Atelier N°3, article 19


By MARCHAL   Aurélie :
D.E.A. Student Paper
American Studies Section
Université Stendhal, Grenoble III
© January 2003

Is Really "What is Good for General Motors" Good for Everyone ?

General Motors Corporation is the world's largest automotive manufacturer. It was founded in 1908 to consolidate several motorcar companies and today operates manufacturing and assembly plants and distribution centres throughout the United States, Canada and many other countries. Its major products include automobiles and trucks, a wide range of automotive components, engines and even defence and aerospace materiel. The company's headquarters are in Detroit, Michigan.

General Motors produces more than a third of the cars manufactured in the United States thus enjoying an oligopolistic position in the American market. In 1998, it sold 69% of its production in the United States and 18% in Europe. In 2000, it produced 8 million and 133 thousands of vehicles (cars, trucks _1). Renault, the French manufacturer, only produced 2 million and 515 vehicles. Moreover, General Motors is the leader group world-wide, it employs 600,000 persons (Renault : 140,900) and, in 2000, had a turnover of $ 185 billion_2.

In 1952, General Motors Chief Executive Officer, Charles Wilson, made the famous statement that:"what is good for General Motors is good for the country"_3.  We are going to see if he were right. Because with globalisation, the power of corporations such as General Motors is increasing, and Barnet and Muller go as far as to affirm that:"In the process of developing a new world the managers of firms like General Motors are making daily business decisions which have more impact than those of most sovereign governments on where people live ; what work if any, they will do ; what they will eat, drink and wear ; what sorts of knowledge school and universities will encourage ; and what kind of society their children will inherit."_4

This is a very frightening statement, a mere corporation can organize your life as it wants and judges it right.  We are going to study in more details what kind of economic policy General Motors (GM) brings into play and what the real impacts of the economic and political actions and decisions of a multinational corporation like GM are on  society and environment, both on the United States and on the countries where GM has chosen to move and export its plants.

First, we are going to look at the economic and political decisions and actions of General Motors.  All really began with Alfred P. Sloan who served as President of General Motors (1923-37) and then as chairman of the board of directors (1937-56) and who reorganized GM from an uncoordinated collection of units into a single  enterprise consisting of five main automotive divisions (Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet). He established a decentralized concept of management which became a model for large-scale industrial enterprises in the US_5.  In 1922, the Du Pont family gained control of GM thereby created what the Sherman antitrust suit call in 1950 "the largest single concentration of power in the US"_6. By 1929, GM had passed Ford to become the leading American passenger-car manufacturer. By 1941, it was making 41% of all the cars in the US and had become one of the largest industrial corporations in the world. GM grew along with the American economy in the 1950s and 1960s and continued to hold 40/45% of total  US automotive sales. In 1984, it bought Electronic Data Systems Corporation, a large data processing company,  and two years later acquired the Hughes Aircraft Company, a maker of weapons systems and communications satellites, thus developing and enlarging its products.

Gradually, a monopoly began to be formed by three automobile firms, led by GM and joined by Ford and Chrysler_7. They came to dominate all forms of motorized ground transport. Indeed, intense competition destroys small companies : nine out of ten businesses fail after their first year of existence in the United States, only the strongest can survive and big companies have understood it and made allegiances. However, GM faced increasingly competition from Japan in the 1970s and 1980s_8. Its efforts to modernize and to fight against this competition proved only partly successful and in the early 1990s, the company closed a substantial number of plants in the US.

Despite its problems GM is still the number one American corporation. If you take the profit earned by GM in 1970, it is  equal to the total profit earned by the ten largest non-American corporations_9. Barnet and Muller underline that if we compare the annual sales of corporations with the gross national product of countries for 1973, we find out that "GM is bigger than Switzerland, Pakistan and South Africa. The average growth rate of the most successful global corporations is two or three times that of most advanced industrial countries, including the US."_10 Moreover, in the Forbes Magazine's List of the 100 Multinationals in Year 2000, GM ranks fourth with a foreign revenue of $ 46, 485 million  just behind Ford ($ 50, 138 million) and IBM ($ 50, 377 million). Foreign investment results in appreciable profits_11. We have to understand that foreign investment extracts the surplus value of a country "for the enrichment of those with capital"_12. Greene writes that the primary objective of foreign investment "is not to help the underdeveloped country but to rob it"_13 and he gives the example of Chile where a GM assembly plant has been established. At first sight, it appears as a present for the country, because it will give work to many people - under which conditions however ? - but it will not help the country to develop and export trade because GM will not allow these cars to be exported to other countries where it already has plants.

