Thai autoworkers face mass layoffs

Robert Campion

Workers in Thailand are part of the international jobs bloodbath taking place in the auto industry amid the transition to electric vehicles (EV) and the global economic slowdown. As the largest vehicle producer of vehicles in South East Asia, tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs are potentially on the chopping block.

Thai car assembly plant [Photo: Siam Motors Group]

The latest assault on jobs came on November 22. Two anonymous industrial sources told Reuters that Nissan Motor Thailand is planning to cut up to 1,000 jobs while partially shutting down production at its Plant Number 1 and consolidating production at its Plant Number 2 by September of next year. Both plants are located in Samut Prakan province, just south of Bangkok.

These projected job cuts are part of Nissan’s global workforce reduction plan, which is bound up with the transfer to the manufacturing of electric and hybrid vehicles. Under the plan announced in early November, Japan’s third largest car manufacturer, will lower production capacity by 20 percent and slash 9,000 jobs or 7 percent of its total workforce. This includes 1,000 workers in the US by the end of the year who have already accepted early retirement packages.

Dubbed the “just transition” to EVs, it is in reality a cutthroat race to the bottom in which companies are looking to boost profits and stock prices by slashing jobs. EVs require fewer parts and therefore less labour for their production. Japanese auto companies have also cited falling sales to justify the mass layoffs, forcing workers to pay for the growing crisis of global capitalism.

In addition to Nissan, several other Japanese automobile brands have already announced plant closures in recent months. Subaru intends to close its last remaining assembly plant outside of Japan in the Lad Krabang Industrial Estate, Bangkok, on December 3, sacking 200 workers. Suzuki is planning to close its Rayong plant at the end of 2025 affecting 800 workers.

Honda, which employs over 5,000 workers in Thailand, is closing its Ayutthaya plant some time next year, and consolidating production with its remaining plant in Prachinburi province. Claiming the need to improve “efficiency” and address “overproduction,” it is cutting its annual production capacity by 50 percent.

With around 80 percent of domestic car production relying on Thai auto parts, the closure of assembly plants is having a ripple effect throughout the sector. According to the Thai banking group Kasikornbank in September, sales of auto parts were down by 12 percent so far this year. The Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) Automotive Industry Club has also reported that over 360 factories in the manufacturing sector have shut down in the first half of the year.

Monthly reports from FTI Auto Club this year also point to a further slowdown in sales, with 438,000 vehicles sold between January and September, 25 percent lower than the same period last year. September’s sales in particular came to approximately 39,000 units, roughly equal to the sales volume during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Sompol Tanadumrongsak, president of the Thai Auto-Parts Manufacturers Association, said in an interview with Reuters in September that Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which largely comprise the auto parts industry are facing a situation worse than the financial crisis of 1997 and the pandemic. “If auto parts SMEs close today, they are not coming back,” he stated.

Japanese companies have dominated the auto industry in Thailand since the 1970s, consistently responsible for 75-90 percent of car sales. Nissan was the first Japanese auto company to start production in Thailand in 1962, joining manufacturers from other countries moving to the country at the time, including Ford and Fiat.

The confluence of Japanese and Thai capital spurred the development of the Thai bourgeoisie, with about a thousand family firms developing in the auto industry in the 1980s and 1990s when foreign ownership was capped at 49 percent.

Following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997‒98, hundreds of thousands of Thai and migrant workers lost their jobs. By 1998, nearly 9 percent of all Thai workers were unemployed, though this is likely a conservative estimate. In the auto industry, half a million vehicles were produced in 1996. This dropped by 75 percent in 1998.

The cap on foreign ownership was removed to allow global capital to resuscitate the dying sector and production was reoriented to the world market. While only three percent of vehicles were exported in 1996, this shot up to 44 percent in 2006. Last year, 57.2 percent of Thailand’s units were exported.

The development of Thailand’s auto industry made it the 10th largest in the world. In 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the FTI estimated it comprised 890,000 workers, including 100,000 involved in assembly, 200,000 in sales, and 590,000 in manufacturing auto parts.

The number of Thai family firms has also been significantly reduced since 1997 to a handful. One of the most notable firms is the Thai Summit Group, which was founded in 1977 by Pattana Juangroongruangkit in partnership with Japanese brand Toyota. His brother Suriya has served in numerous government cabinets, including that of Thaksin Shinawatra and Prayut Chan-o-cha. He is now deputy prime minister in the Paetongtarn Shinawatra administration.

