In this article we will continue to examine how General Electric (thanks to Jack Welsh, the recently retired CEO) played, and plays the game of globalization. Much of the space in the previous article was devoted to its entrepreneurial glories, which, if only judged by the “bottom line” of the balance sheet and the stock market, are indeed remarkable. However, GE is not without its critics who aver that the real costs of doing its business has not been taken into account.
What
the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) point out is that costs in human
miseries and environmental damage has not, and is not expensed-out in GE’s
profit and loss statement; costs that are, and will be paid by society as a
whole. They maintain that the glories
of globalization have redounded to the few rich at the expense of the many
poor.
Jack
Welsh has been quoted as having stated, “ideally you’d have every plant you own
on a barge.” NGO’s have interpreted the
statement as revealing of a callous disregard of the negative impact that plant
relocations has on workers and the community.
As evidence, they refer to the recent GE shutdown of a factory in Turkey
in order to move it to Hungary, where wages are lower; with the threat to move
it to India if conditions were not met.
Furthermore, in no uncertain terms, it has told its suppliers to move to
Mexico if they hope to do business with GE; “We expect you to move and move
quickly.” That arbitrary, heavy-handed
business policy earned Jack Welsh the name of “Neutron Jack” and the enmity of
many. Unfortunately, it also earned the
emulation of other trans-national corporations (TNC’s).
At
a recent interview with Tim Russert of Meet the Press, Welsh admitted that he
was hurt by that appellation. However,
at the same interview when asked if there was a public office job in his future,
he confided that he preferred to operate in a business environment of “no
checks or balances.” And, that
sentiment, which is chaired by most of the TNC’s, is pretty much what the labor
unions , environmentalists and the many NGO’s, that have demonstrated against
the WTO, IMF, the World Bank and globalization in general, say is the
problem. They view globalization as the
means by which corporations can operate outside the U.S. boundaries and
jurisdiction pretty much free from any checks and balances; free from most of
the health, safety and child labor laws.
By
and large, most NGO’s are not against global free trade per se. What they, labor unions, environmentalists
and local community spoke-persons object to is the unrestricted worldwide
corporate dominated trade that does little or nothing for workers welfare, the
environment and local self-determination.
At
the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum of October past, President
Bush stated that trade is the engine of economic advancement; and essential to
improving opportunities and fortunes for people. To which Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia countered “this is
so contrary to the facts as they have been experienced by the countries of East
Asia, Africa and Latin America,’ asserting that there have been few winners and
far too many losers. He called for “a
more productive, compassionate and caring globalization” and, pointing out what
many critics of economic globalization have concluded, “given the mountain of
money and power that comes out of the almighty dollar, is it any surprise that
global capitalism is in charge of the ‘Washington consensus,’ of the IMF, of
the World Bank, of the WTO, of the wealthiest and most powerful nations of the
world?”
In
the next article we will look into the ‘fast-track’ issue that at this writing
had just passed the House of Representatives by one vote margin. Is ‘fast-track’ indispensable for concluding
trade agreements with other countries or, is it just a ‘fast-shuffle’ as labor
and environmentalists maintain? STAY
TUNED.
Art
Peracchio
12-11-01