Obama and Clinton on Trade

This is another article from John Tasani and it highlights the questions and answers on trade by the 2 Democratic Presidential hopefuls.


So, it will be interesting to see how much trade really stays front-and-center once the politicians think it's not something they have to talk about. But, we can still talk about trade on the Monday before tomorrow's primary votes. Though I'm not convinced that Barack Obama will be a big improvement on trade, I think the controversy over what one of his advisors said, or didn't say, to some functionary in the Canadian government is overblown.
Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign's trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press.The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
What's a bit more interesting is what the Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition just posted on its website: answers by Obama and Hillary Clinton on trade. Here are the things that struck me:...split... They were both asked this question: If elected President, would you seek an elimination of the Fast Track process? Their answers were pretty similar though there was a subtle difference. As a reminder to those less obsessed by trade: "fast track" authority allows a president to negotiate a trade deal and present it to Congress for a "yes" or "no" vote, a process that prohibits members of Congress from submitting amendments to the deal. My humble view is that "fast track" is undemocratic, undermine the legitimate authority of the Congress in matters of the economy and should be eliminated whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. Sen Clinton's response:
I oppose fast track for President Bush because he has failed to enforce our trade agreements and because he negotiates trade deals without particular concern for our workers. As President, I will take a timeout from new trade agreements. My priorities will be to review all of our existing agreements to ensure that they are benefiting our workers, and to craft a trade policy that is genuinely pro-worker, pro-American, and vigorously enforced. Our focus should not be on new trade deals, nor should it be on the fastest away of getting new deals done. It should be on enforcing the existing agreements and designing policies that benefit our workers.
Sen Obama's response:
I will not support extension of the existing Fast Track process that expired. I have not and would not support renewing Trade Promotion Authority for this President. The current Fast Track process does not mandate that agreements include binding labor and environmental protections nor does it give an adequate role to Congress in the selection and design of agreements. I will work with Congressional leaders to ensure that any new TPA authority fix these basic failings and open up the process to the American people for their participation and scrutiny.
Hmmm...I added the bold emphasis in Obama's response. Both the candidates want to preserve presidential power over trade and they believe that "fast track" is just a bad power for a Republican president to have. But, the bolded words in Obama's response seem to acknowledge that there is something inherently unbalanced in the power of "fast track" authority--but it is so lacking in specifics it's hard to know what "adequate role" means in Obama's world view. Will that mean he will only invite Congressional leaders over for lunch at the White House--or will be support returning the democratic power to Congress to help shape the agreements? On the topic of foreign investors rights, there is some interesting things to pick over there. As the Coalition describes the issue:
Existing trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA give foreign investors greater rights than U.S. residents or businesses. These trade agreements allow foreign businesses to bypass the courts and directly sue the United States in foreign trade tribunals. These pacts empower foreign investors to challenge our U.S. environmental, zoning, health and safety laws before U.N. and World Bank tribunals to demand compensation in taxpayer dollars. Since CAFTA, agreements have extended such foreign investor rights to enforcement for timber, mining, construction and other concession contracts with the U.S. Federal government.
The candidates were asked: Will your administration ensure future trade agreements do not include private investor-state enforcement systems and also ensure that state-state investment rules do not grant foreign investors and overseas companies greater rights than U.S. residents or businesses? And the envelope, please. Sen Obama:
With regards to provisions in several FTAs that give foreign investors the right to sue governments directly in foreign tribunals, I will ensure that this right is strictly limited and will fully exempt any law or regulation written to protect public safety or promote the public interest. And I will never agree to granting foreign investors any rights in the U.S. greater than those of Americans. Our judicial system is strong and gives everyone conducting business in the United States recourse in our courts. The tribunal system was created to ensure that our investors would have access to similar protection abroad. I understand the concerns surrounding this issue, and am committed to working to address them.
Sen Clinton simply answered "Yes." Obama's answer that he would strictly limit such rights is a little bit less than what the coalition is seeking i.e., a ban on those rights-and perhaps his answer is a huge loophole. On the other hand, he is publicly committing to "fully exempt" laws or regulations that promote the "public interest"--though how one defines that is a bit slippery (for example, there would be those who might argue that streamlining the building of nuclear power plants--and, thus, weakening certain environmental and safety regulations--is in "the public interest" because that would create jobs and more non-carbon energy sources). Though Sen. Clinton's answer is a simple one word reply, in theory, her commitment is much more sweeping than Sen Obama's commitment. And, respectfully, I'm certainly glad he understands "the concerns" but working to "address" them is the political blow-off. Anyway, you can read the Coalition's full work on trade or read Sen. Obama's answers or Sen. Clinton's answers.

