For First Time Ever, U.S. Moves to Enforce Labor Rules in Trade Deal

[ProSense]

For First Time Ever, U.S. Moves to Enforce Labor Rules in Trade Deal

by James Parks, Aug 3, 2010

The U.S. Labor Department announced on Friday the United States will request consultations with Guatemala’s government under the labor chapter of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). This is the first such action by any U.S. administration against a trading partner.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement that the announcement “demonstrates the strong commitment of the Obama administration to enforcing our trade laws, including the obligation to respect workers’ rights.”

More than two years ago, the AFL-CIO and six Guatemalan unions filed a complaint with the Labor Department outlining the systemic failure of the government of Guatemala to enforce its own labor laws or to take reasonable action to prevent violence against trade unionists.

Last year, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) named Guatemala the second-most dangerous country for trade unionists. Colombia was first.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said that the action sends a strong message that the Obama administration will vigorously enforce labor obligations under the U.S. free trade agreements.

We are committed to ensuring that U.S. businesses and workers compete on a level playing field and that labor rights are respected in our trading partner countries.

In a report released last year, the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center noted that in addition to the brutal repression of workers’ freedoms, Guatemala’s laws hinder workers from exercising their basic rights in many ways. Some laws criminalize legitimate union activity. Efforts to strengthen labor laws have been rolled back in recent years. Click here to read the report.

more

[Oregone]

1. Im still waiting for Obama to renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA

Then you can color me impressed. I mean really, isn't that who we all voted for--the man strongly opposed to NAFTA?

[yowzayowzayowza]

2. Here, lemme help:

[Oregone]

3. It seems that suggesting we should be satisfied with this instead of what the guy we voted for...

...promised to do is more accurately described as "moving the goalposts"

Aren't we lowering the bar for success?

[yowzayowzayowza]

4. No, itz called "walking" ... one step at a time. n/t

[Oregone]

5. So Obama *will* repeal/renegotiate NAFTA? Do you have any idea of when?

From your lips to God's ears.

Is there anything on the Whitehouse site about his effort to do this? You sound as if you are certain the fulfillment of this promise is underway.

[ProSense]

6. Did Obama give a specific date during the campaign?

Seems to me he will address his agenda between now and the time he has remaining in office. Want to call him up and give him a list of your priorities in order and the specific dates he should address each one?

[Oregone]

7. In response to question asking if it would be addressed in the first 6 months....

Hillary answer quite affirmatively. And Obama agreed perfectly with her answer.

What do you think an appropriate timeframe for a renegotiation or opting out? Will you stand with me and ask Obama why he isn't working on this yet? We must Go out and force him to do it.

MR. RUSSERT: But let me button this up. Absent the change that you're suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did in 2004 talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA, saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue. Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all. What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world, and we can compete with anybody. And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us. But what I did say, in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we've been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what's good for multinationals, and we haven't been looking at what's good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country.

And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward.

Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/15604/democratic_debate_transcript_cleveland_ohio.html

This was the man we voted for. Please don't tell me we were stupid imbeciles and suggest this was just saavy "http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/03/obama-canada.html">political positioning"

[ProSense]

8. I don't see a date.

Am I missing something?

[Oregone]

9. " you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months"

To Hillary (in the context of when she becomes president).

Obama clearly agreed with her answer. Perhaps you can stretch it that he was not agreeing to the finite date, but he clearly mentioned this was on his agenda.

What do you think is an appropriate time? Are you willing yet to go out and force his hand?

[dionysus]

11. .

:spray:

[dionysus]

10. this further shows that no matter what happens, you'll complain.

:shrug:

[Oregone]

12. Its wrong to ask him to fulfill a campaign promise on free trade?

[dionysus]

13. no, but it's wrong to crap on a piece of good news. instead of constantly painting the man as a v

villain, you could at least acknowledge a good decision. then it wouldn't look like you have a permanent grudge, which it seems you do.

and he can't renegotiate NAFTA all by himself, but you probably know that.

[Oregone]

14. "and he can't renegotiate NAFTA all by himself"

But, but...he promised! I suppose you'll give him a pass on that one.

But hell...its certainly won some votes!