FW: LTV Bankruptcy - Lessons for Labor?

["Vic Thorpe" <just.solutions@pandora.be>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Gary K. Busch [mailto:busch@btconnect.com]
Sent: 26 June 2001 14:04
To: Vic Thorpe
Subject: Re: LTV Bankruptcy - Lessons for Labor?


I was interested to read of the LTV acquisition by the USWA. On the whole I
am sure that union participation in the ownership of a company like LTV is
not in the interests of the workers. I say this, not because of some
idelogical predisposition against, but because of extensive experience with
this type of corporation in its activities internationally. Companies in the
steel industry, as in many of the globally integrated markets, generally act
within a cartel, seeking to protect their 'national markets' or trade bloc
strengths. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-dumping suits
in the international steel industry. The US Steel producers cartel has
attacked Japan, Brazil, Ukraine, Russia, Korea,and many others, for
anti-competitive pricing. Some of these complaints were justified, others
not.In some cases there has been an 'East of Suez' policy in which European
companies do not sell into Asian markets and vice-versa. The steel industry
everywhere is not enaged in fair competition. It is a cluster of competing
cartels. No rules are obeyed.

The logic of this competition is that the battle is fought in the courts,
the legislatures, the regulatory agencies and the World Trade Organisation.
Any body which deals with trade legislation is a likely candidate for the
steel industries to vent their woes. Productivity, new technologies,
regional developments play a minor role in the success of the international
steel trade. What is important is the strength of the lobbying muscle of the
steel producers in national legislatures and throughout all areas of the
political and administrative process. If you will excuse me for my bias but
I cannot conceive of a reason why workers in one country should put their
political strength behind a cartel of their employers seeking to penalise
workers in another country, block the production of the industries in which
they work or to drive down their living standards in order that 'freer
competition' can take place. It was always my understanding that when we had
'runaway employers' in the US moving their factories to the Deep South or to
anti-union states it was self-destructive to seek to put these out of
business. The task was to organise these workers into unions which could
stand up for their rights and make competition fair.

It is bad enough seeing the Steeworkers joined into battle alongside their
employers in the struggle for turf among the steel cartels. For them to take
a financial interest in this battle must be self-destructive as they are
likely to lose twice; once, financially and twice, by forsaking the values
and principles of worker internationalism and mutual responsibility.i