It is often argued that foreign investment will raise wages in poor countries. But the Boston Globe, which studied US corporate behaviour abroad, found that "rather than raising standards of living, American firms are more likely to be paying no better than local minimum wages"_14. Besides, pressure is kept on producers and governments to keep production costs low, otherwise the corporation moves to another country . So the arrival of an American corporation in a developing country is not always the economic solution to their problems, on the contrary they appear to be used and even exploited ; indeed,  a multinational corporation is not a philanthropic organisation_15.

But more than its economic power, is its political influence_16. For instance, with its major investments in South Africa, GM is a powerful force for legitimizing the regime and reinforcing the economy and government. The company argues that they are liberalizing force but it is not at all convincing, on the contrary Barnet and Muller reveal that, in the last fifteen years, if foreign investment has risen sharply in South Africa, the same is true of internal repression_ 17. Because what is interesting for a big company such as General Motors is profits, never mind the moral standards of its actions.  And when you are aware of the economic as well as the political power and influence of big American corporations you can be afraid. As GM is the most important one, we quickly understand that what is good for it, is not at all good for other people and countries.  In June 1966, The Financial Gazette, a journal of the ruling party in  South Africa, declared that "in times of emergency or war, GM plants would be turned over rapidly to the production of weapons and other strategic requirements for defence of South Africa"_18. At first sight, GM appears as a real saviour, if there is a problem it will be there to help. It is exactly what happened during the Second World War : GM constructed jeeps, trucks and tanks for the GI s who invaded Europe in June 1944_19 but the Germans were also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel, a 100% GM owned subsidiary_20. Never mind that they produced equipment for the enemy to kill their families if they could win money and make more profits!

Danaher wrote that/ "The corporations can twist laws and regulations, shift plants around the globe, open or close markets, set prices and monopolize research and development." And, "The rules written by the big players, always favour the big players, and are designed to forgive them for their flaws and failures"_21. Indeed, big corporations have enough power to define the laws under which they live, the laws that will always be in favour of them and their benefits. They have power to do what they want and even the power to corrupt governments ; with money they can buy politicians : David Korten said clearly that  "corporations are putting enormous amounts of their money into buying politicians and rewriting legislation to serve their particular interests,  to weaken environmental regulations, to weaken unions, to avoid any increases in minimum wages _22"_ .This is unacceptable and even more when they play with peoples' lives.  There is a case in point with the federal auto safety law that had been defeated more than once by the auto industry lobby  : they did not want to put air bags on the cars they produced even if they knew the life-saving potential of them. What were their reasons? We do not know, may be economic reasons, as usual. Byron Bloch, an auto-safety expert, estimates that 140,000 Americans have died since the early 1970s because "the auto companies legislative privilege effectively thwarted all efforts to develop and legally mandate the device in American cars"_23 "Unlike most other criminal groups, corporations have enough power to influence prosecutors not to bring criminal charges"_24 and it is unfair.

GM pursues a political  policy in favour of its economic interests not in favour of its workers. It appears, unfortunately, that decision-making is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands who can decide for masses of people - decide for their lives.

Furthermore, the economic and political decisions of big multinational corporations such as General Motors have substantial social impacts both on the United States and on the countries where GM is located. The old dictum "what is good for General Motors"_25 does not sound true for people who are working for the company.

GM has cut about 82,000 jobs in the US since 1991 and expects to cut another 40,000 by the year 2003_26. But while it has cut jobs in the US, it has expanded employment abroad, as N. Klein put it : "moving production to the maquiladoras and their clones". Maquilodras refer to the fact that GM has invested a lot in Mexico_27. Corporations move from countries where  jobs are paid $ 10 per hour to countries where they pay $ 1 per hour, lower costs mean more profits ; thus, their profits  deriving from overseas has been rising sharply and _with a global  labor pool at their disposal, transnational corporations are less dependent on any particular national workforce"_28.

