Remember Hoffa saying that Barack Obama was opposed to all of the so-called "free trade" deals? Well, that's not entirely true.

Over the objections of the Teamsters, all other unions, human rights groups and anti-NAFTA organizations, Obama supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

This is what Hoffa said about the Peru Free Trade Agreement in a IBT public press release:


Teamsters President Urges Congress To Stop Job-Killing Trade Deals
December 4, 2007


(Washington, D.C.) – Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said today that Congress has failed American workers with Senate passage of the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
The Senate voted 77-18 in favor of the agreement today. Last month, a majority of House Democrats voted against the agreement despite its passage.

"It is outrageous that Congress and the Bush administration have approved yet another job-killing trade agreement at a time when American families are seeing their jobs shipped overseas, their food and toys tainted, their wages decline and their houses foreclosed upon," said Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa. "Workers here and in Peru deserve better."

Hoffa said the Peru Free Trade Agreement is wrong for the United States because:

Foreign investors based in Peru will have the right to question our domestic laws and receive compensation if such laws undermine corporate profits.
Incentives are provided for U.S. companies to leave the United States under the investment chapter of the agreement.

The sovereignty of local, state and federal U.S. government bodies will be undermined. Foreign companies will be able to bypass “Buy America” laws.
Nothing will change for the 33,000 slave-laborers cutting down the Amazonian rainforest.

Subsistence farmers will be forced off their land because cheap U.S. food produced by agribusiness will undercut their prices. The same thing happened with the North American Free Trade Agreement, which resulted in millions of poor Mexicans leaving their farms.

According to some interpretations, Citibank will have the right to sue the Peruvian government if the country tries to reverse its disastrous system of privatized Social Security—thus allowing a powerful multinational to profit at the expense of the elderly, the sick and the poor.

"American workers are fed up with the consequences of our reckless free trade policies—their good jobs vanishing," Hoffa said. "You can bet this is an issue that won’t go away before next year’s election."

http://www.teamster.org/07news/nr_071204_1.asp

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I guess the issue has gone away .... at least for General President James Hoffa. It's in the news again on Wednesday with Barack Obama again declaring his unqualified support for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. He failed to vote against it in the Senate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LivingInPeru.com
11 June, 2008

Obama for free trade deal with Peru, but against FTA with Colombia

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said today he supports the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the United States and Peru, but is against signing a trade deal with Colombia.

“I approved the Free Trade Agreement with Peru, but I’m against an agreement with Colombia”, said Obama in an interview published by the Chilean journal “El Mercurio”.

The presidential candidate said that the FTA between his country and Peru is the type of agreement needed because it respects workers' rights and the environment.

http://www.livinginperu.com/news-6661-poli...a-with-colombia

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right .... it's a wonderful agreement for workers in Peru and the United States. It's almost as good as NAFTA!

NOT!

Did he vote on the Senate in support of the trade agreement with peru or does he just supports it in principle?

Ed,

Problem with this is that the Peru deal contained the labor and environmental standards that unions push for. Hoffa's knee-jerk opposition to the deal is unfounded and wrong. Unlike the Columbia deal which would've rewarded a country with a horrible record on catching and punishing the murderers of trade unionists, Peru has no such problems - and the deal would've protected labor and the environment. Hoffa and other union leaders opposed the Peru deal because it didn't contain every provision of the ILO labor standards, instead containing the bulk of them without a few which were unworkable vis-a-vis getting the deal approved. But the core standards - the ones needed to protect the right to organize - were contained in the deal, and Peru has a fairly decent record of protecting unionists from violence (in fact there's not much of a record of violence against them).

Obama isn't a perfect candidate, but punishing him for the Peru deal is dishonest. Your other article, however, is troubling (the one about his new economic adviser).

On this I have to agree with Hoffa. Yes, you read this right! I don't agree with your view that union "opposition to the deal is unfounded and wrong."

Was Senator John Edwards opposition to the Peru Free Trade deal also "unfounded and wrong"? And how about the other Senators who voted against the Peru Free Trade Agreement .... were they way off base in opposing the extension of NAFTA? Here's what Senator Edwards said on October 27, 2007 .... Oh ..... I don't think his knees were jerking when he made his announcment:

"Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.

"For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close – and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.

"NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn’t served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too – average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed."


And it wasn't just the IBT and 18 Senators that were opposed to the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Many other organizations campaigned against it including but not limited to:

Citizens Trade Campaign

National Family Farm Coalition

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Nov. 6, 2007

Public Citizen

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition

Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon (AIDESEP)

United States Business and Industry Council

National Latino Congreso

Amazon Watch

American Lands Alliance

Greenpeace USA

Rainforest Action Network

Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment

UNITE-HERE

Food & Water Watch

Friends of the Earth

Change to Win

Oxfam America

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities

Dolores Huerta Foundation

League of United Latin American Citizens

Sierra Club

International Gender and Trade Network

Now union leaders speaking out in opposition to Obama's support of this free trade deal can hardly be described as punishing Obama. That's a bit extreme. Don't you agree?

I suppose labor could pretend Obama didn't support the Peru Trade Agreement but that would be dishonest and wrong. Silence might even create the mistaken impression that we really don't take these NAFTA type agreements seriously and labor's opposition to them is mere rhetoric.

Now we sure don't want to do that, now do we VegasJim?

Ed,

Well, that's quite a list you've got yourself, isn't it? Problem, though, is that it does nothing at all to demonstrate the Peru deal as a bad thing. That is, you're arguing a logical fallacy usually known as argumentum ad populum or the bandwagon fallacy. The simplest demonstration of why this is fallacious might be if someone pointed out that the KKK was widely endorsed by many communities during the 1920s-1950s as a means to support the despicable aims of that group.

While Edwards is of course credible on labor issues he's not an unimpeachable oracle on trade. Why not? Because his core constituency is almost entirely comprised of organized labor voters, thus his judgment and impartiality are suspect when he links a bill such as the Peru deal - again, a bill containing almost all of the ILO core conventions - with labor decline. Sorry, but as much as I like Edwards and appreciate his support for organized labor, I'm not about to cede my own objectivity and judgment simply because he's an ally. Allies can be wrong, you know.

As to my "punishing Obama" remark, that was actually directed at you, not Hoffa or other labor leaders. Why direct it at you? Because you posted a six-month old article in an effort to either paint Hoffa as incorrect or punish Obama for his support of the Peru deal. In either case you're nitpicking and grasping at tattered straws, those not capable of delivering the nourishment of intellectual liquid from the cup of truth to whet a truth-seeker's whistle. Not an unusual exercise for you, granted, but one that deserves a rebuttal nonetheless.

I suspect the reason Hoffa said Obama is against free-trade deals while knowing that Obama supported the Peruvian pact was because Hoffa knows damn-well that the Peruvian pact is hardly free trade; his opposition to it was yet another piece of Kabuki theater enacted by our labor leaders to appear politically astute and relevant to such topics. Hell, one could hardly call it free trade in almost any leap of intellectual honesty simply because the pact has written RULES which mandate certain behavior from participating partners. By definition that can't be free trade as "free trade" involves the elimination of tariffs AND the elimination of ersatz trade "rules."

Well, here we go again.

VegasJim knows all about the Peru Free Trade Agreement

The IBT was wrong.

Hoffa was wrong.

The AFL-CIO was wrong.

The Coalition To Win was wrong.

The following organizations were wrong.

Citizens Trade Campaign
National Family Farm Coalition
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Nov. 6, 2007
Public Citizen
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition
Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon (AIDESEP)
United States Business and Industry Council
National Latino Congreso
Amazon Watch
American Lands Alliance
Greenpeace USA
Rainforest Action Network
Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment
UNITE-HERE
Food & Water Watch
Friends of the Earth
Change to Win
Oxfam America
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities
Dolores Huerta Foundation
League of United Latin American Citizens
Sierra Club
International Gender and Trade Network

And most importantly to VegasJim, together with all of the above, I was also wrong on the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

VegasJim knows lots of stuff about international trade agreements. Obviously more than the entire labor movement and our supporters!

Smart guy. Must be a Cornell man.

Thanks for straightening us out VegasJim.

Please share your trade wisdom with Hoffa, Stern, Sweeney and the entire AFL-CIO and Coalition To Win while you're at it!

Ed,

If you're comfortable basing your opinions and stances on issues based on what someone else has to say about them then you go right ahead and do that. Me, I'll continue to make my own mind up on things based on myriad inputs such as - get this - actually researching the issue for myself. I know, I know: "But Vegas, it's so much easier just to listen to someone else tell me what I should think." As true as that is, I'm not at all comfortable in the serendipity of others' views being foisted on me. Guess you've got a different take. For that reason, "no," public statements of concerned interest groups aren't all that persuasive to me unless someone can show me evidence that the Peruvian trade deal didn't contain most of the ILO conventions on labor. 'Course that'd be quite the challenge given that I've actually read the thing and have been to Peru twice in the past 12 months.

So Ed, you keep pointing out how many vested interest-bearing groups are opposed to the deal and how that alone - the existence of special interest opposition - should sway my opinion. I know, reading the bill and actually visiting the place in question simply don't compare to the weighty opinions of organized labor leaders who have a vested interest in opposing any and all trade deals to mollify their constituency's visceral disinclination against all trade pacts, but you'll pardon me if I don't view your application of argumentum ad populum as any more valid in this case than it is in any other (see also "logically fallacious").

Here's an interesting paradox for you to consider, Ed, since you seem so reliant on the "mass appeal" argument: A majority of Americans were supportive of Bush's plans to invade Iraq prior to the invasion itself. Since you seem to be arguing that I should "go along" with what you're claiming as "majority" opposition to these deals, how might you then square your opposition to the Iraq war if mass appeal is such an intellectually compelling force? You're arguing in the wind on this one, Ed, and you're doing it badly.

Glad to hear you no longer pay any attention to the views of labor unions and other "special interest" groups that represent working folks when forming your opinion.

You've asserted your independence from organized labor!

Well, just don't cross the road to the otherside. OK?

Damn it Jimbo .... you're starting to sound like some of those corporate Republicans who wage those constant attacks on "special interest" groups like labor, minorities, environmentalists, seniors, etc.,

i brought this up a few months ago.... Obama is a free trader ... his recent bullshit on free trade is all campaign rhetoric ...he'll say anything to get elected.....i'm not voting for the idiot

Since it's so abundantly clear that many of you have never bothered to read the text of the Peruvian deal's labor provisions, give 'er a shot; here's the relevant portion. Here's a hint for you: Try actually learning about something on your own prior to shooting off your mouths; helps to sustain credibility that way.


