Edwards calls for changes to labor laws (repeal NAFTA)

Edwards calls for changes to labor laws

By Joe Winn, Indianola Record-Herald

INDIANOLA, Iowa — Federal legislation mandating reforms in labor laws is needed to guarantee fairness in the workplace, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told Iowa voters Saturday in Indianola.
"We need to change the labor laws in this country, it's become clear the labor laws have become stranded in the favor of employers, and all we want is fairness for employees, not an advantage for workers over their employers." Edwards said to roughly 200 people filling the back deck at the home of Ray and Joanne Walton.

Edwards, who asserted himself as a strong union supporter, said repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and strengthening negotiation rights for employees on strike will benefit American workers. He also noted that implementing "card check neutrality" would ease the process of employees joining a union by only requiring them to sign a certified union card.

These steps would ensure workers' ability to collectively bargain for a fair deal and stop the bleeding of American jobs overseas, said the former U.S. senator from North Carolina.

Edwards, who has led most polls of Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, was in the middle of a three-day tour to the state that launches to 2008 nominating season. He was also scheduled to visit Muscatine Saturday and planned events today in Mason City, Waterloo and Fort Dodge.

In his quest to eliminate poverty and strengthen the middle class, Edwards said organized labor is the most important movement for workers' rights in American history.

"What a lot of Americans have seemed to forgotten is these great manufacturing jobs weren't great jobs before the union," Edwards said.
-snip-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-04-21-edwards-iowa_N.htm

*****************

Hmmm...calls for repealing NAFTA. Good on you, John!

YEAH!

The only thing standing in his way may be Gore.

For us that's 2 great choices.

...the only thing that's standing in Edwards' way is Hillary Clinton and her money.

Edwards won't get the nomination precisely because he DOESN'T have the money...and he's not going to get NAFTA repealed because the trade agreements are a major part of what's driving all this migration of auto industry jobs from the Rust Belt into southern states. Dick Shelby would have a heart attack.

NAFTA was signed by a Democrat, remember?

Global trade isn't going anywhere. It's a major part of what's driving the resurgence of general aviation right now, and it's also one of the reasons why Cessna and Piper are having their turf challenged in terms of power plant technology and usage of alternative fuels. There's a company in Texas that's putting Thielert diesels (which were developed from a Mercedes automotive diesel engine) into Cessna 172s and 182s. Now, instead of burning $4.55/gal leaded avgas at 17 gph, the diesel burns $2.95/gal Jet A or kerosene or automotive grade diesel at 11 gph! That's amazing, and we're likely to see more of it.

If you put a three bladed prop on it, it'll still climb like a scalded dog because of all that torque. It's a diesel, remember? There's no mixture to deal with. One lever controls the power. There's an article in Flying from 1998 where they talk about not having to lean it out after climb. Everything is computer controlled, there's no manual intervention at all.

And, if THAT weren't enough, the Thielert engines are replace only, no overhaul. TBO is 2000 hours, which means you buy a new plane, fly it a hundred hours per year and get twenty years out of it before buying an engine. THAT'S what I call economy.

Thielert says their engine has seventy percent fewer moving parts than a conventional Lycoming or Continental. That should mean they run quieter and longer.

Damn. I wish there was one around here to fly. Sounds like one hell of a product.

Hmmm NAFTA, Cessna, Hmmm. Nope, still makes no frikkin sense...

goals

Repeal NAFTA.

Good for John Edwards.

:bounce:

So we all can get $400.00 haircuts!

Sorry couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

:spank:

I hope he gave the hairdresser a fat tip too.

In our America, we value work, not just wealth.

But when I see a chance at a one liner I jump on it! :)

David Sirota has a good post up on DailyKos on this:

latest free trade agreements, including DOHA. Baucus has switched sides (good for him). The question is--why the F*CK would any Democrat want to give Bush more unfettered power?????? Rangel is vague on demanding labor and environmental protections, to boot!

This is the sort of crap that undermines us, over and over!!

This is the link to the info and discussion at MYDD on this subject:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/20/20039/6046

Also, see press release where Edwards will announce opposition to South Korea trade deal

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070421-mi-jj/

Strengthening labor laws would go a long way towards giving workers more of a fighting chance in our country. Also, it would help greatly to have a President who would enforce the ones we have.

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/04/edwards_big_announcement_drive.html

"On Saturday, April 21st, 2007, Senator John Edwards will deliver the keynote address at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner and will announce his opposition to the South Korea trade deal. The Bush administration is finalizing details of the agreement and is expected to submit it to Congress for approval later this spring... "must include strong labor and environmental standards and lift up workers in both countries...Congress should make it clear to the President that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests."

plan. HALLELUJAH plus tax.

Edwards is throwing down the gauntlet to the other candidates. We know Kooch's stand. Curious how the others will react. This could become a defining issue for the primaries.

in this election cycle. So far, he's speaking to issues that affect me more than any of the others are. Bravo, Edwards. :thumbsup:

:sarcasm:

Let's cut the "hair" issue, and discuss other things...the more we discuss it, it get more airplay on the Net.

I know you support Edwards, but this stuff has to move on. If we don't move on, it won't either.

But this was the first time I mentioned the H word and it will be the last.

People don't understand how important even the allegation of a "paid" haircut is within the context of the leadership of the US and on the world stage.... Personally, I think Waxman's enquiry should look into it, and then they should bring back Kenneth Starr to head a Grand Jury trial.

And while they're about it, they should look into why he is rich and didn't give all his money away to the poor before wanting to help them in a more significant, nation-wide manner.

PS: His "haircut" detractors need to be mocked from now until eternity. There's not enough mockery in the world to match the pathetic dopiness of his detactors.

I should get a first-hand report soon after the event and will post it here. I'm sure he'll touch on this at the labor-heavy Mi. Dem Jeff/Jack dinner.

Julie

NAFTA hurt my state.

His wisdom is rubbing off on the rest.

Dennis is the real heart of the Progressive movement and he is more important than most here on DU give him credit for.

NAFTA is bad news, but, in my opinion, WTO obligations are just as bad if not worse. Look at how difficult it is to buy clothing and household goods not made in China. Before Clinton and Congress passed the bill giving Most Favored Trading status to China, goods were actually made here. Even Wal-Mart had to sell them.

:patriot:

It is about time a Dem actually stood up for the American workers. More real answers to real problems from John Edwards. Kick NAFTA to the curb.

I want a clear commitment from the the candidates on this issue. This issue and rapidly stopping the war are the two factors that will determine my vote in the primary.

That would be a good first step. But then you'd have to have tariffs, and I don't think they can bring back all the good middle class jobs we had in the early 90s. I think it's too late to recreate the middle class without serious government programs like the GI Bill and the WPA and all the stuff that FDR did to put people to work in the 1930s.

I'm liking this!

A lot.

thanks john

great news! I love this guy, Rwingers fear him like they do Gore and to a lesser but noticeably apparent extent, Obama and Hillary.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

Low risk, lot's of support, as Bush is sure to veto.

I like Edwards, and whoever wins I will be working every moment I can on the campaign here in San Antonio. However, I am rather disappointed that Senators and congressmen who are running and are not trying to set the agenda in those bodies while we have a majority, slim though it may be.

I know also that he has to run a campaign, and cannot do everything if he want to do something well.

Still, NAFTA is a legislative issue as far as repealing it.

Now, when he talks about renegotiating... that would be a presidential action.

Was your post sarcastic? "no one"?

he is a private citizen

political spectrum, especially in states that were/are heavy in blue collar jobs.

He's pushing all the right buttons. And right now I'm sitting here wondering why no one else has said that NAFTA should be repealed.

If the taxation of the superwealthy, corporate interests, and passive income in this country continues to be eliminated and/or significantly reduced, then there is only one source left to finance the operation of government and that is wages earned by people who work for a living.

If we do not demand that the foreign standards of working conditions and environmental pollution controls be made a part of any 'free trade agreement' there is going to be a continued degradation of the standard of living in the United States AND the workers and people in those foreign countries will be exploited for corporate gain and political power.

Edwards is staking out the correct and moral high ground on both these issues. Campaign money to other candidates is compromising their ability to oppose the interests of those who will benefit from not making any change in the status quo regarding both issues.

I am hopeful whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will have the courage to stand up to those who would seek to wrongfully influence our positions on these issues.

