Mood:  happy

Foxconn increases wages from 30 to 67%

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225700209

(original full article)

  Mark LaPedus
Page 1 of 2
EE Times
(06/15/2010 2:20 PM EDT)


SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Lately, it's been a tumultuous period for Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. Hon Hai, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturer (CEM), trades as Foxconn and makes electronic products for such brands as Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Sony. As reported, Foxconn International Holdings Ltd. (FIH) recently announced it will more than double the salaries of employees at its factory in Shenzhen, China within months in response to a global outcry over recent worker suicides at the site. Now, there are unconfirmed reports that FIH may re-locate some operations in Shenzhen to lower cost regions in China. Here's what analysts are saying about Foxconn's troubles:

Impact of salary hikes for Foxconn

Jamie Wang, an analyst with Gartner, said: ''This wage hike may increase Foxconn's operational costs and affect its profitability, but the company cannot afford further tragic suicides, and this action will improve relations with its workers in China and help to deflect potential negativity from its outsourcing clients.

''For now, Foxconn needs to concentrate on handling recent events sensitively, which will affect its cost competitiveness in the short term. However, a continuous focus on improving quality and productivity will be recognized by Foxconn's OEM customers over the long term.''

... was raising pay for its production workers by 30 percent (from RMB900 to RMB1200) effective June 1, the company announced further significant pay hikes of 67 percent ...

Posted by Joe Anybody at 10:26 AM PDT

Updated: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:28 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  bright

