First paragraph (Teaser):

They call themselves the G8 Labor Ministers. Their mission is to optimize the exploitation of workers, and to subordinate what they see as useful social tools such as education towards the realization of that goal. They will be conspiring to push their vision in Montreal this Friday.

Rest of the text:

Friday's Torch March (see: http://www.quebec2001.net/english/torchlightmarch.html for times, details...) draws near... so here is a little bit of g8 labor critique....

Many of you will have already visited http://www.g8montreal2002.ca - the official labor ministerial site - which offers scanty info, as per g8 tradition. In fact, there is only one document to look at, "The Knowledge Imperative: Skills and Learning Challenges for the 21 st Century":

http://www.g8montreal2002.ca/english.pdf

or (en francais):

http://www.g8montreal2002.ca/french.pdf

You will immediately notice the soporific effect of this document, so pop some amphetamines beforehand if you really plan on reading it in its entirety.

Clearly, this document is not offered with the intention of clarifying what actually goes on in the scheming minds of G8 officials. It appears, rather, to be designed, primarily, as a sort of language course that would be more aptly entitled: "How to Bamboozle and Sedate People as You Screw Them."

Even so, some critical reading can be revealing. Here are some notable selections:

On: subordinating education to employment

"All learning partners – governments at all levels, employers, educators, organized labour, non-governmental organizations, parents and individuals themselves – must be involved in the development and implementation of effective learning strategies."

Note how the 'employer' is the foremost 'learning partner'. Individuals (students/workers) come last (!).

On: 'Worker Mobility'

"Labour mobility is not solely an issue of skills recognition. Pension plans and other benefits which are not transferable between employers, professional licensing requirements which limit scope and location of practice, passive income support measures to those in high-unemployment sectors or regions, and individual or family ties can all limit worker mobility, both geographic and professional."

That's right, "labor mobility" referred to here has NOTHING to do with opening borders so that workers can move across borders as goods currently do - it is simply being used to criticize various worker benefits as 'negative mobility' factors. For example, 'passive income support measures' - i.e. unemployment insurance, welfare, or worker's compensation - will "limit worker mobility".

On: shifting the burden of retraining from employers to employees

"...periods of unemployment can provide a unique opportunity to engage in further skills development. The opportunity costs are low (counted in terms of lost income and unacquired workplace experience), skills can deteriorate and/or become obsolete while unemployed, and skills development can enhance individual capacity to take advantage of renewed opportunities as they arise."

You see? By firing employees, an employer can actually help them discover a 'unique opportunity' to have the government pay for their training instead of the employer.....

On: going headhunting for skilled labor in poorer nations

Look at the following,

"Alongside the large proportion of workers who find themselves without the skills required of the knowledge economy, are those who may have the skills -- whether acquired informally, in another jurisdiction or through an unfamiliar institutional structure -- but cannot use them for either employment of learning purposes. This under-utilization of human resources impairs labour market efficiency, limits professional, geographic and economic mobility, and restricts personal growth and social participation. This issue is particularly important for the low-skilled, who tend to be engaged in less formal types of on-the-job learning, and for whom broader based skills recognition could be an important incentive to further skills development."

and put it in the context of this article:

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20020404/537848...

Pay particular attention to the following quotes by Canadian Chamber of Commerce president, Nancy Hughes Anthony:

"Immigration has always been a major source of qualified workers for Canada, but as global competition for skilled labour increases we must become more aggressive in our approach," Ms. Hughes Anthony said. "Unfortunately, there seems to be a contradiction between this goal and the new restrictive immigration regulations before Parliament. If Canada does not fix its system and cannot compete in a positive way for people, then our members cannot continue to grow the country's economy or compete globally.... The government can help to ease this problem by working with industry and professional associations to develop national and international accreditation standards to evaluate foreign credentials.... In order to attract and retain highly skilled and productive human capital, much more needs to be done in providing fair taxes for all individuals."

Notice that the G8 report incorporates precisely these recommendations that Anthony is talking about:

"...establishment of a co-ordinated and coherent system of credentials recognition, available to
all and recognized by both learning institutions and employers..."

Increased immigration is one thing...but what is being suggested, really, is that Canada focus on a particular kind of immigration - on ripping off the intellectual capital of other countries in order to make up for our own educational shortfall and braindrain. Think about that one.

Finally, note how labor ministers are encouraged to suggest that *employers* "build a more integrated relationship with educational institutions – to make sure the skills acquired meet workplace demands, and to ensure that training undertaken in the firm can be recognized for further learning."

So employers will be encouraged to elbow their way into the education system, and to push for having their own training programs integrated into government programs. More corporate chairs at universities. More privatized education all round.

Learning institutions are urged to promote "better accommodating transitions between work and learning – by building relationships with the business community and through program design."

And the workers? "Finally, individual adults also must be prepared to take responsibility for their own learning,
by using the tools provided and taking advantage of learning opportunities as they arise." In other words - "we [the elite] control the opportunities, and you run around and look for them."

Put it all together, and what it being proposed is an 'integrated' approach, in which education is simply one factor - albeit a major one - in the larger concept of 'worker mobility', which is, in turn, a contributing factor towards....economic growth (to be polite) or maximizing corporate profits (to be blunt). And it is interesting that the Labor Ministers are referred to, at least in one part of the document, as the "Labor Market Ministers".

The truth is, these aren't 'Labor' Ministers - they are 'Directors of Labor Exploitation'. Their mission is to optimize the exploitation of workers, and to coordinate other social programs (notably education) towards the realization of that goal.

As for the real representatives of labor - the unions - their request (at the SCFAIT hearings in Febuary - see: http://www.newswire.ca/releases/February2002/28/c6498.html) to be heard by the G8 leaders on the occasion of Kananaskis was flatly refused.

See you all on the streets on Friday.