If Edwards is elected, we are well on our way to "making the changes" and "not just talking about them."

the time for change is long past due. :thumbsup:

light of our own work force and in light of global warming.

which governs trade with all countries, including the AFTA countries once those treaties are repealed. Trade with China, India and the rest of the world is governed by GATT. You could always just pull out of it and stop GATT and most international trade, but that would be very rough on the rest of the world, even if we survived it better than most.

Edwards never had to vote on NAFTA; he was still working as a lawyer then. And during his five years in the Senate, Edwards has been more flexible on trade than his rhetoric suggests: In 2000, he supported solidifying trade relations with China, swayed by technology, furniture, textile and tobacco firms in his home state of North Carolina who sought to sell their products to Chinese consumers. His North Carolina GOP colleague, Republican Senator Jesse Helms, opposed it.

Two years later, Edwards initially backed giving President Bush broad "fast-track" powers to negotiate future trade agreements. Only when a provision protecting the textile industry was stripped out did Edwards oppose it.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/edwards/articles/2004/02/20/trade_issue_close_to_home_for_edwards/

I'm so tired of this.

Jesus H. Christ.

Pathetic.

...but it's damn annoying to see them hijack every thread about him just so they can complain.

for the job. It was some kind of ugly around here. Some of Clark's supporters - not all of them - are picking up where they left off. It's kind of a hell hath no fury thing. The petty bitterness and just plain meanness is bizarre and unfortunate. Sad.

There wasn't a smear, and there wasn't an attack...there was a link to an article that shows why this might not be as big of an announcement as the Edwards supporters are making it out to be.

Isn't this SUPPOSED to be the time where we vet our candidates? Shouldn't we all be looking at the candidates from multiple angles instead of cheerleading?

His work speaks for itself and he has done a tremendous amount to support Labor Unions.

In fact, he's being referred to as "the Labor candidate."

Your dated article, that attempts to sensationalize the primary contest between Kerry and Edwards, doesn't tell us anything except that the journalist seems to lean right. I think I'd trust the word and ratings of Union leaders on the trade issue more than I would some so called journalist who was sensationalizing.

I am retired from the computer industry, in which I worked for 30 years. I started in 1973, two years after I finished my active duty in the USAF. For about 10 years it was a great business with great jobs. After the mid 80s it turned into more and more of a nightmare.

In the latter years, I had far worse civilian tyrants for bosses than I ever had in my four years in the military. I believe some of those bosses should be in jail. I witnessed employees crying at their desks. Actually I liked all my "bosses" in the military.

I still keep in touch with some of my former coworkers and their reports are that it really sucks. It's slavery.

Here is a recent excerpt of a job requirement forwarded to me by an angry friend still in the business:


Good Morning,

I am a recruiter with <company name> and I had the opportunity to view your profile online. I am currently looking to fill the following position for my client located in <location>:


This position requires 5+ years experience in Microsoft Visual C++, ATL/COM and Active-X Controls. You must be able to work in a high-pressure and fast-paced environment.

Bla, Bla Bla. (Basically it required you to know everything.)



"high-pressure and fast-paced" has been a typical phrase in job requirements for the last 20 years.

My friend said he was not a masochist and would not respond to the ad. His position now isn't too great either. It's work fast and sloppy, please the shareholders and to hell with the customer.
Employees have to find shortcuts so they have some kind of life. Many wind up obese because they are chained in the office 80 hours a week, nervously eating to compensate for their misery. Many can't spend as much time with their children as they should. (Why do kids get into big trouble in school? It ain't liberals, Mr. Gingrich.)

The industry is using as few workers as possible to do the work of many with deadlines that are impossible to meet, resulting in very low quality software. This is why "productivity" is high.
The customer doesn't matter. The CEO and shareholders make millions on the sweat of these employees.
Unemployment dropped partially because people like me gave up trying to find another job with another sweat shop.

I got laid off from my last software position in 2002 and decided never to go back. I had an emotional breakdown toward the end.

I eventually dumped my entire 300-400 book computer library in recycling or rummage sales.

My career and living went down the toilet.

I'm building another career now, but I will never get the kind of income that I got after many years of schooling and hard work to get to a senior software engineer.

I'm for unionizing many white collar as well as blue collar workers. Years ago, I never thought I'd say that.

Edwards rocks