After Pattana’s death in 2002, his son Thanathorn assumed a leadership role in the company, only stepping down in 2018 in order to enter politics. Thanathorn utilized his wealth exploited from the working class to help found the Future Forward Party (FFP) in 2018. At one point, he was the richest member of parliament, though he was removed from office by the military.

The FFP, now known as the People’s Party, cynically exploits the democratic and social concerns of youth and workers in order to assert the economic and social interests of a weaker section of the Thai bourgeoisie dissatisfied with the dominance of the traditional elites centred on the military and monarchy and the impact this has on their profits.

For all this growth during the previous period, the Thai auto industry is now entering a convulsive new stage, triggered by a crisis of world economy and the transition to EV production. While the transformation to cleaner forms of transportation and energy is environmentally necessary, under capitalism, it is crippled by the demands for corporate profit and carried out at the expense of workers.

At the same time, as the US ramps up its preparations for war against China, it seeking to end its dependence on Chinese manufacturing and is encouraging its allies to do the same. It is attempting to establish alternative supply lines for goods currently dominated by China such as critical minerals needed for EVs and also weaponry. It also calculates that the turn to EVs will free up oil and gas supplies in the event of war.

Currently, the Thai government has plans for EVs to comprise 30 percent of the country’s total vehicle manufacturing by 2030, involving the production of 725,000 electric cars, 675,000 electric motorcycles and 34,000 electric buses and trucks. The transition to EVs is estimated to directly affect 37 percent of auto manufacturers employing 326,400 workers as well as countless more in related industries. The majority of these workers are under the age of 39, with 70 percent earning approximately 15,000 baht or less per month, or $US430.

These workers face levels of average household debt that are up 8.4 percent this year to 606,378 baht ($US17,908), according to a September survey by the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. This is the highest average debt level since the survey began in 2009 and a significant factor in the decline of domestic auto sales.

The election of Trump in the US will also further destabilise Thailand’s auto industry. The first Trump administration earmarked Thailand as a possible “currency manipulator.” Financial analysts now expect Thailand to be on the receiving end of a blanket tariff for many Asian countries of 10-20 percent, further dropping its export production.

Chad ends longstanding military cooperation with France

Kumaran Ira

On November 28, the Chadian government announced that it is “putting an end to the defense cooperation agreement signed with the French Republic.” The announcement came just after French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot left Chad. It signifies a major setback for French imperialism’s influence in its former African colonial empire.

France's President Emmanuel Macron, left, and Secretary General of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie Louise Mushikiwabo, center, welcome Chad's President General Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno for the 19th Francophonie summit in Villers-Cotterets, France, Friday, October 4, 2024. [AP Photo/Aurelien Morissard]

Chad, in North-Central Africa, was under French rule from 1900 until formal independence in 1960. French imperialism has continued to exert strong influence on the post-independence regime, through military and political as well as financial means. Chad hosts a significant French presence, with about 1,000 soldiers as well as warplanes stationed in the country.

During the Operation Barkhane phase of France’s war in Mali, from 2014 to 2022, Chad played a pivotal role as a key enabler of France’s war. The operation’s headquarters were based in N’Djamena, the capital of Chad. This strategic location allowed French forces to coordinate and launch operations throughout the Sahel region, particularly targeting countries like Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. Chad also furnished a substantial number of troops as cannon fodder for the French army to mount operations.

After mass protests and military coups in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, however, France was compelled to withdraw its troops from these countries. They also left the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and established a rival defense alliance, the Alliance of Sahelian States (AES). Meanwhile, protests mounted in Chad against France’s military presence.

On Thursday, Chad's Foreign Minister Abderaman Koulamallah announced, “After 66 years since the independence of the Republic of Chad, it is time for Chad to assert its full sovereignty, and to redefine its strategic partnerships according to national priorities.”

Koulamallah stated this would result in the departure of French soldiers stationed in the country “in accordance with the terms” and “within the time frames provided for in the defense agreement.” He said this decision was “taken after in-depth analysis” and marked “a historic turning point” in a century-long history of near-continuous French military presence in Chad.

