A group of 21 Chinese construction workers have ended up camped outside the Chinese Embassy in Warsaw. They have no money to return home and are waiting for help.
The workers were hired to work on the Wola Tower construction site. After that, they were sent to work in Lodz and in Olawa.
At one point the bosses decided that they no longer desired the services of the workers and let them go. Since they didn't want to return to China, the local director of decided to inform the Border Police and asked them to deport the workers. The local director's story contradicts the Chinese workers': he claims that the workers found other jobs and just didn't show up for work.
After the people lost their jobs at, some of them went on to work in other places. This group of workers went to work in a meat factory in Poznan. But the border police made problems for them so the owner fired them. They are left without money for the plane ticket home. This is also partially because of the fact that much of the money they did earn went to pay off a Chinese agent who took an enormous amount of money for them to arrange these jobs in Poland.
The companies involved are, naturally, challenging their involvement with the incident and nobody feels responsible for these people. Turret Development, whose brand and name is all over the Wola Tower investment, is claiming that it has nothing to do with either the workers or Wola Tower itself! In threatening letters to ZSP, it demands we explain that the investor is "not them" but really a company called "Massandra"; of course Massandra belongs to the Turret group, has the same president, is located in the same office as Turret, etc. etc.
ZSP is asking Turret and other parties involved to pay for plane tickets home.
Comments
The local ZSP group is going
The local ZSP group is going to try to get Turret to pay for their tickets home. We also have to ask the authorities that no stamps be put in their passports for overstaying their visas.
Groups or individuals can help by sending faxes or emails to Turret. We would prefer these emails to go on the weekend so they find a bunch of them on Monday morning.
Addresses:
Tomasz Dabrowski
Prezes
Turret Development
ul. Racławicka 114
02-634 Warszawa
tel: (+48 22) 30 10 156 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (+48 22) 30 10 156 end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (+48 22) 30 10 156 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
fax:(+48 22) 30 10 152
e-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
SAMPLE TEXT (You can change if you like)
Stop Exploitation! Buy Plane Tickets for Stranded Chinese Workers
Turret Development in Poland hired a group of workers from China to work on the Wola Tower construction project in Warsaw. It then illegally sent them to work in Olawa and Lodz before terminating their contract and contacting the Polish border guards about their deportation. Currently, 21 of these workers are stranded in
Warsaw with no money to return home.
Turret Development and Alter Group: You have responsibilities towards the people you invite to work for you!
Enough exploitation of cheap foreign labour! We demand that you help these people return by buying them plane tickets.
Signed
Quote: We would prefer these
Thanks, I emailed the malter fellow and gave him the 'good cop' routine which will appeal to his ego.
We had an email recently from
We had an email recently from the Alter Group suggesting to us that we should delete this article as Michael Alter has no connection to this incident. It was suggested that legal proceedings would follow if we didn't. We've decided to take Michael Alter's name off the article and would like to state that at this time, libcom has no reason to believe that Michael Alter has anything to do with the exploitation of migrant workers.
Of course the article remains on the site as there is no connection whatsoever to the event in question and Michael Alter as it seems excessive to delete the entire article on the basis of a small mistake, which has now been corrected.
I'm sure if he has nothing to do with this, then Michael Alter would be extremely upset to hear his name associated with such exploitation. We are now working to clarify how the confusion occured whereby the innocent Michael Alter has been accused of the gross exploitation of migrant workers.
Ed, Now the changes have a
Ed,
Now the changes have a factual error as Turret is not a developer in the US. I would send a new version of this article later.
Let me say there is a reason for the confusion: the deliberate practices of companies which deal through dozens of shady special purpose vehicles to conduct their business.
The facts are like this: one Michael Alter of Chicago IS the president of the board of Turret and other related companies.
Here is your proof from the National Court Register: http://www.ktokogo.pl/Michael_Alter
There are more documents from the Court which I have, not on line. The problem is the following:
The Alter Group is claiming that this is not THEIR Michael Alter, but either somebody else OR a case of identity theft.
It will take a little time to establish whether or not this is true. Admittedly, it could be a strange mistake, but one which is caused by the fact that somehow, CONSUMERS in Poland were led to believe that this Poland company is in fact related to the famous American developers. Right now this situation will be clarified... by the Public Prosecutor's Office who have this morning received a complaint in connection with Turret.
But, if you want to consider the word of corporate lawyers or PR people, listen to this:
The lawyers of Turret Development have written to us claiming that they are neither the employers of the Chinese nor the investors in Wola Tower. This letter has been published in the media and is causing a problem - but not for us!
Even if you don't read Polish, you can see the clear connection between Turret and Wola Tower for yourself:
www.wolatower.pl www.turret.pl
On all of the promotional material for Wola Tower, Turret Development is named, its logo is clearly visible.
However, consumers who buy apartments then find that the 100% capital owner is a completely different firm.
So Turret is playing here: on the one hand, it is selling consumers the brand "Turret" and the name "Alter" - on the other hand, when it is asked to take legal responsibility for anything, they say "that's not us".
For some weeks, purchasers of flats in one of their investments have been discussing this as well on an internet forum as they are not sure they understand who the parties of their contracts actually are.
So, when somebody says they are not "the owner", or "the investor", this could be technically "true" - if, for example, they set up a firm in the Cayman Islands which is registered as the 100% shareholder. Then THAT firm would be the "owner", even if the capital comes from some place else.
I hope I don't have to explain here how that works.
The same is with the workers: in this case, it is possible that there were subcontractors involved. A subcontractor can be a separate legal entity with capital connections to the real employer-which-isn't-an employer.
Do not be confused about how capitalism works: there is a lot of shady business.
At this time I only apologize to the good people here at Libcom that they had to hear from these people. I certainly can understand your need to cover your ass here, so it is cool. We have quite a different legal situation in Poland.
Please note that Turret's behaviour caused a lot of media attention yesterday and they are getting themselves in trouble with their claims. This is now moving beyond the issue of the workers - we know there will be a filing in the consumer court concerning misleading advertisement, an investigation by the work inspectorate as to the employment of the Chinese (this might also be followed up by the Minister of Labour and the Voivodship Office) and there is the above-mentionted motion to the public prosecutor's office to investigate the consumer contracts.
And finally, something that we clearly state: it is our policy in campaigns to always name the actual place where the people worked and the company in charge, regardless of whether or not the workers are removed by several agencies or subcontractors. We do not accept this shifting of the responsibility.
I hope this explanation was clear.