Multinational Monitor

SEP/OCT 2006
VOL 27 No. 5


Greasing the Deal: A Royalty Scam
by Mandy Smithberger

Not Very Sporting: Outdoor Sporting Goods Retail Subsidy Scam
by Greg LeRoy

Relocation Racket: How Relocation Consultants Pit Cities and States Against Each Other
by Greg LeRoy

South Africa Embraces Corporate Welfare: Mega Deal Subsidies Over Services for the Poor
by Patrick Bond

The Corporate Beneficiaries of the Medicare Drug Benefit
by Dean Baker

Public Funds Up in Flames: The Incineration Industry Seeks Renewable Energy Subsidies
by Monica Wilson

Green Mountain's Other Faces: The Dirty Side of Clean Energy
by Andrew Wheat


The Big Box Swindle: The True Cost of the Mega-Retailers
an interview with Stacy Mitchell


Behind the Lines

Letter to the Editor

The State of Corporate Welfare

The Front
Climate Changing Africa -- African Inequality

The Lawrence Summers Memorial Award

Book Note
The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

Names In the News


Letter to the Editor

I was recently heartened to see that Multinational Monitor (“No Choices: Australia”s Unions Confront Labor Law ‘Reform,’” July/August 2006) published an article on the industrial relations changes in Australia.
And up until the last page, other than some issues of fact (for example, annual leave loading is not about permitting unused vacation leave to be carried over to subsequent years), the article was an adequate summary of WorkChoices.
Then it went haywire in the section on the “The Union Campaign.” What this section essentially says is that the union movement was/is doing very little to combat WorkChoices or where it is, it is misguided. That, without the intervention of “militant unionists” (whoever they are), nothing much would have happened. Then it produces the usual line criticizing the relationship between the union movement and the Australian Labor Party.
To put not too fine a point on it — this is CRAP! In overall terms the union movement campaign has been going well — it helps explain the expenditure of A$40 million by the federal government to counteract the unions’ position. The union movement has, on its own terms, been very united in its approach to countering WorkChoices and in doing so has adopted a multifaceted approach.
It is unfortunate that Multinational Monitor has allowed its pages to be used to give an inaccurate view of the union campaign in this country.
I respect that it is the prerogative of the editors to choose who writes articles for the journal. To date I have had no complaints (although this case makes me wonder).
But the view you received only reflects the sectarian position taken by a small Trotskyist party. At a time when the union movement must be and is unified, little attention is given in this country to a small or, perhaps more accurately, very small, sectarian group that is always finding ways to undermine that unity. We have more productive things to do.

My advice, for what its worth, is that Multinational Monitor should do the same.

Andrew Thomas
Leichhardt NSW, Australia

Mailing List


Editor's Blog

Archived Issues

Subscribe Online

Donate Online


Send Letter to the Editor

Writers' Guidelines