Peru trade deal out of committee 18 to 3....looks like it is set for passage.

[madfloridian]

Looks like the US/Peru trade deal cleared the committee by 18 to 3 and should be coming up for a vote very soon. With all the attention on censuring MoveOn and voting to label Iran's guard as a terrorist group....it may have slipped in under the radar. This article seems to indicate it has not.

Susan Scwab has become a close ally of Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi on this issue. They talk about the concessions to labor being made. But before I post the article about Susan Schwab and the business influence on our Democrats...remember this statement by Thomas Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce back in May?

The US Chamber of Commerce welcomed the bipartisan deal, saying it would secure support for Congressional approval of the four pending bilateral trade agreements... Said Tom Donohue, president and chief executive of the world's largest business federation. "we are encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions."
TPM Cafe: Chamber of Commerce approves of the bill since compliance with ILO can not be required

Read this part of that paragraph twice.

"we are encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions."

Sounds like the Chamber of Commerce is pretty comfortable with it because of "assurances". Very suspicious.

This article from CNN this week about Susan Scwab, the US Trade Representative, has some interesting points.

Can this woman save free trade?

I question the labor provisions mentioned, but I hope some changes have been made since Donohue's statement.

That's why she's grounded for the moment on her way to Tampa, where she's scheduled to give a speech to 1,000 people the next morning. In this twilight March moment, waiting for word from The Chairman, there was no better encapsulation of the power shift that had taken place in Washington: President Bush's trade ambassador, yellow legal pad on lap, faux quill pen in hand, surrounded by a handful of aides, hoping for Charlie Rangel to call.

....By May, Schwab will close this deal, and the press will label it "historic." In return for Democratic support, the administration will - for the first time ever - agree to global standards for protecting workers and the environment. Paulson and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will stand side by side at a late-night Capitol Hill press conference to celebrate their bipartisan good will. Schwab and her staff will pop bottles of champagne. At last, after months of roller-coaster negotiations - and after the most painful year ever in her personal life - Schwab will be able to take credit for saving America from protectionism.

Scwab says they appear to be "moving the goal posts".

On June 29, as Congress was breaking for the Independence Day recess, Pelosi issued a press release saying the House wouldn't consider the Peru and Panama deals unless those countries first changed their labor laws. Inside her office next door to the White House, a stunned and angry Schwab began crafting a three-page letter to Pelosi, objecting to the "unprecedented new preconditions on our trading partners" Peru and Panama. The letter ended with a passionate defense of free trade.

"American workers, farmers, consumers, and businesses cannot afford for Congress to hang up a CLOSED FOR BUSINESS sign," she wrote. The letter, Schwab told me a month later, was cathartic. It also forced her to examine the Democrats' press release, which appeared carefully nuanced to keep labor satisfied while moving free trade forward.

"They appear to be moving the goal posts," she says. "But they are saying the right things (privately). Let's see if they deliver."

This article from Thursday indicates things have been worked out. I hope Thomas Donahue's words were heeded and helped Labor get some say in this.

The free trade pact between the United States and Peru won bipartisan support in a crucial Congressional committee this week signaling that some opposition Democrats will be receptive to new trade deals as long as they call on other nations to adhere to international labor and environmental standards. The voice vote in the Lower House Ways and Means Committee clears the way for approval of the Peru deal by the US Congress this fall, with most Republicans and perhaps sufficient Democrats supporting it, according to Congressional analysts. The Senate Finance Committee approved the treaty last Friday 18 to 3.

The vote was a victory for the President Bush administration and Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who as chairman of the Ways and Means committee argued, against the opposition of many Democrats, that well-devised trade deals can benefit US workers and the economy.

The bipartisan votes also reflect the shift in sentiments among Democrats, traditionally wary of free trade deals, since Democratic leaders last May reached a deal with the Bush administration assuring that worker rights and environmental standards will be central parts of all future trade deals.

Chairman Rangel traveled to Peru in August to win assurances from the Peruvian leadership that they would fully carry out the labor and environmental clauses of the trade deal, which were written in cooperation with the US powerful unions’ federation AFL-CIO.

Rangel gave us good reason to watch him. He indicated it was easier to slip things through and catch hell later.

Rangel..."bam, seal it and catch hell"

One more concern. Earlier in September it slipped out the Democrats might be giving Bush fast track power again.

Fast Tracking: Democrats pave path for Bush to pass more NAFTA expansions

Like most Americans, you probably don’t trust this administration to have more authority over anything! Well, here’s some good news: President Bush’s grant of Fast Track authority – the un-democratic Nixon-era law that transfers Congress' constitutionally-mandated control over U.S. trade agreements to the White House – expired June 30, 2007.

And then there is the shockingly bad news – Democratic leaders recently struck a "deal" with President Bush that he and his corporate allies are trying to use to pave the way to new “Fast Track” authority – and more of his devastating trade policy.

Just found an update from yesterday from The Hill. Looks like party leadership is pushing it right on through both houses of Congress.

Peru deal gaining momentum

Quite a long article, but these portions caught my eye. Sounds like a lot of dissension, but perhaps not being heard.

