Government of Canada Innovation for Women’s Economic Empowerment in Ghana 2018

Application Deadline: 6th June 2018 (12 noon Eastern Daylight Time)

To Be Taken At (Country): The proposed project takes place in Ghana.

About the Award: Under this call, your preliminary proposal must contribute to the achievement of this ultimate outcome: Enhanced economic empowerment, well-being and inclusive economic growth for women in Ghana.
Your preliminary proposal must also contribute to at least one of the following intermediate outcomes:

• Improved enabling environment and reduced gender-specific barriers for women’s participation in economic growth;
• Enhanced access to decent work for women; and
• Increased productivity, profitability and innovation of women-owned businesses.

You must not alter any of these outcome statements.
Your preliminary proposal must document the ways in which your project would: 1) address root causes of gender inequality; and, 2) incorporate innovation.  Should you be invited to the second stage of proposal submission, your application will need to include indicators at the intermediate level to measure: 1) the changes in power dynamics between men and women related to the root causes of gender inequality; and, 2) the effectiveness of innovative solutions.
Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy states that: “No less than 95 percent of Canada’s bilateral international development assistance initiatives will target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.” Under this call, all preliminary proposals must target gender equality and women’s and girls’ empowerment in their design.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Carefully review the following eligibility screening requirements that we will use on submitted application packages for this call. We will not comment on the eligibility of specific potential applicants. To be eligible, you must be able to respond “yes” to each requirement below and, where stipulated, provide supporting documentation:

• Your organization is not a sovereign entity (a government of a country) or a multilateral institution.
• Your organization is legally incorporated in Canada or Ghana and you can provide proof of legal status.
  • If your organization is Canadian, you must provide a Canada Revenue Agency business number.
  • If your organization is Ghanaian, you must provide proof of registration through Ghana’s Registrar General’s Department.
• Your organization can provide two financial statements dated within 30 months prior to the submission of the application.
• Your organization can demonstrate a minimum of two years of experience managing a gender equality project by providing examples of past projects you have managed in section 3.1 of the application form.
• Your organization can demonstrate a minimum of two years of experience managing a development project with a total budget equal to or greater than the budget in your proposal by providing examples of past projects you have managed in section 3.1 of the application form.
• Your preliminary proposal clearly demonstrates in section 1.2 of the application form how the proposed project incorporates innovation, as per the definition on this call page.

If you are unable to respond “yes” to the above applicable requirements, your organization is not eligible to apply under this call.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The total amount of funding available under the Innovation for Women’s Economic Empowerment in Ghana call for preliminary proposals is $30 million over five years. The organiser may fund any number of proposals, or none, up to the maximum funding available.

Duration of Programme: The proposed project lasts at least three years and no more than five years.

How to Apply: You must submit your preliminary proposal for this call through the Partners@International portal before the deadline. Please read the portal instructions carefully and plan to submit your application at least three days before the closing date to ensure that technical difficulties do not prevent you from submitting your proposal
It is important to go through all application guidelines on the Programme Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit the Programme Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Government of Canada

Plunder Down Under: the Rot in Australia’s Financial Services

Binoy Kampmark

It has all the elements of a crudely crafted if effective tale: banks and other financial services, founded, proud of their standing in society; financial service providers, with such pride, effectively charging the earth for providing elementary services; then, such entities, with self-assumed omnipotence, cheating, extorting and plundering their clients.

This is the scene in Australia, a country where the bankster and financial con artist have been enthroned for some time, worshipped as fictional job creators and wealth managers for the economy. Impunity was more or less guaranteed. All that might be expected would be the odd sacking here and there, the odd removal, the odd fine and limp slap of the wrist. But then came along something the Australian government never wanted: a Royal Commission.

While Commissioner Kenneth Hayne’s Royal Commission into the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services industry initially promised to be a fizzer, one that risked being stage managed into oblivion by a conservative former High Court justice, the contrary has transpired.  Even in its infancy, it has produced a string of revelations that have sent the financial establishment, and those supporting them, into apoplectic worry.

The Turnbull government, long steadfast in treating Australia’s banking and financial sector like a golden calf, has found itself encircled by misjudgement and error.  Former front bencher Barnaby Joyce had to concede error in arguing against a Royal Commission into the sector. “I was wrong.  What I have heard is [sic] so far is beyond disturbing.”

Ministers have been more mealy-mouthed, in particular Revenue Minister Kelly O’Dwyer who has given a string of performances featuring stellar denial and evasion. “Initially,” she told the ABC last Thursday, “the Government said that it didn’t feel that there was enough need for a royal commission. And we re-evaluated our position and we introduced one.”

Such a view ignores a strain of deep anti-banking suspicion within some conservative circles – notably of the agrarian populist persuasion.  The National rebels George Christensen, Llew O’Brien and Barry O’Sullivan were repeatedly noisy on the subject.  (The unregulated free market sits uneasily with them.)

The undergrowth of abuse has proven extensive and thorny.  Clients, for instance, have been charged services they were never supplied; monitoring systems to ensure that such services were, in fact, being provided, have been absent.  Not even the dead have been spared, with the Commonwealth Bank’s financial business wing knowingly charging fees of the departed.

One revelatory report stretching back to 2012 from Deloitte found the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) particularly egregious on this score.  According to the authors, 1,050 clients were overcharged to the hefty tune of $700,000 for advice never received, as their financial planners had left the business prior to 2012.

At times, the hearings have made for riveting viewing.  Commissioner Hayne found himself in the position of reproaching Marianne Perkovic, head of the CBA’s private bank some three times for hedging responses to Michael Hodge, QC, senior counsel assisting the commission.  “You will get on better if you listen to counsel’s question – if you have to stop and think about the question do it – but listen to counsel’s question and answer what you’re asked.”

Perkovic had remained oblique on the issue of the CBA’s foot dragging – some two years of it, in fact – regarding a failure to inform the Australian Services & Investment Commission (ASIC) on why it did not supply an annual review to financial advice clients of Commonwealth Financial Planning.