As a result, for people working in the United States,  _"job security has become more the exception than the rule as corporations, in the name of 'competitiveness', have replaced union seniority systems and stable jobs structures with 'flexibility' and subcontracting"_29. With this possibility to move where costs and labor force are attractive, GM does not worry of what will happen to  American workers. _All over the world, people are being pitted against each other to see who will offer global corporations the lowest labor, social and environmental costs"_30. The jobs of the United States are being moved to developing countries where wages are inferior and where business taxes are lower. K. Danaher wrote that a third of the jobs in the US are at risk to be lost because of the growing productivity of low-wage workers in China, India, Mexico and elsewhere.

In addition,  corporations can  use the threat of 'foreign competition' to exert downward pressure on working conditions of Americans who still hold jobs and to hold down wages, salaries, taxes, reduce environmental protection and to replace high-quality jobs with temporary, part-time, insecure and low-quality jobs ; for them these are important means of lowering costs and making more profits. The effect is a _"downward levelling" - as Brecher and Costello call it_31  of environmental, labor and social conditions.  _Downward levelling is like a cancer that is destroying its host organism the earth and its people"_32. You can add to this, cuts in education, health and other services which are justified  by government officials as being necessary to reduce business taxes in order to keep or attract jobs.

Unemployment and temporary jobs mean less security for people, who can become unemployed overnight. In fact, the labor force is merely used when enterprises need it and people are powerless confronted with such big multinationals.  For example, this man in Flint, Michigan, talking of when his father worked for General Motors and was laid off when GM began losing market share in the late 1970s  said _"When you get laid off in Flint, there is quite literally nothing  you can do : all the jobs have something to do with GM". He also stated that _many GM workers have no choice (_) GM can leave Flint whenever it likes, but the people of Flint cannot leave GM" _32, which sums up  very well the situation. _"For millions of individuals who once had the expectation of lifetime employment and for communities with expectations of a secure economic base, what is disappearing is not just an income and lifestyle but trust in the corporation, a basic American institution that for years provided security and a  sense of self-worth and purpose for millions of people"_33.

The power of GM to decide upon the life of people by laying them off is impressive. Besides, research has revealed that over 20% of American jobs are part-time or temporary and families of part-time workers are six times as likely to live in poverty. This results in more insecurity in the US itself. This insecurity has also consequences on the health of people : the link between unemployment and increased family stress, child abuse, alcoholism, suicide and mental illness has been well established, the social impacts are even greater than what we could have seen at first sight. And, people who are laid off, are often humiliated to be on the dole_34. In addition, gaps between rich and poor are widening.

Worker alienation is another  problem, not only  people work when companies need them but they do alienating work, which reinforces clearly problems of health such as stress, occupational diseases and so on.  But according to George B. Morris, General Motors vice-president in charge of industrial relations : _"There is a lot of writing being done on this subject of 'alienation' by people who don't know what they are talking about" _35. For him, it is not a problem. Workers have to work harder being paid less and do not have to complain. In these big corporations there is no humanity : the daily routine of labor mentally and physically destroys people, they become sub-human. Workers are considered as mere machines, not as human people because what counts is not their health but productivity. If we have a look of what takes place in the maquiladoras, we see that even the human rights of people are denied.

By reducing its wages and social and environmental fees, GM seeks to become more competitive. And, lower wages result in less buying power and impoverishment of American families. But what really happens in the maquiladoras, for example, where it decided to move? Are they the real winners when a GM plant sets up in their territories? Does it prevent developing countries from poverty?
Some  do not see the loss of jobs in the US as a bad thing because they think the jobs lost in the US create new jobs in Central America and the Caribbean.  But these zones known as _"maquiladoras, free-trade or tax-free zones" are generally located in industrial parks with clear boundaries. _"They are considered exempt from most of their host country's customs, tax and trade laws"_36. This isolation, which is reinforced by the fact that zone managers often barricade the area behind guards and chain link fences topped with barbed wire, is very hard on workers ; it seems as if they were prisoners  and the companies only pay their workers 40 to 50 cents an hour, a wage which is far below the poverty line even in these countries. It is good for GM but it is not so good for people who even do not earn enough money to be able to buy what they produce_37!