Fighting Company Union Ideology

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/01/396826.shtml

They formed organizations that promoted their interests at the expense of the bosses' profits. And as soon as these fledgling unions became powerful, the owners sought to undermine them. When the unions were too powerful to be drowned in blood, the bosses sought other techniques. The company union was typically a preventative measure initiated by the employers to lure workers away from real unions. Where workers became militant and bold in their demands, the company would offer a venue for them to voice their concerns and, sometimes, have these concerns properly addressed. Of course, these company unions were totally controlled by the employer — they could be whisked away if the workers were impolite or too demanding. These fake unions automatically eliminated the strength workers would have had if they belonged to an independent, larger labor union. Some issues that workers sought to remedy were purposely kept "off the table." During World War I, the growth of company unions was encouraged by the U.S. government, which sought to stem the growing surge of worker radicalism. Employer-employee councils were set up en masse, and where nothing could be agreed upon, the federal government would swoop in to try and smooth over the conflict. The union labor upsurge before, during and after World War II was unprecedented, scaring the employer class stiff by exhibiting its organized strength and winning workers demands. F.D.R. used a combination of tactics to defuse the worker-owner conflict: compromise, the National Guard, and finally, appealing to the national patriotism needed to win workers support for WWII. F.D.R. also set up the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in an attempt to "balance" the conflict between workers and their employers. The NLRB falsely claimed that it would remain objective in its work, but it functioned inside a government where giant corporations dominate the political system. F.D.R.'s Labor Relations Act effectively banned the company union in practice, but the essence of the phenomenon would linger until the present, where it maintains its historic, poisonous influence. The fundamental aim of modern company union ideology is to promote the concept of identical interests between workers and the employers. It is a philosophy of cooperation and teamwork, where in reality bitter hostility and mutual distrust are accurate reflections of the attitudes of workers and owners — emotions based on the real antagonism between wages and profits. The 1947 anti-worker amendment to the Labor Relations Act — Taft-Hartley — was a counter-attack on the organized workers' movement. In it, a surplus of anti-worker measures are outlined that to this day render the union movement harmless in conflicts with employers (since most union officials refuse to disobey the unjust law). In addition to making it impossible for unions to support one another during strikes, a special provision of Taft-Hartley is often incorrectly viewed by some union officials as being"pro-labor." The bill cleverly outlined an organizational body that today encompasses bank accounts of hundreds of billions of dollars. Taft-Hartley "funds" are employer-employee financed accounts that help workers save for retirement, pay for health insurance and buy homes, etc. These accounts are presided over by an equally-weighted labor-management team, where often the fund is managed like a corporate bank, and the employers and employees view themselves as partner shareholders. The Taft-Hartley bill was a very conscious attempt to disarm the labor movement. By merging the interests of workers and management into a pot of money, sections of the labor movement found it difficult to demand their "fund partners" pay higher wages, etc. Some workers identified themselves more and more as investors and used these funds to enrich themselves, or as stepping-stones into the corporate world of finance. In any case, the company union philosophy blurred the interests of workers, who sometimes found difficulty in determining if they should go on strike or merely consult an investment broker. Another modern example of company unionism is the openly "collaborationist" grouping inside of the Alliance for American Manufacturers (AAM). Here we have labor unions — the Steelworkers, for example — and giant corporations in the same organization working towards identical goals, aiming at a common enemy — China. One of the AAM's most cherished tasks is to promote "fair trade," which they define as U.S. corporations out-competing other nations' companies — though most notably China — on the world market. The AAM uses its corporate money to "lobby" Congressmen, who oblige by putting up taxes (tariffs) on Chinese imports, an action the Chinese accurately view as "economic warfare." Of course, if workers are being taught to work with their bosses against the Chinese, the ability of workers to fight their bosses to win a good contract is greatly diminished. A broader, political example of company unionism is labor unions' continued involvement in the Democratic Party. The Democrats have always been dominated by big business; it's a party where corporations come together to have their needs met, though less explicitly — and therefore more dangerously — than the Republicans. The few crumbs that Democrats threw to the unions have long since dried up; both Clinton and Obama are blatantly pro-corporate Presidents, with Obama presiding over a very pro-corporate Democratic controlled Congress. And although the Democrats have snubbed labor a thousand times, most top labor officials seem desperate to maintain this worthless "alliance," something that requires them to constantly make "compromises" with the Democrats that are against the interests of the working class. The most recent one is the acceptance of the Democrats' "Cadillac" tax on workers health care plans. Another recent example of labor officials practicing dangerous cooperation with the corporate Democrats is the actions of the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randi Weingarten. Instead of preparing teachers for a battle against Obama's anti-public education "reform," the AFT President has decided that "working together" would be more effective. Both the Democrats and mainstream media are attempting to adopt many long-time conservative notions regarding education. Obama calls his plan the"Race to the Top" campaign (a name as misleading as Bush's No Child Left Behind). The Democrats attack on public education requires undermining the power of teachers' unions, a task done by instituting teacher-specific, conservative reforms, including tying a teacher's pay and job status to a student's performance or closing down "failing schools" and opening non-union, private charter schools. Both of these schemes are integral to Obama's education reform and have already been ruthlessly implanted in New Orleans and Chicago, to the huge detriment of both teachers and students. In response to future, potentially crippling attacks in Obama's plan, the AFT President is disarming her membership while walking them into a war zone. Weingarten has not only failed to condemn the President's plan, but has spoken positively of it, and how teachers could best work with the Obama administration. In a recent speech to the U.S. Press Club, the AFT President cited two recent examples of teacher collective bargaining retreats — including an especially bad defeat in Detroit — and proclaimed the outcomes as victories of "collaboration", to be mimicked throughout the country in accordance of Obama's anti-teacher plan. Weingarten admits that one of the contracts included classic conservative reforms like "rigorous evaluations, more flexible hiring authority, and performance pay on a school-by-school basis... " In a classic example of company union ideology, Weingarten states: "We must transform our mutual responsibility into mutual commitment. Our relationship should be a constant conversation that begins before and continues long after we meet at the bargaining table." This would be a fine statement if not for the fact that Weingarten's partners in "mutual commitment" are out for teacher's blood. Advancing the labor movement cannot be done with friendly cooperation with management or voting for either of the corporations' political parties. The past gains in living wages of union workers— which are now quickly shrinking— and their benefits were won in past generations through a combination of two very important factors. The first was the recognition that the interests of working people and the employers were diametrically opposite, where wages came at the expense of profits and vice versa. Secondly, workers employed organized militant actions, for example, large demonstrations, strikes with massive picket lines and at times workplace occupations, etc. Those who promote less confrontational solutions to labor's problems have had decades to prove their theories. They have completely failed. Labor continues a decades-long backward slide. The promised Employee Free Choice Act is being relegated to the Obama bin of betrayals. Labor can and must change course, the sooner the better. This can be done by directly challenging the Obama administration's pro-big business policies of foreign wars, bank bailouts, cuts in needed social services, corporate health care, attacks on public education, etc. Mass demonstrations are an effective tool to organize and educate workers, while giving an explicit warning against politicians who promote anti-worker policies. Labor unions around the country have passed resolutions endorsing a march on Washington demanding jobs, peace and justice. Below is a model resolution to propose at your local union. Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign Model Resolution  http://wercampaign.org/2010/01/07/monde_resolution/ National March on Washington for Jobs, Peace, Affordable Health Care For All and Ending Foreclosures and Evictions Whereas — despite the so-called economic recovery — the economic crisis for working people has continued unabated with growing unemployment and rising home foreclosures and evictions, And whereas this economic crisis has resulted in the underfunding and degrading of public education and social services, And whereas the government has bestowed billions of dollars of bailout money on the financial institutions whose recklessness and greed created this economic crisis, And whereas there is growing opposition to the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq by a majority of the people here in the U.S. -not to mention the great and ever-growing opposition by the citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq, And whereas these wars are costing billions of dollars each month, Therefore be it resolved that ____________ call on the AFL-CIO and Change to Win to organize a Solidarity Day III march on Washington D.C. in the spring of 2010 to demand jobs, housing, health care, full funding for public education and social services, and peace.

homepage: http://www.workerscompass.org

Posted by Joe Anybody at 1:37 PM PST

Updated: Saturday, 23 January 2010 1:39 PM PST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  celebratory

The Treasury may have made some silly paper "profit" on its bailout of Citigroup (C) but the taxpayer may not get much of anything.

