SEARCH
15 Years Later, Experts Say ‘Revisit NAFTA’ |
|
Working people have long known the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been a disaster. A 2006 study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) shows NAFTA has failed workers in Mexico, Canada and the United States. In each nation, while worker productivity grew, wages remained stagnant or dropped—while the wealth of those at the top increased significantly. More than 1 million jobs that would have been created were lost in the United States, and many of the new jobs that were created in Mexico were low wage with no benefits and no future.
Sen. Barack Obama has said NAFTA must be amended to fix its many shortcomings, while Sen. John McCain says the treaty is working out just fine 15 years after taking effect. Back in April, McCain chose a failing Ohio factory as a place to praise the Bush administration’s bad trade deals. McCain also showed how out of touch he is with America’s workers by telling a crowd of workers and their families, who were facing the devastation of their communities and loss of their livelihoods, that lost manufacturing jobs would not return.
The International Economy magazine recently took up the issue of NAFTA, asking 20 policy and trade experts:
If you had to do it all over again, would you as president of the United States support NAFTA—the North American Free Trade Agreement—as implemented?
Some of the respondents—former trade representatives and corporate types—predictably answered “yes.” But a strong cadre, led by Gabriela Lemus, executive director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA), and economist Jeff Faux, made it clear the majority of working people on both sides of the border are not benefiting from the agreement. They said NAFTA, which became the de facto model for future U.S. trade deals, needs to be revisited.
Says Lemus:
Poverty remained the same or grew, concentrations of wealth skyrocketed, the purchasing power of minimum wages declined as did social spending, and immigration from Mexico reached historical highs.
The incoming president must revisit NAFTA and demand a close analysis of its outcomes beyond macroeconomic policy.
LCLAA is one of six AFL-CIO constituency groups.
Faux, a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and author of The Global Class War, says NAFTA supporters promised it would expand the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, generating new high-paying jobs for American workers.
Instead, the surplus turned into a deficit with net job losses. They also promised a long-term Mexican boom that would substantially reduce illegal immigration. Instead, Mexico’s continued slow growth, along with a massive NAFTA-inflicted dislocation in Mexican agriculture, has doubled illegal out-migration, creating enormous political problems in the United States.
NAFTA also has failed low-wage workers who lost jobs because of the treaty and benefited rich corporations that only value the bottom line, several of the respondents said. Here’s Victor Kamber of the Carmen Group, a Washington lobbying firm:
We foolishly believed we were all in this together, equal partners in a bold new venture to create jobs and prosperity across the hemisphere. What we failed to realize is that despite the American flag lapel pins their CEOs wore, U.S. corporations have no “American” interest in their global wheeling and dealing. Only the bottom line matters. They saw NAFTA as a superhighway to drive down wages, and they put the pedal to the metal. Shuttered factories and loss of manufacturing jobs have made voters angry and frustrated, which is why NAFTA has become a big issue in the 2008 presidential debates.
Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce, believes NAFTA’s problems are part of a bigger failure to help the global economy work for everyone.
The right position for a president facing an agreement such as NAFTA today—or facing Doha or free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, or others—is to advance their approval as part of a broader commitment to help American workers prosper under the terms of globalization. Just as important, before approving new trade agreements, the president and Congress need to finally buckle down to serious health care and energy policy reforms, to help relieve some of the heavy cost pressures on the wages of workers in businesses.
Andrew Szamosszegi, managing consultant at Capital Trade Inc., a trade litigation support and management consultant firm, says the United States did not take care of workers who suffered economic dislocation due to NAFTA.
I am disheartened by the fact that Washington signed an agreement that caused low-wage U.S. workers to lose jobs but enabled people like me to save 10 bucks on a pair of jeans. Studies showing that job losers tend to make less once they are re-employed are hardly reassuring either.
Lemus says turning around U.S. trade policies that create deals like NAFTA will require enactment of the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment (TRADE) Act. Introduced in June by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), the bill shows “a new way forward on trade.”
The bill sets key priorities and principles for our trade agenda. It allows for a critical review and renegotiation of current agreements while ensuring that future ones include and uphold enforceable human rights, labor and environmental standards, public health and safety, democratic transparency, increased congressional oversight and the promotion of widespread prosperity at home and abroad.
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Once again this is the type of issue that the AFL-CIO should be all over with their political connections. Not trying to organize illegal aliens into unions.
I hadn’t heard of the TRADE Act, would it effectively disembowel NAFTA? I am a member of the Mid-Michigan Labor and Employment Relations Association. I recall one of our speakers last year stating “NAFTA is here to stay,” so I keot thinking there has to be SOME way to work around/with it.
In the article its mentioned that blue jeans were $10 cheaper manufactured in Mexico. The fact is, nothing is cheaper. Ford still charges the same amount for their truck whether its made in Detroit or Mexico. Maytag washers always known for their quality and high price. Since they’ve moved to Mexico the only thing they’ve kept is the high price. The consumer doesn’t save a cent, everyone loses.
Lobbyists have gotten the laws changed and many manufacturers no longer tell you where their goods are made. The Union needs to publicize products that are still American made while there are still a few left.
Another major issue is the poisoned produce full of e-coli and salmonella. Water is precious there and often fields are irrigated with untreated sewage. Nice green crops fertilized with human waste but teeming with bacteria and God only knows what heavy metals from manufacturing.
Only the hand full of owners have benefited. They got NAFTA and America got the SHAFTA.
The Clinton White House said NAFTA was coming.
At the time (and I remember this well) labor objected ( on paper, that is).
In real life terms, Kirkland and other pie-cards refused to draw a line in the sand. That lack of action signaled (once again) that certain labor “leaders” were all talk but no action. The ranks would have followed if they had been led! Sadly, however, just as with the Air Traffic Controllers a decade or so earlier, labor leaders ran for cover.
(I’ll never forget watching TV and seeing Kirkland sitting next to Hillary while Bill was making a speech THE DAY AFTER THE PRESIDENT STUFFED NAFTA DOWN OUR THROATS!)
In regards to this article about NAFTA, I have this to say…my, my, my…it’s nice to see that the “experts” are finally catching up to what 150 million rank and file workers knew in 1993…NAFTA will SHAFT-YA.
Had labor taken action when Reagan screwed the controllers, we’d all be in much better shape today. Tragically, ideologically-challenged bureaucrats chose to gripe, but no more. And the ranks allowed complacency to carry the day! The only way labor has made gains is by direct action – i.e., withholding our labor – or by convincing politicians that we’ll walk out if justice is not served. Inaction, however, rendered us no more than “paper tigers”, and when NAFTA appeared, we were ripe for picking.
We need to return to our roots and to the proud heritage of militant activism in the struggle for social and economic justice…and peace.
Look at the facts: 40 years ago, over 35% of America’s workforce was organized. Today it’s down to 12% (7% in the private sector). Every retreat by labor has been followed by a reduction in union density in our nation. The ONLY ones who have suffered are we the workers. Corporate executives, politicians, and most of labor’s hierarchy are all farting through silk sheets. The rest of us struggle trying to afford health care for our families…if, that is, we haven’t lost our jobs to NAFTA capitalism.
Apathy and complacency will get you exactly what you got. It’s time for action, and a return to our roots. It starts with worker control of their unions.
Rich A. I totally agree, we have stuck our heads in the sand maybe to many times.I’ve said this before I’m 59yrs. old,3rd. generation building trades.Apprenticed at 17 and a journeyman at 22. I’ve voted in every election since I turned 21,voted mostly Democratic and followed what the AFL-CIO and my local union told me was good for labor.We are doing something wrong look where we are today and we keep voting the same fools back into office.We never seem to learn,I want to see my Government work for me,I want to see my Union work for me and not ILLEGAL ALIENS.I have joined the Independent Party and I will vote again this year,but against all incumbents and not for either Obama or McCain and until all workers Union and Non-Union alike do the same we can expect more of the same from our Government.We are and have been sold out by every law these fools pass.Our leaders do not want you to own your home,they want your wife working to help support the family they do not want your kids going to college.What they want is for you to make them richer.They want you poor and they are getting their way.
I guess the Union leadership is looking the other way. They supported Clinton under “I will fight NAFTA” but then he fought FOR it, stabbed us in the backs, and did NOTHING while Union membership dropped in the 8 years he was president.
Why wont obama repeal it? He wont do ANYTHING to weaken NAFTA and I cant wait to say “I told you so”. I said it in 1992 and I’ll say it again. I will also be right. Again.