Big Business vs. The People

[CptSternn]

There are a few threads here that touch on the various issues surrounding big business and their battles against people in various arenas, but I thought this article was a good starting point for a new all-inclusive thread.

Foreign workers sue U.S. companies

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ts_N.htm?csp=1

abor leaders overseas are turning increasingly to an obscure 18th-century law that could for the first time make U.S. companies liable at home for the violent and sometimes murderous actions of their employees around the world.

Several lawsuits alleging violation of the Alien Tort Statute are awaiting trial in federal courts, filed with the help of unions and activist groups in the USA.

One against Geo W. Drummond Ltd. of Alabama alleges the contracting company's subsidiary in Colombia paid death squads to kill labor leaders.

The lawsuits have set up a showdown over whether boardrooms in the USA should pay big-money verdicts for crimes not prosecuted in countries where corruption and violence are often seen as a cost of doing business.


As I mentioned in a few previous threads I work with an organisation here in Ireland called Shell To Sea. This article actual mentions the Nigerians that are suing Chevron, which is part of a bigger story that I'll fill everyone in on.

Back in the 1990's oil was discovered in Nigeria. A conglomerate of oil companies including Shell, Chevron, and a few others came to Nigeria to work on extracting that oil. The first thing the oil companies did was bought off all the politicians in the country. Not of the group that was in power, but their adversaries. They then went to the ruling party and told them quite bluntly if they did not allow them to extract the oil at a very low rate, with no tax, then they would oust the current government from power. Of course the government laughed at this threat, until they were kicked from power by their political advesaries as the oil companies poured hundreds of millions in smear campaigns as well as paid local death squads to kill off politicians who they couldn't beat.

Once in power they began pumping the oil out, paying no tax, and doing so without any regard for the land. Due to contamination thousands haved died. When people in the Niger Delta region began complaining and started to protest, Shell once again hired death squads to come in an kill off all dissenters who raised objection with the oil drilling.

Since then, this battle over oil lead to the conflict which was depicted in the film 'Tears Of The Sun' with Bruce Willis. They don't go into detail in the film about the conflict, but this was a war created by oil corporations in efforts to destabilise the region so they could swoop in and take control of the oil there.

That being said, the Nigerians depicted in the film were taken to Ireland. Co. Clare to be precise, where they still reside today. I know these men and women and have attended numerous meetings with them on this very subject.

Only now are they starting to get worldwide attention to their plight, not because of the film, but because Shell is now trying the same thing in Ireland.

Before I go off on that tangent, I just would like to kick things off on the current topic about holding corporations liable for their actions in other countries. Obviously, the bush admin is fighting this, claiming corporations can't be held liable for actions of persons in other countries because the laws there are different.

That being said, whenever a country hires death squads to wipe out protestors, well, no matter where it happens and what the local laws are whether they allow such actions or not, this type of behaviour is unacceptable and should be held accountable for those who ordered it.

Anyone else feel this way? Disagree?

[mrs.wes straker]

You cannot tax a corporation. They simply pass the expense on the consumer. I know that statement may not sound relevant at first, but it is, at least a little bit.

The only way to stop the wealthy from behaving the way they do without the common man having to pay for it somewhere, be it their employees or customers---is to boycott them completely, which is virtually impossble.

Corportations, who I lump in with the wealthy, should be held accountable for their behavior, for sure. As we all know, though, rich people get away with murder. Always have and always will. I don't know if I'm too lazy to fight it or if I just think it's a losing battle and already have enough on my plate. It would seem to be the case with most of the world, and it's how a lot of this crap just continues.

[Saphyra Runa]

Get your facts straight about oil in Nigeria. Oil was not discovered in the 1990's. Oil has been known about in the Niger Delta since at least the 1950's. The oil in the Niger Delta was the center of the Nigerian Civil War which started in 1967.

As far as big business in other countries and any atrocities they are said to be causing have probably more ties to the previous admistration than to Bush. I'll keep working on that but right now I have to go to my job that's under the umbrella of another large oil corporation.

[CptSternn]

I'm quite familiar with the conflict and its roots. Oil has been present in the 50's but major production and extraction operations did not exist until the 1990;s when removing oil from the region became profitable due to the rising cost of oil worldwide.

The same can be said for the gas off shore of Ireland. It has been there and been known about since the 50's - only now with the price so high is it worth extracting due to the world economy.

