A Trade Proposal Even the Teamsters Can Support

You can practically smell the change in the air these days.

Take trade, for example. For the past 15 years, American workers watched helplessly as millions of their jobs moved overseas.

But it's 2008 now. And Congress is looking at a new trade proposal: the TRADE Act.

Even the Teamsters like it - and that's saying a mouthful, because we've been fierce critics of every trade proposal since NAFTA.

Deals like NAFTA, CAFTA and China PNTR aren't really "free trade agreements." They're deals to lure corporations away from America by promising access to cheap labor.

The TRADE Act would rewrite the rules on global trade. It would prevent agreements with countries that offer up their workers and their environment in exchange for investment deals that benefit a few of their richest citizens.

The TRADE Act also calls for a review of existing agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA -- which, as the Teamsters say, give workers the SHAFTA.

Give credit to the TRADE Act's Democratic sponsors: Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine.

They know the TRADE Act won't pass this year -- despite its 52 House cosponsors. There just isn't time this late in the session.

But Brown and Michaud also know the debate about trade needs to be changed before trade rules can be changed.

For the past 15 years, anyone who opposed a so-called "free trade agreement" was labeled a protectionist. And that was the end of the story.

Now, the TRADE Act allows us to present an alternative to trade rules that destroy good jobs, harm the environment and lower safety standards.

It allows us to make our case that trade can spread benefits to workers as well as to Wall Street.

We know change is coming. The American people are demanding it. In less than five months, we'll have a new president. And we'll have a new course on trade.

The TRADE Act sets that course -- for trade that creates good jobs and raises living standards for workers here and overseas.

Comments

[mulegino]

05:03 PM on 06/08/2008

Let's hope that this legislatio­n passes soon. Of course, Bush will veto it, but hopefully, the democrats and enough republican­s in swing districts will have the votes to override. This could signal the beginning of a sea change in the way Washington looks at the twin economic viruses of "free trade" and "globaliza­tion."
Good news for "labor" democrats, especially since [apparentl­y] the pro-free trade DLC's grip on the party has been dealt a heavy blow by Obama's victory.

[zaneblue]

07:30 AM on 06/07/2008

Can you provide a link with more details about the agreement? That is something I am definitely interested in learning more about.

[brianwebster]

09:43 PM on 06/06/2008

I would love to see "trade that creates good jobs and raises living standards for workers here and oversea". If the Teamsters say the the TRADE Act is a good thing, then I bet it is. We need bigger and stronger unions here and overseas if our kids, and our kids kids, are going to have decent world to live in. The global economy, global trade and global communicat­ions are here to stay. We need global unions, global living wages, global human rights and labor rights and fair trade. It's complicate­d, and I'm too busy working to do much about it. So I'm happy to have organized labor on the case and pointing to the best
solutions on the table.

[Serfie]

07:50 PM on 06/06/2008

The US doesn't have the right to impose its labor, safety and environmen­tal standards onto foreign countries.

That is called imperialis­m.

How does forcing a foreign power to abide by US labor, safety and environmen­tal laws help US workers? It don't.

You want to help US workers: Time to institute tariffs, remove charters of US corporatio­ns who set up shop overseas, and kick out the illegals.

There was time in the America when unions stood up for the American worker; now the only thing they stand up for is meaningles­s hot air.

We should only be importing goods we can't produce ourselves. That should be our trade policy. The political and economic aim of the US government should be total self-suffi­ciency.

[Skepticat]

12:02 AM on 06/07/2008

Requiring other countries to respect the same labor, safety and environmen­tal standards makes it more expensive to outsource. In a world where shipping costs are skyrocketi­ng there should soon be a point where outsourcin­g becomes less profitable­.

[larry278]

06:44 PM on 06/07/2008

Sorry, Serfie, it isn't imperalism­. It can be humanism, union solidarity­, perhaps world socialism but not imperialis­m. NGO's & Int'l bodies often draft worldwide labor, safety & environmen­tal standards. Mr Hoffa has a lot of useful experience in negotiaton­s, business, economics & running a very large union. He also know the law & politics. Some say that politics is the art of doing the possible.
Somehow-I doubt if Mr Hoffa spits into the wind or promotes pissing contests, much particapit­ing in them.
It seems that W's opposition to world environmen­tal stds has been like spitting into the wind for a few candidates for POTUS are promising to work with American legislator­s to comply with world environmen­tal stds. A number of nation follow world environmen­tal stds which W opposes. The US is criticized by many nations for not enacting world environmen­tal stds.
Have you tried to run your ideas by Mr Hoffa, the lawyer, Teamsters official, politician­, negotiator­, who has a great deal of knowledge about economics & helping American workers who are represente­d by the Teamsters, yet? Mr Hoffa could better comment on your words & what you imply?
You can find Mr Hoffa's address if you use Google or another search engine. I've got the feeling that Mr Hoffa & his staff could address your concerns & comment upon upon your statements based upon the facts which exist in the world & USA of 2008. It couldn't hurt to contact Mr Hoffa.