Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved

Posted April 8, 2008 | 05:49 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead.

That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our lives.

Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year.

Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases -- around 3 percent -- have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals were convicted in absentia -- meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers.

Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement.

Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide.

Despite President Alvaro Uribe's claim that the Colombian government has cleaned up its act, signs of trouble continue to persist.

Colombia's chief federal prosecutor's office has a backlog of over 1,300 cases of murders, threats, and intimidation involving trade unionists.

Last month, the Colombian government removed a highly respected member of a three-judge panel tasked with reducing this backlog.

And Colombian intelligence officials have been linked to the paramilitaries known for carrying out these assassinations.

Are these the actions of a 'courageous ally in South America' or of a government that has something to hide?

Historic violence against trade unionists is just one of many problems with the Colombia FTA. Like the Peru FTA, an agreement we strongly opposed, the Colombia proposal is based on the flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model which led to the outsourcing of millions of high-paying American jobs and virtually eliminated the U.S. manufacturing industry.

This comes at a time when we are in recession. The economy lost 80,000 jobs in March, the third consecutive month of rising unemployment. And the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program -- a safety net for displaced workers -- remains essentially dysfunctional. Passage of the Colombia FTA would add insult to injury for American workers.

President Bush and his allies in Congress have also been claiming that the Colombia FTA is a matter of national security. We couldn't agree more.

Let's review the facts. It has already been established that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a union member. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Violence against Afro-Colombians is rampant. The Washington Post recently reported that Colombian troops are killing farmers and passing their bodies off as rebels. And three of our nation's military contractors remain hostage there.

We believe defeating the Colombia FTA, not passing it, is in the best interest of our national security.

We commend both major Democratic presidential candidates for opposing this agreement -- a testament to the will of the American people. Their interests -- not business groups or conservative think tanks -- should dictate our trade agenda.

President Bush's unprecedented decision to unilaterally submit the Colombia FTA is a slap in the face to Democratic leaders and constitutes a retreat from the bipartisan pact on trade agreed to last year -- something we were skeptical of from the outset given the President's record.

We urge House leadership to use all the tools in its arsenal to ensure this agreement's demise.

Chairman Mike Michaud (D-ME) and Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) are both members of the House Trade Working Group.

 

Comments
53
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

I am not sure I agree with my candidate, Hillary, regarding this issue.

I'm going to continue to read and learn.

It strikes me as unrealistic to think we're not just saying to Colombians.......go back to the cocaine trade if we won't open up our markets.

So, Hill.........I know you're trying to win Penn, but I am not sure I agree.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 04/09/2008

Hillary Clinton says she opposes free trade in Colombia but actions speak louder than words. (I believe she said something similar herself about her opponents.) Ask why her former chief strategist, Mark Penn was advising the Colombian government how to promote a trade agreement (he was paid $10,800,000 for his input to her campaign.)

A campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson has financial ties to Colombia through the Glover Park Group, funded by Clinton administration's Joe Lockhart. Bill Clinton received $800,000 in speaking fees from a Colombian FT group, honored by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as a minister of tourism.

What do we really want from Colombia -- a nation rife with violence, drugs, corruption government-sanctioned paramilitary murder of trade unionists and their families? Oil! Big oil companies have investment interest in Colombia. Clinton friend, Frank Giustra's has advised on a Colombian oil field deal. Bill Clinton personally introduced Giustra to Uribe. Guistra is grateful to the Clinton's to the tune of a $31 million donation to Clinton's charitable fund.

Former President Clinton initiated "Plan Colombia" to curb violence and drug trade, whichl continues under Uribe after taxpayers spent $5 billion towards efforts that failed. The measure was slipped into a bill that included natural disaster relief and spending for military health care.

Then there is the helicopter defense contracts interest in continued business in Colombia to fight drugs? There is more to this story behind the man Bush calls his "friend."

Sources: straight from this Huffington Post

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 04/11/2008

My name is Manuel and I live in Colombia, my dad was a union activist for most of his life, the constant persecution by the armed forces and paramilitary forces destroyed our family, we had to meet him secretly, he always had to live on the run, and he was dissapeared 4 years ago.