But the strife cause by it, and the current political situation began in the 1990's.

[HumanePain]

I think that the oil corporations may revisit a field previously thought unprofitable once the price per barrel rises enough to make it profitable again.

In the 1950's there was no reason to travel to such a place when they could meet demand and enjoy reduced shipping costs by processing local oil from Texas, Oklahoma etc.

Now that oil offshore from the California coast is untouchable by law, and other fields are drying up, they will go back to where they know there is already know reserves, though they may be of lower quality, because they also now have the technology to remove sulpher and other impurities that was not practical in the 50's.

[Binkie]

The first inaccurancy:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Back in the 1990's oil was discovered in Nigeria.

When this was shown to be an idiotic statement, the back pedalling came up with another ridiculously inaccurate statement:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I'm quite familiar with the conflict and its roots. Oil has been present in the 50's but major production and extraction operations did not exist until the 1990;s when removing oil from the region became profitable due to the rising cost of oil worldwide.

Hmmm... and yet Nigeria joined OPEC in 1971 when there was an oil boom there. So by this dumbfounded logic, Nigeria was negotiating oil prices without actually selling any of it's own. And of course while Nigeria was not marketing any of it's oil or drilling for it, they headed up OPEC with a Secretary General in the mid 70s. That makes lots of sense. Boy, this guy really knows what he's talking about.

Duuuuuurh.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

A conglomerate of oil companies including Shell, Chevron, and a few others came to Nigeria to work on extracting that oil.

Which, according to this clown, happened in the 90s? Shell has had operations in Nigeria since the 1950s. Chevron since the 1960s. But alas, they were selling Girl Scout cookies at the time because...

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Back in the 1990's oil was discovered in Nigeria.

Thank you, Mr. Wizard.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Since then, this battle over oil lead to the conflict which was depicted in the film 'Tears Of The Sun' with Bruce Willis. They don't go into detail in the film about the conflict, but this was a war created by oil corporations in efforts to destabilise the region so they could swoop in and take control of the oil there.

I.E. you just made that up. The film was about a military coup that mainly focused on ethnic cleansing. Nowhere are corporations mentioned. Nowhere is oil mentioned. But hey, you seemed to think Die Hard 2 involved remote controled planes when it didn't. So why can't you rewrite this movie too?

That being said, the Nigerians depicted in the film were taken to Ireland. Co. Clare to be precise, where they still reside today. I know these men and women and have attended numerous meetings with them on this very subject.

Bwahahahahaha! This film was about a completely fictional civil war in the 21st century. So wait, let me get this straight... the refugees of a fictional movie came to Ireland? OK. THAT makes sense!

Hey, I bet Ireland has quite a few Ewok refugees somewhere... wait, that's Co. Clare to be precise! The empire drove them off of Endor when the corporations discovered oil and bought off the tribal Ewok leaders. It was all accurately depicted in Return of the Jedi!

[CptSternn]

HP -

I agree with you there, however, the companies in question went farther then that in these cases. They claimed they found no reserves, on two previous occasions, then 10 years later when they were able to secure contracts with the government they suddenly 'found' a dozen areas rich with resources, in the area they searched previously.

Internal documents acquired from FOIA and from former employees who now are working with the case to help those in question have confirmed this.

[CptSternn]

Also, a few vids to give some more history, background, etc -

Shell in mayo, A new Nigeria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLpDmh4BU8w

Dangerous Pipe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI3lhF0eXpA

The political economy of Genocide
http://video.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/467.shtml

And Of course those that I posted meself...

From the camp...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQC0n8ZgPMU

...And us being baton charged by police during a peaceful protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz0zYd93nfo

[CptSternn]

Furthering on with the thread topic, an article today from the New York Times about OSHA, and their performance since the bush admin took office. Turns out they have rolled back pretty much all protections and safeguards that were in place, and removed protections for many American workers. The 'new' OSHA feels industry does NOT need to be regulated, and that companies can self-police without their help. Why then are they in existence and receiving millions in federal funds if they are not going to pass any standards or enforce them?

Just another example of the bush admin selling off the rights as well as the health and safety of American workers to the highest bidder.

In fact, the argument the bush admin and his OSHA officials use are the same they use in blocking change to global warming - they claim all the science surrounding various chemicals is 'fuzzy', therefore they don't want to enforce anything. This is even after hundreds of American workers in various plants have developed various debilitating conditions that doctors AND scientists have directly attributed to their work conditions and various substances found there.

Even with such hard evidence, the bush admin contends that in their eyes, and the eyes of the corporate lawyers who are fighting these cases, there is no clear link. Fortunately, the court system and juries have found differently. But even with million dollar court cases going against them, they still refuse to put in place basic safeguards to protect American workers.

OSHA Leaves Worker Safety in Hands of Industry

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/wa...syahoo&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, April 24 — Seven years ago, a Missouri doctor discovered a troubling pattern at a microwave popcorn plant in the town of Jasper. After an additive was modified to produce a more buttery taste, nine workers came down with a rare, life-threatening disease that was ravaging their lungs.

Puzzled Missouri health authorities turned to two federal agencies in Washington. Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which investigates the causes of workplace health problems, moved quickly to examine patients, inspect factories and run tests. Within months, they concluded that the workers became ill after exposure to diacetyl, a food-flavoring agent.

But the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, charged with overseeing workplace safety, reacted with far less urgency. It did not step up plant inspections or mandate safety standards for businesses, even as more workers became ill.

On Tuesday, the top official at the agency told lawmakers at a Congressional hearing that it would prepare a safety bulletin and plan to inspect a few dozen of the thousands of food plants that use the additive.

That response reflects OSHA’s practices under the Bush administration, which vowed to limit new rules and roll back what it considered cumbersome regulations that imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers. Across Washington, political appointees — often former officials of the industries they now oversee — have eased regulations or weakened enforcement of rules on issues like driving hours for truckers, logging in forests and corporate mergers.

Since George W. Bush became president, OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history, public health experts say. It has imposed only one major safety rule. The only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court.

The agency has killed dozens of existing and proposed regulations and delayed adopting others. For example, OSHA has repeatedly identified silica dust, which can cause lung cancer, and construction site noise as health hazards that warrant new safeguards for nearly three million workers, but it has yet to require them.

“The people at OSHA have no interest in running a regulatory agency,” said Dr. David Michaels, an occupational health expert at George Washington University who has written extensively about workplace safety. “If they ever knew how to issue regulations, they’ve forgotten. The concern about protecting workers has gone out the window.”

*snip*

It's an article well worth the read. For an administration that claims 'all life is important' and uses this rhetoric to block abortion and stem cell research, it appears that 'life' is only important until its old enough to work, then it better learn to protect itself as the bush admin wants nothing more to do with it, and could care less if its own polices directly degrade the quality of that life.

[HumanePain]

Wasn't there a rollback of mining regulations just before workers were killed in a mining disaster in West Virginia or someplace years ago? I tried looking but can't google the reference.

[CptSternn]

HP -

You are corrrect. Bush started his presidency by installing former industry exec in all top government positions - including the MSHA. The first act by his new leader for the MSHA, John Correll, was to cut most all protections, remove all statutory regulations, and open up protected areas to strip mining.

Corell prior to being appointed head of Mine Safety and Health Administration held executive and managerial positions in two mining companies: Amax Mining and Peabody Mining, the world's largest privately owned coal company.

Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. But this is nothing new. Almost every major health and saftey office, from OSHA, to the FDA, to EPA are all run by corporate execs who until they were appointed were listed as the worst abusers by their previous predecessors.

For specific info on the mining rollbacks, which many directly attribute to the tragedies which occurred after, check these links:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/62/21402

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in609889.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/ma...mine-m21.shtml

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/safety/ns01052006.cfm

Also, there is a nice site I found a while back detailing how bush put top industry execs into these positions, and lists who they are, where they worked before, and the effects/tradgedies which have ensued due directly to the bush admin repealing pretty much all laws that protect workers, while at the same time refusing to enforce any laws or regulations that would in any way effect these companies.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm

[HumanePain]

Thanks for the links.

I love my country, I love the United States and the way of life we have here, and I am proud to be an American citizen, but this sort of behavior by our leaders saddens me. I am grateful that we have a greater degree of transparency in our nation, so that the press can inform the population about such things; the press has it's share of problems (Dan Rather and CBS for example, publishing an invented letter to vilify President Bush), but it keeps things from being much worse than they are.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I love my country, I love the United States and the way of life we have here, and I am proud to be an American citizen, but this sort of behavior by our leaders saddens me. I am grateful that we have a greater degree of transparency in our nation, so that the press can inform the population about such things; the press has it's share of problems (Dan Rather and CBS for example, publishing an invented letter to vilify President Bush), but it keeps things from being much worse than they are.

