(This was written by me in 2007 - so it does not include anything after that)
In 2004, Senator Kerry spoke of the need to review and fix the trade relationships we were in and spoke of why he did not support CAFTA which had been recently negotiated then. He stated:
“"Unfortunately, the free trade agreement that was signed today marks a disappointing and unnecessary step backwards in our nation's efforts to ensure that opening markets results in higher living standards on all sides and not a race to the bottom on worker rights and environmental protection.
"Therefore I will oppose the CAFTA as currently negotiated by President Bush. Instead of building on the progress of the Jordan agreement, CAFTA marks a reversal by not including adequate and fully enforceable protections for labor rights and environmental protections in the core of the agreement. “ http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/kerry2.asp
In early 2005, at the hearing on the nomination of Robert Portman to be the U. S. Trade Representative, Senator Kerry spoke of earlier treaties and their negative impacts of workers in both the US and the other countries and reiterated that he would not support CAFTA as it was. Senator Kerry in his comments spoke of the fact that in addition to NAFTA having the known negative impact on US jobs, it had hurt poor Mexicans as well.
“Obviously, the opposition to CAFTA in the Central American region is striking in and of itself. You’ve got small farmers, indigenous groups, environmentalists, bishops, parliamentarians. Many others have spoken out against it. And what they do is they cite the experience of Mexico as one of the reasons that they’re deeply concerned about it. In Mexico, real wages have fallen. Poverty has risen. More than a million small farmers lost their land. Many civil society groups and people of conscious believe that you’ve got an even, you know, worse enforcement mechanism and a worse starting point here. Tens of thousands of Central Americans have taken to the streets to protest this. They’re demanding a public referendum on the agreement. A recent Gallup poll found that 65 percent of Guatemalans think it’s going to harm rather than help their country. You’ve got a number of immigrant groups here in our country, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, CARACEN, Salvadorian American National-Network, others have come out against it. Why do you think such a broad and diverse range of Central Americans here and there are against it? And what does that say about this consensus that is so necessary to proceed forward and make it work?”
Senator Kerry fought for an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that would have added some worker’s and environmental rights to CAFTA. The amendment was defeated in the Republican controlled committee on a 10 to 10 vote and there are no such provisions in the CAFTA treaty that Senator Kerry voted against. That amendment was praised by John Sweeney , head of the AFL/CIO as:
“Senator Kerry (D-Mass.) will introduce an important amendment to the administration’s draft implementing legislation that would address a key failing of agreement by giving workers’ rights the same priority as corporate rights. His amendment would go a long way toward fixing the inadequate workers’ rights provisions in this lopsided trade deal by making protections for core labor standards fully enforceable.
The Kerry amendment would ensure that all the CAFTA countries meet international core workers’ rights standards, a change to the agreement that has been a key demand of workers in both the U.S. and Central America.”
kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/CAFTA-AFL-CIO.doc
Last October (2006), Senator Kerry gave a major speech on the economy at Faneuil Hall, the last of the Faneuil Hall speeches that would have defined a 2008 Kerry run for the Presidency. Here is what he said on trade and globalization:
[div class="excerpt]
“What was true in Roosevelt’s day is just as true today: we must promote the right of employees to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits — at home and abroad.
There’s nothing anti-business about being pro-union. And there’s nothing that contributes more to a socially responsible corporate community than workers who know they have a place at the table in key corporate decisions.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has pursued the most strident anti-union policies in memory. I doubt they’ve appointed one judge who has voted for workers one time in their lifetime. Then how can they talk about spreading democracy to other countries and then tell workers that they don’t have the right to sign a card and elect a union to bargain for a better wage here in America?
Congress needs to finally enact basic labor law reforms like the Employee Free Choice Act, which preserves the right of workers to organize without intimidation. And, just as important, we have to promote workers’ rights abroad — because it’s right — and because it’s the only way to create a level playing field for U.S. exports.
American labor leaders understand this. Andy Stern, head of SEIU, has been to China six times in five years. As President, George Bush has only been there once — and I’m sure he didn’t once mention worker’s rights. James Hoffa, of the Teamsters union, sees China as a new frontline for the labor movement. He understands that, at its worst, the global economy is a race to the bottom that pulls the rug out from under American workers.
So we have to make it a race for the top — because globalization isn’t going to go away. We need to put our stamp on it and create a fair playing field — because empowering America’s workers means stepping up to bat for workers everywhere.
When Democrats took over Congress we said to this President — “no more trade deals unless you fight for workers’ rights.” We held his feet to the fire in a trade deal with Peru that does protect workers. But it’s not enough to have labor rights written on a piece of paper signed in the Rose Garden. We need countries to start enforcing them — and we need a President who actually wants them enforced.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/10/1/faneuil-hall-speech-plan-for-a-21st-century-economic-strategy
(Note - neither the Kerry Senate site or JohnKerry.com currently work - as he is not in the Senate and as a non politician, having the Johnkerry.com site is not appropriate (though I miss it) Hopefully, you will trust me that I did not make up the quotes.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