Violence against union members is very real in Colombia, and the democratic party stances and the US unions positions against pacts like this FTA are our only hope.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 AM on 04/09/2008

Great article!
And you guys are doing a great job in congress!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 AM on 04/09/2008

I think this post clearly sums up the major flaws in this FTA. I would like to note one additional point: While much attention is made to U.S. trade unionists and politicians opposing this deal, it's worth noting that many counterparts in the Colombian trade movement oppose this deal as well.

While perhaps good for some business interests, this agreement, if approved, will drive down wages in both nations, contribute to the continuing violence in Colombia and serve no long term benefit.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 AM on 04/09/2008

The North American Free Trade Agreement has been in effect for some years. So how come the streets aren't paved with gold by now, just as proponents of the agreement figuratively promised? I try to keep an open mind about economic policy, but the key question that I think needs to be addressed is simply this: HAS IT WORKED? And when given proposed answers to this question, I don't want irrelevant statistics like increases in per capita income. Increases in per capita income don't mean squat if all the income is going just to an elite group. Until ordinary Americans actually experience a better standard of living, Congress ought to turn down Bush's request for a Colombian free trade agreement. The rune should be "Fan the flames of discontent / Times by Three of Fates be bent."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 04/09/2008

"We commend both major Democratic presidential candidates for opposing this agreement -- a testament to the will of the American people."

Hmmm... I think the jury is out on whether Hillary opposes this agreement. Kind of hard to believe that she opposes it when her top two advisors, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, have both lobbyed for Colombian - American FTA's.

At least there were some nice points made as to why a Colombian - American FTA really is a bad idea.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 AM on 04/09/2008

Oh snap!

You better scribble Hillary off your list of people who oppose this.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 PM on 04/08/2008

con't

2. Unions can cause a loss of jobs. The best example in this country over the last 40 years or so has been the fate of the US auto industry. In the 1950's and 60's, the auto industry was on top of the world. Unions had much power and the auto companies pretty much paid their workers whatever they their unions demanded. But then that gave upstart competition from places like Japan the opportunity to undercut the prices that US companies had to charge. By the 1970's this was exactly what started to happen. Auto jobs started to moved offshore. Auto companies natually were inclined to devise cheaper ways than pure labor to build cars (ie: robots). Raising labor costs always makes this endeavor easier. And while US auto companies enjoyed some very good times in the 80's and 90's they have overall been overtaken by foreign competitors that do not have the financial burdens borne of the union concessions of the past.


3. Union action drives up prices. If Walmart is ever successfully unionized it will have to raise prices. Very simple. So you are benefitting one group (workers) at the expense of another (customers). Do union leaders posess some great wisdom about what the balance should be here more than the rest of us? Geeze, give me a break! I say the only fair and moral thing to do here is to let the market decide.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 PM on 04/08/2008

1. Unions do not cause job losses. Bad design and not giving the customer what they want does.

2. Foreign car makers have built plants in the U.S. that pay wages equal to or higher than those at Ford, Chevy, etc. High wages are not a problem but high health care cost is. America has the highest health care cost in the world, yet are among the most unhealthy people in the world.

3. I was in a union -- a Vice President representative in the office of a major U.S. manufacturing plant. The unions made concessions "to keep good jobs here." Mexico never made a profit on jobs paying $1.07 an hour, with few benefits. Quality was poor, employee turn over never got a skilled workforce. Warranty costs were high, damaging a reputation of quality products.

They nearly went bankrupt -- bought out by a competitor who closed the "unprofitable" plant. The CEO that destroyed an iconic company received an excess of $10 million to award his bad performance.

Greed does cost jobs -- by the company's CEO and executive and failed trade policies. Free trade is not fair trade. Someone is always willing to work for less, often use young children in slave conditions who work long hours with few regulations.

When you buy cheap electronics at the "Wal-Mart's" in this country, you just cost someone their job - supporting slave labor.

I'd say "Buy American!" but it isn't made here anymore.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 04/09/2008

You always talk about greed. What is greed? If there is not a profit motive then what is the motive? You have been taught that geed is evil....what is so evil? Ripping someone off is bad.....but providing someone a product or service that they find valuable and profiting from that is not evil!