Scalps are being gathered; possible jail terms are being suggested; promises of share holder revolts are being made.  The most notable of late has been AMP, whose board, after the resignation of chief executive Craig Meller risk a revolt from shareholders at a meeting on May 10.  “At this stage,” announced Australian Council of Superannuation Investors CEO Louise Davidson, “we are thinking of voting against the re-election of the directors.”

This is not the view of Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy firm that maintains the front that caution should be exercised in favour of the three directors in question. Stick by Holly Kramer, Vanessa Wallace and Andrew Harmos – for the moment.

“Given that the Royal Commission is in its early stages,” go the dousing words of the ISS report, “and although information presented thus far would be of concern, it is considered that shareholders may in due course review the findings of the Royal Commission, once presented, and any implications for their votes on directors at the appropriate time.”

It is precisely such attitudes of disbelief, caution and faith that have governed Australia’s financial sector during the course of a religiously praised period of uninterrupted growth.  AMP’s value has been dramatically diminished, losing $4 billion from its market capitalisation.  In naked terms, this constitutes a loss of 24 percent of shareholder value over the course of six weeks. But that is merely one component of this financial nightmare, which has stimulated a certain vengeful nature on the part of shareholders.

What, then, with solutions?  The regulator suggests greater oversight; the legislator suggests more rigid laws of vigilance.  The penologist wishes to see the prisons filled with more white collar criminals.  Yet all in all, Australia’s financial service culture has been characterised by shyness and reluctance on the part of ASIC to force the issue and hold rapacity to account. Central to such a world is a remorseless drive for profit, one that resists government prying and notions of the public good.

One suggestion with merit has been floated. It lies deep within structural considerations that will require a return to more traditional operations, ones untainted by the advisory arm of the financial industry.

“Financial institutions,” suggests Allan Fels, former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, “must be forced to sell their advisory businesses.  This will remove the unmanageable conflict of interest inherent in banks creating investment products while employing advisers to give purportedly independent recommendations to consumers about their investments.” Now that would be radical.

Venezuela: Rural Communities Organise to Confront Economic Crisis

Federico Fuentes

With campaigning for the May 20 presidential elections underway in Venezuela, the United States has stepped up its crusade against the Nicolas Maduro government.

Hiding behind claims of a “humanitarian crisis” and “growing dictatorship”, Washington’s aim is to bring down the government by any means. It seems to end the two-decade-long pro-poor Bolivarian Revolution that was initiated by Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

For now, its main focus is on delegitimising the elections and tightening economic sanctions with the aim of strangling Venezuela’s economy and stoking internal discontent. However, several US state officials — including President Donald Trump — have publicly supported the idea of a military intervention or internal military coup.

This anti-Venezuela campaign has been vigorously promoted by the corporate media. It provides ample space to right-wing opposition leaders while ignoring the voices of grassroots social movements fighting to overcome the crisis in Venezuela.

To help get these voices heard, a range of solidarity groups organised a series of meetings in Australia over March and April with Pacha Catalina Guzman, a leading activist with Venezuela’s largest peasant-based organisation, the Ezequiel Zamora National Campesino Front (FNCEZ). Guzman is also a spokesperson for the Bolivar and Zamora Revolutionary Current.

During her visit, Guzman spoke to Green Left Weekly’s Federico Fuentes.

---

Often in the media we hear the voices of the Venezuelan opposition, and very occasionally from the government, but rarely do we hear from the social movements, particularly radical left movements in Venezuela. As a representative of one of these movements, how do you view the current economic crisis in Venezuela?

The truth is that we are facing not just an economic blockade but also a media blockade. Among the social movements in Venezuela and those that support the government, we have been trying to overcome this crisis with the little we have.

The situation in Venezuela is critical. There is a shortage of food and medicine as a result of the blockade. However, we are not dying of hunger, as the media claims.

We blame the economic crisis on the economic sanctions that the United States has imposed on Venezuela. They are the main reason for why the situation in Venezuela is so difficult today.

Nevertheless we are overcoming this situation.

What is your opinion of the measures that the government has implemented to try to overcome the economic crisis?

We are an organisation that has worked with the state to implement a number of its policies. We have reiterated on many occasions that the economic model that the state is attempting to build is one that we as an organisation support.

Our organisation has dedicated itself not just to supporting but also implementing certain state policies in parts of the country — I’m talking here about policies regarding food production.

For us, the state’s policies have been correct in terms of helping to overcome the economic crisis, even though there are certain difficulties and weaknesses.

The state’s policies have helped to continue and strengthen the policies that Chavez implemented in terms of economic and social issues.

As long as that is the case, we will continue to work with the state. If the state was to modify its position, then they would find opposition from us. But that is not the case today.

So you disagree with the view that, following Chavez’s death, the Bolivarian process has changed course, or that at least the Maduro government has moved away or broken with the policies of the previous Chavez government?

We understand the criticisms that some sectors have of the government. But while some have described certain state policies as neoliberal, the reality is that these policies do not respond to the interests of big business or the International Monetary Fund.

The economic policies that are being implemented in Venezuela seek to solve the economic crisis that the country is facing. In terms of social policies, there has been very little change.

If we have any criticisms, I think that internally we are able to discuss and resolve them. But we do not see this as a neoliberal government or as one that is working against the interests of Venezuelan people.

Could you talk about some of the projects your organisation works on and how you work with the government?

By organising in the campesino sector and among urban communities, our organisation has been able to obtain funds from the state for community projects.

We have been able to build houses for families, fix roads; on the basis of helping communities to organise themselves we have been able to achieve land titles for campesinos in the countryside. We have also been able to get loans, machinery and equipment for rural communities.

We have created a mechanism for food distribution that allows us to transport food from the countryside directly to urban communities. This was an initiative we took as an organisation and the state has supported us, for example with trucks for transportation.

Everything that we have achieved has been as a result of organising in communities. The majority of our activists spend their time going to communities to see what their needs are and help them to organise themselves.