Worse than that is the treatment of women in maquiladoras which is very shocking. In a way, they implicitly force women to choose between having a baby or keeping their job. Their reproduction is controlled. For this, they use unbelievable means such as the obligation for women to prove that they are menstruating by showing their sanitary-pads or the proposition of jobs based on twenty-eight days contracts that is the length of the average menstrual cycle to make it easy to dismiss them when they are pregnant.  And if pregnant, women are mistreated, they are refused time off to go to the doctor which often leads to _"on-the-job miscarriages".  Their human rights and reproductive freedom as well as their labor rights are attacked and totally denied. GM stated plainly that _"it will not hire female job applicants found to be pregnant" in order to avoid _"substantial financial liabilities imposed by the Mexican social security system"_38.  The fact that pregnant mothers are refused work is a kind of racism. GM tries to find excuses to defend its horrible deeds but its positions  are clear.

The social impacts of GM decisions are not what we could have expected of the world's largest corporation. The rise of these global corporations is the culmination of the modern industrial era and its system of capitalist values and has worrying consequences both on people and environment. Nevertheless, globalisation is not inevitable and world solidarity is a powerful force.

We can not deny that the power and influence of multinational companies have increased. Wealth is increasing for a minority and disparities between rich and poor are widening and globalisation has not fulfilled its promises of global wealth -  developing countries are still exploited - of global technology and global economic growth : even with the setting of  American plants, developing countries remain poor. Moreover, the  environment suffers, at a world-wide scale, from globalisation, just think of ozone depletion and water and air pollution. But, it would certainly be too expensive for companies to reduce their gas emissions for instance. Now, we are looking at the environmental and human consequences of GM plants.

Many scientists believe Earth is gradually warming because of greenhouse gas-emission mainly carbon dioxide from automobiles, factories and power plants. Global corporations are the main sources of greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting chemicals and toxic pollutants_39. All the environmental threats are made worse by the fact that global corporations have the size and flexibility to resist government efforts to limit environmental damage. Evidence of this can be found in the fact that GM quitted global warming lobby group and that, in March 2002, remained opposed to the Kyoto agreement but acknowledged that carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere could be changing the world's climate. What is the point to acknowledge something and not  act?  It did not act because as K. Danaher underlined : "In order to generate profits [corporations] rely heavily on energy-intensive, capital-intensive technology which allows them to economize on labour inputs. Yet, increased output and more substitution of energy and machines for labor mean a more rapid depletion of high-quality energy sources and other natural resources, and a larger amount of wastes dumped into the environment"_40. It seems that money and profits are more appreciable than environment or people's health.

Besides, they violate the law and do not suffer any charges. In August 1993, the National Law Journal did a survey of general counsels of major corporations, Burnham told Corporate Crime Reporter : "Sixty-six percent of the counsels said they believed that their companies had violated federal or state environmental laws in the last year". Corporations do damage but do not pay to compensate, besides most of the time they are aware of their responsibilities but do not take on them. Burnham carried on :"You have ten thousands of major corporations. You have a substantial number of the general counsels of these companies saying that they are committing crimes. That speaks for itself"_41.

Not only are there problems of gas emissions but also problems of polluted water in Mexico, for instance, where GM was held responsible and acknowledged his responsibility, in 1991,  by spending $ 17 million to build water treatment plants at its thirty-five maquiladora plants_42. But this decision was only taken after 'The Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras' was formed to raise the standards of workers and engaged in a campaign against General Motors because of  the toxic flows from GM plants into Mexican water supplies.

However, GM will save $ 15 million by dumping waste it should have treated, after the decision taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to change the clean-up plan for the GM superfund that borders Akwesasne. This change will allow GM to dump 171,000 cubic yards  of toxic PCB contaminated wastes on their property_43. The EPA is prepared to waive Federal and State regulations neglecting the fact that this will present unreasonable risks to the environment and consequently to the health of the Mohawk people who have already suffered from damage caused by GM past waste disposal practices.

But when you read the official GM site, they say they are protecting the environment affirming that "hydrogen is the most effective long-term response to address the global climate issue in the motor vehicle industry". It is true that fuel cell vehicles fuelled by hydrogen produce zero emissions but, on their site,  they do not talk of  their industries that produce gas emissions or that pollute rivers! They present a list of all their actions, among them there is the fact that they agree to voluntarily report CO2 emissions but it is so easy for such a big company to doctor numbers.  In June 2001, they wrote concerning GM in Indonesia that they will "practice effective pollution prevention in accordance with a hierarchy giving top priority to waste prevention at the source, elimination or reduction of wasteful practices and recycling". But when we see what they really do we can wonder about their honesty.

