[CTC] Levin: Fast Track Language Could Block Labor Rights Deals From TPP Bill

[Arthur Stamoulis]

Inside U.S. Trade - 05/01/2015
Levin: TPA Language Could Block Labor Rights Deals From TPP Bill
Posted: April 30, 2015
House Ways & Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI) this week said restrictive language in the pending Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill could prevent the inclusion of provisions aimed at improving labor protections in Vietnam and Mexico in future legislation to implement a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal.

The language in question states that any provision in a trade agreement implementing bill granted fast-track privileges under TPA must be "strictly necessary or appropriate" for the implementation of the deal. This stands in contrast to the 2002 fast-track bill, which simply said "necessary or appropriate."

"The word 'strictly' I think will inhibit any reference to what's worked out with Vietnam and Mexico, if anything is worked out," Levin told reporters after an April 29 event in Washington.

The administration is negotiating arrangements -- dubbed "labor consistency plans" -- with Vietnam and Mexico that would outline specific steps those countries would have to take to improve labor rights in the context of TPP, according to Levin. But these agreements are being discussed in parallel to the trade negotiations themselves.

The senior House Democrat has raised this issue before in the context of the U.S.-Colombia FTA. The U.S. and Colombia agreed on a labor action plan in the run-up to the vote on the trade agreement, largely in order to secure more political support from Democrats. But the plan was not referenced anywhere in the implementing bill for the FTA, despite the more lenient language under the 2002 fast-track bill.

In part as a result of this, union leaders have said the U.S. has no recourse to hold Colombia accountable to the action plan. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on April 21, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said the plan has been "totally ineffective," and pointed to the deaths of 105 unionists he said have been killed for trying to exercise their fundamental labor rights since the FTA's entry into force in 2012.

Trumka stressed the point that any labor provisions related to a trade deal must be legally linked to the FTA in order to make them meaningful. To illustrate this, he said that staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative -- including its general counsel and Assistant USTR for Labor Lewis Karesh -- have told him "repeatedly that murder of trade unionists and violence against trade unionists is not a violation of labor provisions in the FTA."

USTR did not respond to two requests for comment on Trumka's statement.

The change to the "strictly necessary or appropriate" language in the 2015 fast-track bill makes it "more problematic" to refer to labor action plans in implementing bills, particularly because the negotiating objectives on labor contained in the TPA bill are not "meaningful," Levin said at an April 23 Ways & Means markup of the bill.

At the markup, other members, including Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), criticized the administration's stance on labor rights in the context of trade agreements. Doggett said that Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan are beneficiaries under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) but clearly do not meet its labor eligibility requirements.

Among the criteria for determining GSP country eligibility are the requirement that beneficiary countries have taken, or are taking, to afford internationally recognized worker rights, including the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, freedom from compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health, and a prohibition against the worst forms of child labor.

Levin in his April 29 comments also complained that there is little information in the public sphere about the U.S. labor talks with Mexico and Vietnam, and he expressed doubt that they would yield a meaningful outcome.

"At this point, I think it's very uncertain whether there will be any effective provisions relating to the present problems with Vietnam, and Mexico with their protection agreements and worker rights," he said. "And those need to be addressed."

Levin and two prominent union leaders have urged the administration to secure commitments from Mexico to improve workers' rights regarding so-called "protection contracts," as well as so-called "labor boards" set up by the Mexican government that are charged with registering unions, approving strikes and resolving labor disputes.

Protection contracts are collective bargaining agreements between employers and employer-dominated unions that set the terms of employment such as wages and work hours. But labor rights advocates charge that these contracts are done without consulting workers, which effectively denies them their rights to collective bargaining.

Vietnam does not currently allow independent unions and has only one union sponsored by its Communist government. This makes it hard to see how Vietnam would meet the labor rights principles the administration has sought to include in TPP, labor advocates have said.

The U.S. and Vietnam have discussed a potential labor plan for roughly one year, but do not appear to have agreed on its substance, the timing of when Vietnam would have to take on the obligations any such plan would contain, or its form. Possible options include an annex to the labor chapter, a protocol of implementation or a side letter.

Inside U.S. Trade - 05/01/2015 , Vol. 33, No. 17
147636
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.citizenstrade.org/pipermail/ctcfield-citizenstrade.org/attachments/20150502/a2c07a6a/attachment.htm>