|
|
<< A New Target for the WingNuts | Main | More Newspeak >> April 07, 2004What Labor Wants from TradeLike a lot of "free trade liberals" Ezra Klein at Pandagon sounds worried every time a Democrat sounds "protectionist" in demanding labor rights in trade agreements like the CAFTA accord. He's worried that Kerry is engaging in such protectionism by highlighting the lack of labor rights in the CAFTA agreement: he'd be better off explaining exactly what he wants included in Cafta rather than just saying it lacks protections. After all, it supposedly has these protections, so unless he expands his position a bit, most of us are going to be left pretty confused about what he's against.Ezra really shouldn't be dissing Kerry and implicitly dissing progressive labor allies as "protectionist" without learning the basic facts. Like the fact that Bill Clinton already signed a trade agreement with real labor protections-- a trade agreement that the AFL-CIO endorsed. It was the last trade agreement of his Presidency, ratified in 2001, but it's got the basic principles that labor folks demand. It was a small country, Jordan, but it gives you exactly what labor means when they demand real labor standards. No one expects poorer nations to meet US wages, but every nation can respect the internationally recognized free speech rights that go with the right to organize unions. Those are the principles of the International Labor Organization, and those were embodied in the Jordan agreement Here is the labour clauses from the US-Jordan Free Trade Area Agreement. If you want the bottom line for what labor activists want, it's the following: 1. The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization ("ILO") and their commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up. The Parties shall strive to ensure that such labor principles and the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in paragraph 6 are recognized and protected by domestic law.As for CAFTA, it fails to commit both nations to enforceable ILO labor standards. As this Human Rights Watch analysis states: CAFTA does not require that countries’ domestic labor laws comply with basic international norms that have been established by United Nations (U.N.) and International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions...A party violating these provisions faces no meaningful consequences because the accord does not contemplate the possibility of fines or sanctions for such violations.Here's the basic phrase that every progressive should memorize-- "Enforceable core ILO labor rights" That means free speech, the right to organize and the end to child labor. Any trade agreement without those should be dead on arrival. Other documents worth reading: Posted by Nathan at April 7, 2004 12:38 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsThis makes sense - you're absolutely right that we should quantify exactly what we're asking for. Enforceable core ILO labor rights. Enforceable core ILO labor rights. Enforceable core ILO labor rights. I'll keep repeating it until it's memorized. Posted by: Kevin Block-Schwenk at April 7, 2004 09:29 AM The answer is simple: Ezra's an idiot. He's constantly wringing his hands in panic. I esp. liked when he had a three-day conniption fit over the "news" that Kerry had an affair with an intern. The rule for Pandagon is: read Jesse - ignore Ezra. Posted by: dave at April 7, 2004 10:03 AM Nathan -- if we can't get union organizing rights respected in this country, is it realistic to write them into labor agreements? Seriously, if we won't enforce them for U.S. corporations, would we enforce them around trade? Posted by: Marcus Stanley at April 7, 2004 11:46 AM Well Marcus, it isn't realistic with Bush in office, but with a progressive in office we should expect to see progress. Stronger labor rights among our trade competitors is one of the few realistic ways to fight outsourcing. It's true that employers regularly flout the right to organize (I've read that employers fire union supporters in 25% of organizing campaigns). Still, at least there's a possible remedy in this country. People don't get jailed or killed for trying to organize a union -- as they do in some parts of Latin America and China. Posted by: hphovercraft at April 7, 2004 01:49 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|