Chapter Seventeen
Labor
Article 17.1: Statement of Shared Commitments
The Parties reaffirm their obligations as members of the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Article 17.2: Fundamental Labor Rights1
1. Each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, the following rights, as stated in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up (1998) (ILO Declaration):2
(a) freedom of association;
(b) the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
© the elimination of all forms of compulsory or forced labor;
(d) the effective abolition of child labor and, for purposes of this Agreement, a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor; and
(e) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
2. Neither Party shall waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, its statutes or regulations implementing paragraph 1 in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, where the waiver or derogation would be inconsistent with a fundamental right set out in that paragraph.
Article 17.3: Enforcement of Labor Laws
1. (a) A Party shall not fail to effectively enforce its labor laws, including those it adopts or maintains in accordance with Article 17.2.1, through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement.
1 To establish a violation of an obligation under Article 17.2.1 a Party must demonstrate that the other Party has failed to adopt or maintain a statute, regulation, or practice in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties.
2 The obligations set out in Article 17.2, as they relate to the ILO, refer only to the ILO Declaration.
17-2
(b) A decision a Party makes on the distribution of enforcement resources shall not be a reason for not complying with the provisions of this Chapter. Each Party retains the right to the reasonable exercise of discretion and to bona fide decisions with regard to the allocation of resources between labor enforcement activities among the fundamental labor rights enumerated in Article 17.2.1, provided the exercise of such discretion and such decisions are not inconsistent with the obligations of this Chapter.3
2. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to empower a Party’s authorities to undertake labor law enforcement activities in the territory of another Party.
Article 17.4: Procedural Guarantees and Public Awareness
1. Each Party shall ensure that persons with a legally recognized interest in a particular matter have appropriate access to tribunals for the enforcement of the Party’s labor laws. Such tribunals may include administrative, quasi-judicial, judicial, or labor tribunals, as provided in the Party’s law.
2. Each Party shall ensure that proceedings before such tribunals for the enforcement of its labor laws are fair, equitable, and transparent and, to this end, each Party shall ensure that:
(a) such proceedings comply with due process of law;
(b) any hearings in such proceedings are open to the public, except where the administration of justice otherwise requires;
© the parties to such proceedings are entitled to support or defend their respective positions including by presenting information or evidence; and
(d) such proceedings do not entail unreasonable charges, or time limits, or unwarranted delays.
3. Each Party shall provide that final decisions on the merits of the case in such proceedings are:
(a) in writing and state the reasons on which the decisions are based;
(b) made available without undue delay to the parties to the proceedings and, consistent with its law, to the public; and
3 For greater certainty, a Party retains the right to exercise reasonable enforcement discretion and to make bona fide decisions regarding the allocation of enforcement resources with respect to labor laws other than those relating to fundamental rights enumerated in Article 17.2.1.
17-3
© based on information or evidence in respect of which the parties to the proceedings were offered the opportunity to be heard.
4. Each Party shall provide, as appropriate, that parties to such proceedings have the right to seek review and, where warranted, correction of final decisions issued in such proceedings.
5. Each Party shall ensure that tribunals that conduct or review such proceedings are impartial and independent and do not have any substantial interest in the outcome of the matter.
6. Each Party shall provide that the parties to such proceedings may seek remedies to ensure the enforcement of their rights under its labor laws. Such remedies may include measures such as orders, fines, penalties, or temporary workplace closures.
7. Each Party shall promote public awareness of its labor laws, including by:
(a) ensuring the availability of public information related to its labor laws and enforcement and compliance procedures; and
(b) encouraging education of the public regarding its labor laws.
Article 17.5: Institutional Arrangements
1. The Parties hereby establish a Labor Affairs Council (Council) comprising cabinet-level or equivalent representatives of the Parties, who may be represented on the Council by their deputies or high-level designees.
2. The Council shall meet within the first year after the date of entry into force of this Agreement and thereafter as often as it considers necessary. The Council shall:
(a) oversee the implementation of and review progress under this Chapter, including the activities of the Labor Cooperation and Capacity Building Mechanism established under Article 17.6;
(b) develop general guidelines for consideration of communications referred to in paragraph 5©;
© prepare reports, as appropriate, on matters related to the implementation of this Chapter and make such reports available to the public;
(d) endeavor to resolve matters referred to it under Article 17.7.4; and
(e) perform any other functions as the Parties may agree.
17-4
3. All decisions of the Council shall be taken by consensus, and shall be made public unless the Council otherwise decides.
4. Unless the Council otherwise decides, each of its meetings shall include a session at which members of the Council have an opportunity to meet with the public to discuss matters relating to the implementation of this Chapter.
5. Each Party shall designate an office within its labor ministry or equivalent entity that shall serve as a contact point with the other Parties and with the public. The contact points of each Party shall meet as often as they consider necessary or at the request of the Council. Each Party’s contact point shall:
(a) assist the Council in carrying out its work, including coordination of the Labor Cooperation and Capacity Building Mechanism;
(b) cooperate with the other Parties’ contact points and with relevant government organizations and agencies to:
(i) establish priorities, with a particular emphasis on the issues identified in paragraph 2 of Annex 17.6, regarding cooperative activities on labor matters,
(ii) develop specific cooperative and capacity-building activities according to such priorities,
(iii) exchange information on the labor laws and practices of each Party, including best practices and ways to improve them, and
(iv) seek support, as appropriate, from international organizations such as the ILO, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, and the Organization of American States, to advance common commitments regarding labor matters;
© provide for the submission, receipt, and consideration of communications from persons of a Party on matters related to this Chapter and make such communications available to the other Party and, as appropriate, to the public; and
(d) provide for the receipt of cooperative consultation requests referred to in Article 17.7.1 and 17.7.4.
17-5
6. Each Party shall review communications received under paragraph 5© in accordance with domestic procedures.
7. Each Party may convene a new, or consult an existing, national labor advisory or consultative committee comprising representatives of its labor and business organizations and other members of its public to provide views on any issues related to this Chapter.
Article 17.6: Labor Cooperation and Capacity Building Mechanism
1. Recognizing that cooperation on labor issues plays an important role in advancing development in the territory of the Parties and in enhancing opportunities to improve labor standards, and to further advance common commitments regarding labor matters, including the principles embodied in the ILO Declaration and ILO Convention No. 182 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999), the Parties hereby establish a Labor Cooperation and Capacity Building Mechanism, as set out in Annex 17.6. This Mechanism shall operate in a manner that respects each Party’s law and sovereignty.
2. The Parties shall strive to ensure that the activities undertaken through that Mechanism:
(a) are consistent with each Party’s national programs, development strategies, and priorities;
(b) provide opportunities for public participation in the development and implementation of such activities; and
© take into account each Party’s economy, culture, and legal system.
Article 17.7: Cooperative Labor Consultations
1. A Party may request cooperative labor consultations with another Party regarding any matter arising under this Chapter by delivering a written request to the contact point that the other Party has designated under Article 17.5.5.
2. The cooperative labor consultations shall begin promptly after delivery of the request. The request shall contain information that is specific and sufficient to enable the Party receiving the request to respond.
3. The consulting Parties shall make every attempt to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter, taking into account opportunities for cooperation related to the matter, and may seek advice or assistance from any person or body they deem appropriate in order to fully examine the matter at issue.
17-6
4. If the consulting Parties fail to resolve the matter pursuant to paragraph 3, a consulting Party may request that the Council be convened to consider the matter by delivering a written request to the contact point of each of the Parties.4
5. The Council shall promptly convene and shall endeavor to resolve the matter, including, where appropriate, by consulting outside experts and having recourse to such procedures as good offices, conciliation, or mediation.
6. If the consulting Parties have failed to resolve the matter within 60 days of a request under paragraph 1, the complaining Party may request consultations under Article 21.4 (Consultations) or a meeting of the Commission under Article 21.5 (Intervention of the Commission) and, as provided in Chapter Twenty-One (Dispute Settlement), thereafter have recourse to the other provisions of that Chapter. The Council may inform the Commission of how the Council has endeavored to resolve the matter through consultations.
7. No Party may have recourse to dispute settlement under this Agreement for a matter arising under this Chapter without first seeking to resolve the matter in accordance with this Article.
Article 17.8: Definitions
For purposes of this Chapter:
labor laws means a Party’s statutes and regulations, or provisions thereof, that are directly related to the following internationally recognized labor rights:
(a) freedom of association;
(b) the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
© the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor;
(d) the effective abolition of child labor, a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor, and other labor protections for children and minors;
(e) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and
(f) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
4 For purposes of paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, the Council shall consist of the cabinet-level representatives of the consulting Parties or their high-level designees.
17-7
For greater certainty, the setting of standards and levels in respect of minimum wages by each Party shall not be subject to obligations under this Chapter. Each Party’s obligations under this Chapter pertain to enforcing the level of the general minimum wage established by that Party; and
statutes and regulations and statutes or regulations means:
for the United States, acts of Congress or regulations promulgated pursuant to acts of Congress that are enforceable by action of the central level of government and, for purposes of this Chapter, includes the Constitution of the United States.
17-8
Annex 17.6
Labor Cooperation and Capacity Building Mechanism
1. Coordination and Oversight
The Council shall oversee the implementation of the Mechanism and, through each Party’s contact point designated pursuant to Article 17.5.5, coordinate its activities.
2. Cooperation and Capacity Building Priorities
The Parties’ contact points shall carry out the work of the Mechanism by developing and pursuing bilateral or regional cooperation activities on labor issues, which may include, but need not be limited to:
(a) fundamental rights at work and their effective application: cooperation on law and practice related to implementation and public awareness of the principles and rights contained in the ILO Declaration:
(i) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining,
(ii) elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor,
(iii) the effective abolition of child labor, and
(iv) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation;
(b) worst forms of child labor: programs or other cooperation to promote compliance with ILO Convention 182 on the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor;
© labor administration: activities aimed at strengthening the institutional capacity of labor administrations and labor tribunals, especially professionalization of personnel and training, including with respect to technological skills;
(d) labor inspectorates: activities to improve labor law enforcement and compliance, including training and initiatives to strengthen and improve the efficiency of labor inspection systems;
(e) alternative dispute resolution: initiatives aimed at establishing and strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for labor disputes;
17-9
(f) labor relations: forms of cooperation to improve social dialogue among workers, employers, and governments, ensure productive labor relations, and contribute to efficiency and productivity in the workplace;
(g) occupational safety and health: forms of cooperation to improve preventive measures and reduce hazardous conditions in the workplace and measures to promote best practices and compliance with statutes and regulations;
(h) working conditions: forms of cooperation to increase public awareness and develop innovative methods for supervising compliance with statutes and regulations pertaining to hours of work, minimum wages, and overtime, and other conditions of work;
(i) migrant workers: mechanisms and best practices to protect and promote the rights and welfare of migrant workers of the Parties, including joint efforts with relevant organizations and dissemination of information regarding labor rights of migrant workers in each Party’s territory;
(j) social assistance and training: programs for social assistance, skills development, training, and worker adjustment, as well as other relevant programs;
(k) technology and information exchange: programs to exchange information and share experiences on methods to improve productivity, on the promotion of best labor practices, and on the effective use of technologies, including those that are Internet-based;
(l) labor statistics: development of methods for the Parties to generate comparable labor market statistics in a timely manner, including improvement of data collection systems;
(m) employment opportunities: development of programs to promote new employment opportunities and workforce modernization, including employment services;
(n) gender: development of programs on gender issues, including the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation;
(o) best labor practices: dissemination of information and promotion of best labor practices, including corporate social responsibility, that enhance competitiveness and worker welfare; and
17-10
(p) issues related to small, medium, and micro-enterprises, and artisans: promotion of fundamental rights at work, improvement of working conditions, competitiveness, and productivity levels, and public awareness of relevant laws.
3. Implementation of Cooperative Activities
The Parties shall use any means they deem appropriate to carry out activities pursued under paragraph 2, including:
(a) technical assistance programs, including by providing human, technical, and material resources, as appropriate;
(b) exchange of official delegations, professionals, and specialists, including through study visits and other technical exchanges;
© exchange of information on standards, regulations, procedures, and best practices;
(d) exchange or development of pertinent studies, publications, and monographs;
(e) joint conferences, seminars, workshops, meetings, training sessions, and outreach and education programs;
(f) development of joint research projects, studies, and reports, whereby expertise from independent specialists may be solicited;
(g) exchanges on technical labor matters, including through the use of expertise from academic institutions and other similar entities; and
(h) exchanges on technology issues, including information systems.
4. Public Participation
In identifying areas for labor cooperation and capacity building and in carrying out cooperative activities, each Party shall consider the views of its worker and employer representatives, as well as the views of other members of the public

