Global elite unconcerned with rest of us

Billionaires view the world through eyes that see only what they regard as entitlement, writes Michael Clifford.

W hen things looked like they might get out of hand, the police opened fire, hitting at least 10 of the protesting workers. The firing of rubber bullets just served to escalate the dispute, with thousands more coming out to join the protestors. Twenty-one people, including trade union leaders and a reporter, were arrested.

The protest began over the sacking of 121 workers, but quickly unearthed simmering resentments over pay. The workers were earning about one-fifth of the estimated living wage.

Within days, most of the workers had returned to their stations. The protest petered out. A police spokesman said that “all the factories have resumed their operations. Some 90% of the workers are back at work.” Why a police spokesman would sound like a representative for the factories is anybody’s guess. At least 1,500 workers were sacked as a result of the dispute.

The above incident occurred not in this State a century ago, but in Bangladesh last December. The workers were engaged in making clothes for the garment industry. The merchandise ends up on the shelves of shops such as Zara, H&M, and Gap.

The dispute prompted fears in some western countries about supply over the busy Christmas season. As some fretted over whether that nice shirt or that pair of jeans were still available, those who made them were being shot at, sacked and ultimately blacklisted for having the temerity to down tools and demand they be treated like functioning human beings.

There is no record of how Amancio Ortega reacted to the dispute and how it was handled. He is the founder of Zara, a self-made billionaire who last week was named as one of the eight wealthiest individuals in the world. Oxfam published a study showing that the club of eight has more wealth than the poorest 3.5bn people on the planet.

There is no reason to believe that Mr Ortega is anything but a thoroughly decent man, who undoubtedly does his bit for charity and those not as fortunate as himself.

However, the contrast between his standing at the apex of his business empire and the plight of those who are at the very bottom is obscene. But business is business and the ways of the world dictate that commercial pressures push down hardest on those least equipped to defend themselves, wherever they may be found.

The ways of the world also dictate that the thoroughly decent people in western countries like ours prefer to be shielded from the knowledge that in buying clothes in most shops we are complicit in perpetuating the savagery that occurred last December. If we were to give any thought to such matters it could result in the most awful consequences, such as having to invest time and perhaps even a little money in ensuring that any clothes purchased are not done so as a result of gross exploitation.

Conditions had been even worse in recent years. In 2013, the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh collapsed, killing 1,134 workers. Think about that. So many people dying as they worked in sweatshop conditions to enable consumers in the wealthier countries of the world to buy as cheaply as possible.

For a while after that tragedy, the eyes of the world were on conditions that Bangladeshi people are forced to toil under, but the media spotlight has moved on, and conditions have settled back down to being little short of depraved. The Western consumer let the matter slip to a deep recess of conscience.

That is one element of globalisation that has received scant coverage in the political upheavals in Britain and the USA last year. All the focus has been on communities in rich countries which have been devastated by the flight of manufacturing and associated industries to the east and south.

Donald Trump exploited the disenchantment felt in the rust belt states about the flight of jobs, as did the Brexiteers in stricken parts of Britain. Both failed to give due weight to the reality that technology had far more to do with the changed landscape than the lowering of trade barriers, but perception will also trump reality in that regard.

What has gone largely uncommented on is that at the far end of globalisation, the jobs created have been done so at the cost of huge exploitation. It wasn’t enough for the mobile capital to set up in a lower cost country. They had to use their power to ensure that the cost would be plunged as far as possible, in an environment where basic civil and human rights are not fully developed.

That aspect to globalisation was not one that ever bothered the good burghers who gathered in Davos last week. No, their concern about the impacts of a globalised world only surfaced when they manifested themselves last year in political upheaval in western countries.

As they gathered and celebrated themselves in the Swiss town, the big issue was how to address the anger at the growing inequality as evidenced in last year’s polls. They would do well to take heed of economist Joseph Stigltz, who told the New York Times during the week that the gathering was studiously avoiding the elephant in the room.

“More rights to bargain for workers, that’s the part where Davos man is going to get stuck,” he said. “The stark reality is that globalisation has reduced the bargaining power of workers and corporations have taken advantage of it.”

Instead, according to all reports, they convened discussion panels on how to reform capitalism, make globalisation work and put some money back in the pockets of those in western countries who feel disenfranchised.

All of this, of course, will have to be achieved without the global elite agreeing to any watering down of their power, or acceding to a system in which their share of the wealth would have to be reduced in line with global inequity.

There is precious little chance of the billionaire industrialists or their enablers of doing just that. They view the world through eyes that see only what they regard as entitlement. And as of now, democratic politics has remained in thrall to that power.

So it was that Enda Kenny and Michael Noonan walked among this elite, doffing the cap to a tech exec here, bowing at the waist to a world leader there.

In contrast to some areas, globalisation has on the whole been good for this country. Some of the benefits are attributable to public policy over decades, and some down to luck. But Messrs Kenny and Noonan must have been aware that in the grand scheme of world affairs, their little island is exposed to all manner of headwinds being generated in a turbulent world.

We are beneficiaries of globalisation but we could quite easily join the ranks of victims. And irrespective of how the winds blow, we are also complicit in its nastier aspects.