I, contrary to popular opinion here, do not hate America nor do I consider myself 'anti-American'. Thats the difference between the press in Europe and in America. In Europe, if you read any of the papers in britian or Ireland you see politicians get taken to task on a daily basis. The press really hammers them, and will spend hours pulling up history of their actions that contradict their current legislation proposals. They also will pull up personal actions and compare them in the press against their policies.

Compared to the press here, the American press is quite tame when dealing with politicians. During the run-up to war this was really seen - with no one asking any hard questions to the politicians in charge.

Yes, the American press does has freedom, however, the system there is setup to keep the press from being able to go after those in power as they do here. For example, if a person from CBS, NBC, etc. blasts the president too much, well they are not invited to the next press corps release at the white house and their paper/tv network/etc doesn't get 'the scoop' when everyone else does. This is mimicked in every political venue in America, where as in Europe there is no press corps, and politicians don't have entourages or bodyguards so reporters can follow them home and sit outside and film them 24 hours a day if they want.

Sure, some argue that its an invasion of privacy, but it does take away the shielding many American politicians have which is used to keep unpopular information out of the mainstream press.

You are correct the stories still make it out, but on the back page, with no pictures, and in papers with small circulation, not the big ones sold nationwide.

And anyone who attempts to blast a sitting politician, thanks to the bush admin, gets labeled 'un-patriotic' when their message goes against the sitting administration.

Europe uses this full press to force change in administrations - I post articles that drudge up those events that don't make the front page and most Americans are unaware of. However the mindset there is different, so instead of encouraging people to get involved and fix whats broken, Americans in todays society go on the defensive and attack person(s) who point out these issues as 'anti-American' as they have been taught by the right wing.

It maintains the status quo, and tis why America has gone from #1 in most every ratable category to #17 in the past decade.

So yeah, I like America too. I also value free press. It's just sad to see people so conditioned to attack the unknown and view change as some threat to their liberty, when in reality, if they continue down the road they are on they stand to loose much more, including the very liberty they currently have.

[CptSternn]

In a related story that goes right along with this topic...

US coal firm linked to Colombia militias

LA LOMA, Colombia - The bus had just left Drummond Co. Inc.'s coal mine carrying about 50 workers when gunmen halted it and forced two union leaders off. They shot one on the spot, pumping four bullets into his head, and dragged the other one off to be tortured and killed.

In a civil trial set to begin Monday before a federal jury in Birmingham, Ala., union lawyers have presented affidavits from two people who allege that Drummond ordered those killings, a charge the company denies.

The Chiquita banana company admitted paying right-wing militias known as paramilitaries to protect its Colombia operations. Human rights activists claim such practices were widespread among multinationals in Colombia, and that Drummond went even further, using the fighters to violently keep its labor costs down.

The Drummond case, they say, is their best chance yet of seeing those allegations heard in court.

The union has presented affidavits to the Alabama court from two people who say they were present when Drummond's chief executive in Colombia, Augusto Jimenez, handed over a large sum of cash to representatives of the local paramilitary warlord. They claim the money was for the March 10, 2001, killings of Sintramienergetica union local president Valmore Locarno and his deputy, Victor Orcasita.

Union leaders, former army soldiers and ex-paramilitary fighters also allege that family-owned Drummond, which shifted most of its operations to northern Colombia in the 1990s as its Alabama veins gave out, paid and provisioned the paramilitaries as a matter of policy.

...The landowner-backed paramilitaries arose in the 1980s to counter kidnapping and extortion by leftist rebels but grew into terrorist organizations in their own right, killing more than 10,000 people, stealing land from peasants and taking over much of Colombia's drug trade.

As the paramilitaries demobilize under a peace pact with the government, many former fighters are coming forward to describe the groups' ties with business leaders and politicians in revelations that are shaking the nation.

The U.S. Justice Department fined Chiquita Brands International Inc. $25 million this year for giving $1.7 million to the militias from 1997-2004. Chiquita said the regular monthly payments by its wholly owned subsidiary Banadex were "to protect the lives of its employees."

Colombia's chief prosecutor, Mario Iguaran, has opened criminal investigations into both the Drummond and Chiquita cases. Last month, the families of 144 people killed by paramilitaries operating where Chiquita harvested bananas sued the company in U.S. federal court in Washington.

And Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., said a congressional hearing that he called on the subject last week would be the first of many.

"We don't want American companies to fuel the unacceptable level of violence that exists in Colombia today," he said.

While the Birmingham trial focuses on the union leaders' murders, witnesses will also accuse Drummond of employing paramilitaries to protect its operations, which exported more than 25 million tons of coal last year from Colombia to the United States and Europe.

Previous efforts to use the Alien Tort Claims Act to make mulitnational corporations accountable for actions in other countries have failed. To win this case, the families must show the slayings amounted to war crimes sanctioned by state officials. Their attorneys say they can prove this since union activists have been systematically slaughtered in Colombia. l Three people unaffiliated with the union told The Associated Press that Drummond paid paramilitaries to guard its 25,000-acre La Loma mine and its coal trains against leftist rebel sabotage. They said the company supplied the mercenaries with pickup trucks and motorcycles and routinely fed them and let them gas up on mine property...

You have to love the slant the media puts on the case even before it heads into a court room. They claim 'leftists' were attacking them, so they were forced to higher right wing militants to kidnap, torture, and kill union officials. Most people don't realise the government of Columbia is a small minority of fat cats propped up by right-wing neo-cons in the American government who funnel billions to that country every year in efforts to keep the people from freely electing a socialist government.

Also, the fact American companies in Colombia, like in other South America nations and throughout Africa, routinely hire militias to do their dirty work.

Of course, its very rare to see any of this even make the news in America. People don't want to know the bananas they buy at Wal-Mart come tainted with the blood of a few thousand workers who were tortured and executed by American companies for attempting to form a union in their homeland.

[CptSternn]

Drug-Tainted Asian Fish Slip Into U.S., States Find

http://news.**********/s/bloomberg/2...nFge5y0Fis0NUE

Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Joseph Basile, an Alabama state scientist, drops a frozen catfish filet into an industrial food processor and pulverizes it into a fluffy white powder.

The grinding in a laboratory in Montgomery is part of a test of imported seafood for drugs that U.S. regulators say can cause cancer or increase resistance to antibiotics. Alabama officials have reported finding banned medicines missed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in seafood from China, Vietnam and other Asian countries.

``I'm sure that FDA would probably wish we'd go away,'' says Ron Sparks, commissioner of Alabama's Department of Agriculture and Industries, which conducts the seafood testing, in an interview. ``My wish is that they'd come to the table and work with us.''

Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana also have found banned drugs in imported seafood, according to statements by regulators in those states. The tests, conducted after the products cleared U.S. ports and were sent on for sale in grocery stores or restaurants, show the FDA isn't adequately protecting consumers from tainted fish, food safety advocates said.

The FDA says it does a good job of keeping unsafe products out of the food supply. In June, the agency began blocking imports of some farm-raised seafood from China until importers provide test results showing shipments are free of banned drugs.

41 of 94 Samples

Yet, of 94 samples of Chinese catfish checked by Alabama since March, the state reports that 41 tested positive for fluoroquinolones, antibiotics banned in the U.S. for seafood. Of 13 more samples of species similar to catfish, including one called basa, five tested positive for the antibiotic. The exporting countries included Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia.

Eating seafood with fluoroquinolones can increase resistance to similar antibiotics used in humans to fight infections, according to the FDA.

Fish farmers in China and elsewhere use medications banned in the U.S. to prevent disease among animals raised in crowded and unsanitary conditions, according to a report in July by Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer group in Washington.

Seafood from abroad accounted for 83 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. last year, compared with 57 percent in 1996, according to the Commerce Department. The U.S. imported 5.4 billion pounds of seafood in 2006, up 69 percent from 1996.


If you were paying attention, bush has cut funding and wants to close half of the FDA's centres in America. This is even after the recent food poisoning outbreaks across America (spinach, e-coli, etc).

On top of this, states are now double checking the FDA's results in many cases, and finding that almost 40% of the things the FDA let slide are harmful and illegal, yet have made it through FDA screeners.

Anyone else bothered by this? The fact these groups, also with large lobbyist firms working for them, are able to send tainted food to the American public that is refused from Europe and Canada, and the powers that be try to shut down the agency that is supposed to stop this sort of thing. Instead of trying to keep contaminated food out, the bush administration is trying to keep its own government employees from blowing the whistle on the fact they are selling tainted food to the American public.