When you think of what happened two years ago, in March 2001, at St Regis Mohawk reservation, you can be doubtful concerning the actions of GM claimed on their site. Mohawk Tribal Chief, Paul Thompson, asserted that GM's illegal industrial waste dump has been poisoning the Mohawk people for over 50 years. Despite all our efforts, the GM facility continues to discharge toxic contaminants into the Akwesnane environment. (_)" they have been completely negligent in overlooking the damage to the health, well-being, economy and lifestyle of the Mohawk people"_44. Furthermore, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, citing public health studies and research on fish and wildlife in the vicinity of GM plant, declared  that GM has known since at least 1980 that PCBs were being released into the St Lawrence River and onto the St Regis Mohawk Reservation and that this may have endangered public health and the environment. But despite this knowledge, GM has done nothing to stop it. Studies have indeed shown that PCBs a neurological toxin and potential human carcinogen have contaminated fish and wildlife, PCBs have also been found in the breast milk of nursing Mohawk mothers and in their infants. And while they are killing Mohawk infants, the GM Environment and Energy President, Elizabeth Lowery, underlines the fact that they took safe driving initiatives by giving child safety seats to low-income families_45 - but had not they refused for a long time to adopt the air-bags safety law ?

Fortunately, people have understood the need to unite : workers threatened by "downward levelling" have long organized themselves locally and nationally to resist these effects due to competition. They have encouraged governments to adopt policies that block this downward levelling but the problem is that, as we have seen in our first part, corporations can thwart the controls exerted by governments and organized citizens. For the moment, corporations are still the strongest because they can move and relocate their facilities like they want around the world when a legislation does not pleased them.

While a group of US and Mexican organizations, which wanted to challenge the policies of corporations setting up plants in Mexico, succeeded in creating 'The Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras' that made GM paid for what its pollution of water, in Central America and in the Caribbean, any hint of organizing to fight  results in the lay off of the worker and his name added to the country's "blacklist", which ensures that he will never work in a zone again.

There is the necessity for us to change our capitalist values - competitive individualism, infinite growth and waste - if we want to preserve the environment and have a better future. But there is also something to do in order to make multinational corporations, who have such a big power, obey the law an pay for the damage they have done. It is, unfortunately, clear that GM does not care  about environment and people and can weaken environmental legislation and rewrite it to its advantage.

We are definitely far from those days when  was proudly proclaimed that "what is good for General Motors [was] good for the country". We have seen that the actions of General Motors are neither good for the United States nor for its host countries. Today, if governments and workforce fail to provide labor, social, economic and regulatory conditions to corporations' liking, corporations can just go elsewhere leaving economic devastation in the country they leave.  By moving from the US, they create unemployment and insecurity for American workers but they do not bring a lot to their host countries exploiting them by not paying them a lot and by neglecting  their human and labor rights.

Unfortunately, fewer and fewer large corporations own more of the world's productive resources while millions of people do not earn enough to sustain their families.  Corporate domination of government is one of the negative consequences of globalisation and the spread of such big companies such as General Motors. Malignant effects of globalisation are apparent in the US and throughout the world : unemployment, poverty, inequality, environmental degradation_  The problem is that the motor force of capitalism is private profit, intense competition and if we do not change these capitalist values, problems will remain.

Fortunately, workers are getting united they are aware of the need to change, they become conscious of who they are and what they want. People are beginning to unite as we have seen with the 'Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras' for instance. They have understood the need to fight against the power and influence of  such companies if they want a better life and a better future for them and their children.


        1/   Secondary Sources :

French sources :

FREMY, Dominique et FREMY Michèle.  Quid 2002   Editions Robert Laffont, 2001.

MAXCY, George. Les Multinationales de l'automobile Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1982. 326 p.

English sources :

BARNET, R.J. and MULLER, R.E. Global Reach. The Power of the Multinational Corporations  New York : Simon and Schuster, 1974. 508 p.

BRECHER, Jeremy and COSTELLO, Tim. Global Village or Global Pillage. Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom up. Massachusetts : South End Press, 1998. 237 p.

DANAHER, Kevin. Corporations are gonna get your mama. Globalization and the downsizing of the American dream. Maine : Common Courage Press, 1996. 221 p.

DUBOFF, Richard. Accumulation and Power.  An Economic History of the United States. New York : M.E. Sharpe Inc. , 1989.  221 p.