One take on the New York Governor Mess

I have been away for a while but I thought I would put this up. It is an article by John Tasani and it is his view on the Eliot Spitzer and how he rated for labor.

There isn't going to be much oxygen left in the public space to remember what Eliot Spitzer has done for organized labor. I'm not going to argue he was perfect in this area--which politician is? But, here are three things to remember:1. I think he was 100 percent right to propose granting drivers licenses to undocumented workers. Period. And the labor movement left him hanging on this one. That was our mistake.2. He signed an executive order giving 50,000 child care workers the right to have a union (meaning, recognizing them as employees). If it wasn't for that order those folks would continue to be among the most abused people in the service sector.3. The road to labor hell is paved with mountains of regulations that are on the books but never get enforced. The best thing, perhaps, that Spitzer did was appoint Patricia Smith as his Commissioner of Labor (who subbed in as our keynote speaker last night and did a fabulous job). Smith, presumably with the governor's agreement (even though my guess is she has to still battle with the more pro-business elements in the governor's administration), has gone after employers who don't pay workers compensation, don't pay overtime and try to mis-classify workers (claiming they are independent contractors rather than employees). So, maybe while you are talking with people or shooting around emails in the next couple of days recounting the salacious elements of The Story, it wouldn't hurt to remind people that there are a lot of people in New York State who have a slightly better life thanks to his policies.

The Unions and Their Endorsements...so far

From the National AFL-CIO Website

AFL-CIO Unions on Election 2008AFL-CIO affiliates play a crucial role in educating and engaging 10 million union members and their families about what's at stake for working families in elections. Watch this space: As the election season heats up, more AFL-CIO unions will be covering the issues that will get working families to the polls—and the candidates' positions on them.
Already some AFL-CIO unions have sponsored candidate forums focused on working family issues.
AFSCMEMore than 800 AFSCME members and retirees attended a Democratic Presidential Forum on working family issues in Carson City, Nev., on Feb. 21. Sponsored by AFSCME and moderated by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the forum included candidates Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack. Find out more.
AFSCME has endorsed Clinton for president.
AFTOn May 16, the AFT hosted Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and John Edwards at their Executive Council meeting. On their presidential campaign site, "AFT: You Decide 2008," members were asked to send in questions they most wanted the candidates to answer. AFT selected seven questions out of more than 750 submissions. Find out more.
AFT has endorsed Clinton for president.
ATU
The Amalgamated Transportation Union has endorsed Clinton for president.
BricklayersThe Bricklayers union has endorsed Clinton for president.
Building and Construction Trades DepartmentThe AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department—which represents more than 2 million working men and women—hosted a candidate forum March 28 following the group's legislative conference in Washington, D.C. The trades union members heard from Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. See the daily feed.
Communications Workers of AmericaThe Communications Workers of America has lauched CWA Votes, a website providing information about presidential candidates. The site also provides a member poll to solicit input for the CWA endorsement.
As a result of member polling, the CWA announced in November that the national union would not make an endorsement in the president primaries.
Fire FightersThe Fire Fighters hosted the first bipartisan presidential forum of the 2008 election cycle March 14, in conjunction with the union's legislative conference. Candidates who took part included Joe Biden, Sam Brownback, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, James Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Check out the videos.
Letter CarriersThe Letter Carriers union has endorsed Clinton for president.
MachinistsThe Machinists hosted four presidential candidates at its 2007 National Staff Conference. IAM members heard from Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich. Check out video of the event here.
The IAM has endorsed Clinton in the Democratic primary and Huckabee in the Republican primary.
Mine WorkersThe Mine Workers union has endorsed Edwards for president.
Office and Professional EmployeesThe Office and Professional Employees union has endorsed Clinton for president.
Painters and Allied Trades The Painters and Allied Trades union has endorsed Clinton for president.
Sheet Metal WorkersThe Sheet Metal Workers union has endorsed Clinton for president.
TCU/IAMThe TCU/IAM has endorsed Clinton for president.
Theatrical Stage Employees
The Theatrical Stage Employees union has endorsed Clinton for president.
Transport WorkersThe Transport Workers has endorsed Edwards for president.
UAW The UAW announced in December that the national union will not make an endorsement in the presidential primaries.
United SteelworkersThe United Steelworkers sponsored a national presidential candidates forum July 5-6 in Cleveland on renewing America’s manufacturing base. More than 1,000 USW members from Ohio and other industrial states were joined by their families at the forum. Candidates who took part included Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich.
The USW has endorsed Edwards for president.
United Transportation UnionThe United Transportation Union has endorsed Clinton for president.

