy to say this when your the country getting screwed though :P We didn't have a problem when we needed them for our job shortage (if you can call wanting to build excess numbers of houses and not having enough people to build them for you a shortage).

nesf

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Conversely, I would think implementing such protectionism would improve workers conditions, for instance if Nike want to sell runners in europe they would first have to prove they pay workers €3 an hour instead of 20cent an hour. There obviously is flaws in this idea but the way the system is working at the moment is not doing anything for the third world.

Think that through and what effect that would have in an economy where the average wage is a third of that. Better to raise the wage across the country by giving them the opportunity to grow their economy through free trade than to exogenously force wage changes. Economic growth up to about a GDP level around 15K dollars per person brings enormous benefit to a country's citizens (above this and economic growth isn't such a big driver of country wide goodness).

Frankie Lee wrote: »

There obviously is flaws in this idea but the way the system is working at the moment is not doing anything for the third world.

The thing is, some previously third world countries have done really well. Look at South Korea, India, China et al. There's a huge literature on why these have benefited and why others like Sub Saharan countries have stagnated or regressed from initially promising positions (look at Zimbabwe the former breadbasket of Africa etc).

Kama

The thing is, some previously third world countries have done really well. Look at South Korea, India, China et al.

South Korea (according to Ha-Joon Chang anyway) achied this by strong capital controls, and ISI protectionism. Mind you, the EU is already (and necessarily) quite protectionist; chlorinated chicken wars are the current battle, I think.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Mind you, the EU is already (and necessarily) quite protectionist; chlorinated chicken wars are the current battle, I think.

EU protectionism can be a source of silliness though, the whole CAP system for instance and it does cause much pain in countries who could except for tariffs export produce to the EU.

Protectionism creates losers as well as winners, the problem is the losers usually tend not to have votes in the country that's setting the tariffs.

Kama

Truth, protectionism creates winners and losers, as can market liberalization, so-called free trade, and so on. CAP is an ungodly nightmare, no doubt about that. Unqualified support for any protectionism, as with any policy or position, is as nonsensical as unqualified opposition; if it works, it works. Problem is deciding what we want, which would help us know what 'works' means...

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Truth, protectionism creates winners and losers, as can market liberalization, so-called free trade, and so on. CAP is an ungodly nightmare, no doubt about that. Unqualified support for any protectionism, as with any policy or position, is as nonsensical as unqualified opposition; if it works, it works. Problem is deciding what we want, which would help us know what 'works' means...

True, but also protectionist policy will almost certainly be shaped more by special interests (national interests in the case of the EU, France and CAP etc) rather than any wish to make our markets work better and the lives of all citizens fairer. Protectionism generally results in a transfer of wealth from the majority to some minority who are protected from competition and thus are able to maintain price levels far above what the market would result in.

All protectionism isn't bad but generally what's implemented is far from ideal. The artificially elevated price levels of food etc that EU protectionism results in hits hardest at the poorest in society, which is why I find it perplexing that groups who maintain to be looking out for the little guy can be so much in favour of protectionism that does the opposite.

Kama

I'd agree, but then I'd also agree with your entire post if the word 'protectionist' was replaced with 'free market' or 'liberalised', to whit:

'Free trade will almost certainly be shaped more by special interests rather than any wish to make our markets work better and the lives of all citizens fairer. Free trade generally results in a transfer of wealth from the majority to some minority who are protected from competition and thus are able to maintain price levels far above what the market would result in.'

Scans reasonably well, I don't think it utterly inaccurate; this is with the assumption that complete free trade is a utopia, stricto sensu, and some degree of subsidy, direct or indirect, is impossible to eradicate, leading to a power differential between those with the clout/capital and those without. Trade law favours those with good lawyers, liberalized free markets can be self-undermining, Anglo-Saxon regimes tend to produce high income disparities and replicate and eacerbate inequalities. Etc.

If free trade was anything like what it says it is on paper, I'd be in general agreement, but the practice (imho) tends far more toward buttressing corporate oligopolistic dominance; enforced free trade should be an oxymoron. The founding myth of independent small market actors is just that, and 'free trade' rules are anything but. People quote Adam Smith like he was Gordon Gecko, and the parts like 'the clamour and sophistry of merchants and manufacturers easily persuade...that the private interests of a part...is the general interest of the whole' tend to be...downplayed.

Granted, this comment is equally applicable to a liberalized or a protectionist position, but I'm a wholehearted advocate of neither. So i really shouldn't be ranting, lawl@me

nesf

Kama wrote: »

I'd agree, but then I'd also agree with your entire post if the word 'protectionist' was replaced with 'free market' or 'liberalised', to whit:

'Free trade will almost certainly be shaped more by special interests rather than any wish to make our markets work better and the lives of all citizens fairer. Free trade generally results in a transfer of wealth from the majority to some minority who are protected from competition and thus are able to maintain price levels far above what the market would result in.'

Scans reasonably well, I don't think it utterly inaccurate; this is with the assumption that complete free trade is a utopia, stricto sensu, and some degree of subsidy, direct or indirect, is impossible to eradicate, leading to a power differential between those with the clout/capital and those without. Trade law favours those with good lawyers, liberalized free markets can be self-undermining, Anglo-Saxon regimes tend to produce high income disparities and replicate and eacerbate inequalities. Etc.

If free trade was anything like what it says it is on paper, I'd be in general agreement, but the practice (imho) tends far more toward buttressing corporate oligopolistic dominance; enforced free trade should be an oxymoron. The founding myth of independent small market actors is just that, and 'free trade' rules are anything but. People quote Adam Smith like he was Gordon Gecko, and the parts like 'the clamour and sophistry of merchants and manufacturers easily persuade...that the private interests of a part...is the general interest of the whole' tend to be...downplayed.

Granted, this comment is equally applicable to a liberalized or a protectionist position, but I'm a wholehearted advocate of neither. So i really shouldn't be ranting, lawl@me

Free trade is not necessarily based on a neo-classical view of markets as being all small actors though. I do agree that what's peddled as "free trade" especially in the US is really carefully crafted agreements with the hand-prints of dozens of lobby groups all over them. Arguing for free trade is as much about arguing against such lobby pressure as it is arguing against protectionism. The question about free trade is that do we want bureaucratic price controls on imports rather than imports prices to be set by the market and whether the masses benefit more from the latter or the former. I don't think it'll bring about utopia or anything nonsensical like that but it's least bad of a bunch of bad options in many ways.

View

Frankie Lee wrote: »

The free market is a downward force workers conditions across the EU.

As a matter of interest, what evidence is there that this is true? When Ireland joined the then European Communities in 1973 did it result over time in workers conditions in the other member states converging towards Irish standards or did Irish standards converge towards those of the other member states?