France "Hungry" for jobs

Pazaz 21

https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://news.google.ie/news?hl=en&ned=en_ie&q=jean+lassalle+centrist+udf+hunger+strike&location=http%3A//news.ft.com/cms/s/6d45e576-cc1b-11da-a7bf-0000779e2340.html

WTF ? Now even French politicans are demonstrating. What kind of world are we living in that an elected official will resort to going on a Hunger Strike just because the politican didn't believe that the company was not moving its factory 70 km down the road, just building another one. Its unbelievable that a politician could stoop so low as to blackmail a company, by putting his very life in jepordy, into doing what he wanted them to do. I find it appaling.

(The full story is in this weeks economist but you need to have a subscription to view the online version which is why i didn't provide a link, this was the best/only one i could find)

Dirk Gently

Fair play to the frenchie.
I only got the first few lines on the link you gave me but in fairness if he kept 150 of the people he represents in a job then good on him.
39 days on hunger strike is no publicity stunt.
I'm sure theres probably more to this story but i can only go on the few lines in the link. If only our TD's put as much effort into looking after their voters.
I might change my view after seeing the whole story, but for now
viva la frenchie!

Akrasia

he's not gonna viva for very long unless he starts gettin a bit of grub into him.

The_Minister

clown bag wrote:

Fair play to the frenchie.
I only got the first few lines on the link you gave me but in fairness if he kept 150 of the people he represents in a job then good on him.
39 days on hunger strike is no publicity stunt.
I'm sure theres probably more to this story but i can only go on the few lines in the link. If only our TD's put as much effort into looking after their voters.
I might change my view after seeing the whole story, but for now
viva la frenchie!

What he did represents the worst of local politics. Out TDs (of all hues) are bad enough without encouraging them to be even more local. It was blackmail and it was low.

Calina

TDs are elected to represent the interests of the people who voted for them. By definition, those interests tend to be local.

lostexpectation

and those jobs will go in about two years time, what a waste?

New_Departure06

Nice work but ultimately, the French economy will only come out of its mess when the public accept the need for a freer labour market and less generous unemployment benefits.

Pazaz 21

clown bag wrote:

Fair play to the frenchie.
I only got the first few lines on the link you gave me but in fairness if he kept 150 of the people he represents in a job then good on him.
39 days on hunger strike is no publicity stunt.
I'm sure theres probably more to this story but i can only go on the few lines in the link. If only our TD's put as much effort into looking after their voters.
I might change my view after seeing the whole story, but for now
viva la frenchie!

The point i was making was whats the point in having a democracy if you are just going to go on hunger strike if you don't get what you want. Next thing you'll know politicians will be threating to commit suicide if their bill is not passed or their point of view not listened too. Its not democratic, its not civilised.

BigWilly

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The point i was making was whats the point in having a democracy if you are just going to go on hunger strike if you don't get what you want.

Democracy - government for the people, by the people.

Not for the companies, by the people.


I admit it was quite extreme, borderline lunatic, but he did the peoples wishes and in the process probably just sorted himself out with a job for life there

Dirk Gently

Again I want to point out that all I know about this situation is the few lines in the original post and I haven't felt the urge to find out more to be honest. It’s not something I consider worth spending time on investigating.

If the hunger strike dude acted on behalf of the wishes of his voters then his actions where democratic. I have no sympathy for the company owners involved because I feel alot of companies have a lot of power over people and hold them to ransom when relocating to cheaper countries because of cheaper labor costs. When democratic governments are setting taxes and minimum wages companies have a lot of influence over this, because if they don’t get low taxes and cheap labor they will not locate in that country. This basically puts the government over a barrel and influences their decisions. Ireland has low corporate tax so alot of companies set up here. When people want a decent wage the company packs up and goes to India or somewhere where it’s cheaper to employ labour. You can argue that a company will act in the interests of making maximum profit but the effect of that is that it undermines the peoples vote by putting ultimatum to their elected representatives.
This is why I don't condemn the hunger striker. It’s good to see people actually getting a result for once.

the point of having a democracy is to carry out the will of the people, not the will of corporate bosses. unfortunetly the opposite is often true.

