Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » madfloridian » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Madfloridian's Journal
Posted by madfloridian in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat May 26th 2007, 02:27 PM
More proof that the labor provisions in the trade deal are unenforceable.

RANGEL BRAGS THAT DEALMAKERS PRIORITIZED GOP AND K STREET CONCERNS OVER DEM CAUCUS: CongressDaily reports that Rangel bragged to reporters that the reason dealmakers kept negotiations secret - and perhaps the reason why the legislative language remains secret - is because they feared rank-and-file Democrats would oppose the concessions that were needed to appease the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley (IA), GOP Rep. Jim McCrery (LA) and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who last year traveled to India to trumpet job outsourcing. "Every time we had them all together, someone jumped off," Rangel told reporters after the meeting, referring to that group. "So we said, we can't wait for the Caucus. When we got everybody holding hands, bam! Seal it and catch hell. We did both." The fact that Rangel now admits the Chamber of Commerce was so intimately involved in the negotiations may explain why the Chamber continues to say it has received "assurances" that the much-touted labor provisions in the deal will be rendered unenforceable.


More on the Secret Trade Deal

I have seen other assessments that agree that the labor provisions are unenforceable.

Even the Chamber of Commerce says so.

Labor provisions unenforceable.

The US Chamber of Commerce welcomed the bipartisan deal, saying it would secure support for Congressional approval of the four pending bilateral trade agreements... Said Tom Donohue, president and chief executive of the world's largest business federation. "we are encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions."


I noticed the thread I started several days ago about Rahm not permitting discussion is still going on with people still arguing. The labor provisions are unenforceable. Bottom line.

Discuss (27 comments) | Recommend (+7 votes)
Profile Information
Profile Picture
madfloridian
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
65349 posts
Member since 2002
Florida
Female
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.