What is evil is the government trying to tax away as much as possible and squandering it on useless experiments in socialism.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:52 PM on 04/09/2008

I don't always talk about greed. This was my first post to this blog. "Greed" was not commenting about corporate "profits." Read my comment again. I was referring to the CEO who makes $4-5 thousand an hour, receives bonuses in the millions, even when their companies are not performing well in the market. Why is bad performance rewarded with a huge bonus? (Coaches get fired when the team doesn't perform well.)

The CEO can walk away with multi-millions in severance after nearly bankrupting the company (or sometimes fired for committing crimes) like in the mess at Enron. Regular employees always pay the price, some lose their pensions and benefits along with their jobs. The Board of Directors lavish huge severance contracts into "Golden Parachutes." Many executives sit on each other's boards, taking care of themselves first.

People can guess which company I was talking about or know one similar. This CEO took a very successful business over 100 years old. Through poor management, he helped drive stock prices from the $70's to junk status around $9.

The move to Mexico was the final nail in the coffin. The competitor bought the company at a bargain price and shuttered the Mexico plant, moving production to another established plant in Mexico they already owned, and moving some production back to the states.

His reward for this stellar performance? Over $10 million in parting gifts. That's the definition of "greed."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 AM on 04/11/2008

Bladernr1001:

Yeah, sure, it's the unions' fault that Detroit automakers designed and manufactured poor quality cars.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 04/09/2008

You are right but they saddle the companies with higher than market labor costs. this made it all the easier for competitiors to take market share.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 04/09/2008

Bladerunner? Crackpipesmoker would be a better nome de plume! I don't know if you are just some pathetic loser living in his mothers basement, without a clue about having to make a living is all about, or if you are just some delusional Walmart employee.
Employers and corporations never "let the market decide." John D. Rockefeller devoted a great deal of time eliminating his competition. Why? Because then he could set the price of oil and the labor involved to bring it to market.

Unions are solely responsible for any of the small benefits the workers enjoy these days. And George Bush is even actively trying to take those few crumbs away.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:44 AM on 04/09/2008

You did not address or rebut any of my points....but that is the typical way this goes.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 04/09/2008

Ok, these guys are obviously pro union. As such, I feel compelled to point out the weak points of unions from an economic point of view.

1. Unions prevent the free market for labor to operate. There is a misconception that employers control the market price for labor. This could not be further from the truth. Employers have benefitted from an oversupply of workers in past history. This is true. Basic principals of economics show that this will natually drive down the price of labor. But this does not mean that business controls the price of labor....they are simply benefitting from market conditions. No one seems to strike out in protest when there is a shortage of workers which drives labor costs higher such as what happened in the late 90's.

I will continue the post......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 PM on 04/08/2008

Blade, you have made an articulate but totally flawed argument. Using the automotive industry as your best example actually defeats your premise. Three factors are at work in the American automotive industry which better explain the loss of market share to foreign manufacturers: Availability and growing cost of, and competition for resource; noncompetitive labor practices; and dated or less attractive technology. Over the past four decades American mfrs have tragically tied themselves to trends that did not accurately forecast buyer tastes or buyer needs. What participation did the UAW have in making those internal decisions?

Unions are flawed, but the aggressive, bottom-line driven shareholder blocs - and company executives who are rewarded for employing draconian management techniques - are checked only through the collective bargaining process. Moreover, the loss of automotive jobs in the United States has promulgated the atrophy of that part of the manufacturing sector which, typically, employed almost as many in the aftermarket industry as in the automotive industry itself. Finally, the automotive industry in Japan and Korea employ well-paid workers; and Toyota, Volkswagen and several other notable foreign marques manufacture or assemble tens of thousands of cars inside the United States. Apparently, these companies have found a way to work with the unions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 AM on 04/09/2008

Umm, if memory serves, the employees of most if not all of these foreign-tagged but US manufactured autos are NOT unionized. They never had to work with the unions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 04/09/2008

That is what I was thinking too...but have not had time to look it up to verify.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 AM on 04/09/2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/04uaw.html

This artcle states that no japanese auto manufacturer is unionized here in the US.

But the union guys are trying every trick in the book to change that. It has not happened in 22 years but there is always tomorrow. These union guys are relentless.