The Washington Post reports that as part of the bank's TARP payback agreement, it's quietly been given a $38 billion tax break by the IRS. Seriously.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors.

While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits.

So what specifically happened?

Citigroup was required to replace its federal aid with an equal amount of money from private investors, more than any other bank. The government concluded that Citigroup needed the IRS ruling because a reduction in the value of its tax breaks would have eroded its capital, forcing the company to raise more money, officials said.

Federal tax law lets companies reduce taxable income in a good year by the amount of losses in bad years. But the law limits the transfer of those benefits to new ownership as a way of preventing profitable companies from buying losers to avoid taxes. Under the law, the government's sale of its 34 percent stake in Citigroup, combined with the company's recent sales of stock to raise money, qualified as a change in ownership.

This is actually an issue that's been talked about for a while. Mike Mayo and Rolfe Winkler have been banging the drum on this, warning that the eorsion of these tax credits would eat into Citi's coming quarterly earnings, big-time.

But apparently they didn't count on the generosity of Uncle Sam once again.

Read the whole story >>

Posted by Joe Anybody at 5:06 PM PST

Updated: Thursday, 17 December 2009 5:10 PM PST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  mischievious

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Wal-Mart/index.html

Summary

Wal-Mart provides an up-front savings for shoppers, but the cost is carried by increasingly brutal labor conditions, especially in China, but also in the U.S. Because Wal-Mart is now the largest corporation in the world, its practice of disregarding human rights for the sake of a good sale on the other side of the world is setting an ominous trend in an industry that is now trying to keep up with Wal-Mart by wringing more labor for less and less compensation.

Consider, also, that foreign cheap labor comes in part because of their socialist government that covers daily living expenses of the workers, so the true cost of labor is actually through subsidies by a Communist system.  By supporting Wal-Mart, we endanger American Free Enterprise and prop up totalitarianism.

Now Wal-Mart is leading the way in implementing RFID product tracking, leading the way to more of an Orwellian big brother world of tyranny here in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

This is creating a very serious breach of conscience for millions of otherwise upright Americans, who can sense that these low prices come at a price. It is time to stop patronizing increasingly slave-like labor conditions at home and abroad.

Sterling D. Allan
April 30, 2002, with update Jan. 29, 2004

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:38 PM PST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  energetic

Here are 10 work habits that you should try to break:

1. Procrastination A lot of people work best under pressure, or at least they say so. With everyone having a different personality, you can't say a strict schedule works best for all employees. Putting tasks off until the last minute, however, invites plenty of problems, even if you think the final result will be glorious.When you leave yourself no wiggle room to complete a task, you run the risk of encountering an unexpected obstacle that makes you miss the deadline. Even if the situation is out of your hands, everyone will be left wondering why you didn't plan better and account for last-minute emergencies.

2. Being a sloppy e-mailer E-mails are second nature to most people these days, and in informal communications they've become a digital Post-it note. We type out a message and send it without proofreading or double-checking the recipients. That's a recipe for disaster.If you haven't learned your lesson by now, the day will soon come when you accidentally "Reply All" to an e-mail and a slew of unintended readers receive a silly note you intended only your co-worker to read.

3. Confusing informal with disrespectful In many workplaces, the boss might be the decision maker, but he or she isn't the stern, humorless caricature you saw on TV. Using your supervisor's first name and going for some drinks after work are common in many industries. Still, you are the employee and the boss is the boss -- the one who can fire you and tell you what to do. Don't cross the line by talking to her as if you're talking to one of your direct reports or even your best friend. You need to show some respect for her authority.

4. Taking advantage of leeway Some companies are strict about the time you clock in and out. Others have guidelines but no hard rules, so you can arrive at 8:35 a.m. and no one cares. If over time you're arriving at 9:10 a.m. and leaving at 4 p.m. (with plenty of breaks in between), your reputation will suffer.This also goes for dress codes. Business casual is up to interpretation, but ripped jeans and concert tees probably don't fall under your company's accepted definition.

5. Refusing to mingle Plenty of wisdom lies in the advice not to mix personal and professional lives. However, refusing to take part in any social activity -- such as the office potluck or a happy hour -- will not help your career. You don't need to be the resident party animal, but being personable with your colleagues helps build camaraderie. You get to know other people better and they get to know you as more than the person they pass in the halls.

