View Story | 236 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
trade 'em here
"Be radical, be radical, be not too damned radical." - Whitman [-4.50, -5.79]
by DemHillStaffer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:53:19 AM PDT
Speaker Pelosi arranged a meeting for the House Democratic Caucus with Robert Rubin on deficit issues, and refused to allow labor leaders to be present at the meeting. At the time, we were told that there would be a later meeting with the House Caucus where representatives from labor unions would be able to talk to the caucus about trade issues. So far as I can tell, this promisecd meeting never occurred. Can you confirm or deny whether a meeting occurred between the whole House Caucus and labor leaders in the first half of this year?
by ManfromMiddletown on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:16:39 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
i know that i and my boss have met with labor leaders regularly.
by DemHillStaffer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:18:45 PM PDT
jobs due to these trade agreements? Is the Democratic leadership even remotely focused on an agenda to provide compensation and retraining benefits to those who lose out under new trade agreements?
by dmnyct on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:42:01 PM PDT
look at "SWAT" in the link in the diary.
but more than this, we're trying to figure out ways to create more high quality jobs in the us by investing in infrastructure and research, passing the employee free choice act and promoting unions, and fixing the health care crisis that burdens us businesses and workers.
by DemHillStaffer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:47:03 PM PDT
trying to reform and not raise the cap of H-1B Visas, which have been shown to be a major tool of offshore outsourcing of jobs, labor arbitrage and age discrimination? This is insourcing, when a corporation cannot offshore outsource the job, they want to bring in cheaper labor instead.
70% of H-1B Visa applicants were Indian companies specializing in the offshore outsourcing of American jobs.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by BobOak on Sat May 12, 2007 at 03:06:53 PM PDT
by ManfromMiddletown on Sat May 12, 2007 at 03:08:52 PM PDT
basically did something very similar. The Durbin-Grassley bill has a more watered down clause and it's about the only thing in their bill that is useful. but the Pascrell is so much stronger and frankly what we need.
I mean I think we are at ground zero in terms of anything even remotely crafting a way to raise up middle classes globally or dealing with global labor issues.
by BobOak on Sat May 12, 2007 at 03:11:12 PM PDT
have you seen about this global alliance between the Machinists, Steelworkers, Amicus in Britain, and IG Metall in Germany?
I've got a lot of respect for IG Metall, I spent this spring reading a lot about the German industrial relations system, and it was a hoot. In 1995, IG Metall was able to get the plant owners to encourage their own employer's association to argue for settlement with the union.
by ManfromMiddletown on Sat May 12, 2007 at 03:14:50 PM PDT
Frankly professionals are absolutely no where in even forming a almost non structure to loosely structured political group and of course the reason why STEMs especially are being hammered.
I think global network of unions has to happen because corporations and capital are completely borderless in effect.
by BobOak on Sat May 12, 2007 at 03:16:33 PM PDT
that brings this spin up to date. Always so amazing that we can be bipartisan on trade. Guess there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties on this issue.
Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.
by dkmich on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:36:51 AM PDT
we make these job loosing agreements. All of what you've written sounds great, but they are not in the works. I remember when Clinton signed NAFTA there were promises made. Unfortunately, that's all that happened.
by Donna Z on Sat May 12, 2007 at 09:12:59 PM PDT
this is a policy framework and will become law. This means that a President will be prohibited from signing, and Congress from ratifying, a trade agreement that does not include those standards. It also will become the law that those agreements already pending will need to be renegotiated to include those standards before Congress takes them up.
American workers can compete with anybody in the world if provided a fair playing field. And that's what this bill does, gives us a fair(er) playing field.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:59:00 AM PDT
Bush will do a signing statement and do whatever he pleases. Who is going to enforce them? They won't even enforce what little bit of teeth we have in the current agreements. This is bull shit. They are snowing and conning you. If you actually believe this corporate financed system is going to do something to help you, I have a bridge.
by dkmich on Sun May 13, 2007 at 04:05:39 AM PDT
Because history has shown us that the people who are so fond of this phrase define a level playing field as that playing field where one worker makes two dollars an hour the other makes fifteen dollars an hour.
How is that a level playing field?
How does one compete on that playing field?
Like DemHillStaffer you speak in platitudes either believing, or hoping, that the people you are speaking to are stupid.
by superscalar on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:26:16 AM PDT
I didn't say that a level playing field is where one worker makes $2 an hour and the other $15. But it is also true that that, by itself does not make the playing field unfair, if the worker making $2 an hour is able to make a comparable living in their country as someone making $15 in ours. And the best way you do that in any country is by building a strong middle class. How do you build a strong middle class? Two words: union movement. This agreement provides that anyone that wants an FTA with the United States will respect workers' unionization rights. If you think that using our trade policy to build strong middle classes around the world is wrong, then yes, we have a profound disagreement. The other way to level the playing field is to make corporations internalize the costs of environmental degradation, or making sure that they are not allowed to pollute the environment in poorer countries, and stick their peoples with the bills (or ours). I don't think I need to remind you that the current trend of globalization is far harsher on the peoples of the poorer countries of this world than it is on us.
I am not sure what your precise demand is. If you believe that we should put big huge tariffs on any import from any other country (or any other country that have wages that are lower than American), then yes, this agreement doesn't meet those demands - but then, beware that any country that has wages higher than ours ought to be able to do the same to us; it's a 2-way street. I, on the other hand am NOT an opponent of globalization so much as I am an opponent of the half-way globalization we have today. That is, when we have globalized the entitlements of corporations but have NOT globalized the rights of workers or the cost of damaging the environment. And this agreement takes big steps to do just that. The fundamental problem with globalization is not that it exists, but rather that it exists only for one side of the employment table.
by deaniac83 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:05:02 PM PDT
I am absolutely positive that we can compete with anybody in the world; however, as you say we need a fair playing field. Well, this agreement does not provide a fair playing field. I have noted a bunch of promises, but promises without action mean zip.
Example: Let's say that workers in one of these countries want to organize hoping to gain better working conditions. Considering the state of our justice system, do you think that those workers if (when) subjected to recriminations will be heard in these foreign courts. Answer: No, they won't. And not one of the people touting this deal will give a damn or raise one pinkie.
Is that a level playing field.
Speaking with personal knowledge of what happens in this country when people try to organize. There are few politicos who will spend one once of their capitol pursuing justice for the lone voice who gets the shaft.
Think about those in our country who try to get something done about environmental breaches of the law. What happens? It takes years. Now think about this boondoggle that is being promised. These countries do not even the laws in place, and their court systems are even slanted toward the wishes of the ruling class. Is that part of your level playing field?
There is huge money involved behind the scenes, and that money does not belong to you and me.
The promises made are the spoon-full of sugar, but it is not medicine being covered, it is a poison pill for U.S. workers and many people struggling for justice around the world.
I am in favor of a level playing field, fair trade and a general lifting up of people's lives. This deal doesn't cut it.
by Donna Z on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:54:54 AM PDT
Quoting:
Full Parity in Dispute Settlement Labor obligations subject same dispute settlement, same enforcement mechanisms (remedies), and same criteria for selection of enforcement mechanisms (remedies) as all other FTA obligations.
Full Parity in Dispute Settlement
Labor obligations subject same dispute settlement, same enforcement mechanisms (remedies), and same criteria for selection of enforcement mechanisms (remedies) as all other FTA obligations.
In other words whatsoever dispute settlement remedies the agreement makes available for ANY OTHER part of the FTA (say, oh, I don't know, patent infringement) must also be the same exact process applied to labor dispute resolutions from both parties. That's what the agreement says.
Now is it possible for countries to sign an agreement and then violate it? Yes, it's possible. The remedies for that would be: (1) one party suing in the WTO the other party, or (2) one party pulling out of the deal. But that doesn't mean you don't make those agreements.
I would also be interested in hearing what your alternative proposal would be. If it is to simply cut off trade, period, we can debate that. If it's something else, tell me.
by deaniac83 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:22:35 PM PDT
First, you are assuming that the violations will have a fair hearing. That is a huge stretch considering how the establishment mangles the process in our own country, and an even greater taxing of belief given the convoluted legal systems of some of the other countries involved.
What you might consider an extreme example, let us create a fictional labor movement in a participating country. The owner of the company involved has close ties to ruling party, and takes his/her complaint to "friends" in the government. The union organizers have no such friends, and suddenly find themselves branded as enemies of the state for any trumped up charge the government had in their bag.
You know, this has been done in the past. And your idealistic WTO would never even hear of the problem. Besides, those bad union organizers are just terrorists or Commies---take your pick.
My solution would start with leveling the playing field before we jump into this intellectually dishonest deal. In the beginning there would be a functioning and competitive U.S. health care system. The owner of the furniture plant in my town that recently closed told me that he was paying half as much for health care as he was paying for wood. The product was top quality at a fair price, and although the workers (non-union) were making only a few bucks over minimum wage, they could not live on the wages of a Chinese worker.
The owner needed help. Unfortunately, Washington where the buzz is all about level playing fields, couldn't hear him.
I would also suggest that any government who wants to enter these "free" trade agreements, needs to demonstrate through prior action a commitment to meet a minimum of labor and environmental standards. There is an old saying about horses and barn doors, and fictional scenarios about law suits will never get that pony back.
America is being snookered.
by Donna Z on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:58:24 PM PDT
It's in the agreement. The labor violations must be given the same exact remedy as any other violation. That's what the agreement says. I'm not the one that's making up hypothetical scenarios and giving those scenarios the ending that would support my side of the debate. I'm merely saying what's in the agreement. You are arguing corruption, which is a legitimate argument, but we don't live in a perfect world, and the day you show me a bullet-proof perfect solution, I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. There is ALWAYS, IN ANYTHING, the potential for corruption. But that alone does not make a deal worthless, since that would make ANY deal ANYONE EVER made invalid.
Agreed. But how is this related to FTA's? Do you think Nancy Pelosi is against universal health care? You say start with a level playing field, but you don't define what that is. I think that this agreement will make the field more level and less tilted than it is today. Your characterization of a deal as "intellectually dishonest does not make it so.
by deaniac83 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:19:25 PM PDT
I don't doubt that the mechanisms for filing violations is contemplated by the agreement; however, for the system to work, you are believing that the existing labor/environmental climate in the participating countries meet the standards necessary for filing those violations. Considering that our system for filing violations barely works, why should I believe that the legal framework is in place for other countries? It isn't.
Health care: Speaker Pelosi is probably in favor of some form of universal health care. It remains to be seen if the form that is eventually proposed can 1) be adopted and 2) increase our ability to be competetive in the world market place.
You asked what I would propose, and I tried to explain that I would first level the playing field. That must include health care before entering into deals where we are sure to come up losers. We need to support our own labor and environmental laws, and look to governments to meet similar standards. No loopholes. Those commitments must be demonstrated prior to any agreement. Or, we could just demand that American workers give up the 40 hour work week, and accept 50 cent an hour jobs. That would work too.
You have advised me to buy the Brookline Bridge because I'm a realist who understands that corruption exists. I am telling you that these protections are a fantasy that cannot be intellectually made real. I don't care what the agreement says or doesn't say. I care that the language is meant to present a picture of "free" markets that has historically not proved to be the case.
This is not an either your with us or against us issue. The doubters of the deal understand that we are part of a global market place. What we would like to see is someone representing us...the voters. Having experienced Washington's idea of what "free trade" means, how could anyone expect us to buy into this raw deal.
by Donna Z on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:29:03 PM PDT
is obligated to enforce the terms, as they stand, of any FTA. They have no say in what the terms are; that's between the countries making a deal. The WTO rulings against the US have been because those provisions weren't present to begin with, not because those were present but ignored by one party.
by deaniac83 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:21:36 PM PDT
Funding is limited. Ford Wixom is closing, and it was denied certification. The Fed. is mucking around in TAA big time. They are now saying that anybody we sign up at orientation to protect their benefits if now a "participant", and we will be held accountable for all of their outcomes even if we don't work with them. The Fed is mucking around in WIA Dislocated Worker. These people can't even get help to finish a degree because it isn't allowed. The fed. is changing the rules, contrary to legislation, and getting away with it. Then, you keep signing trade agreements giving away the jobs people are retraining for... What do you plan to leave them? If our politicians are doing such a great job of negotiating trade, tell me why the deficit is huge and growing. People on the hill have no idea of what real life is all about. I also find it totally ironic that Democrats and Bush agree on trade and illegal immigrants. You need to quit listening to Friedman. Trickle down and free trade isn't working for Americans. YOU are destroying the middle class, and Lou Dobbs is right.
by dkmich on Sun May 13, 2007 at 04:02:56 AM PDT
Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.
by annefrank on Sun May 13, 2007 at 04:15:11 AM PDT
until we see what is actually in this deal, I'll take it with a grain of salt. Also, regarding all these so-called "enforceable" labor and environmental standards-that was the same bull-shit that was said about nafta-look what happened with that.
by SteveLCo on Sat May 12, 2007 at 09:55:44 PM PDT
despite what sirota says, there is no legal or legislative text.
by DemHillStaffer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:48:42 PM PDT
That isn't what it says at the MyDD link. It says there that:
"this is basically a summary of a framework, and not what members will be voting on. The trade deals are what will be voted on, and the language for those has not been released."
by Eric K on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:54:04 PM PDT
there will be votes on the agreements that include the changes. but the legal text hasn't been written yet. what you see is the WHOLE agreement.
by DemHillStaffer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:00:22 PM PDT
These are talking points for democrats. Are you really claiming the COC, Henry Paulson, Susan Schwab got nothing?
by TocqueDeville on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:07:15 PM PDT
its the agreement. they got the ability to have trade deals that they think are important for u.s. latin america policy move through congress, but we won on all of the details.
by DemHillStaffer on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:08:34 PM PDT
Then we can fight tooth and nail over every damned trade agreement that comes up. Good planning on how to wear out and beat the opposition. Can't keep it up and can't fight it all. I just can't swallow the "bipartisan" propaganda. Since when are Republicans and DLC neoliberal Democrats interested in anything but feathering the nest of corporations that fund their campaigns and give them jobs when they retire from politics? I don't believe you. By the way, who is your "boss". Unless you work for Bernie Sanders, you message is smoke and mirrors. I'll stick with Brown, Sanders, Teamsters, and Sirota on this one.
by dkmich on Sun May 13, 2007 at 04:11:24 AM PDT
So there's a deal on the Peru and Panama FTA, but there's no actual language of the Peru and Panama FTA? You expect us to believe that? I mean, really - come up with something a LITTLE better than that, please.
by davidsirota on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:56:59 AM PDT
We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/
by anastasia p on Sat May 12, 2007 at 09:58:59 PM PDT
The New York Times has an editorial todaystrongly praising the results of the deal making in D.C. on this. However, there is one section in the editorial that gives me problems.
A commitment to basic labor standards — including bans on child labor and forced labor and guarantees of the right to organize — will be written into pending and future trade agreements. Trading partners will be required to enforce their own environmental laws. The administration will be responsible for monitoring compliance.
I've emphasized the particular phrases that have me wondering, especially that last one. My basic problem is this: why should we expect the administration to keep its word on any of this? They sign bills and then add signing statements to negate them. They make public statements that are flat out lies. They put enforcement in the hands of people with every incentive to do so selectively - if at all. I guess my point is, what are the consequences if the administration signs this agreement as described, and then goes on to do what it wants? They may be agreeing to this because they can't win this battle, but are simply moving the conflict down the road to a place where the terrain favors them. They may figure making concessions here will lull us into thinking we've won, and we'll stop paying attention while they sabotage everything down the road. It IS their pattern after all.
Meanwhile, for a troubling take on the related outsourcing problem, there's a good article at Salon by a victim: You can't stop a tidal wave with a fork.
"No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."
by xaxnar on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:53:10 AM PDT
I share your skepticism re the Bush "administration", but don't see any way around this problem, for any law, policy, treaty, etc.
In other words, doubts about the good will, integrity, or competence of those who are supposed to enforce the law may not constitute a valid criticism of the law itself.
It is the responsibility of voting public to elect administrations that will enforce the laws, and to create a political atmosphere in which failure to enforce is unthinkable.
by DBunn on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:20:05 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 236 comments