Then, on the basis of the alliances and relationships we have with certain state institutions, we have been able to work with the state to meet the demands of the communities.

That is why we continue to support the state, not because it is a paternalistic state but because it responds to the needs of the people. We are an autonomous organisation, we do not depend on the state for anything, but we support the state where it responds to the needs of the community.

In one of Chavez’s last speeches he spoke about the importance of the communes as a form of grassroots self-governance — he said: “commune or nothing”. How has the process of building communal councils, communes and communal cities, which Chavez described as the foundations of a new communal state, come along since Chavez’s death? Does the idea of a communal state continue to be more a vision than a reality or have steps been taken in that direction?

In the past five years there’s been a rise in the number of communal cities; there are many more than there were before. New communal councils continue to appear, though not at the speed that we would like, but there has been an increase in communal organisation.

But I think the idea that, perhaps in 10 years time, we could have a communal state is something that will be very difficult to achieve; difficult because of the situation we face.

Today, in the context of the current crisis, the people are not prioritising popular organisation, instead they are prioritising meeting their day-to-day needs. In this sense, there’s been a certain pause in building this communal state, which continues to be the vision, the idea for where we want to go.

But for now, people are focused on other issues, which is a real shame. Hopefully, we will be able to get to the communal state, but this will only be possible as long as the current state continues to support us, because if we depended only on popular organisation, unfortunately this would not be enough.

We need the state to involve itself in building communal power and at the same time accept its replacement by this communal power, because that is the idea — to replace the existing state power.

Some would say that the only way to resolve the immediate problems is by deepening community organisation, yet you spoke about a certain pause in community organisation to focus on immediate issues. Do you see this as a problem or as something that is inevitable given the current situation?

There is a complex situation in Venezuela as a result of the blockade and the sanctions. It means that our priority is that we must begin to produce food, whether that be as communal councils or not. The people need to begin producing, the issue of under what type of structure they do this has dropped to a second plane.

I’m talking here about what we, as grassroots organisations, can do within the country. Of course, the broader international economic issues are something that the state has to look at; these things are not dependent on us. But we can help overcome the issue of food shortages. Similarly with the issue of medicine shortages: this is not something that we at the grassroots can overcome.

What we are seeing in Venezuela is that people are dedicating themselves to resolving day-to-day issues and looking for ways to diminish the effects of the crisis on society. That is the reality of everyday life.

There is little point of talking to people about the idea of forming a communal council when they are concentrated on working out how they are going to eat tomorrow. So the priority is confronting the food problem: we are 30 million people, that means 30 million people that need to eat every day. So that is our priority.

It is also the priority of the state, but the state has other priorities; it has to operate on several fronts, such as dealing with the shortages of medicines and how to import those products that we cannot produce in Venezuela.

How can the international solidarity movement help the Venezuelan people?

I think in first place, the international solidarity movement should help us disseminate the truth about what is happening in Venezuela. Most people outside of Venezuela associate the Venezuelan Revolution with failure, hunger, misery and death.

This is even true of the concept of socialism; where you hear it mentioned in other countries, they associate it with Venezuela and they associate it with complete failure.

The allies we have internationally, who know the reality of Venezuela, should help us spread the truth.

I think that, for now, international solidarity starts with speaking out about what is being silenced and hidden, and talking about and defending what we are building in Venezuela.

Beyond this, I don’t know … if the gringos invade Venezuela, then I suppose you’ll have to come and help us [laughs].

Opposition mounting to Teamsters deal to cut pensions at ABF Freight

Steve Filips

Workers’ anger is mounting against a sellout deal reached at the end of March between ABF Freight and the Teamsters union. ABF is a subsidiary of Arcbest based in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and is ranked as the overall 11th largest trucking concern handling less-than-truckload (LTL) general commodities from multiple customers within their own regional and national networks. The firm has 10,000 employees, and of that total 8,600 are Teamsters members.

A report from Wolfe Research, a Wall Street analyst, characterized the deal negotiated by the Teamsters as a bonanza for the management. “The details include low annual wage increases and a freeze in pension contributions… we’d view it as positive for ARCB(ABF),” it declared.

While the Teamsters tout the wage raises contained in the deal, they start at a sub-inflation rate of 1.2 percent the first year and a 1.6 percent average in the following years. Further, the contract mandates pension cuts of up to 60 percent for nearly 10 percent for future retirees. Workers will regain one-week vacation lost in the last contract. However, the utilization of lower paid part timers and subcontractors to reduce company costs did not appear to be seriously addressed.

The previous contract expired March 31, but was extended to allow for a vote by the membership. There was no mention of a strike, although workers voted earlier this year by a margin of 98 percent for strike authorization.

The latest sellout deal follows a concession agreement in 2013 where wages were slashed 7 percent. The cuts were declared necessary to stave off an ABF bankruptcy due to net business losses totaling $7.7 million in 2012. The 2013 concessions were projected to represent a $55 million to $65 million annual windfall for ABF investors.

ABF workers are disgusted that the union would consider a contract that contains cuts of up to 60 percent to already inadequate pensions, cuts that are in addition to a proposal to drop early disability retirement provisions before age 64. Teamster President James Hoffa Jr. cynically defended the cuts on the grounds that less than 10 percent of the workforce would be impacted.

On the ABF Teamsters Facebook page many workers raised objections to the deal. Bryan remarked on the insulting wage raises coming after the cuts contained in the previous contract. “Average 1% a year lost 7% last contract!” Bryan said of the prior contract. “Cost of living average is 2% per year on the low side.” On the paltry signing bonus, Bryan rejected it as insulting, “$1000 bonus? Really? Keep it! give us a fair raise!”

Meanwhile, reports from transport industry publications talk of a driver shortage and that pay for truck drivers had gone up by at least 15 percent in the last 12 to 18 months according to the industry group American Trucking Associations (ATA).

