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