Pazaz 21

Here is the Entire Article from The Economist:

French protest

Starved into surrender
Apr 20th 2006 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition

A pre-emptive strike by a politician from the Pyrenees


IF IT takes 3m French street protesters to overturn a law, how many does it take to stop a factory relocating? Answer: one—but he has to be a member of parliament and on hunger strike. This form of protest, it would seem, is the latest weapon in France's battle to protect jobs. On April 14th Jean Lassalle, a deputy for the centrist UDF party for the Pyrenees and the son of a mountain shepherd, ended a hunger strike after 39 days—and the loss of 21 kilos (46lb)—when a Japanese company agreed to reinvest in his Pyrenean valley.

Reuters

A new sort of belt-tightening Mr Lassalle began his fast in March, sitting almost daily on a sofa in an ornate room of the National Assembly in Paris, to protest against what he considered to be a relocation plan by Toyal, a Japanese-owned manufacturer of aluminium pigment. The company's French plant employs 150 people in the Aspe Valley, near the Franco-Spanish border, home to some 3,000 inhabitants and birthplace of Mr Lassalle. It had plans to add a second factory in Lacq, some 70 kilometres (44 miles) north. Toyal's bosses said that they were expanding, not moving away, and would not shut the Aspe Valley plant. Mr Lassalle disbelieved them, arguing that it was a prelude to closure, and began his fast.

For weeks, the thinning Pyrenean deputy in the parliament building attracted little attention. But as his health deteriorated, his fate swiftly became an affair of state. Late last week, Dominique de Villepin, the prime minister, paid him a surprise visit. President Jacques Chirac telephoned him to assure him that the affair would be resolved. As Mr Lassalle was hospitalised in an emergency, Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister, signed an agreement with Toyal: the Japanese firm would expand within Mr Lassalle's Aspe Valley after all, and the French government vowed to compensate it for any extra costs that might be involved in abandoning the site at Lacq.


Mr Lassalle appears to be recovering: this week he ate a little fish and green beans, and grumbled amiably that the doctors wouldn't allow him a glass of red wine. The French, meanwhile, are digesting the affair in various different ways. For some, it was a noble Gallic victory against the brutal forces of capitalism. François Bayrou, UDF leader, saluted “the heroism and the sacrifice” of the Pyrenean deputy, “a man alone against the extraordinary economic and financial power of many multinational companies”. For others, it testified to France's institutional failings. It was a “sign of bankruptcy, the symptom of the sickness of our political system”, said Noël Mamère, a Green deputy. For others still, it was simply blackmail. In the terse words of Japan's ambassador in Paris, Hiroshi Hirabayashi: “Japanese investors will hesitate to settle here, for fear of being held hostage.”

Hope this helps Clown bag.

Dirk Gently

Sorry, I still don't understand. Were the 150 jobs in his town at risk and did his actions save 150 people from getting the sack, or were the jobs never in danger.

If there was doubt about the future of those people working at the existing factory then he was justified.

If the 150 people were never in any danger of loosing their jobs and it was only a matter of further employment being created at a different location with no threat to the original location then his actions are a bit bizarre.

Pazaz 21

clown bag wrote:

Sorry, I still don't understand. Were the 150 jobs in his town at risk and did his actions save 150 people from getting the sack, or were the jobs never in danger.

If there was doubt about the future of those people working at the existing factory then he was justified.

If the 150 people were never in any danger of loosing their jobs and it was only a matter of further employment being created at a different location with no threat to the original location then his actions are a bit bizarre.

It had plans to add a second factory in Lacq, some 70 kilometres (44 miles) north. Toyal's bosses said that they were expanding, not moving away, and would not shut the Aspe Valley plant. Mr Lassalle disbelieved them, arguing that it was a prelude to closure, and began his fast.

As far as i can see he got the wrong end of the stick and he's only achievement is to persuade foreign companies to not invest in his area, or in France for that matter.