I read the agreement.

A truly wonderful document if you're a corporate big shot.

The "current" Peruvian regime and the United States government promises to not engage in child or slave labor under this agreement!

Wow! How progressive for the 21st century! I bet that took some hard negotiating by the Bush government.

And the "current" Peruvian regime (along with the United States government) promises to "adopt and maintain .... the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining"???!!!! Effective recognition as opposed to ineffective recognition? This is carefully worded legal mumbo jumbo. Interpret it however you like.

In any case, that's really nice. Peru will grant Peruvian workers the same rights that workers have in the United States to organize, which is really no meaningful rights at all!

Current federal law in the United States (the National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act among others) obstructs the right of workers to organize unions. Other laws prohibit workers from freely excercising their right to withhold their labor, engage in secondary boycotts or jurisdictional strikes organize solidarity or political strikes, and outlaws"common situs" picketing and closed union shops once they successfully "organize" a union!

The employers have effectively used all of the above and many other laws to curb union organization and that is why the entire labor movement is proposing new legislation that will provide for the right to collective bargaining!

So the bottom line on workers rights in Peru under this latest Free Trade Agreement is this: The Peru Free Trade Agreement might (and that's a big might) bring the right of Peruvian workers to organize "up" to the level that currently exists in the United States.

Oh Whoooopeeeee! In other words, the right to organize in Peru provided for in the Free Trade Agreement ain't worth sh*t!

And those are the very best "pro-labor" provisions that VegasJim could find in the entire 424 page Peru Free Trade documents!!!

As our frequent flyer traveler to Peru should know, Peru already has laws "on the books" that supposedly guarantee the right of workers to organize unions. But like the laws here, they help the employers more than the workers!

VegasJim made a big deal out of his recent travels to Peru. He must have found out a whole lot of stuff about the Free Trade Agreement from Peruvians, otherwise why would he even mention his trips? But it appears that VegasJim never bothered to find out the opinions of the Peruvian trade union movement during his visits. If VegasJim knows, he failed to tell us.

Well guess what folks .... Peruvian labor unions are opposed to the trade agreeement! ALL OF THEM! Just like in the United States. In fact, Peruvian labor unions seem to be against the Peru Free Trade Agreement even more than our unions in the United States. The Peruvian union movement with the support of peasants organized a fricken nation-wide general strike against this bad deal! You didn't hear about that when you visited Peru VegasJim? It was in all the papers!

Here's two little news items from Peru that VegasJim somehow overlooked during his exhaustive research work in Peru:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LivingInPeru.com
8 November, 2007

Workers Union in Peru Rejects Free Trade Agreement with the US

(LIP-ir) -- One of Peru's strongest workers unions, the General Workers Confederation of Peru (CGTP) announced today that it did not agree with the approval of the US-Peru free-trade pact passed by the US House of Representatives today.

The CGTP made this announcement after it concluded a daylong national strike that took over several of Lima, Peru's streets this afternoon.

Now that the free-trade pact is in its final stage and will soon be voted on by US Senate, Mario Huamán, head of the CGTP stated that the approval of the bilateral treaty would seriously affect Peru's economy.

He affirmed that only executives, a small portion of the population, would be able to take advantage of the free-trade agreement. Huamán questioned Peru's government's economic policies and stated that it was not complying with labor laws.

http://www.livinginperu.com/news-5060-poli...reement-with-us


WW4 Report - 07/16/2007
Peru: protests against US trade accord rock country

Peruvian unionists, campesinos, leftists and nationalists came together to stage a massive one-day general strike on July 11 to protest the economic policies of President Alan Garcia of the social democratic Aprista party. The July 11 Day of National Struggle, called by the General Confederation of Peruvian Workers (CGTP), Peru’s largest labor group, and backed by former nationalist presidential candidate Ollanta Humala, shut down much of the country.

The action coincided with the first day of a two-day strike that the Campesino Confederation of Peru (CCP) had called to protest a "free trade" accord (TLC) with the US; the Peruvian Congress ratified the accord in June 2006, and the US Congress is expected to pass it this year as part of a deal its leaders made with the government of US president George W. Bush. The protests also coincided with an open-ended strike that teachers started on July 5.

