you are right that the anti-globalists don't have an answer on every question. However they have a good knowledge (in general) of global economy and can assist labour unions in making propaganda, collect ressources and teach them how the global economy works. Than the local organisations will be in a stronger position to decide what to do in a particular situation. About Philips I don't know what would be the answer of the anti-globalists, as they are not a single organisation but a whole group of organisations with different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints. It would be a good idea that, for example, attack Belgium decides what their reaction will be to this kind of events. My personal opinion is that they should convince the company to stay in Belgium by asking the government to make new laws that will make massive firing of people more expensive (or less profitable) than investing in the local branch to make it more profitable. 
i know that a planned economy has the disadvantage that the whole economy will depend upon "a bunch of bureaucrats". 
However the alternative is, as it is today, total (or almost total) controll, by the market (the big corporations), and the consequences of this are particularly bad for the third world (as explained in my article), but as well for the people in first world countries who are so unfortunate to be fired, to live in an area where companies are not ready to invest, or just people who are not adaptable enough for the labour market. 
Taxes collected from the companies are small and there is no much possibility for social state-initiatives(the companies themselves will only engage in this if it is profitable). So not the human devellopment is the goal, but the profit  of the companies. 
With a planned economy, but not as rigidly as in the Soviet-union, I mean that the government can't controll everything, including what each company should produce, prices, in fact all economic activities. This leads to a lack of personal initiative, a lack of foreign investment and is vulnerable for bureaucratic inefficiency. However, some centrally planned economies managed to do pretty well, for example the Soviet-union economy  was untill the 70's one of the  most succesfull in the world. Globalisation, international inter-dependance  and new technology have made it impossible for such a system to survive, as is clearly shown in the case of North-Korea since the 80's.
What i mean is a mixed economy, where there is private and foreign investment, and state investment, but where the state has a clear vision of economic devellopment, where companies can work within certain "borders" set by the gorvernment and by law. For example in economic branches which doesn't need much foreign investment but are profitable the government can set up state-controlled but autonomous companies that will finance government activities and further government-sponsered investment. Other branches, which are needed as necessary for the national economy and for public use(transport, telecommunications, education, energy, ...) should remain fully state-controlled. Private businesses(foreign or national)  should be encouraged(tax-cuts, additional government investment...) or forced  to invest(if they don't they can loose their license to sell in that certain country or loose their properties),  in some regions or branches to promote jobopportunities in certain regions or economic branches. Some foreign companies which are necessary to bring new ressources(technological, financial) should pay less taxes than companies of low quality-production who come primarely for the low wages... 
and of course their should be full government-controll of all financial movements and banks. 
Special trade-agreements should be concluded with foreign companies and states which result in new opportunities for the economy of that particular state. 
All this mesures will put the government in the ability to promote, plan and regulate the national economy in the interest of the population. Especially in third world countries will this prevent further economic exploitation, without the disadvantages of a totally controlled economy. This is more or less the system adopted in China and Vietnam, which resulted in massive economic growth without too much dependance on the international economy (for example this were the only countries that were not affected by the Asian crisis in 1998). It also made them possible to limit the gap between rich and poor in their own country.
It is also related to the Scandinavian economic model untill the 80's, which resulted in the highest living standards in the world.