Dirk Gently

French deputy's fast gains pledge from Japanese plant to save jobs


PARIS, April 14, 2006 -- A French center-right deputy of the UDF (Union for the French Democracy) party, Jean Lassalle, ended his 39 days of fast Friday after gaining pledge from a Japanese firm to save jobs.

Lassalle, 50, father of four children, camped since March 7 in the French National Assembly building, or lower house of the parliament, taking nothing but water, salt and vitamins to protest against the plans of the Japanese Toyo Aluminum company to close its subsidiary Toyal employing 150 people in the village of Accousin his constituency.

He was hospitalized on Friday morning after losing 21 kilos and he called off his fast later in the day after French President Jacques Chirac's intervening into the case.

French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy announced after meeting Friday morning with senior executives of Toyal and the Japanese ambassador to Paris that the plant pledged to continue to run in the village of 2,800 inhabitants, which, according to a local official, "would not survive" the closure.
Francois Bayrou, president of the UDF party, hailed Lassalle's action as a "magnificent victory", in which "everybody was a winner".




As far as I can see he got a guarantee that the jobs would be safe, something which was in doubt before the hunger strike. In a village of only 2,800 people the loss off those jobs would have devastated the village. Just look what happens here in Ireland when this sort of thing happens in Donegal with fruit of the loom or in smaller towns when the major employer leaves the area. I think he was safeguarding the employment of the people in his town. The company in question can still expand and open new factories else where in France but they have to maintain the one in his town also. There was genuine concern that the company was going to close its existing factory and all the French MP done was get the company to clarify that they had no intentions of pulling out, which would of left the people of the town with no employment opportunities. He did his own future employment prospects no harm either as I’m sure everyone in the town will be voting for him again at the next elections.

If the company had no intention of closing the factory down then he achieved nothing and the company didn't compromise and wasn't held hostage by the hunger strike. If they had intended to cut the jobs in the town then he was right to protest.
What’s more important, the future of a whole village or a company’s right to relocate?

mike65

A fantastic precedent then! :rolleyes:

Mike.

Dirk Gently

Does nobody think the rights of an entire village is a worthy cause.
or is the freedom of a powerful corporation to relocate more worthy.

If the jobs went in that town it would have affected every household in the village. The corporation is still going to make profits and is still going to be able to open factories in other areas. All that was agreed here is that the existing jobs would be maintained.

Pazaz 21

It's not his ideology i disagree with, it's his methods. It dosen't matter whether it was 150 or 150,000 jobs WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG!!! Its not about a companies right over a persons right either.

Its not about saving jobs its about setting a precedent, like mike65 mentioned.

Dirk Gently

Peaceful protest is wrong?
How else would he have safe guarded the jobs?
Would the company have taking any notice of a democratic vote in the town considering it’s a foreign company with no interest in the people of that town.

It basically comes down to whether you believe company’s are above democracy and that a company’s freedom to cut jobs is more important to the workers right to a job. I understand that the free market and capitalism supports the right of the company over the rights of the people but I believe this is wrong. From a capitalist point of view the Hunger strike was wrong but from the human, good of the community view his actions were justified.
Under the capitalist system the big company’s are sovereign entities in themselves and there is nothing people can do to influence the men in the boardroom, except drastic action like going on hunger strike.
I hope it does set a precedent and limits are put on company’s ability to devastate communities but I feel this is an isolated incident and the dictatorship of big corporations will continue to rule. I wouldn’t be too worried if I was a capitalist, it is very unlikely that there will be a shift away from free market policies because of this incident. What country would dare stand alone and limit corporations when they know it would lead to a flight of capital from that country. This is the beauty of capitalism, except the rules of the employers or the employers go elsewhere. How do you stand up against that? The hunger strike was the desperate act of a man with no other way of opposing a decision that could have devastated his village.

Pazaz 21

clown bag wrote:

The hunger strike was the desperate act of a man with no other way of opposing a decision that could have devastated his village.

I was re-thinking my point about this issue last night and came to the conclusion that i am mostly outraged that he had to resort to this kind of extremisim and blackmail to get his message across rather then the fact that he actually did go on hunger strike. I totally agree that the system is built for the profit of the big companies and not for the "little people" who work in them. I also agree that something has to be done to turn the tide on this issue and make it harder for big companies to sh*t all over the little guy.

Clownbag you have convinced me a certain amount but i still think its fundamentally wrong what he did, but under the circumstances perhaps somewhat justified.

Sand

Peaceful protest is wrong?
How else would he have safe guarded the jobs?
Would the company have taking any notice of a democratic vote in the town considering it’s a foreign company with no interest in the people of that town.

Please explain why the company is somehow obliged to provide employment? Companies and workers engage in a mutually beneficial arrangement. If a worker gets a better deal theyll walk just like that, and if a company get a better deal theyll do just the same. Would you respect a democratic vote deciding whether you stay in your old job or get a better one?

The man has every right to go on hunger strike if he feels strongly about it. The Japanese company didnt have to, and shouldnt have imo, rewarded his tactics by giving into them but they did. Now a dangerous precedent is set. If the Japanese company ever plans another move (and have the reasons/incentive for their move actually changed beyond all the hype?) another hunger strike will be launched. Depending on the fanaticism of the hunger strikers (who will have every reason to believe theyll succeed if they can hold out just *one* more day) its possible a person may become severely ill, who knows, even die, if the company doesnt yield - and seeing as they dont *have* to, theres no guarantee they would.

Dirk Gently

I know the company is not obliged to provide employment. That’s the whole point. The right of the company is put above the common good of the community. I think this is wrong and why I think the frenchie was right to highlight the injustice of corporate dominance over the people of the town.

How exactly did the company give in to him anyway?
The company insisted that they were not going to let the people go in the town and were simply going to build another factory in another town but keep the existing one open.

The only way the company could have been compromised is if they lied and did infact intend to let the people go and close its factory in the town.

The frenchie didn't trust the company and didn’t want to risk loosing the major employer in the town so he got guarantees from the company to back up what they originally said they were going to do.
The company can still open as many factories as they want anywhere they want but just have to keep the existing factory running too. This is what the company originally said it planned to do so it hasn't been compromised. (Unless they were trying to pull a fast one) But I’m sure a corporation would never mislead the public like that.:rolleyes:

Sand

I know the company is not obliged to provide employment. That’s the whole point. The right of the company is put above the common good of the community. I think this is wrong and why I think the frenchie was right to highlight the injustice of corporate dominance over the people of the town.

I know youre aware of the fact. What I asked is why should they be obliged to provide employment? Its fairly clear you seem to feel private enterprise is somewhat immoral and only to be tolerated in so far as it provides jobs.

How exactly did the company give in to him anyway?

As Mr Lassalle was hospitalised in an emergency, Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister, signed an agreement with Toyal: the Japanese firm would expand within Mr Lassalle's Aspe Valley after all, and the French government vowed to compensate it for any extra costs that might be involved in abandoning the site at Lacq.

In the terse words of Japan's ambassador in Paris, Hiroshi Hirabayashi: “Japanese investors will hesitate to settle here, for fear of being held hostage.”

Are we talking about the same story? Companies are supposed to act in the interests of their owners, not the interests of some crazy people who try to starve themselves to death. The terms of the above deal go beyond offering guarantees - the company already stated they intended to keep the Aspe plant open, Lassalle didnt believe them. Now the investment has been swung back to Aspe, at the expense of Lacq, and their people and their community. With the bill for this decision being picked up by the French taxpayer.

What now? Should a representitive of Lacq starve themselves to death until the decision is reversed? Would that be democracy in action? Should investment now be decided by who offers the best location for investment, or whose willing to kill themselves to secure the deal? If the latter sounds like your kind of thing, I heartily recommend the book Market Forces by Richard Morgan. Even if its not, I still recommend the book.

The company can still open as many factories as they want anywhere they want but just have to keep the existing factory running too.

No they cant. If they try, Mr Lassalle will threaten to kill himself again until the investment is swung back to Aspe valley and the French taxpayer picks up the tab - again.

How many factories can France pay to stay open before the run out of money? I guess well find out.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote:

Its fairly clear you seem to feel private enterprise is somewhat immoral and only to be tolerated in so far as it provides jobs.

Well, yes.

I feel private corporations are above the rest of humanity. They dictate employment and in doing so dictate living standards. They are the ones who have the real power, and not elected governments. Who do the men in the board room and shareholders really have to answer to? Nobody. All they have to do is maximize profit even if it is at the expense of workers and in this case an entire village. There is no way of stopping companies doing as they wish because they are only answerable to profit margins and are not answerable to living standards.
The capitalist system has made this possible and seen as we are capitalists then yes the Frenchie hunger striker was not being a very good capitalist for putting his community first ahead of the companies right to do as they please. From the capitalist point of view he was wrong, however I think he was justified and am in favour of more community control over private corporations so as situations like this don't happen.
You of course disagree completely with me and my Looney politics. You will however sleep easy knowing that the capitalist system is well established and is under no real threat from mad people like me.

You have stood up and backed the corporations’ right to immunity from the community.

I'm standing up and supporting the communities’ right over the corporation when that community is at risk.

What's the lesser of two evils?

(A) The company keeps the factory open; protecting the jobs in the village and in a few years goes ahead with the expansion anyway

(B) The company leaves the town and every member of the village is affected in a negative way because of that decision, leaving 150 people redundant and a drop in income in most households in the village leading to other private business in the town loosing out because people have no money to buy goods resulting in a depression in the area, resulting in young people leaving the village to seek work elsewhere. The village ends up with an old population and no prospects for the future.

Surely option B must be avoided even at the horrific expense of the company putting their plans on hold a few years. The company still makes money, just maybe not at the rate it could of if it devastated the Village. What’s more important, maximize profit or protect the living standards and lifestyle of the community?

Sound bite time;
"The need of the many is greater than the greed of the few"

Pazaz 21

clown bag wrote:

Sound bite time;
"The need of the many is greater than the greed of the few"

Sound bite time;

"Greed is good":D

Sorry, couldn't resist

BendiBus

No company will invest in that area again for a long long time for fear of being similarly blackmailed.

Short term gain, long term loss. The area, and the people of that area, will ultimately suffer as a result of this insanity.

anton pillar

France is finished. they need Michael McDowell to shake them up. They need to stop their socialist rubbish mentality. I say sack anyone for any reason and then re-hire them, with a good reason. amen.

Sarsfield

anton pillar wrote:

they need Michael McDowell to shake them up.

No need to go from one extreme to the other! A right-wing nutbag is no better for society than a left-wing one.

Sand

Who do the men in the board room and shareholders really have to answer to? Nobody.

The law actually. And whilst it mighnt be true to claim that a corporation is always found guilty/punished every time a court case is brought against it, neither is it true to say to that they have immunity.

From the capitalist point of view he was wrong, however I think he was justified and am in favour of more community control over private corporations so as situations like this don't happen.

So essentially you feel the "communitys" right to your property should be greater than your own right to your property? Im wondering how deep this belief runs because I notice youve evaded setting out whether you would put your career path to a democratic vote of "the community".

You see, I dont feel he was wrong from the "capitalist" point of view. I feel he was wrong from the liberal point of view. The right to private property is what underpins freedom in the developed world. Governments have a role in establishing and enforcing the law, but no role in pressurising private corporations to reverse their own legal, wholly moral decisions on where to invest.

You evaded my question about Lacq. As you support this type of activity, should one of their representitives also go on hunger strike until the decision is reversed? Does the "community" in Lacq have a right to feel agrieved that the investment they won has now been taken away from them by the actions of Mr Lassalle? Has the French government served the "community" of Lacq by this action? I ask only because your definition of community seems to exclude Lacq.

You have stood up and backed the corporations’ right to immunity from the community.

Ill advocate anyones right to private property, and the exercise of that property as they wish within the reasonable limits of the law.

