Dems, Labor Groups Team To Reject Trade Deals
By Lisa Kellman
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) called for “Main street not Wall street” at an AFL-CIO rally today to oppose three new free trade agreements (FTAs) Congress is set to vote on.
Union members and leaders joined federal lawmakers to criticize the trio of agreements with Colombia, Korea and Panama sent by the Obama administration yesterday to Congress.
Tom Buffenbarger, President of IAM, argued that 159,000 Americans will lose their jobs to South Korea and that all three countries lacked proper human rights and labor provisions.
Former President George W Bush negotiated these agreements, which were initially opposed by President Obama. Despite changes made to the agreements, Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine) claimed that they mirror the NAFTA accord reached years ago, which he called dangerous.
Congress may believe that the agreements will help businesses by “export(ing) more products overseas, but the only thing that they are going to be exporting is American jobs,” Michaud said.
While free trade agreements like NAFTA have been created for better relations with other nations and with the promise of more American jobs, better business projections and higher standards of living, “NAFTA failed style agreements” Buffenbarger said “cost our nation millions of jobs.”
Buffenbarger and Michaud were joined by United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard, and Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Jan Schakowky (D-Ill.) who all called for attendees to talk to their representatives about voting no on the free trade agreements.
“Congress is run by Wall Street, K Street, and by money but there is one thing that congress pays attention to and that is the voters in their district,” said Michaud.
Postal Service In Desperate Need Of Flexibility, Says Chief
While addressing an audience at the National Press Club on Monday, Postmaster General and CEO Patrick Donahoe was interrupted by social activists demanding that the Postal Service not be privatized.
“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Donahoe has got to go,” demonstrators chanted in the middle of Donhoe’s speech. As they demanded that postal workers maintain their jobs and benefits, they continued to chant, “We are the 99 percent.”
“Well the good thing is they’ve definitely been paying attention to this situation,” Donahoe commented as the demonstrators were escorted out of the room by security guards. He then continued with his speech and advocated for the passage of new legislation to enable more postal service flexibility.
“While we have the mandate to operate like a business, the reality is that we don’t have the flexibility under current law to function like a business,” Donahoe remarked.
While the U.S Postal Service is a government institution, it receives no funding from the government and generates its revenue solely from the sale of postal products and services. The postal service must compete for its customers in the marketplace but cannot make decisions without government regulations.
“We’re in a deep financial crisis today because we have a business model that is tied to the past,” Donahoe related. “Most businesses make product and pricing decisions quickly based on market demand. We still have to go through a cumbersome process to price our products. Our competition can make these changes on a moment’s notice.”
“Most companies don’t pre-fund retiree health benefits,” Donahoe continued. “Not only does the postal service require to pre-fund, [but] we’re required by law to fully fund an entire 40 year obligation in 10 years.”
The Postal Service ended its 2011 fiscal year with a $5.1 billion net loss. According to Donahoe, the loss would have been around $10.6 billion if not for the passage of legislation that postponed a congressionally mandated payment of $5.5 billion to pre-fund retiree health benefits.
Currently, a pair of bipartsan Postal Service reform bills are curently awaiting votes in both the House and Senate. If the bills are passed, the Postal Service’s operations and network would be structurally remodeled, resulting in workforce, benefit and service cuts. Donahoe, however, said that neither bill contains the type of reforms he would support.
“Both bills have elements that delay tough decisions and impose greater constraints on our business model,” he said. “Taken as they are, they do not come close to enabling the cost reductions.”
Donahoe later called on Congress to pass “comprehensive legislation to provide us with a more flexible business model so we can respond better to a changing marketplace.”