Stewards Army Beats Verizon Deregulation Drive in Virginia

From the CWA National Web Site-Good Action by both Labor and Politician's
January 17, 2008
Action by the Stewards Army produced a big win in Virginia for Verizon consumers. In response to CWA's campaign to safeguard Verizon consumers and quality service and keep oversight of a critical public utility, Verizon has dropped its efforts in the state legislature to end the regulation of the sale of a telephone company.
District 2 staff, CWA locals throughout the state and the Virginia AFL-CIO are continuing to fight Verizon's attempt to end regulation of basic telephone service rates across the board for residential and business customers. Bills pending in both houses of the legislature would permit the total price deregulation of Verizon's operations; last year the State Corporation Commission had established a competitive test to assess whether prices could be deregulated.
In testimony to regulators and other public officials, CWA members have cited numerous examples of Verizon's failure to maintain basic telephone service across the state; the company is focusing attention on the build-out of FiOS – fiber optic Internet, television and phone service – in select areas but isn't building these next-generation networks in most communities in the state.

Who is with us...?

John Edwards: In New Hampshire, He's Alone Saying "Union" Unprompted
by Jonathan TasiniSunday 06 of January, 2008
Over the past few months, I, and others, have pointed out that John Edwards is clearly the strongest advocate for organized labor. Up here in New Hampshire, where I've been for the past couple of days, I think that has become more clear. That became clear yesterday.
All the Democratic candidates, if asked, will all profess their love for the labor movement. And I part company, slightly, with some of Edwards supporters, who have tried to paint other candidates, particularly Sens. Obama and Clinton, has being hostile to unions.
I think the important difference is what candidates say, in their messages, when they are not asked specifically about unions. What do the say when they aren't asked specifically whether they support the Employee Free Choice Act (which elicits a no-brainer answer that, of course, every Democrat supports EFCA). Because that, I believe, gives some indication about what we can expect from a president when the hard fights come for the labor movement.
So, yesterday, I was with a group of United Auto Workers activists and leaders who were trudging through a relatively balmy day in Nashua, knocking on doors of Democrats and Independents. In Edwards' standard piece of literature, he specifically talks about "strengthening organized labor" as part of his economic program.
Mentions of unions in Sen. Obama's standard literature: zero.
Mentions of unions in Sen. Clinton's standard literature: zero.

Fort Worth Fire Fighters win HUGE on November 6th

Election day has passed and most did not even know it came and went with the low voter turn out here in Texas. That is if you did not live in some of the big cities with more on the ballot than constitution additions. The Fort Worth, Texas Fire Fighter took a huge step forward with winning collective bargaining rights. The right will be similar to the Postal Workers in that the Fire Fighters will not be able to strike but they will be able to sit down and negotiate benefits, time off, pensions and worker safety. One individual told me that pay was not a question but that they were fighting for insurance for retired Fire Fighters along with pension eligibility after 20 years of service. TC Gillespie of the CWA along with the other members of the Fort Worth Central Labor Council worked hard to get out the vote and now Fort Worth becomes the 22nd city in Texas to have collective bargaining with all or certain sectors of the public workforce. This is huge in looking at the landscape of the Labor Movement in Texas once thought to be a drain on the the national Labor Movement. This goes to show that not only does Labor have a voice in Texas but it can shape the politics of Texas. Congratulations to all that worked so hard to get this achieved and good luck to the Fire Fighters in their future negotiations.

Build it right-Build it Union!!!

This article below comes from Richard with the Union Review. Those of you in the "Trades" should be able to indentify with what he has to say. Of course, all of us in Labor better wake up.

The other day I posted a rant to Union Review called Build it Right - Build it Union. The story went up after a little frustration on my part hearing about different news items taking place around the labor world in the United States coupled with a few workers from different trades telling me that they would be more active in their union movement if they knew how or what to do. The article is a simple piece with links to other stories that we covered at the site -- and it is basically just highlighting a few companies out there that want union money but not union workers. There is an issue with Rite Aid, which is now being discussed at this site, and another with Walgreens -- both of which build nonunion and then reach out to union workers to spend their money with them since they will accept most health plans. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. Whether it is FedEx, these pharmacies, or Red Wing shoes ... there are endless groups out there who are not building union and who are getting richer with our hard-earned cash. In an effort to spread some news while simultaneously helping people get more active in the union movement, if they choose to do so, I suggested that we start Buying Right - Buying Union. I mentioned a few places that we should do our business with and opened it up for others to help out by sharing with us what companies we should avoid and others that we should not. I welcome the readers here to participate in this as well. Feel free to comment here and/or post at Union Review. If you don't want your comments cross-posted to Union Review, just let me know -- the main thing is to get people active on something that we can all do ... now. In Solidarity, -Richard / UR