The headline in The New York Times was kind of comic: “An Ugly Side of Free Trade: Sweatshops in Jordan.” It was almost as if The Times, which has been an unabashed editorial supporter of so-called “free trade,” was shocked, shocked, to find sweatshops spoiling the economic miracle promised by so-called “free trade.”

Well, yes, so-called “free trade” is ugly:

Propelled by a free trade agreement with the United States, apparel manufacturing is booming in Jordan, its exports to America soaring twentyfold in the last five years.

But some foreign workers in Jordanian factories that produce garments for Target, Wal-Mart and other American retailers are complaining of dismal conditions — of 20-hour days, of not being paid for months and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they complain.

An advocacy group for workers contends that some apparel makers in Jordan, and some contractors that supply foreign workers to them, have engaged in human trafficking. Workers from Bangladesh said they paid $1,000 to $3,000 to work in Jordan, but when they arrived, their passports were confiscated, restricting their ability to leave and tying them to jobs that often pay far less than promised and far less than the country’s minimum wage.

Here’s what is particularly fascinating about this story. When it was signed in 2000 and then passed by the Congress in 2001, the U.S.-Jordan trade pact was billed as a deal that had labor and environmental provisions written in as part of the core text, not just tacked on as irrelevant side agreements similar to what the Clinton Administration did with NAFTA. The U.S.-Jordan deal required that Jordan adhere to international standards for labor rights.

This deal was so non-controversial it passed the U.S. Senate by voice vote i.e., there was no recorded votes to see where individual senators stood. Even Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, one of the fiercest opponents of so-called “free trade,” supported the deal.

So, what are we to learn here? It seems to me that the problem with so-called “free trade” is the underlying philosophy of the deals and how they are negotiated. These deals are seen as primarily tools to aid business. Negotiators are trained trade lawyers, many of them from business backgrounds or ties to business. Corporate lobbying groups have enormous access and influence in how the deals are shaped.

The only way to create trade agreements that don’t spawn sweatshops is to start each deal with a blank page that states “the purpose of this trade deal is to give a decent standard of living to people living in the communities who seek to exchange goods and services.” The negotiations for these deals have to be opened up, from the outset, to people who can represent that interest, not just the corporate bottom line. Until we do that, we will continue to be shocked, shocked that people are exploited at work.