Labor and Trade: The Jordanian Precedent
Here's something most people don't know. Despite the view that labor opposes global trade, the AFL-CIO warmly supported a trade agreement in the last few years-- namely the agreement negotiated with the country of Jordan
Why the difference? Because this agreement, negotiated by President Clinton at the end of his Presidency, actually respected labor rights as part of the agreement. Yet Bush refuses to include similar provisions in recently negotiated trade agreements.
Most labor leaders want trade, since selling goods around the world benefits all workers. But they want to make sure that workers in other countries have the rights to negotiate decent wages and have the income to buy those goods from our workers.
So here are the Jordan trade treaty provisions that could remake the trade debate if they were included in all trade treaties
Why the difference? Because this agreement, negotiated by President Clinton at the end of his Presidency, actually respected labor rights as part of the agreement. Yet Bush refuses to include similar provisions in recently negotiated trade agreements.
Most labor leaders want trade, since selling goods around the world benefits all workers. But they want to make sure that workers in other countries have the rights to negotiate decent wages and have the income to buy those goods from our workers.
So here are the Jordan trade treaty provisions that could remake the trade debate if they were included in all trade treaties
=
US-Jordan Free Trade Area Agreement
PREAMBLE
Desiring to promote higher labor standards by building on their respective international commitments and strengthening their cooperation on labor matters; and
Wishing to promote effective enforcement of their respective environmental and labor law;
ARTICLE 6: LABOR
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.
2. The Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage trade by relaxing domestic labor laws. Accordingly, each Party shall strive to ensure that it does not waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, such laws as an encouragement for trade with the other Party.
3. Recognizing the right of each Party to establish its own domestic labor standards, and to adopt or modify accordingly its labor laws and regulations, each Party shall strive to ensure that its laws provide for labor standards consistent with the internationally recognized labor rights set forth in paragraph 6 and shall strive to improve those standards in that light.
4. (a) A Party shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws, through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade between the Parties, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement.
(b) The Parties recognize that each Party retains the right to exercise discretion with respect to investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory, and compliance matters and to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources to enforcement with respect to other labor matters determined to have higher priorities. Accordingly, the Parties understand that a Party is in compliance with subparagraph (a) where a course of action or inaction reflects a reasonable exercise of such discretion, or results from a bona fide decision regarding the allocation of resources.
5. The Parties recognize that cooperation between them provides enhanced opportunities to improve labor standards. The Joint Committee established under Article 15 shall, during its regular sessions, consider any such opportunity identified by a Party.
6. For purposes of this Article, "labor laws" means statutes and regulations, or provisions thereof, that are directly related to the following internationally recognized labor rights:
(a) the right of association;
(b) the right to organize and bargain collectively;
(c) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor;
(d) a minimum age for the employment of children; and
(e) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work,and occupational safety and health.
==These provisions are not even particularly strong in their enforcement, but they at least highlight the idea that workers rights are linked to fair trade. It's a pretty minimal demand, yet labor is labelled protectionist for demanding even these minimal standards.
DR-CAFTA and similar agreements should be rejected unless they include similar provisions. It's basic decency for workers both in the United States and the countries we are negotiating with.
Advertisement
Second, Jordan allows any means to enfoce the labor and environment provisions whereas subsequent agreements restrict penalties for violations of those chapters to "monetary assessments." In practice that distinction is probably meaningless as well because the standards in Jordan and all subsequent FTAs are just too vague and riddled with loopholes to be enforceable anyway.
July 7, 2005 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"unlike D.R.-CAFTA, the U.S.-Jordan agreement provides that a party can be subject to the accord’s dispute settlement mechanism and possible fines or sanctions for violating them...For example, under the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, if a party weakened its labor law protections to attract trade, perhaps by eliminating a minimum age for employment or banning trade unions in export sectors, the agreement would be violated and the party could face possible fines or sanctions. Under D.R.-CAFTA, this is not the case."
Labor was pretty damn clear that the Jordan language, while not ideal, was within reason. The problem with DR-CAFTA is that it combines weak language with countries that currently violate international labor law consistently, so the weak provisions matter even more.
NAFTA had labor language as well, but the structure matters. My point is not that there hasn't been any labor language in various trade agreements, but that there has been one where it was acceptable to labor. Yet the Bush administration went out of its way to avoid using the acceptable language and provisions.
July 7, 2005 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan,
I've heard that the US-Cambodia Textile agreement is pretty good as far as labor standards as well. To the point that the increasing labor standards in Cambodia allowed for an increase of the quota of Cambodia goods allowed into America. I like the idea of concrete incentives to increase labor standards. Do you have any info on this?
Carl
July 7, 2005 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
See this post I wrote a couple of months ago on the Cambodian agreements.
July 7, 2005 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since this is obviously a bad day for getting folks to focus on this, I hope you'll return to this topic in the future.
As someone who is both pro-free trade and pro-labor, I think it's a shame that folks on the fringe have appropriated the "fair trade" label to stand for "no trade".
It would be nice to be able to achieve some consensus among Democrats around trade pacts like the US-Jordan agreement. Too much time is wasted on the left arguing about trade strawmen.
True "free & fair trade" is something we all should be able to sign on to.
July 7, 2005 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, petey.
I don't know why "free" and "fair" have to be opposites. You'd think that, from a rhetorical point of view, that "free" is about as "fair" as anything could get! :)
Seriously, though, the bottom line is that capital is going global and labor must follow. Which is why I wish the UAW would spend more time organizing auto workers in Mexico and less time forcing GM to keep inefficient plants in Michigan on the respirator.
July 8, 2005 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink