My email box runneth over with various statements from union leaders on the trade deal struck between the Administration and Charlie Rangel and some of his sidekicks in the Democratic leadership.
Anna Burger, chair of the Change To Win federation, had this to say. Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, weighed in. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney issued this statement. Sweeney’s statement had a couple of interesting aspects:
Â
While recognizing the real progress made in the approach taken with Peru and Panama on workers’ rights and the environment, we reserve final judgment until we have reviewed the agreements in their entirety. We also remain concerned that the agreement fails to adequately address issues related to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and the ability of foreign corporations to challenge U.S. laws, among others.
Â
I would take this a step further. I hope we begin to repeat this mantra: we can’t really fix trade deals with side agreements or language that makes a change here or there–though I acknowledged yesterday that it is a good thing that apparently this agreement incorporates some aspects of the standards set by the International Labor Organization. But after the flurry of finger-pointing is passed, it would be useful to try to have a deeper conversation about what we need: we have to scrap the framework of NAFTA-style trade agreements–as Public Citizen and the Center for Economic and Policy Research have often pointed out–and get to a place where trade relationships are focused on bettering the lives of communities, not primarily protecting capital and investment at the expense of decent living standards and a safe environment.
Â
One standard will guide the AFL-CIO: U.S. trade policy must serve the interests of America’s working families and workers around the globe.
Â
The inclusion of “workers around the globe” is really crucial and Sweeney should be applauded for underscoring the point. We can never emphasize enough that NAFTA-type deals are bad for all workers, not just American workers.

