FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama and the Colombian Trade Pact

by DAVID MACARAY

On May 4, over the strenuous objections of organized labor, President Obama announced that the U.S. intends to sign an ambitious and expanded free trade agreement with the government of Colombia.  AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka described the treaty thus:  “The action plan does not go nearly far enough in laying out concrete benchmarks for progress in the areas of violence and impunity, nor does it address many of the ways in which Colombian labor law falls short of international standards.”

For those readers not familiar with the international labor scene, Colombia not only leads the western hemisphere in anti-union sentiment, it has a unique and horrifying way of expressing that sentiment.  Last year alone, 51 Colombian labor activists were murdered, many of them by what were reported to be government-sponsored death squads.  As Trumka wryly pointed out, he doubted the trade agreement would be well moving forward if 51 CEOs had been killed.

You have your old-fashioned, garden variety “anti-unionism” as seen in places like Alabama, Georgia and North Carolina (with 3.5 percent union membership, it’s the lowest of any state in the U.S.), and then you have your highly developed, government-sanctioned anti-unionism as seen in places like Guatemala, Honduras and Colombia.

This Colombian trade bill comes on the heels of one of the Obama administration’s more impressive pro-labor decisions?i.e., the NLRB’s announcement that it was prohibiting the Boeing Corporation from moving a major part of its 787 Dreamliner passenger plane manufacturing operation from Washington state to South Carolina.

After decades of timidly and gingerly pecking away at corporate violations of federal labor and safety statutes?seemingly terrified at the prospect of  angering Big Business or rocking the economic boat?for the NLRB to pounce on a corporation as well-lubricated and integrated into the military-industrial complex as Boeing is was tantamount to dropping a bombshell.

The NLRB’s decision was based on the sole fact that Boeing’s move was being done primarily “in retaliation” for its Seattle workers (most of whom are members of the IAM?International Association of Machinists) going out on strike, something that Boeing management frowns upon.

As it happens, acting in retaliation is a clear violation of the 1935  National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act).  Accordingly, after Boeing more or less declared (in internal memos and public interviews) that it was making the move as a form of payback, the NLRB’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said he had no choice but to rule against it.

Reaction to the Boeing decision was predictable.  Not only did business groups across the country react with hysteria and outrage, but South Carolina’s Republican senators, Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham, both vowed to declare war on organized labor (as if this were breaking news?.as if they hadn’t been staunch anti-union pilgrims their entire careers).

While it remains to be seen if the Boeing decision sticks?and, given the pro-business posture of the federal appellate courts, many observers predict it won’t?it was nonetheless a much needed salvo across the bow of corporate America.

The problem with the Colombian trade deal is that it’s pure window dressing, not worth the paper it’s written on.  Organized labor doesn’t believe for one minute that the Colombian government will abide by the language included in that treaty.  Despite the glib assurances provided by Colombia’s president Juan Manuel Santos, no one?not Colombian business interests, not American banks and private investors, not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, not the National Association of Manufacturers?wants to see Colombia’s working class gain power.  And if the provisions of that treaty were enforced, they would definitely gain power.

You don’t murder 50 union organizers one year and then, the very next year, sit down and draft a high-minded document that makes it sound as if you’ve been fundamentally pro-labor all along.  To believe that could happen, you’d have to be blind, deaf and dumb and a presidential candidate.

But the trade agreement was never in doubt; it was assured of passing.  The Republicans staunchly supported it, the Democrats  went along with them, and Obama was eager, pen in hand, to sign it.  The corporations will profit from the agreement , and the oligarchies will be made stronger by it.  The only losers will be the Colombian people.

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor”), was a former union rep.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

 

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is “Nightshift: 270 Factory Stories.” He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
April 29, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
What is the Democratic Party Good For? Absolutely Nothing
Roberto J. González – David Price
Anthropologists Marshalling History: the American Anthropological Association’s Vote on the Academic Boycott of Israeli Institutions
Robert Jacobs
Hanford, Not Fukushima, is the Big Radiological Threat to the West Coast
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
US Presidential Election: Beyond Lesser Evilism
Dave Lindorff
The Push to Make Sanders the Green Party’s Candidate
Ian Fairlie
Chernobyl’s Ongoing Toll: 40,000 More Cancer Deaths?
Pete Dolack
Verizon Sticks it to its Workers Because $45 Billion isn’t Enough
Richard Falk
If Obama Visits Hiroshima
Margaret Kimberley
Dishonoring Harriet Tubman
Deepak Tripathi
The United States, Britain and the European Union
Eva Golinger
My Country, My Love: a Conversation with Gerardo and Adriana of the Cuban Five
Peter Linebaugh
Marymount, Haymarket, Marikana: a Brief Note Towards ‘Completing’ May Day
Moshe Adler
May Day: a Trade Agreement to Unite Third World and American Workers
Vijay Prashad
Political Violence in Honduras
Paul Krane
Where Gun Control Ought to Start: Disarming the Police
David Anderson
Al Jazeera America: Goodbye to All That Jazz
Rob Hager
Platform Perversity: More From the Campaign That Can’t Strategize
Pat Williams
FDR in Montana
Dave Marsh
Every Day I Read the Book (the Best Music Books of the Last Year)
David Rosen
Job Satisfaction Under Perpetual Stagnation
John Feffer
Big Oil isn’t Going Down Without a Fight
Murray Dobbin
The Canadian / Saudi Arms Deal: More Than Meets the Eye?
Gary Engler
The Devil Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Is Washington Preparing for War Against Russia?
Manuel E. Yepe
The Big Lies and the Small Lies
Robert Fantina
Vice Presidents, Candidates and History
Mel Gurtov
Sanctions and Defiance in North Korea
Howard Lisnoff
Still the Litmus Test of Worth
Dean Baker
Big Business and the Overtime Rule: Irrational Complaints
Ulrich Heyden
Crimea as a Paradise for High-Class Tourism?
Ramzy Baroud
Did the Arabs Betray Palestine? – A Schism between the Ruling Classes and the Wider Society
Halyna Mokrushyna
The War on Ukrainian Scientists
Joseph Natoli
Who’s the Better Neoliberal?
Ron Jacobs
The Battle at Big Brown: Joe Allen’s The Package King
Wahid Azal
Class Struggle and Westoxication in Pahlavi Iran: a Review of the Iranian Series ‘Shahrzad’
David Crisp
After All These Years, Newspapers Still Needed
Graham Peebles
Hungry and Frightened: Famine in Ethiopia 2016
Robert Koehler
Opening the Closed Political Culture
Missy Comley Beattie
Waves of Nostalgia
Thomas Knapp
The Problem with Donald Trump’s Version of “America First”
Georgina Downs
Hillsborough and Beyond: Establishment Cover Ups, Lies & Corruption
Jeffrey St. Clair
Groove on the Tracks: the Magic Left Hand of Red Garland
Ben Debney
Kush Zombies: QELD’s Hat Tip to Old School Hip Hop
Charles R. Larson
Moby Dick on Steroids?
David Yearsley
Miles Davis: Ace of Baseness
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail