Is Labor dead in the DEMOCRATIC Party?

[reddread]

or long since buried?

[rawtribe]

1. For some reason Obama never found his walking shoes.

Short answer... Yes.

[Go Vols]

24. +1

[FuzzyRabbit]

2. Who needs labor when you have

Goldman Sachs and Citibank on your side?

[NewDeal_Dem]

4. Dead, Jim

[99th_Monkey]

5. What more appropriate tombstone could their be for Labor ?

Than Openly Murderous & Racist Police "Unions" Who Can't Kiss Enough 1%s Arse

[Warpy]

6. DRT, LLT

(dead right there, long long time)

It will be like that for both parties until the next big crash.

It's coming, too. Banks are sneaking all sorts of worrisome legislation through because they know it's coming, too.

[KG]

7. since 1992

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. I hope not.

If it is.... we need a third party.

[RiverLover]

9. It will be for sure if another (D) president signs another US job killing trade deal. nt

[pampango]

11. The weakness of our unions has nothing to do with trade. Just ask the Germans or the Swedes or

the unions in any other progressive country where they trade much more and the unions are much stronger.

If we had legal and popular support for unions in the US (as they do in Germany and elsewhere), we would encourage trade (as they do in Germany and elsewhere in the progressive world).

[RiverLover]

13. The AFL-CIO said they're FOR trade deals, just not the crappy ones we've been getting.

And they're rightfully VERY concerned about the TPP~

The AFL-CIO has provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle; the global corporate agenda has infused trade policy with its demands for deregulation, privatization, tax breaks and other financial advantages for Big Business while shrinking the social safety net in the name of “labor flexibility.”

Global businesses that reap the benefits of U.S. trade policy want the TPP to look like prior “free trade agreements” as much as possible. And while negotiations are not yet complete, the publicly available information is concerning for workers: it looks as if, once again, the global corporations are having too much influence in the process. And working families may once again get left behind.

How will the TPP impact:

Labor Rights
Investment
Consumer Rights
Appropriate Trading Partners
Environment
The American Economy and 'Buy American'
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP

[pampango]

16. As the AFL-CIO said:... "while negotiations are not yet complete..." it is "concerning for workers".

The president can deliver a new trade model for the 21st century—one not modeled on the North American Free Trade Agreement—that creates jobs, protects the environment and ensures safe imports but only if negotiations include provisions that will benefit U.S. workers, not simply the largest global corporations.

Although we don’t yet know whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will give America’s workers a trade agreement that benefits them, what is known is cause for great concern. For example, with regard to labor rights, the outline reads, “TPP countries are discussing elements for a labor chapter that include commitments on labor rights protection and mechanisms to ensure cooperation, coordination and dialogue on labor issues of mutual concern,” but fails to mention International Labor Organization core labor standards or even whether the labor provisions will be enforceable. The TPP must not go back on the progress made in recent years. That’s why the AFL-CIO has been fighting hard for a strong labor chapter that ensures workers in any TPP country, including Vietnam, can exercise basic rights such as freedom of association and collective bargaining.

It is not yet clear that all the TPP countries will commit to enforceable labor standards. But America’s workers can’t go backward: we expect labor commitments that significantly improve upon the Bush-era deals. Because the deal is still being negotiated, now is the time to speak up and share your concerns.

I think we all agree with that. It sounds like the AFL-CIO is holding out hope (or at least pretending to do so) for a strong labor chapter.

"... the AFL-CIO has been fighting hard for a strong labor chapter that ensures workers in any TPP country, including Vietnam, can exercise basic rights such as freedom of association and collective bargaining."

If the final deal does not include strict standards for and enforcement of labor rights (national sovereignty be damned in those countries - like Vietnam as pointed out by the AFL-CIO - that violate these rights) it will be worse than 'concerning'. It will be bad and unsupportable.

[reddread]

20. H1-B workers of the world, unite!

now that may be a useful voting bloc for a candidate who declares in their interest.

[B Calm]

10. No, we have to rid our party of the job killing globalists!

[pampango]

14. That will solve labor's problems. Don't worry about Taft-Harley and 'right-to-work' states

taking jobs from pro-union states.

You might want to check history. Getting rid of trade (and the "job killing globalists" - like FDR? - who support it) has never led to strong unions without legal and popular support them. Indeed countries with strong unions trade much, much more than we do. Their unions are strong because they have popular and legal support irrespective of the level of trade.

[B Calm]

15. I don't know of any democrats pushing for right to work for less laws. I'm

pretty sure the right to work laws are a republican idea.

[pampango]

17. T/H certainly is republican. It was passed over a Truman veto. That does not change the fact

that labor unions are weakened by a lack of legal and popular support not by trade - again as evidenced by our own history and the modern experience in progressive countries. Countries like Germany and Sweden do not have "right-to-work" states or provinces that serve to weaken their own unions.

[B Calm]

18. What do you do for a living? You live overseas?

[pampango]

19. Are those serious questions on a liberal discussion site? Who are you? Joe McCarthy?

"Are you now living or have you ever lived overseas?"

Did my browser get highjacked to nativist.com without me knowing it.

What about my post concerning the history of Taft-Harley and 'right-to-work' and how unions are empowered in other countries lead you to ask such questions?

And, yes, I am intentionally not answering your questions, Mr. McCarthy!

[B Calm]

21. Just trying to understand why you so aggresively push globalism and if your

lively hood is dependent on it. Sorry if I might of touched the truth behind your agenda.

[pampango]

22. "Sorry if I might of touched the truth behind your agenda." - A great quote from Sen McCarthy.

If I refused to answer whether I am a communist or not, Sen McCarthy would conclude that I must be one and the truth behind my (communist) agenda has been revealed. To you that refusal allows you to conclude that you have "touched the truth behind your (globalist) agenda". Congratulations. You and Joe are the smart ones.

You're obviously looking for a reason not to respond to the content of my posts and to base that avoidance on your perception of my character and motivation. If you do not want to respond to my posts, just don't respond. You don't need to make up a reason.

on edit: I decided to give you some ammunition to use to disparage my posts rather than responding to them. I live Ohio (probably not too far from you). I'm a retired teacher. BUT I did live overseas for 3 years as a Peace Corps volunteer in the early 1970's.

I'll leave it up to you to figure out a way to use that information to avoid responding to my posts.

[B Calm]

23. hmm hmm. . .

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Let me guess. Not a Union member, are you?

nt