Report: Peru labor provisions "worse than existing law"

[antigop]

http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2007/11/report_peru_labor_provisions_w.html

In a stunning new report on the eve of the congressional vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, a Columbia University legal expert shows the pact may weaken the United States' ability to enforce basic labor standards in trade agreements. The report by Columbia Law professor Mark Barenberg finds that the much-touted labor protections in the Peru deal are "even worse than existing law" and "in no respect do the Agreement's labor provisions mark a significant improvement."

The Columbia University report compares labor provisions in already-passed trade deals with the proposed provisions in the Peru deal, which congressional Democrats and the White House have sold to the public and rank-and-file lawmakers as a new and improved model that does more to protect workers. But the Columbia report shows how the Peru deal's model actually undermines existing trade laws, which he notes are already "weak, unreliable, and inadequate to the task."

For example, the report points out that "if the U.S.-Peru Agreement becomes a model for future trade agreements, then those countries that have not adopted core labor rights in their domestic law will not be bound" by international labor standards. He also notes that under current law, a President of the United States has the unilateral authority to impose sanctions on a country that does not respect international labor standards. But under the Peru trade model "If the President decides that Peru is failing to comply with vague labor 'principles' or domestic labor law, he cannot impose sanctions - he can only file a complaint."

The report's findings likely explain why no major labor, human rights, environmental, religious, anti-poverty or consumer protection groups have endorsed the Peru Free Trade Agreement, while most of Washington's corporate lobbying sector has. It also explains why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has assured its members that "the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance."

[Yael]

1. This should come as a surprise to no one