Some workers asked whether part time or second tier workers would be brought up to full pay. Cheryl asked, “My husband was hired last August. From what I’ve heard there was a 5 yr wage freeze. Is that in the new contract? Is it still going to be 4 yrs before he makes scale?”

John, a former worker at ABF, whose sentiments were representative of the widely expressed outrage over the tentative deal wrote, “ABF Teamsters, seriously, those tiny crumbs their tossing out at you?? Embarrassing.”

The Teamsters for a Democratic Union and the Teamsters United factions have called on ABF workers to reject the tentative contract agreement. However, these groups offer workers no viable way forward, raising the illusion that pressure on the Teamsters bureaucracy can force the union to fight. In fact, workers face an intractable enemy in the Teamsters, which over the past several decades has worked hand in glove with the trucking companies to destroy the wages, pensions and working conditions of drivers and warehouse workers.

What is required is the building of new, rank-and-file based organizations of struggle, independent of and opposed to the Teamsters, to mobilize opposition to the sellout deal and organize a fight against the trucking giants, including forging links to striking teachers as well as 230,000 United Parcel Service workers whose contract expires July 31.

The anti-worker character of the Teamsters was starkly demonstrated when the union lobbied on behalf of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 passed by Congress and signed by President Obama. The bill gave plan administrators authority to slash pension payments in “underfunded” pension plans. One of the targets was the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund that covers some 270,000 retired truck drivers. As a result, some retirees received notices they could lose up to 80 percent of their pensions. The cuts were temporarily shelved in the face of mass opposition by workers and retirees, however, future attacks on Teamsters pensioners are all but inevitable.

As of April 19 paper ballots were mailed to ABF workers, and for the first time there will be electronic voting by phone and Internet. The Teamsters leadership claims that electronic voting will increase participation. However, the electronic voting will not be independently monitored, raising the likelihood of tampering. The voting ends on May 9 and the ballots are expected to be tallied the following day.

There are over 3.5 million commercial vehicle drivers in the US who move over 70 percent of the freight and generate over $738 billion in annual gross revenues.

Figures released this past December by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that the transportation industry contains some of the most hazardous jobs. There were 1,388 fatalities in 2016, a 7 percent increase, and the highest figure in nearly a decade. Total fatal workplace injuries reached 5,190. Of that there were 918 fatalities for drivers/sales workers and truck drivers, nearly 18 percent of the total. These workers also suffered a high incidence of injuries because of proximity to large equipment and being outdoors in all seasons, conditions that wear down the bodies of workers much sooner and often force them to retire earlier than planned or desired.

The BLS also found that workers approaching retirement age are more susceptible to injury and death. Their figures show that those age 55 and over suffered 1,848 deaths in 2016. When BLS started keeping track of this in 1992, 55-year-olds and over were 20 percent of lives lost; that same group in 2016 has seen a jump to 36 percent of fatalities annually. This indicates that workers aren’t able to retire, and face increased risk for serious disabling injury or death as a result. The average age for truck drivers is now 55 years old according to BLS.

European Central Bank points to slowing economic growth

Nick Beams

Signs of an economic slowdown in the euro zone for the first months of this year have put a question mark over moves by the European Central Bank (ECB) to further wind back its program of quantitative easing and its ultra-low interest rate regime.

The ECB had been expected to announce by June the future direction of monetary policy after September, when its program of asset purchases is due to end. The ECB currently purchases €30 billion of bonds per month, down from the highest levels of €80 billion per month.

But at the meeting of its governing council in Frankfurt yesterday, the ECB appears to have adopted something of a “wait and see” approach to the future direction of monetary policy in light of the slowdown, following the highest level of annual growth for a decade in 2017.

The first question addressed to ECB president Mario Draghi following the meeting was on the impact of weaker-than-expected data on the bank’s monetary policy. “The interesting thing is that we didn’t discuss monetary policy per se,” he replied.

Draghi then sought to elaborate why that was the case, pointing to the extent of the slowdown. He noted that all countries had reported a loss of momentum and it was across most sectors of the economy.

“Sharp declines” were experienced in purchasing managers’ indexes in almost all sectors, including retail, manufacturing, services and construction. “Then we had declines in industrial production, in capital goods production,” as well as in export orders. There were also declines in “national business and confidence indicators.”

Draghi admitted: “All of these declines were sharp and in some cases the extent of these declines was unexpected.”

In assessing these developments, Draghi pointed to a variety of factors, including cold weather and the impact of workers’ strikes. He said that after four quarters of growth at around 0.7 percent per quarter “some sort of normalisation was expected.”

However, there were also other factors in the manufacturing and capital goods areas that “could suggest a more durable softening in demand.”

Draghi returned to the issue of lower growth in response to another questioner who said he was “a little bit surprised” that the governing council did not discuss monetary policy or a roadmap. The questioner suggested it was “already high time” that such things were discussed, given they were not decisions to be made in a couple of weeks.

Draghi’s answer indicated that the ECB policymakers have been somewhat wrong-footed by the downturn and unsure how to assess it.

“The reason why we didn’t discuss monetary policy per se is that the reading of the current developments since the beginning of the year is actually very important in deciding the next steps,” he said.

“The very first thing we have to do is understand exactly—and place what’s happened in the proper context—whether it’s temporary or permanent, whether it’s supply or more demand. Whether it’s something that is just the beginning of a more significant decline or it’s simply normalisation after a prolonged period of very strong growth.”

There had been considerable speculation that the ECB would indicate at its June meeting what the tapering of its easy monetary policy could look like, but Draghi brushed aside a question on that issue. He said the policy had not been discussed and it would be “premature” to make a comment.

Another major issue to arise during the question and answer session was the impact of trade war measures. In his prepared remarks, Draghi said the risks surrounding the euro area remained broadly balanced, however, “risks related to global factors, including the threat of increased protectionism, have become more prominent.”

In response to a question, Draghi again adopted a “wait and see” approach. “We have to see what the exchange of, so far, rhetoric … about protectionism will produce.” There could be direct trade-related effects but so far they did not seem to be substantial.