The Chadian government, however, specified that “this decision in no way calls into question (...) the friendly ties between the two nations.”

Also on Thursday, Senegal, a former French colony in West Africa, announced France should close its bases in the country. This followed French President Emmanuel Macron’s admission that France was responsible for the massacre of Senegalese soldiers in 1944, as the country commemorated the 80th anniversary of the tragedy. “Senegal is an independent country; it is a sovereign country and sovereignty does not accept the presence of military bases in a sovereign country,” said Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye.

The Chadian government’s decision reportedly stunned not only the French authorities but also several Chadian officials.

Le Monde wrote, “At the Elysée presidential palace, the Defense Ministry, or at the Quai D’Orsay [Foreign Ministry], no one seemed to have been warned. Several French officers, visiting N’Djamena to discuss continuing military cooperation, did not seem to have been informed, either. And indeed, even on the Chadian side, some seemed surprised. According to multiple concurring sources, the minister of defense himself learned of the decision of President Mahamat Idriss Déby just before the communiqué was published.”

Chad was the first French colony to support Free France against the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy French authorities during World War II. Despite gaining independence in 1960, Chad was still partially governed by the French military until 1965.

The country has witnessed numerous French military operations, including “Limousin” (1969-1971) and “Epervier” (1986-2014). The French military played a key role in facilitating Hissène Habré's rise to power in 1982, and then his overthrow by Idriss Déby in 1990. It attacked rebel forces who threatened to seize the capital, N'Djamena, in 2019.

Following the death of longtime President Idriss Déby Itno in April 2021, senior military officers staged a coup d’état, leading to the establishment of a military government. Idriss Déby’s son, Mahamat Idriss Déby, was appointed interim president. In February 2024, heavy gunfire erupted in N’Djamena after the announcement of a long-anticipated election date, as government forces clashed with members of the opposition Socialist Party Without Borders (PSF). A presidential election was held in May this year, with Mahamat Idriss Déby declared the winner.

Chad’s sudden ending military ties to France comes amid mounting geostrategic conflicts in Africa bound up with the NATO war with Russia in Ukraine and economic rivalry with China. Surging food and oil prices driven by disruption of grain imports from Russia and Ukraine have devastated millions. French imperialism in particular is challenged by growing economic and diplomatic ties between its former colonies and both Russia and China.

Russia is bolstering its military presence in Sahel countries, including Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Sudan, and Chad. Russian mercenaries, notably from the Wagner Group, have been deployed in several African countries. They are supporting the governments and armed forces of Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, and are also engaging in combat alongside them against Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants.

China has also strengthened its relations with Chad and Senegal, announcing projects for electricity, running water, farming, telecommunications and airport infrastructure. In May, former Chadian Ambassador to China Allamaye Halina had become the country’s prime minister. Later in the year, China also signed contracts to provide arms and equipment to the Chadian National Army.

The entire region is being pulled ever deeper into NATO’s escalating global war. Chad’s ending and Senegal’s threat to end military cooperation with France come as the NATO powers escalate war with Russia in Ukraine, and Trump’s election threatens war with China. Given the massive unpopularity of French imperialism in Africa, and the economic and military advantages of ties to China and Russia, a number of African states are responding to these explosive military pressures by moving away from Paris.

This year, Russia has steadily worked to increase its influence in Chad through military cooperation and economic investments. In January, Idriss Déby met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. During their meeting, Putin stated that the two countries had “great opportunities to develop our bilateral ties.”

Déby continued to cultivate his relationship with Putin following their meeting. Ahead of Chad’s presidential elections, Déby published an autobiography titled “From Bedouin to President.” In February, Déby presented a copy of his book, inscribed with a personal message for Putin, to the Russian ambassador to Chad, Vladimir Sokolenko. The book also included a photograph of Déby and Putin from Déby's January visit to Russia.

In his autobiography, Déby criticizes Macron for allegedly trying to dissuade him from running in the election during a phone call. “I’m not going to change the transition charter under threat!” he wrote.

Chad’s ending of the unpopular military cooperation with Paris comes just before parliamentary elections scheduled for December 29. His main opponent, former Prime Minister Succès Masra, who has criticized France for favoring Déby's family, saying: “France has clearly chosen a family to the detriment of the Chadian people.”