6. Always running late This isn't the same as abusing leeway; this is a matter of trust. If you're late to work, to meetings and with projects, your boss and colleagues will associate that trait with you.  When it's time for a promotion or to deal with an important client, everyone will think twice before giving you the opportunity. Who wants to trust the person who can't manage his or her time?

7. Being rigid One of the unfair aspects of the working world is that sometimes it seems you can't win. If you're hired to do a job, most bosses don't want you passing the day by reading your favorite book. The reason: You were hired to do a job, so do it. But if the boss comes to you with a new project that's outside the parameters of your usual duties, it's still yours to do. "You don't pay me to do that" isn't something you want to tell your supervisor.

8. Acting as the resident contrarian We all love your spirited personality, but try not to be the person in the meeting who always has a better idea and can tell you why everyone else's idea is dumb. Voices of opposition are often missing in many workplaces because too many eager employees want to be "yes" men and women. But too much negativity grates on nerves and makes people dread hearing your voice. Continue to be a critical thinker, but make sure you're doing what's best for the company and not just trying to be the loudest voice in the room.

9. Badmouthing the company With blogs, Facebook, Twitter and a host of other sites, you have plenty of opportunity to vent your frustration with life. If you're going to complain about how dumb your boss is and how much you hate your job, keep those rants private. The Internet is public domain and comments have a way of finding their way back to all the wrong people. If you wouldn't stand outside your boss's office and tell a co-worker how ready you are to quit, don't express the same thoughts in an open forum.

10. Politicking Office politics are often unavoidable, and sometimes having a grasp on what's going on can benefit you, but you shouldn't spend more time masterminding office warfare than you do working. Getting caught in the crosshairs of a workplace controversy can be out of your control, but if you're the one instigating the drama, you're earning a bad reputation. You're the person who starts trouble and whom no one trusts. That's the kind of notoriety that follows you from one workplace to another. 

Posted by Joe Anybody at 11:25 AM PDT

Updated: Tuesday, 16 June 2009 12:09 PM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  cool

Corporations versus the People

I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
- Thomas Jefferson

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
- Abraham Lincoln

Big business is not dangerous because it is big, but because its bigness is an unwholesome inflation created by privileges and exemptions which it ought not to enjoy.
- Woodrow Wilson

The citizens of the United States must control the mighty commercial forces which they themselves called into being.
- Theodore Roosevelt

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
- Dwight Eisenhower

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves - and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion.
- Thomas Jefferson

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

*********************************************************

Civics Quiz

Which of the following candidates for President of the United States best reflects values expressed above?

a) John McCain
b) Hillary Clinton
c) Barack Obama
d) Ralph Nader

The answer?

d) Ralph Nader

As the Democrats bicker over the meaning of bitterness, Ralph Nader is traveling to all 50 states to challenge head-on the abusive, corrupting, corrosive corporate power that is undermining our democracy.

In this momentous election year, the Nader/Gonzalez campaign has launched an historic challenge to the corporate two-party duopoly.

The first phase is well under way - getting Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in states across the country.

Today, Ralph travels to the Land of Lincoln - Illinois.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 9:57 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  loud

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/8855-chevron-reports-4-35-billion-in-profits-it-s-like-they-were-printing-money

Cheveron Record Profits

Chevron's record profit's amazingly couldn’t satisfy Wall Street’s expectation’s as their just reported $4.35 billion second quarter earnings sent shares tumbling. I suppose profits 18% higher than last quarter which capped off the most profitable three-month period in Chevron’s 127 year history just doesn’t cut it in this hyper-active greed cycle energy investors are in. Revenues for this period were $53.5 billion.

"It was still like they were printing money. They just weren’t printing as much as everybody thought,” said industry analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer and Company".

I doubt Chevron CEO David J. O'Reilly care’s very much about the temporary drop in Chevron’s shares, since he made $8.8 million last year bringing his six-year compensation total to $37.39. I’m sure he thinks the future is bright indeed as he oversees Chevron’s insatiable thirst for massive amounts of profits no matter what the cost, including their involvement in the exploitation of oil in Iraq.

"Chevron and the other major oil companies profited greatly from failure. Long outages at refineries, aging equipment and lack of new capacity," said Judy Dugan, research director of OilWatchdog.org and FTCR".

"Chevron's refinery production in the first six months of this year was at the lowest level since Hurricane Katrina, yet it boosted profit to a new record as consumers paid outrageous prices at the pump."

Also, in March of 2007, the Iraqi parliament prodded by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, passed a law that privatized Iraq’s oil. Chevron stands to make huge profits from this law. Before the war, U.S. oil companies were excluded from profiting from Iraqi oil. With the passage of this new law and after the war, they will be in charge of it.

Posted by Joe Anybody at 12:55 AM PDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink