Unions Want UN Affiliate to Decide U.S. Labor Policy

Human Events, Nov 12, 2007 by Bandow, Doug

Trade Agreements

Fortunately, the American government is not bound by ILO rulings. However, that could soon change as a result of the Bush Administration's trade compromise with Congress.

Under the expired "fast-track" legislation, which required Congress to hold an up-or-down vote on a proposed free-trade agreement, signatories are required to respect worker rights. In the past, the White House has implemented this provision by urging its trading partners to fairly enforce meir own laws. But the unions and majority Democrats want more, much more. To win support for any new "fast-track" trade legislation, the Bush Administration has agreed to include compliance with "labor standards" in any new agreements.

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) has insisted that such standards follow LLO rules. Signatories of future agreements will have to "adopt, maintain and enforce" five basic standards advanced by the ILO, including "freedom of association and collective bargaining" and a ban on "forced labor." According to union leaders, America violates the first two by not mandating universal unionization, whether the exceptions are TSA employees, supervisors or state public sector employees. Moreover, some union activists believe the forced labor provision could-bar prison labor.

The new Democratic majority intends to force less-developed countries to adopt rigid trade and labor rules even though this is sure to reduce their competitiveness. This will make free-trade agreements less attractive for the U.S., and, ironically, it will slow the adoption of improved environment and safety standards by our trading partners. Countries typically adopt tougher labor rules as they develop and increase their national income and worker productivity. Alvaro Vargas Llosa of the free-market-oriented Independent Institute says that when companies in poorer economies begin to trade with the U.S. they soon seek to formalize their status as reliable and responsible trading partners and comply with existing rules.

Moreover, if labor rules devised by UNaffiliated groups such as the LLO are incorporated into trade pacts, me U.S., too, will be bound. Thus, these trade provisions. could subject the U.S. to lawsuits filed by domestic or foreign parties based on the provisions of "international law." John Engler, me former Michigan governor who now heads the National Association of Manufacturers, told the New York Times in April that "subjecting our labor system to foreign challenge is simply not something to which we can agree." Similarly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) told the Washington Post in March that ''there's a possibility that our own laws could get questioned."

Unions naturally downplay such concerns. "At the end of the day, no American change in U.S. labor laws is going to come, through a bilateral trade agreement with Peru," said Thea Lee, the AFL-CJO's chief economist, to the International Trade Reporter in March. "But putting the"se provisions into a bilateral agreement does put additional pressure on the United States government."