Finance capital increases its domination of healthcare

Marc Wells

Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman and chief executive officer of Blackstone, Inc. USA, at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 24, 2008. [Photo by World Economic Forum/Remy Steinegger / CC BY-SA 2.0]

The US healthcare industry is under increasing dominance by private equity firms and financial institutions, reflecting a broader trend of financialization in the sector and commodification of public health. Equity firms, such as Blackstone, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR), The Carlyle Group and Apollo Global Management, have spearheaded acquisitions in hospitals, emergency care, nursing homes and behavioral health.

Billionaires with influential political ties to both big business parties control these firms. To name a few:

• Stephen Schwarzman ($55.6 billion)—CEO of Blackstone, Inc. which owns major healthcare firms like TeamHealth

• Henry Kravis ($6.5 billion) and George Roberts ($12.2 billion)—Founders of KKR, heavily involved in acquisitions like Envision Healthcare

• David Rubenstein ($4 billion)—Co-founder of The Carlyle Group, known for investments in healthcare, including ManorCare nursing homes

• Bill Gates ($106.6 billion)—Via his foundation and investments in healthcare systems

• Warren Buffett ($148.3 billion)—Through Berkshire Hathaway, a significant investor in healthcare-related stocks

The financialization of healthcare has drastically accelerated the industry’s crisis over recent decades. Beginning in the early 2000s, private equity firms, such as Blackstone, KKR, and Apollo Global Management, began targeting healthcare sectors, including physician practices, hospitals and nursing homes. They view them as stable and profitable investments due to consistent demand, third-party reimbursements and ample opportunities for cost-cutting.

In the first decade of the 21st century, private equity firms began acquiring smaller healthcare entities, often through leveraged buyouts. During the 2010s, private equity investments in healthcare surged, with deals growing from $5 billion annually in 2000 to over $100 billion by 2018. Sectors such as urgent care, primary care and specialty practices became significant targets.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the trend as healthcare providers faced financial strain. Private equity firms acquired distressed practices and hospitals, consolidating market power while introducing aggressive cost-cutting measures.

By 2023, private equity firms had spent $505 billion on healthcare acquisitions over five years, leveraging financial pressure to extract profits through increased fees, reduced staffing and operational consolidation.

A 2021 study published in Health Affairs analyzed the impact of private equity ownership on nursing homes. It found that facilities acquired by private equity firms, like Blackstone and The Carlyle Group, experienced a decline in patient care quality and reported a 10 percent increase in mortality rates. These outcomes were largely attributed to reduced staffing, cuts in essential supplies, increased patient-to-staff ratios and cost-cutting measures aimed at maximizing profits, such as reducing budgets for essential services.

Companies like TeamHealth and Envision Healthcare, backed by Blackstone and KKR respectively, have implemented aggressive billing practices. They use surprise medical bills as a revenue stream, charging exorbitant fees for out-of-network care. These practices drew national attention, with patients being billed thousands of dollars for emergency services. Envision in particular has focused on increasing profits through the consolidation of emergency departments, often resulting in closures in less profitable rural areas.

Acquisitions in behavioral health have also led to increased costs for patients, often accompanied by cuts in essential services. Private equity now owns approximately 7 percent of addiction treatment facilities and over 6 percent of mental health clinics in the US. Essential but less profitable services, such as community-based mental health programs and addiction treatment, have been scaled back or discontinued after private equity acquisition.

The broader implications of these trends are stark. By consolidating healthcare into fewer, larger corporate entities, finance capital wields unprecedented control over public health. This commodification undermines access to affordable care while enriching a narrow layer of investors. The restructuring of healthcare is not merely a technical issue but a political one, necessitating organized action from workers to pursue public healthcare systems that prioritize human need over profit, a task that is in stark contrast with the capitalist system.

Both big business parties in the US are fully complicit and unanimously invested in this process. In only a few weeks, Donald Trump will install the most reactionary cabinet the US has ever seen, a government of the oligarchy, by the oligarchy, and for the oligarchy composed of fascists, billionaires and xenophobes.

Among them, Donald Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine advocate, as Secretary of Health and Human Services after RFK Jr. endorsed him. Other healthcare posts went to similar open enemies of public health: Mehmet Oz for Medicare and Medicaid, Martin Makary for the FDA, and Dave Weldon for the CDC. Each appointee reflects anti-scientific stances on public health, opposing vaccination, abortion rights or pandemic safety measures.