In Lima, protesters gathered in the Plaza Dos de Mayo on July 11 and marched to the Plaza San Martin, where CGTP general secretary Mario Huaman spoke, along with Humala, Luis Munoz and Robert Huaynalaya of the Only Union of Peruvian Education Workers (SUTEP), Javier Diez Canseco of the Socialist Party, and many others. The Spanish wire service EFE estimated attendance in the Lima protest at 7,000; Jose Coronado of the CCP put the number at 30,000, and Peruvian political analyst Raul Wiener said the mobilization was the largest one seen in Lima in 30 years. "Now say we’re a minority," the marchers chanted, mocking claims from President Garcia’s government that TLC protesters were "little groups that oppose the country’s development" and that the protests were financed by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez Frias.

Confrontations between police and protesters continued on July 12, during the second day of the campesino strike, and by July 13 more than 100 protesters were in detention, including Diez Canseco, who was released that day. The CGTP called a new march on July 13 to protest police repression; the police broke up the march with tear gas. Protesters continued to block roads in Arequipa and Puno and on the Pan-American highway at Ica, near Lima. In the northern city of Trujillo, teachers disrupted a ceremony President Garcia was presiding over.

http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_..._recherche=peru

So there you have it.

According to VegasJim ....

the entire U.S. labor movement is wrong

the Peruvian workers and their labor unions are wrong

I'm wrong

and the Bush governmment, Chamber of Commerce and their corporate whores in Congress are right.

The Peru Trade Union agreement is pretty good for Peruvian and American workers and unions.

Horse Sh*T!

Ah Eddie, Google makes you an expert on Peru's labor situation, does it? Ya know, I get a kick out of folks like you: Those who run a Google search - or sometimes even "better": A Wiki search! - who then masquerade as experts of whatever topic du jour comes their way. Tell me though, Ed, you been to Lima in the past year or so? Ever met with people who're rank-and-file members of the CGTP? No, not reading statements of the CGTP's leadership, but actually talked to the workers themselves? Ever researched the CGTP leadership a bit to discover its Maoist roots? Ever done any of that, Ed? Or is Google and/or Wikipedia about the breadth of your "knowledge" on this one? I'm guessing it's the latter, for if you'd been to Peru and talked to the members of the union you'd know that far beyond simply protesting the trade pact, Peru's pro-government SL "union" - a de facto pro-government mouthpiece outfit very reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers group which infiltrated Florida during the 2000 recount - planned a major pro-government rally during that strike which is why, in large part, the CGTP showed up in such full force (a protest to protest the counter-protest was the way many folks described it to me AS I MARCHED WITH THEM; no better place to get the story from the horse's mouth, you know). But I'm guessing your Google article didn't have that little nugget, though.

Sorry, Ed, but this "frequent flyer" to Peru - you know, a guy who's been there twice over a 12 month period whom you've now characterized as a "frequent flyer" - has actually talked to Peru's considerably large poor population - both union and non - about the pact to see what they thought. It surely wasn't all positive, but show me any national initiative in any country which enjoys 100% support and I'll show you an initiative sold on lies (ala the Bush Iraq fiasco and its public support in 2003). And too, considering that Peru's economy strongly depends on agricultural production I've talked to rural farmers outside of Lima who - while nervous about the potential for agribusiness infiltration - were hopeful that they'd get the opportunity to market their goods abroad. Moreover, unlike Mexico's rural population and its strong reliance on subsistence farming (well, before NAFTA, that is), Peru's rural farmers aren't as dependent on that practice for survival; many have large land allotments on fertile grounds which will position them better able to fend off agribusiness.

The two realistic concerns with the Peruvian pact lie in the lack of deforestation protections for the rain forest areas (an enormous piece of the CGTP's reason for their march in case you didn't know) and, as a twin component to that, the not-so-strong protections for the workers doing that work. However, component #1 is an environmental (not labor) concern (although in other countries many unions protest things which aren't purely labor-related), and point #2 is offset by Peru's agreement to monitor the deforestation workers as part of its labor agreement pursuant to the trade pact's clauses. If you want to attack the agreement, Ed, start with these points as these are the only two which are even somewhat grounded in reality; the others are belied by the facts on the ground (not the "facts" parading around on Google).

And back to the agreement itself for just a second since you're now intent on misrepresenting the words contained in the pact itself. It doesn't "grant Peruvian workers the same rights that workers have in the United States to organize," Ed. It grants them the ILO standard on the right to organize, bargain collectively, and freely associate. Nowhere in the agreement does it mention implementing the same standards as the US, now does it Ed? In fact I thought the part about "Each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, the following rights, as stated in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up (1998) (ILO Declaration):2" was rather clear in that regard, but then again liars typically have difficulty characterizing the words and intentions of others when something rudely doesn't comport with their take on things, to wit this most recent lie and your "frequent flier" crap.

Now, while outlawing child and slave labor is evidently not a huge concern of yours, it is for those in Peru's underclasses for whom this is a serious problem. Then again, had you any knowledge a bit broader than Google and Wiki searches you'd know that outlawing child and slave labor is a huge step forward for a country which has a statistically-small but nonetheless significant problem with those two things (that is, it's significant to those wearing the chains). But you go on thinking it's not "progressive" to abolish those things, Ed; surely you'd know better than those who have to toil under such conditions. Ethnocentrists like yourself always think they know just how things should be in other countries. I mean the United States "doesn't" have any problem with child and slave labor (even though it does), so abolishing it in some other country can't be much of a step forward because we already did that (ostensibly anyway). Sorry Ed, but those in Lima and the outskirts care very little that we've already outlawed the slavery they're now enduring because you see, bright guy, that outlawing it for them *WOULD* be a progressive step FOR THEM. *YOU* might not see it as progressive, but I assure you the woman or the child who's shackled to her press will probably view it as DAMN progressive when the shackles are removed, wouldn't you say?

Face it, Ed, you're a glib pontificator who's got very little (if any) experience in global labor issues beyond Googling for whatever you might find; a practice you've deluded yourself into believing is the equivalent of working for the USTR or, hell, even visiting a few foreign countries. But what's worse than that is your a proven liar, one even willing to distort words which reside on the SAME FRIGGIN' PAGE with which your mischaracterizations juxtapose. In short, Ed, you're a boob; you've proven as much to be true.

Well, that was a lot of words that really said very little about "labor rights" in the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Nothing we didn't already know and couldn't read for ourselves. We need VegasJim's interpretation of the documents in order to understand how great the agreement is for Peruvian and American workers. VegasJim will need to lecture Sweeney, Hoffa, Stern and the leader of every union in the United States and Peru so that they too will understand how wonderful this agreement is.

The only real new thing VegasJim offered is the claim that he participated in the mass protest and general labor strike against the trade agreement which he claims really wasn't a protest against the Peru Free Trade Agreement! It was a protest to a counter-protest to a protest!!!????? Sure it was. And VegasJim informs us that the union leaders of Peru have communist (Maoist) roots! Nothing like a little red-baiting to try and discredit the labor movement of Peru, hey Jim?. I guess we'll just have to take his word for it and not rely on actual news articles about the General Strike, written by reporters who know a lot about Peru (dare I suggest even more than VegasJim?) and are not enemies of organized labor in Peru!

But back to the point. In his wordy document, VegasJim failed to challenge or even question the bottom line of his position in support of the Peru Free Trade Agreement!

After wading through all of his rhetoric and verbal gymnastics, the bottom line on his position is this:

The entire U.S. labor movement is wrong on the Peru Free Trade Agreement

The Peruvian workers and their labor unions are wrong.

I'm wrong

And the main proponents and beneficiaries of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, the Bush governmment, Chamber of Commerce, their political whores in Congress and the ruling corporate class in Peru are right!

According to our learned expert on trade agreements, the Peru Trade Union agreement is pretty good for Peruvian and American workers and unions.

Professor VegasJim from Cornell U knows stuff!

Sure does. More Horse Sh*T!

If I didn't know better, I'd think that VegasJim is auditioning for a job with corporate America given his defense of "free trade".

Christ .... does anyone else in the Teamsters support so-called "free trade agreements" outside of Jimbo?

Ed,

In all of your latest bombast you finally managed to get something correct. Normally I'd feel that congratulations would be in order were it not for either the "broken clock" philosophy or the "even blind squirrels manage to find acorns every now and again" maxim. But hell, given your track record of even managing to prove those two truisms incorrect over these oh so many years, I'll just go ahead and congratulate you for saying that you could've read most of what I said for "yourselves." That's a true statement for the most part, although the reason I felt compelled to post the obvious is because you've been so adamant about NOT reading it for yourself, or at least not drawing the correct inference from the words as they're written in the agreement, viz. Peru being bound to conform to ILO (not US) labor standards. That's something that's right in the friggin' agreement - in black and white plain English - yet something you chose to previously spin to Peru being bound to US labor law. So yeah, while I shouldn't have needed to reiterate the obvious, your abject lying forced me to do just that.

Now, while you may not require my "interpretation" of the Peru agreement, I'd imagine that for an English speaker - an honest one - no interpretation of plain English would be necessary for such clear-cut statements as the Peru deal's language on the incorporation - hell, mandate - that ILO conventions be the standard for each party country. That's not interpretation, Ed, it's simply called reading. If that's too much work for you - and judging by your willingness to read other documents (e.g. the articles you found on the Peru deal which not coincidentally happened to comport to your view) - I don't think it is, but I guess it depends on whether or not you're reading something which just so happens to conform to your narrow views as to whether or not you're capable of actually reading - and, more importantly, understanding - the thing. Kinda sad, that, for as much as you rail against Bush and his refusal to accept facts and opinions of people whose views conflicted with his own, you're betraying an attitude perfectly congruent to his.

I'll not take seriously your "doubts" about my experiences in Peru or anywhere else considering that you think you've got such a grasp on things as to maintain that banning forced/child labor in Peru wouldn't be "progressive"; that you can't see such a move *IS* progressive for a country which is currently plagued by these atrocities is nothing short of astounding and showcases front-n-center your hypocrisy and the glibness of your statements.

But you go right on ahead and keep Googling for the "truth," Ed. No doubt such a scheme is precisely how anyone learns the complete facts about a given thing, eh? I mean that's precisely what they teach in schools - I hear they're going to start teaching quantum physics by having kids Google for the equations - and that's how world leaders learn all that's to be known about other countries, right? Yeah, your Google experience is no doubt equivalent to or perhaps even superior to that of someone who's actually been to the place you're Googling. Because, of course, news reports always contain every possible fact relative to the story they're telling, right? I mean no news story has ever omitted anything from its version, and every reporter - despite word counts and story deadlines - always includes all relevant background information and ancillary data into every story, right Ed? And too, stories which interview interested groups to a particular debate always manage to get both sides of the story from their interviewees, eh Edward?

Again, big fella, go back and read the Peru deal's mandate for ILO standards as its labor protections. That's the entirety of my argument that the Peru deal is somehow analogous to NAFTA, a deal which had no such inclusions. That's not an interpretation, that's just pure reading. To those of us not trying to peddle an agenda it's a pretty simple exercise, but when those facts run counter to some agenda being peddled they tend to crush one's case, don't they Ed? That's, of course, why you're so intent on making this conversation about me as opposed to the fact that the Peru deal has ILO conventions as its labor policy, NAFTA didn't. Try and dispute that all you like, Ed, but plain English, facts, and logic are presenting you with a rather difficult rebuttal, aren't they big guy?

Why in the world would I or any other Teamster want to Google anything regarding trade agreements when we can rely on Professor VegasJim and his golden nuggets of wisdom to teach us about such matters?

Why VegasJim knows and understands a great deal more about the Peru Free Trade deal than the army of economics majors employed in the trade research departments of the AFL-CIO/Coalition To Win and their affiliates.

They can fire the lot of them and hire VegasJim as their premier self-professed "expert" on all matters regarding international trade agreements.

I have to wonder why VegasJim hasn't at least applied for a "rookie" job with any of those union research departments? He really has so little to learn and so much to teach those dimwits in the AFL-CIO and IBT Research Departments who haven't been to Peru twice like him. That makes VegasJim an expert .... and he actually read some of the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Why VegasJim might even speak a little Spanish!

I'm sure that if VegasJim applied for that economic research job at the AFL-CIO or IBT he'd be quickly elevated to the position of "Economic Czar" whose declarations on all economic matters would be eagerly anticipated by the entire labor movement! He'd show those college educated economists a thing or two! Wouldn't ya Jim?

Now who said VegasJim doesn't have just a bit of an ego?

Sorry Jimbo. But I think the entire labor movement in the United States and Peru has it right and you have it wrong.

They know a lot more than you about trade agreements.

And it's too bad you're siding with corporate America rather than the workers of this country and Peru on this so-called "free trade" agreement.

You can engage in all of the sophistry and verbal gymnastics you want, but the bottom line remains .... The Peru Free Trade Agreement sucks for workers here and Peru. You've failed to provide the slightest shred of evidence to prove it doesn't.

But don't let that stop you from writing a few thousand more words without saying much of anything.

Sure you're not angling for a job with people on the corporate side of the tracks?

I hope not. But, forget about it.

You're not good enough.

Ed,

The Peru deal contains the ILO Conventions on Labor. That's proof enough. The rest of the personal crap has nothing to do with this simple fact that you can't seem to wrap your head around. Go ahead, Ed, keep denying that which is black and white - or, more "up to your speed," keep attacking me as opposed to dealing with the issue at hand - no doubt such an approach has demonstrated that the Peru deal doesn't contain what it most certainly does, right Ed?

Keep trying, dude. No matter how many times you post the reality will remain unchanged, viz. the Peru deal contains the ILO Conventions on Labor.

You can go on insisting that union "opposition to the deal is unfounded and wrong" from now until the end of your life.

But tell us, what makes you so much better informed and knowledgable about the Peru Free Trade Deal than the entire labor movements here and in Peru?

Why are you so right (and in agreement with the corporate sponsors of the Peru Free Trade Agreement) and the rest of us on labor's side so wrong?

Well, you don't have to answer that question because I know the answer.

You're not right.

You're dead wrong on the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

It's an anti-labor agreement.

It will hurt the workers of Peru.

That's why they went on a general strike in opposition to it.

It will hurt the working class in the United States.

That's why the entire labor movement opposed that agreement.

But you're a whole lot smarter than the labor movements in Peru and the United States.

At least that's what you think.

But guess what?

You're not smarter than the rest of us.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement is a horse s*hit agreement that was promoted by big business, not the labor movements, in the United States and Peru.

The corporate rulers love it and you can't figure out why?

That's a huge puzzle to you?

Well, maybe it's because you're not as smart as you think you are!

I don't think the AFL-CIO and IBT Research Departments will be interested in utilizing your self-proclaimed "talents" if you can't figure this one out and take labor's side.

Ed,

Let's cut the issue down to what it really is: You insinuated the Peru deal to be "free trade" to which I disagreed on the grounds that it contains the ILO Conventions on Labor as well as environmental protections. You've danced, squirmed, spun, and outright lied in trying to rebut that simple issue, yet all the lies and other artifices in the world simply can't overcome that simple fact. You can keep trying - and knowing you, you will - but you'll continue to resemble krash's jackass metaphor all the more while you do so.

You're a liar, Ed. Plain and simple. You've been proven to be a liar, and a liar is what you are. It's indisputable given the voluminous evidence. As much as you rail against Bush for being a liar, you've got the man dead to rights as the coup de grace of liars. As such I'm not inclined to continue the conversation any further because there's truly no point in responding to someone who'll merely lie as a child does when caught doing something wrong. So go ahead and tell me how, you know, wrong I am and such - this despite the fact you've been proven to be both wrong and lying about this issue. I'm going to engage in something more worthwhile. Of course that's not saying much because, of course, potting a plant or even cleaning my fingernails would embody a more worthwhile pursuit, but I digress.

Go ahead, Eddie boy! Really let me have it! The thread's all yours.

I don't have to.

The labor movements of the United States and Peru have spoken clearly on this issue.

You're just not listening.

They say the pro-Peru Free Trade views you defend are dead wrong.

And their voice is much stronger and more influential than yours or mine.

Organized labor exposed the Peru Free Trade Agreement as a corporate sponsored arrangement directed against working people in the United States and in Peru. And you still don't get it! Or do you?

I stand with James P. Hoffa, the Teamsters Union, the AFL-CIO, the Coalition to Win and all of their affiliates and the Peruvian union movement on this issue.

And you don't.

You stand with the "free trade" corporate America crowd against us while you denouce the labor movements opposition to this bad deal as "unfounded and wrong".

Like the old labor songs says:

"which side on you on boys, which side are you on?"

Well, now we all know which side you're on regarding this so-called free trade agreement.

What more needs to be said?


Instructions on how to add a youtube video to your TN post.