Democratic support for a trade agreement with Peru appears to be building despite spirited opposition from critics, who ripped into the deal at a Wednesday caucus meeting on trade.

..."Backed by Democratic leadership, Rangel and Levin argue that the Peru free trade agreement represents a dramatic step forward because it includes enforceable worker rights and environmental standards. Opponents counter that the labor rules are still too weak and that the Bush administration won’t enforce whatever rules are included.

I hate having to watch my own party so closely. It's an uncomfortable feeling. I despise not trusting. The actions of the Florida Democrats have hurt badly, and the condemnation of Move On made some warning bells ring and chills go down spines.

[antigop]

1. I hear ya, madfloridian. I hear ya. n/t

[papau]

2. Only Peru should have a chance of passage - and even there I wonder about enforcing the idea that

they will actually enforce their own law - their labor laws are great - but .......

As in the recent modification of article 165 of the Peruvian General Labor Law that now states: "The termination of employment is classified as unlawful when the employer cannot prove otherwise in trial." giving worker's a right to file for financial restitution established in articles 166 and 169 of the Peruvian General Labor Code.

But the reality is that employee labor rights in Peru are pretty much non existent.

No overtime pay, even though there is a law that mandates the payment of overtime - etc. - Courts where the 'little guy' hardly ever wins, and union leaders do not have long life spans.


The claim by Peru's Labor Minister Susana Pinilla is that much of the ministry’s effort has focused on shoring up the inspection system - increased the number of labor inspectors visiting companies and granted the inspectors greater authority. Indeed those inspectors can no longer be turned away at the door, as they can go to companies with a police escort!!!

It'd be nice if the 93 Constitution change that guarantees the right to unionization, and the law on collective labor relations that bars employers from interfering in the right to create unions, were enforced. Or if the Courts would not stall or nitpick any decision that might go against an employer.

Labor Minister Susana Pinilla says "efforts are being made to reform the judicial system" and denied that cases related to unionization take longer than others.

Labor Minister Susana Pinilla also states that the prior idea that employers can introduce unilateral changes in collective agreements has been "clarified" so that the employer can make nonsubstantial changes in the individual contract but not in the collective agreement.

But they are passing - or have passed - a new labor bill in Peru - a hell of a lot of good that will do if it is enforced the way the old law was "enforced".

[madfloridian]

6. I keep thinking of Donohue's words..

about labor requirements not being enforceable to the ILO standards. Who told him that...where did he get those assurances?

That bothers me.

[papau]

7. rich &corporate define "enforceable" in Peru just as they do here - even more so - so if we have

no triggers in the treaties, we are depending on the Peru judges

and that has proven a disaster in the past for labor.

The ILO comment I read to mean that court decisions under their labor laws - despite the laws sounding fine - make the actual labor law in Peru much less than ILO standards - indeed they make the idea a joke.

I am hoping there have been changes in the court attitude - since that attitude, while always favoring rich and corporate just as in the US, seems based in part on what the Peru government de jure has as policy - making that seem possible. And I hope there is some wording that acts as an enforcement of the treaty provisions re labor - but I have not yet seen that wording.

[pampango]

3. This requires thorough examination to see if "fair trade" deals are indeed a realistic possibility.

We need to see what labor and environmental provisions are in the bill and what the enforcement provisions are.

"Free trade" is a misnomer and its implementation is bad for all concerned. We talk a lot about fair trade as an alternative to "free trade" or no trade. Maybe this bill can be an example of fair trade, maybe it needs to be improved, or maybe many will arrive at the conclusion that fair trade is really not possible with the Third World.

This should be interesting.

[necso]

4. I suspect that these

trade bills will be given a little window dressing* and passed.

*: so that you can't see "inside" to the job losses, economic dislocation, diminished food-security, environmental degradation, and other misery, suffering, and loss they'll bring.

...

A few frank words.

We can't expect a single election-cycle to effect all the necessary change.

But part of this necessary change is a change in the culture of the governing-establishment; and it's hard to perceive any substantial, widespread change there.

However, while a holding (or a posturing) like culture (considered on whatever scale) can theoretically change, it can become so embedded that it becomes almost a matter of character (at least expressed, and perhaps expressible, character) and personal identity (tying it to pride), especially if such a holding (posturing) fits closely, snugly to elements of character. (Clinging to inutile holdings can greatly diminish a person.)

That is, strategic choices may be necessary at some point to acheive something more than another round of musical chairs -- something more than the same-old failed-policies in new packaging.

But generally you shouldn't (nb) choose to start something significant that you can't, or won't, effect. (If you're a person of principle.)

[madfloridian]

8. Probably right on that.

It does concern me though how little power our Democrats appear to have for the control they do have...it is like they agree on so many issues that will benefit corporations. I fear there will be more slipping through as well.

[madfloridian]

5. Just realized I left out the link to the article from Thursday..

http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=11472&formato=HTML

A similar article was in the NYT with a few words changed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/washington/26trade.html

Too late to edit the OP.