There is a clear intersection between the financialization of healthcare and politics. The dismantling of the public health infrastructure by private equity has the full support of both parties.

Blackstone has a significant influence in both finance and politics. Schwarzman, a prominent Republican donor, has close relationships with politicians like Donald Trump and has advised on financial policy during the Trump administration. Blackstone’s investments in real estate and healthcare have been shaped by deregulation efforts supported by these political ties.

Apollo Global Management maintains deep ties with politicians, including by hiring former Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Harry Reid’s Chief of Staff David Krone. These connections strengthen its position in healthcare, real estate and finance sectors, facilitating corporate influence over public welfare.

KKR’s Henry Kravis, a significant Republican donor, has advocated for policies that benefit private equity, including tax structures favoring carried interest. (Tax breaks favoring carried interest refer to a special tax treatment that benefits private equity managers, hedge fund managers, and venture capitalists.)

These ties leak into the military sector. Known for its close ties to Washington D.C., The Carlyle Group has employed former politicians, including former President George H.W. Bush and former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, as advisers or partners. These connections have helped Carlyle secure lucrative defense contracts and investments in regulated industries.

Figures like RFK Jr. capitalize on public dissatisfaction, blaming science or government institutions for the failure of capitalism to satisfy the basic needs of healthcare, rather than financial interests. But his attacks on science align completely with the profit motives of private equity firms, promoting individualistic and market-driven approaches that leave systemic healthcare issues unaddressed.

In the context of a rapid growth of the class struggle and ongoing strikes in the healthcare industry, such as the walkout by Kaiser’s mental health workers, the trade unions’ role must be placed under scrutiny. Unions have facilitated the process of consolidation and cost-cutting measures under the guise of securing jobs and maintaining institutional stability. This standpoint has frequently aligned union leadership with corporate management on the basis of the financial imperatives driving restructuring efforts.

Unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have historically partnered with healthcare corporations to enforce “labor–management partnerships.” These agreements have at times endorsed cost-saving measures, such as reduced benefits or wage stagnation, in exchange for promises of job security.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCA Healthcare proposed cuts to wages and benefits, including eliminating weekend and evening pay differentials, suspending 401(k) contributions and freezing wages. The SEIU facilitated the concessions, threatening workers with more drastic layoffs and the failure of operations if they did not accept them.

In some cases, the SEIU has supported the privatization or consolidation of public hospitals, arguing that these moves would protect jobs. A case in point was the “Vital Brooklyn” initiative, which aimed to consolidate several struggling Brooklyn safety-net hospitals (Interfaith, Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center and Brookdale) into the One Brooklyn Health network. This restructuring plan was supported by 1199 SEIU, with assurances that jobs would be retained and that the reorganization would result in an “extraordinary investment in communities historically underserved.”

In its contracts with Kaiser Permanente, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) has agreed to terms that include minimal wage increases and fail to address critical understaffing issues. Workers have criticized these agreements for prioritizing management’s cost-cutting strategies over the quality of patient care and working conditions. The ongoing NUHW strike at Kaiser highlights the fact that these burning issues have only gotten worse.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has negotiated contracts for public healthcare workers which included wage freezes and benefit reductions. This concession was often justified as necessary to maintain funding and prevent closures.

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU) is also known for collaborating with management, especially at Kaiser Permanente, which funnels millions in corporate funding to the unions through the so-called “Labor-Management Partnership.”

Union agreements framed these attacks as necessary compromises. Since the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have increasingly adopted telehealth and “command center” staffing models. These approaches often replaced registered nurses (RNs) with lower-paid, less-trained staff to execute directives, effectively creating a “generic workforce.” This restructuring led to heavier workloads for RNs, who had to oversee less-experienced staff while managing patient care remotely or across multiple facilities​.

What these agreements have in common is their prioritization of the financial viability of employers over the needs of workers. Unions have negotiated contracts that endorse wage freezes, benefit cuts and increased workloads under the justification of keeping struggling hospitals open or making them more “competitive.” They have supported mergers, nurturing false illusions by arguing that larger systems provide job security by creating economies of scale, even though this often leads to layoffs and the erosion of working conditions.