“However we don’t know the extent of the retaliation yet,” Draghi said. “Obviously we can’t yet know what are going to be the direct effects of potential retaliation.

“What is certainly known is that these events have a profound and rapid effect on confidence, on business confidence, on exporters’ confidence, on confidence generally speaking. Confidence can in turn affect the growth question.”

The official rationale for the ECB’s monetary policy is that “accommodative” measures, that is, very low interest rates and asset purchases, must continue until the inflation rate reaches the ECB’s designated target of below, but close to, 2 percent.

However, there is little sign of an upward movement. The annual inflation rate increased to 1.3 percent in March, from 1.1 percent in February, and the headline rate is expected to hover around 1.5 percent for the remainder of the year. In his prepared remarks Draghi noted that “measures of underlying inflation remain subdued and have yet to show convincing signs of a sustained upward trend.”

There is some speculation in financial circles that after moving to pull back on its low-interest rate regime and asset purchasing program, the ECB may be considering delaying its first rise in interest rates until later in 2019 because of the weak economic data for the first quarter of this year. Some analysts also are predicting that the asset purchases may continue beyond September this year.

The concern in the ruling class is that if the low-interest rates and quantitative easing continue the ECB will have little monetary ammunition at its disposal if the current weakness in growth turns out to be then start of a more substantial downturn.

Thousands of UK auto jobs to go

Margot Miller

Japanese-based car manufacturer Nissan is to cut hundreds of jobs at its Sunderland branch, in the northeast of England. This is only the latest in a series of job losses to hit the UK car industry, responding to a downturn in Europe.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) will be cutting around 1,000 jobs and reducing output at its two factories in the West Midlands. Owned by India Tata, JLR has seen its sales to Europe fall in March from 45,000 to 35,000. The biggest car maker in Britain, it will cut the jobs from its 2,000 temporary-contract workforce at its Solihull plant, which employs 10,000.

The biggest job losses are not in production. Last week, Vauxhall—owned by French-based PSA—said it would terminate the contracts with its 326 dealerships in the UK, citing falling sales. The dealerships employ 12,000 people. This follows January’s announcement that Vauxhall is shedding 250 jobs at its largest UK car plant at Ellesmere Port, in the northwest of England, amid fears that the entire operation could close within two years.

Earlier in October, 400 jobs were lost through early retirement and voluntary redundancies—reducing the workforce from 1,900 to 1,150—with plans to reduce the plant to just one shift in April.

PSA is also aiming to cut a massive 3,700 jobs by 2020 in its German Opel plants—acquired from General Motors (GM) last year. Two thousand jobs have already been eliminated through buyouts and early retirement, with another 2,000 expected to go.

GM is eliminating a shift in its factory in Ohio in the US, laying off 1,500 employees. In South Korea, where it employs 16,000, it is closing its Gunsan plant, while the jobs at its three other factories hang in the balance.

Nissan is the sixth largest automaker globally, after Toyota in first position and GM in second. It is the largest producer of electric vehicles (EVs) in the world. Its sales in the UK have dropped by a third so far this year, which is proving a dismal year for the industry overall, with a 12 percent decline in demand for new cars.

Nissan’s exports to Europe are also falling, from 75,000 in March compared with 91,000 in the same month last year. Eight out of 10 Nissan cars assembled in the UK are sold on the continent.

Nissan dismissed its job losses in Sunderland, where it employs 7,000, as temporary while it is “transitioning to a new range of powertrains [motors] over the next year,” insisting the move was “not related to Brexit.” The company urged its workforce to vote to remain in the 2016 EU referendum.

In 2016, Nissan announced it would build its next-generation Qashqai, Juke, Infinity and its new X-Trail model in Sunderland, where it manufactures the EV Leaf marque. The company and government both denied they had agreed to a sweetheart deal to protect sales from EU tariffs post-Brexit.

Nissan promised the new models would secure more than 7,000 jobs and 28,000 more in the supply chain and not cause redundancies. Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell applauded the news.

JLR put the market slowdown to a combination over uncertainties over Brexit and increasing hostility towards diesel cars following the ”Dieselgate” emissions scandal that erupted in the car industry in 2015. To bypass EU clean air targets, German auto giant Volkswagen AG (VW) fitted its cars with “defeat device” software designed to fool laboratory emissions tests—thus contributing to air pollution, which results, says the Royal College of Physicians, in 40,000 unnecessary deaths in the UK per year.

VW was singled out over Dieselgate because of the escalating trade war between America and the EU. The device, however, is used widely throughout the car industry.

The legal air-quality thresholds in 23 out of the EU’s 28 countries and 130 of its cities, as reported by the Guardian, have been consistently breached.

The sale of diesel cars declined by 37.2 percent in March this year across the industry, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers. Consumers have been deterred by a small government tax on diesel cars, and reduced resale values due to uncertainties over EU tax levies.

UK car industry bosses all supported a remain vote in the referendum and have since pressed the Conservative government of Theresa May to opt for a soft Brexit, including tariff-free access to the single market. Substantial sections of industry and finance regard Brexit as disastrous for their prospective profits. Manufacturing exports from the UK could be cut by a third. This is underlined by recent remarks to the Observer by Japan’s ambassador to the UK, Koji Tsuruoka. He warned that firms such as Nissan and Toyota in the UK that sell in the European Union (EU) market will relocate if they no longer have access to the single market after March 2019.

Workers in the UK car industry, which employs 169,000, and throughout the world face an onslaught on their jobs and conditions in a race to the bottom as global competition for markets grows. The US imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminium ushers in trade war.

In response, the auto workers’ unions line up with management to increase the competitiveness of their own companies in the global market, at the expense of their members.

The response of the Unite union to the present UK redundancies has been to work with management to facilitate the job losses and suppress any opposition from its members.