GREENE, Felix. The Enemy. What Every American Should Know About Imperialism. New York : Vintage Books, 1970. 391 p.

KLEIN, Naomi. No Logo. No Space. No Choice, No Jobs. London : Flamingo, 2000. 490 p.

SERRIN, William.  The Company and the Union. The _Civilized Relationship" of the General Motors Corporation and the United Automobile Workers. New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1973.

WAYNE, Ellwood. The No-Nonsense Guide to Globalization Oxford : New Internationalist Publications and Verso, 2001. 143 p.

        2/ Internet Sources :


1 _ Figures found in Frémy, D. and Frémy, M. Quid 2002 Eds Robert Laffont, 2001.
2 _ In Serrin, W. The Company and the Union  New York : Alfred, A. Knopf, 1973.
3 _ Barnet, R.J. and Muller, R.E. Global Reach  p 15 New York : Simon and Schuster, 1974.
4 _ Maxcy, G. Les Multinationales de l'automobile p 65 Paris : PUF, 1982.
5 _ Duboff, R.B. Accumulation and Power p 77  New York : M.E. Sharpe Inc. , 1989.
6 _ Maxcy, G. Op. Cit. p 195.
7 _ Ibid p 254.
8 _ Greene, F. The Enemy p 98 New York : Vintage Books, 1970.
9 _ Barnet, R.J. and Muller, R.E. Global Reach  p 15 New York : Simon and Schuster, 1974.
10_ Maxcy, G. Les Multinationales de l'automobile p 23 Paris : PUF, 1982.
11_ Greene, F. The Enemy p 173 New York : Vintage Books, 1970.
12_ Ibid.
13_ Brecher, J. and Costello, T. Global Village or Global Pillage  p 24 Massachusetts : South End Press,1998.
14_ Maxcy, G. Op. Cit. p 10.
15_ Ibid, p 11.
16_ Barnet, R.J. and Muller, R.E.  Op. Cit. pp 87-88.
17_ Barnet, R.J. and Muller, R.E. Global Reach  p 88 New York : Simon and Schuster, 1974.
18_ Maxcy, G. Les Multinationales de l'Automobile p 80 Paris : PUF, 1982.
20_ Danaher, K. Corporations are gonna get your mama  p 47 Maine : Common Courage Press, 1996.
21_ Ibid 'An interview with David Korten' p 50.
22_ Ibid p 63.
23_ N. Klein quoting Wall Street Journal, 21 November 1997 (on line) No Logo p 223 London :Flamingo,2000.
24_ Maxcy, G. Les Multinationales de l'Automobile p 137 Paris : PUF, 1982.
25_ Danaher, K. Corporations are gonna get your mama  p 17 Maine : Common Courage Press, 1996.
26_ Brecher, J. and Costello, T. Global Village or Global Pillage  p 23 Massachusetts :
      South End Press, 1998 and Maxcy, G. Op. Cit. p 43.
27_ Brecher, J. and Costello, T. Op. Cit. p 3.
28_ Brecher, J. and Costello, T. Global Village or Global Pillage  pp 19-20 Massachusetts :
      South End Press, 1998.
29_ Ibid p 21.
30_ Danaher, K. Corporations are gonna get your mama pp 37-41  Maine : Common Courage Press, 1996.
31_ Ibid p 114.
32_ Ibid  Cf. the story of this man in Flint who had been laid off and was ashamed to ask for his
      rights, p. 114.
33_ Barnet, R.J. and Muller, R.E. Global Reach  p 324 New York : Simon and Schuster, 1974.
34_ Danaher, K. Corporations are gonna get your mama  p 107 Maine : Common Courage Press, 1996.
35_ Maxcy, G. Les Multinationales de l'automobile p 21 Paris : PUF, 1982.
36_ Klein, N. No Logo  pp 222-223 London : Flamingo, 2000.
37_ Brecher, J. and Costello, T. Global Village or Global Pillage  p 24 Massachusetts :
      South End Press, 1998.
38_ Danaher, K. Corporations are gonna get your mama  p 135 Maine : Common Courage Press, 1996.
39_ Ibid p 63.
40_ Brecher, J. and Costello, T. Global Village or Global Pillage  p 125  Massachusetts :
      South End Press, 1998.
41_ _ HYPERLINK ""§
43_ _ HYPERLINK ""§