by James Parks, Nov 22, 2006

We’ve noted trade was a key issue that helped Democrats gain control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Now, Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan State AFL-CIO, points out in a column in The Detroit News that in a significant shift, many rural voters chose Democrats because of the trade issue.

For the manufacturing worker it’s “will my job be outsourced next?” For the farmer it’s “will another trade agreement put yet another crop into worldwide price-cutting competition?” And for the rural small business person the worry is “when my customers suffer, how long before I am next?”

All Americans are better off when our nation engages in trade, but working-class Americans can only benefit with the right kinds of trade arrangements…voters said: Negotiate trade agreements that add or protect jobs in America.

Voters urged Congress to learn the difference between a trade pact with mutual benefits for workers in both countries and one that encourages runaway manufacturing.

Many of the newly elected members of Congress say they have heard the voters’ concerns about bad trade deals. Even before the new Congress takes office in January, the current House shocked Republican leaders by defeating a move to push through a deal with Vietnam. The defeat of the Vietnam deal may have convinced the Republicans to hold back on trying to consider a trade pact with Peru during the lame duck session.

The new members of the Senate are proponents of fair trade. For example, Ohio Sen.-elect Sherrod Brown (D) is one of the strongest supporters of fair trade polices in the U.S. House and one of the staunchest opponents of Bush trade deals. He notes that all of the newly elected senators made fair trade and working family economics major parts of their campaigns:

We got to where we are because we didn’t run as Republican-lite—we ran as economic populist Democrats.

Trade issues will get a different look in the House as well, where Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will replace Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which determines which trade bills come to the floor. Rangel, who voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), also has worked to strengthen protections for democracy and human rights in Africa, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and other Latin American nations.

The union movement’s hard work in support of fair trade candidates could be extremely important when the so-called “fast-track” trade authority comes up for renewal in 2007. Working families strongly opposed the latest version of Fast Track, which passed in 2002. Fast Track allows the president to negotiate trade deals but forbids Congress from improving or rejecting harmful provisions by allowing only yes or no votes on entire trade packages.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council meeting in Washington, D.C., this month heralded the changing winds on trade and laid out a new approach to trade that would make trade more fair and beneficial for all workers.

The council statement calls for a three-step approach to trade:

• Slow President Bush’s rush to negotiate new bilateral free trade agreements.
• Review all current agreements.
• Reform the current trade regime so that we can renew our commitment to participating in a just global economy, one that works for working families and not just to boost the profits and power of multinational corporations.

The AFL-CIO union movement is committed to working with our allies in the global movement for fair trade and global justice, including environmental and development organizations and human, civil and women’s rights advocates, as well as family farmers and domestic producers.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article | Comments (0)