Unite officer Steve Bush said the union was “working with Nissan to minimise job losses.” He said Unite was assured that there would be no compulsory redundancies and “any job reductions will be on a voluntary basis and on enhanced terms. … We expect to see temporary workers at the plant move into permanent positions as volumes pick up again in future years.”

Unite also agreed to the previous job losses at Vauxhall “on a voluntary basis.” It has nothing to offer its members but job losses today and the forlorn hope of a permanent contract tomorrow.

The unions act as company spokesmen in the escalating trade war.

The United Auto Workers in the US has played a vital role in suppressing strikes over the last decades. At GM in South Korea—where union membership has plunged by half in the last two decades to fewer than 10 percent of the workforce—the unions will not put in a pay rise or bonuses this year.

The UK car unions are no different. Commenting on a union report advocating the expansion of the manufacture of EVs, Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey said, “We want to see high-skilled secure jobs on decent pay and for the UK automotive sector to hold its own against Germany, the United States, Southern Asia and China.”

Unite Assistant General Secretary for Manufacturing Tony Burke agreed, saying, “The government must do more to put the UK in the fast lane of electric vehicle technology and to secure our automotive industry’s world leading status for the years to come.”

Ford announces plans to slash US car production, cut billions in costs

Marcus Day 

Ford Motor Company announced Wednesday that it plans to slash both production and sales of passenger car sedans in the US, gambling on continued demand for more profitable SUV and pickup truck models. Ford will eliminate the Taurus, Fusion, Fiesta, and C-Max from its line-up, leaving only the Mustang sports model and next year’s Focus Active crossover.

In addition, the company revealed its intention to cut $11.5 billion in costs between 2019 and 2022. The cuts come on top of $14 billion previously announced last fall.

Ford’s historic shift away from traditional cars and other restructuring measures are being driven by Wall Street’s relentless demands for greater efficiency, cost-cutting, “labor flexibility,” and investment returns from the automaker, which is facing flat sales and flagging profit margins.

A Morgan Stanley investment firm analyst told CNBC, “Virtually eliminating Ford’s NA [North American] car portfolio makes a lot of sense, in our view. No more Fusion. No more Focus. No more Fiesta. No more Taurus.”

In their drive to overhaul their operations and lower workers’ living standards still further, Ford and the other auto companies are fully expecting to rely upon the United Auto Workers union to suppress growing opposition and act as a partner in the attacks, as it has done for the last four decades.

The UAW has thus far been silent on Ford’s restructuring plans. “The UAW is going to let the company say whatever they’re going to say,” said a veteran worker at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant contacted by the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter. “Then they’re going to come out and try say why it’s a good thing or offer a lukewarm rebuttal that won’t change anything.”

Ford’s announcement that it would effectively eliminate its sedan lineup follows Fiat Chrysler’s 2016 decision to end passenger car production in the US, shifting towards larger, more profitable vehicles such as Jeep SUVs and Dodge pickups. Pressure is now building for General Motors to follow suit. “I think we have been on this path for a number of years,” Chuck Stevens, GM’s chief financial officer, said Thursday.

However, any substantial increase in gasoline prices or interest rates would have disastrous implications for such a setup, and would once again throw the US auto industry into a tailspin.

While Ford has stated that its latest raft of cuts will impact marketing, sales, engineering, and materials costs, it has thus far concealed to what extent they will include mass layoffs or plant closures in the US. However, officials have indicated that “money-losing” operations in Europe and South America may be targeted next for closure or sale.

“We have looked at every single part of the business. It’s a little bit of everything, and I don’t think they’re done yet,” said Bob Shanks, Ford’s Chief Financial Officer. “We are undergoing a profound transformation and are committed to decisive action.”

A second-tier worker from Chicago Assembly denounced the corporate indifference to the suffering the restructuring would inevitably inflict. “They only care about the money. The corporate people won’t be affected by this,” he continued. “It’s the people on the low end, the laborer, they’re the ones who are hurt by this. All they’re trying to do is make a living and support their families.”

News of Ford’s restructuring plans came amidst the release of first-quarter financial results for the US auto industry Wednesday and Thursday. Each of the Big Three auto companies saw declines in pretax profits for North America from a year ago, with GM’s down 37 percent, Ford’s 14 percent, and Fiat Chrysler 2 percent.

The decrease in pretax profits at Ford has been attributed by company officials in part to rising commodity prices, primarily steel and aluminum. President Trump’s tariffs on imports of both are expected to squeeze the profitability of the automakers further.

However, both Ford and Fiat Chrysler saw an uptick in after-tax profits, due to the Trump administration’s massive corporate tax-cut handout. According to Ford spokespeople, the increase in net income was almost entirely the result of the slashing of their effective tax rate from 28.6 percent to 9 percent.

In response to industry “headwinds,” GM has undertaken its own restructuring measures, announcing plans in recent weeks to lay off an entire shift at its assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio, while hiring thousands of low-paid temporary workers under a subsidiary, as part of an agreement worked out with the UAW behind the backs of workers.

In addition, GM has sought and extracted massive concessions from autoworkers at its operations in South Korea.

Holding a gun to the head of workers with the threat of throwing GM Korea into bankruptcy protection, the company, working with the Korean Metal Workers Union (KMWU), forced through an agreement this week, which freezes wages, cancels bonuses, and cuts benefits, among other concessions. The Detroit automaker will shut its operations in Gunsan, one of four GM plants in the country. Over 2,600 workers, or 16 percent of the company’s South Korean workforce, have been coerced into leaving via a “voluntary” severance program.

Whether in South Korea or the United States, Europe or South America, workers are facing unending demands to lower their living conditions, even as corporations such as the Big Three continue to rake in billions in profits every year. In this struggle, workers are finding that the unions are no less determined enemies than the employers themselves. They are increasingly being driven into opposition against them, as seen in the rebellions of teachers in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, and other states.

When asked what he thought the way forward is against the companies’ demands, the veteran worker from Chicago Assembly said, “I honestly think we need to move away from the union, from the UAW. The UAW is showing its true colors. How can you trust them?”