Glad i am a professional type. There is no limit on what I can make. It would suck to be in a union. That's for losers. And then if the unions overreach....you can lose you job anyway to more competitive entities.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:23 PM on 04/09/2008

You are either a loon or a troll. ["trolling loon"? Could be!]

Unions ensure workers get a fair share of the profits created through their labor. Capitalists invest money, workers invest their lives; capitalists can move teir money whenever they wish, workers are too old to get a comparable job.

Business are not simply "benefitting" from labor market conditions, they are actively creating them: Gates demanding unlimited H1B visas....US workers can not leave their US lives behind to make more money in (for example) Mexico or India.

Worker shortage in '90s? Bull. The unemployment numbers are not honest. The actual rate was twice as high as stated because 50% of those without jobs lost theirs long before the '90s and could not get comparable jobs if hired at all. You are a liar. At the peak of the '90s job "frenzy" the best job offer I could get 30% below my salary (MBA and Sr. programmer)

And if there is a shortage of skilled workers, business could do what they use to do: train new employees in apprentice programs.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 AM on 04/09/2008

So what is a fair share of the profits? And who determines that?

i am sure not all sectors experienced a shortage but many did. Sorry yours was not one of them at that particualr time. So whats you point?

Apprenticship still happens in many industries.

Thats the best you can do? Say data was lied about? Geeze.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:52 AM on 04/09/2008

Basic economics also says that slavery is better than paid workers. Is that what you're saying? Is paying people in the Mariannas (a U.S. colony) less than union wages a good thing? Are you really advocating economic depravity?

Or are you just a Republican?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 AM on 04/09/2008

What?

Slavery involves coercive force. What private business has that power?

You make no sense.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 04/09/2008

Hey, we know already what will happen with Congress. Reid will bluster, Pelosi will threaten, a bunch of back benchers will get photo ops out of their principled stands, and then they will all cave to Bush like they always do!

Maybe you guys should be investigating how and what Bush has on the entire Congress that makes them his lap dog, because for a guy with a 29% approval and a Minority in Both Houses he sure acts like he's still holding all the cards!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 04/08/2008

I hope these two men who wrote this aren't supporting Hillary. Anyone who buys that she's against this agreement is foolish and amazingly naive.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 04/08/2008

I can think of at least 109 million reasons that the Senator from New York would be in sink with any agreement that would contribute to her contributors. And "my friends" thats the way it works in our sorry republic. "The best government $$$$$$$$$$ can buy." April 19th Philadelphia!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 AM on 04/09/2008

I don't know if you guys noticed or not but the tarriffs in this agreement were more beneficial to the US than the other way around. Lowering tarriffs tends to create more jobs....basic economics.

You cannot repeal the laws of economics. When tarrifs are imposed....someone wins and someone loses. By opposing this you are probably making it more difficult for Columbians somewhere to get a job....or maybe for some US workers.

I suspect these guys are shills/owned for/by labor unions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 AM on 04/09/2008

Tariffs protecting the US? Liar!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 AM on 04/09/2008

Is this another South America Chicago School/Friedmanism fiasco?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 04/08/2008

I agree witht his sentiment

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 PM on 04/08/2008

Without a doubt.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 PM on 04/08/2008

"would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide."

LMAO - at that point you lost me. Aren't we the nation that doesn't torture, so we ship the poor fools off to countries that do?

The whole goddamn Milton Friedman (condoned), consumer-capitalist ideology is abusive towards humans, and the very reason trade unionists are/were/have been killed, which was what your opening paragraph inferred.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 04/08/2008

In the US we don't usually off trade unionists but we do make every effort to make trade unions irrelevant (I'm sure both Congressman know all about Taft-Hartley Act aimed at curbing the power of unions?) or destroy them out right (no unions, no pesky trade unionists to worry about). Taft-Hartley gutted the union movement but it took another 30 years and Ronald Reagan to drive a final stake into the heart of the beast. Repeal Taft-Hartley and give unions power to actually fight for labor and we might see a resurgence in trade unionism.

Whatever, the Columbia FTA is bad news and it should be killed. If Bush thinks it's a grand idea that is justification for reasonable oposition.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 04/08/2008