I'm standing up and supporting the communities’ right over the corporation when that community is at risk.

How did "the community" survive before the corporation arrived? Did the corporation invade "the community" and hold a gun to peoples heads forcing them to take a job? Were the people of Aspe indentured serfs, unable to leave Aspe or seek employment elsewhere without the permission of Toyal? If not, why exactly should Toyal be forbidden from investing elsewhere? Will you stand up and support "the community" of Lacq when that "community" is placed at risk by government pressurising corporations not to invest in their "community"?

What's the lesser of two evils?

Id imagine it depends on whether youre living in Aspe or Lacq.

Surely option B must be avoided even at the horrific expense of the company putting their plans on hold a few years. The company still makes money, just maybe not at the rate it could of if it devastated the Village. What’s more important, maximize profit or protect the living standards and lifestyle of the community?

Unfortunately the economic realities that lead Toyal to see Lacq as a better place to invest than Aspe still exist, this deal just papers over the cracks. The same incentive to invest elsewhere continues to exist. And in a healthy economy governments tax sustainable corporations profits to pay for essential services. They dont pay corporations....

Dirk Gently

You say corporations are answerable to the law. I say the law is biased in favour of big business and against the majority of working people. The law puts the “freedom” of the company above the needs of the people. This is wrong and this is why we have the messy situation in France with the hunger strike. Don’t tut and shake your head yet as I’ll attempt to provide examples of this further down the page.

So essentially you feel the "communitys" right to your property should be greater than your own right to your property? Im wondering how deep this belief runs because I notice youve evaded setting out whether you would put your career path to a democratic vote of "the community".

I’ll outline my position.

I feel the greater good should have priority over my individual “freedom” to profit. If I take a decision that is contrary to the needs of the majority of people, while legally entitled to profit from my decision at the expense of a majority of other people I think that is wrong and would submit to the will of the majority. I don’t feel my right to private property and profit is greater than the rights of the majority of people and the fact that I can legally shaft people is wrong. My rights to private property and my career would only come into conflict with the people of a community if my career decisions or property were harmful to that community and the only case I can think of is if I owned a company which was not acting in the interests of that community.
Yes Yes I know, a company acts in its own interests and not the communities interests, but therein lays the problem.

”The right to private property is what underpins freedom in the developed world.”

This is a myth, preached to the citizens of the “free world” by a wealthy elite who want to stay wealthy at the expense of the majority of citizens. The word freedom used in this context is misleading. The freedom you refer to is the freedom of a handful of powerful individuals to do as they please at the expense of others. The term “free world” is misleading. It implies freedom for all people in the “free world” but is really only related to freedom of corporate groups to profit in spite of any opposition from people affected by decisions made by the “free” corporations.

More accurately it is the freedom from social responsibility, a freedom which I don’t think anyone should have. We’re not talking about a persons freedom to choose their own career path or own their own house, we’re talking about a company’s’ freedom to deny other people these freedoms.


You evaded my question about Lacq. As you support this type of activity, should one of their representatives also go on hunger strike until the decision is reversed? Does the "community" in Lacq have a right to feel aggrieved that the investment they won has now been taken away from them by the actions of Mr. Lassalle? Has the French government served the "community" of Lacq by this action? I ask only because your definition of community seems to exclude Lacq.

I agree that Lacq has lost out on investment here. The very fact that it has come down to a decision of survival is shameful. The Frenchie went on hunger strike to protect his Village and this resulted in another town not getting new jobs ( in the short term, they can still invest in Lasc) This only highlights the human cost of decisions made by corporations and why they should not have the “freedom” to disregard social justice. I don’t know anything about Lacq and whether the decision will have an impact on that town similar to a village like Aspe with only a couple of thousand people. The company was already set up in Aspe and the people were already dependant on that company for employment. The result is a status quoi for lasc, with no change for the worse in that town. I agree that it is a messy situation and one town has lost out at the expense of another, but whose need was greater? The hunger strike was by no means a solution to the problem but it was a desperate act of survival and I can understand why he did it. As long as the “freedom” of the corporation over the peoples needs gets priority situations like this will happen all the time and this is just a high profile example of everyday capitalism.