“We’ve seen it with the teachers taking a stand. Is it hard? Yes. Is it impossible, no. It’s a hard position because everyone is afraid of losing their jobs and incomes. On the other hand, it’s too hard to continue working the way we’re working and being treated the way we’re treated.”

In order for workers to secure any of their social interests—whether for decent jobs, health care, a secure retirement, or safe working conditions—they must take matters into their own hands and establish rank-and-file factory committees, which are not only independent of but also opposed to the pro-company unions. Such committees must link up all the various struggles against inequality, in the US and throughout the world, and advance as their demands not what the capitalist ruling class and their political representatives say they can afford, but rather what the working class needs.

Australian health care costs among the worst internationally

John Mackay

A recent healthcare affordability study has found Australia ranks among the most unaffordable for people aged 65 and over, when compared to 11 comparable OECD countries, including New Zealand.

In Australia nearly 20 percent reported spending $1,000 or more in “out-of-pocket” healthcare costs during the year, the third largest proportion after Switzerland (53 percent) and the US (37 percent). “Out-of-pocket” expenses are extra costs not covered by private or public health insurance.

Published in December, the 2017 International Health Survey performed by the Commonwealth Fund, a private US foundation, surveyed 24,000 people across the 12 countries, which included 2,500 from Australia. The study focused on the costs of healthcare for an aging population—that is, people who more commonly suffer from multiple chronic illnesses, compared to younger people.

When asked about the difficulty of paying medical bills, 13 percent in Australia said they had problems, the highest rate of all the countries surveyed. In the United States, where the privatisation of the health system is most pronounced, resulting in soaring health costs, 10 percent reported problems paying medical bills.

The remaining 10 countries in the survey recorded 5 percent or less. They were Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland and New Zealand.

In Australia, 8 percent of those surveyed said they had skipped medical care due to cost and 14 percent missed filling out a medical prescription. This was second only to the US (13 percent and 23 percent, respectively).

These results indicate working-class elderly people, usually those most in medical need, are likely to be suffering serious health consequences, with major impacts on their quality of life, purely because of their inability to pay the high costs of treatments and medications.

Surgical expenses for such common procedures as hip replacements in Australia, for example, can typically add $5,500 to out-of-pocket costs, unless patients wait months for a public hospital operation.

Australia and the US recorded the highest prevalence of elderly patients who responded as being “high-need”—suffering from multiple chronic conditions, having “limitations with basic function” and requiring assistance.

Asked if they considered themselves economically vulnerable, in the US one-third of the high-need respondents worried about not having enough money to buy nutritious meals, and pay for housing, utilities and medical needs. This was followed by both Australia and Germany, with one quarter considering themselves economically vulnerable.

In all countries, many high-need respondents expressed low levels of satisfaction with the quality of their care. Australia was again on top, with 41 percent of this group giving their care low marks, compared to the lowest result of 21 percent in Switzerland.

Australia recorded the highest proportion of elderly patients missing dental appointments due to cost (23 percent), eclipsing the US on 21 percent. Yet, regular access to dental care is also vital for maintaining health.

Poor oral health leads to increased likelihood of tooth loss, periodontal disease and oral cancers. The impacts on daily life are significant, such as reduced chewing performance, constrained food choice, weight loss and impaired communication, as well as low self-esteem and wellbeing, leading to poor quality of life.

These findings debunk the myth of “free” or “socialised” health care in Australia, as well as the conception that Australia’s system is more humane than the more overtly profit-driven US healthcare system. The study suggests that health care is deteriorating in Australia, with a damaging impact on the elderly and the poor in particular.

Deepening real cuts to public health funding mean that patients confront higher “out of pocket” charges from doctors, clinics and hospitals. Those patients who can afford take out private insurance in the hope of securing better treatment are also facing soaring premiums and bigger “gaps” between their medical bills and the refunds they receive from the insurers.

Years of funding cuts by both Liberal-National Coalition and Labor governments are resulting in increasing sections of the population unable to access the required health care.

Statistics from the Australian government-funded Institute of Health and Welfare show that total government health expenditure for 2015–16 was $114.6 billion, up by just 4.1 percent from the previous year. That was lower than the average annual rise of 4.4 percent for the decade.

When the almost 10 percent population increase in the same period is taken into account, healthcare funding has been cut significantly. Moreover, medical treatment and pharmaceutical costs are rising at a faster pace.

There has been an unending drive in Australia, mirroring processes in the US and other countries, to create an increasingly profit-driven, privatised healthcare system. This has created a “two-tier” health system, with an increasing proportion of the population forced to buy private insurance to avoid delays.

However in the past two years, there has been a reversal in private health coverage. The proportion of people privately insured fell to 45 percent in 2017, after rising from 43 percent in 2006 to 47 percent in 2015.

Annual hikes in private health insurance premiums sanctioned by successive governments have averaged 5.35 percent per year since 2000, far outstripping wage rises. This is now resulting in an exodus from private health coverage, and this is placing greater demands on the already underfunded public health system, resulting in longer waiting lists and sub-standard treatment.

Those most affected are the working class and poor. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual Patient Experiences in Australia survey in 2016–2017 showed that the percentage of patients who delayed or failed to seek treatment was highest among the poorest fifth of the population. For instance, 27 percent of the poorest quintile delayed seeing a dentist, or did not see one at all, compared to 11 percent of those in the wealthiest fifth of the population.

Dental care in Australia is not covered by the Medicare public insurance scheme and 80 percent of people are not eligible for public dental care. Such is the dearth of public dental services that even those who are eligible face extraordinarily long waiting lists that preclude timely and adequate treatment.

These studies further demonstrate the worsening state of the health system and the growing healthcare inequality, which is accelerating the social inequality being driven by the widening gap between the incomes and wealth of working-class households and the tiny corporate elite.

UK government’s persecution of Caribbean workers the tip of an iceberg

Paul Mitchell

On Monday Conservative Party Home Secretary Amber Rudd apologised again to “Windrush Migrants,” the generation named after the first ship bringing workers from the Caribbean to the UK in 1948 to help fill a massive labour shortage following the Second World War.

Hundreds of members of the Windrush generation have been denied free healthcare and benefits, lost jobs and have been threatened with arrest and deportation as a result of the “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants introduced by then home secretary, now Prime Minister Theresa May in 2013.

Rudd lamented the “hardship they had endured,” claiming it was an unfortunate mistake by over-zealous civil servants and declared, “It is only right that the significant contribution the Windrush generation have made to the UK is recognised.” She announced that citizenship and compensation would be offered to their families and those of other Commonwealth nations who came to the UK between 1948 and 1973.

The UK government’s scandalous persecution of Caribbean migrant workers is just the tip of an iceberg, however.

According to Robert McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory, this could affect “tens of thousands of people from other Commonwealth countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas and elsewhere” because they did not regularise their residency status and are threatened with deportation.

Margaret O’Brien, 69, who emigrated from Canada in 1971, got married and had three children, told the Guardian how she has fought for over two years to persuade the Home Office to be allowed to stay. In 2015, O’Brien, after being refused disability benefit, received a letter stating, “Home Office records indicate that you do not have permission to be in the UK. You should make arrangements to leave without delay.”

The letter informed her “of our intention to remove you from the UK to your country of nationality if you do not depart voluntarily. No further notice will be given.”

Soon afterwards, O’Brien received another letter with her photo declaring, “You are a person without leave who has been served with a notice of liability to removal.”

It was only due to the diligence of her lawyers in finding supporting evidence that O’Brien did not suffer the fate of countless others.

In 2016, almost 40,000 people were removed from the UK or classified as “departing voluntarily,” after receiving threatening letters. Many more are detained at Britain’s airports and ferry terminals and sent to another country under the “deport first, appeal later” policy.

Figures also show that around 10,000 people are waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum claims and, because they are banned from work, are forced to live on an allowance of £37.75 a week. The Red Cross has said these conditions are pushing a growing number of vulnerable people into destitution.

No belated apologies, emergency measures and attempts to blames the civil service can hide the fact that the Conservative government and its Liberal-Democrat coalition partners ignored warnings about the consequences of the “hostile environment” policy, which Rudd has “escalated”—a promise she made to her predecessor.

The results were both inevitable and intended. It was what the system was designed to do. They knew people’s lives would be wrecked and families torn apart.

Former Head of the Civil Service Lord Robert Kerslake likened May’s “hostile environment” to fascism. “You cannot create a climate and then not expect it to have consequences,” Kerslake explained, adding, “I think it was not just a question of the home secretary being told it was a challenging policy, the prime minister [David Cameron] was as well.”

“This was a very contested policy across all Government departments. Now I can’t say, and shouldn’t say as a former Head of the Civil Service, precisely who gave advice to whom but what I can tell you is that it was contested.

“And there were some, who I shall not name, who saw it as almost reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the way it was working.”

Kerslake has called for an inquiry into why the Home Office decided to destroy thousands of documents such as landing cards relating to the Windrush generation, which made it much harder for them to prove their status.

Short shrift should also be given to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who yesterday repeated his call, subsequently dismissed by May, for a “broader” amnesty for those from Commonwealth nations who had no criminal records and had lived in the UK for more than 10 years.

Johnson is resorting once again to disgusting politicking in the wake of Brexit and attempts by the ruling elite to re-establish the Commonwealth with its more than 50-member nations as an economic and trading partner and alternative source of labour to the European Union (EU).

Johnson’s newfound sympathy for immigrants is, of course, not extended to EU workers. The Migration Observatory also reports that “substantial” numbers of UK residents could be at risk of losing their legal status after Brexit, with particularly vulnerable groups including victims of domestic abuse, elderly people and children, many of whose parents mistakenly believe that they are automatically UK nationals. In addition many people do not realise that they are covered by the new regulations and need to apply for “Settled Status.”

The reaction of the Labour Party opposition has been predictable and tame. Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry declared that there was something “rotten at the heart of government,” urging that Rudd should take the decision to resign. “People have died, people have lost their jobs, lost their futures. People working in the National Health Service all their lives suddenly lose their jobs… I really think she should quit.”

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn called on May to repeal the 2014 Immigration Act, which imposed requirements on employers, landlords, employers, banks and the NHS to check people’s immigration status.

Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary, criticised Rudd for blaming the scandal on “successive governments,” including Labour, and said it was mainly the fault of the 2014 Immigration Act. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said Labour would substantially change the 2014 legislation.

This is about as far as Labour’s “left” leadership can go, because they are intent on concealing the party’s despicable anti-immigrant history.

Only 18 MPs, including Corbyn and Abbott, voted against the Immigration Bill in 2014. And little wonder, because former Blairite home secretary from June 2009 until May 2010, Alan Johnson, pioneered the approach prior to Labour losing the 2010 general election.

The BBC’s Nick Robinson told Thornberry that it wasn’t the Tories who first used the phrase “hostile environment,” referring to a UK Home Office report from February 2010, which said, “This strategy sets out how we will continue our efforts to cut crime and make the UK a hostile environment for those that seek to break our laws or abuse our hospitality.”

This was the policy underscoring Labour’s election campaign that saw the party selling mugs and badges reading, “Controls on immigration. I’m voting Labour.”

Thornberry was forced to admit, “Alan Johnson first used it in a speech,” while suggesting that to “lift that phrasing, to embed it as much as it was, to strengthen it, to make it sharper and nastier, that was the difference. The words were used but the culture was not.”

Her objection is difficult to understand, given her insistence that she “did not have a problem” with checks being made on people seeking homes, jobs and health care—the provisions introduced by the 2014 Act: “It’s right that we should have rules and that they should be enforced, and that it should be done fairly and fast and it should be firm.”