Ill advocate anyone’s right to private property and the exercise of that property as they wish within the reasonable limits of the law.

Interesting film on channel 4 over the weekend regarding a private corporation exercising their corporate freedom within the limits of the law. It concerned water privatization in Bolivia, where an American multinational runs the water industry and has created a market for water. The result of this corporate freedom is that the people can no longer afford to pay water rates and have been cut off. People are literally dieing as a result of not having drinking water, as well as not being able to wash themselves or their clothes. It didn’t concentrate on Bolivia but also visited communities in the United States where the same thing was happening with people having no water, resulting in their children being taken away by social services because of lack of basic sanitary conditions. This was as a result of private companies profiting from water and creating a market in water, selling it to those who can afford it and cutting off those who can’t afford it. All this is legal in the “free world” and is what you have described as an underpinning freedom.

Do you have a limit to how far your beliefs go?

The people in Bolivia are illegally reconnecting their water supply by tapping into the mains supply. This is being done with the unofficial support of the government who turn a blind eye to people illegally tapping the supply and actively encourage it. The government says that when the corporation is forced to leave because of mass civil illegal tapping (the government can’t order the company to provide water to the people because of the companies “freedom” to profit) then the government will legalise the taps and nationalize the supply. The same is happening in the U.S. were people are illegally reconnecting themselves to the water supply because they can’t afford the companies rates. I can’t see the Bush administration supporting the U.S. citizens though. It goes against the “freedom” they stand for.
Two governments have already fallen recently in Bolivia as a result of “water wars” when the governments supported the corporate “freedom” to profit over the need of the people to clean water. The current government has recently pulled away from “free trade” policies because it feels that “free trade” promotes corporate profit at the expense of peoples lives. The Bolivian government is now pursuing a more people orientated system which gives priority to national needs over corporate greed.

Surely this is an example of private property operating within the law being wrong.

Another example would be in India where coca cola is creating deserts because of their extraction of water from the water table to produce their products. Farms surrounding the coca cola factory can no longer grow products to sell and the farmers themselves can’t even feed their own families never mind exercise their freedom to make a profit from their private property. The farmers freedom to a career is taken away as they are forced to work in mines because their own private property which use to make them money is now useless. The coca cola factory also gets 24hours of electricity and the surrounding community only gets irregular supply of a couple of hours a day if at all.
Coca cola are operating within the law and according to their “freedom” guaranteed in capitalism but is it right?

Is there a limit as to how far you would defend a private corporations “freedom” even if they were acting within the free market law?

I agree that the deal in Aspe is only papering over the cracks and that it is a no win situation in reality, but in the short term it has given a stay of execution to the people in that village who are dependant on that company for employment. There are always going to be losers with the free market economy. It is not designed to keep everyone happy, just corporations. The same thing as is happening in Aspe and Lasc happens the world over. Companies set up in Ireland because Ireland offers them a more profitable opportunity, then when a more profitable opportunity arises elsewhere they move out of the country. Same pattern follows again. The area which offers the less corporate tax, the lowest wages and the minimum workers rights gets the investment.
Longer working hours, less pay, less tax, no unions = investment.

Corporate freedom is the opposite of civilian needs and privatization is the opposite of community necessities such as affordable health care, waste management, and infrastructure and so on. Yes private investment can provide these things but only to those who can afford it because profit comes first. The result from the hunger strike will no doubt lead to big corporations thinking twice about investing in the area, but I’d condemn the tactics and motivation of private industry before I condemn the Frenchie hunger striker for taking an action to which he had no alternative.

At the end of the day, the company caved in, if that’s what you call it, so blame the company for forfeiting their “freedom” rather than the desperate man for protecting his voters interests.

remember, you say and I agree that the company acts in the interests of the company and not the community,
the opposite is also true
The community acts in the interests of the community and not the company. As long as the two are in competition with each other we will always have these kinds of conflicts, which can never be resolved under the "free market".