4-16-05,8:32 am

From International Labor Communications Association

WASHINGTON (PAI)--The Bush administration and at least one business owner played the 'China card,' are warning U.S. jobs would migrate to very low-paying Chinese firms, unless Congress approves the controversial Central American Free Trade Agreement.

But those assertions, and others used to justify Bush's new proposed 'free trade' treaty drew skepticism from senators--even Republicans--as hearings opened on the trade pact on April 13.

'There's no question that if this vote were taken today, CAFTA would lose,' UNITE HERE chief economist Mark Levinson, the sole labor witness at the Senate Finance Committee hearing on CAFTA, told Press Associates Union News Service afterwards.

'There was a lot of skepticism by people (senators) who have previously supported these deals. On the other hand, the administration has not started the ugly process of horse-trading for this, so we're still in trouble,' he warned.

The Finance Committee hearing was the opening salvo in what promises to be a battle over CAFTA. GOP President Bush's CAFTA would remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers in the U.S. and in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic to each others' goods.

Notable opposition came from farm-state senators of both parties, particularly concerned that CAFTA would open the U.S. market to low-cost Latin American sugar. That issue concerns unionists, too, as the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers represent sugar processing plant workers in the upper Midwest.

Jack Roney, economics director for the American Sugar Alliance--the growers--said CAFTA could cost 146,000 jobs and 'devastate the industry.'

Meanwhile, Levinson and committee Democrats pointed to a decade's worth of experience with NAFTA, the controversial and labor-opposed U.S.-Canada-Mexico 'free trade treaty,' in arguing against its successor pact. NAFTA, they said, not only did not protect labor rights, but also cost almost a million U.S. jobs.

'Instead of improving things, CAFTA will further oppress workers, depress wages in Central America and cost jobs in the United States,' AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez- Thompson told the House Western Hemisphere subcommittee hearing on U.S. relations with Latin America the same day. That panel has no legislative power over CAFTA.

Nevertheless, she pointed out 'CAFTA is utterly devoid of compassion and opportunity for those who need it the most: The 37 million Central Americans struggling in poverty and the millions of hard-working immigrants in this nation most vulnerable to exploitation and layoffs.'

Over in the Senate, Acting U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgier declared that without CAFTA, jobs in the textile and apparel industries would migrate from the CAFTA nations to China. One business witness--a North Carolina apparel manufacturer of the elastic bands used in underwear and socks--backed him up, saying U.S. textile and apparel jobs would migrate, too.

But Levinson, whose union represents textile and apparel workers, said that because textile and apparel quotas ended on Jan. 1, 'Imports from China in important categories such as trousers and shirts have soared--in some cases over 1,000 percent--while imports from CAFTA countries have declined or remained flat.' And that's without CAFTA, he noted.

And skeptical Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) turned Allgier's 'China card' on its head, by saying CAFTA's 'loopholes...will allow Chinese fabric' to be trans-shipped through Central America, costing U.S. apparel workers their jobs.

The solution to competition with China is not CAFTA 'because Central America cannot lower its wages to Chinese levels and shouldn't aim to,' Levinson added. 'Central America should instead position itself as a supplier to the U.S. market with high skills and productivity and...high labor standards.'

Levinson also rebutted Bush administration statements that CAFTA would enhance worker rights in Latin America, while helping U.S. workers. He noted that present trade rules covering U.S. deals with the six CAFTA nations actually require them to improve their labor laws and enforcement, while CAFTA would not.

'American workers placed in more direct competition with Central American workers will not be able to compete on a fair playing field if countries in the region refuse to take a high road on labor,' he warned.

Even Allgier admitted that labor law enforcement in Latin America is lacking, but he says CAFTA is prodding those nations to improve. Citing rampant labor abuses in the CAFTA nations, Levinson retorted: 'As long as workers' rights in Central America are violated with impunity, the rights of workers in the U.S. are at risk. And as long as wages in the region fall below the poverty level, wages in the U.S. will be under downward pressure.

'Employers used the leverage of their new mobility and rights under NAFTA to crush union organizing drives and win concessions at the bargaining table, driving down wages and working conditions,' Levinson said, citing Cornell University studies. The same scenario would happen under CAFTA, he said.

Levinson and sugar growers were virtually the only witnesses against CAFTA at the Senate hearing, but they weren't the only opposition mobilized on April 13. The AFL-CIO asked unionists to call their lawmakers and register opposition to CAFTA.

The Communications Workers' alert called CAFTA 'the Wal-Mart of trade deals' as 'it gives big corporations all the breaks while good jobs, workers' rights and decent wages are forsaken.'

Levinson also warned CAFTA would open procurement and government services in Latin America to U.S. multinationals as well, taking more jobs away from Latin American workers.

Business groups, including some Chamber of Commerce-sponsored coalitions formed especially for the CAFTA fight, rallied behind Bush's trade pact both at the hearing and in statements submitted to the panel. And Allgier testified that the Latin American nations approved the pact, too.

But Costa Rica is balking at the treaty, news reports said, and a statement from the majority party in the Salvadoran Congress, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Party (FMLN), made clear the pact was rammed through there with little debate.

'These agreements end up defining public policies,' FMLN wrote to Congress. 'These policies' in trade treaties 'cause a greater concentration of income and wealth into the hands of transnational corporations and the wealthiest people of our lands,' FMLN pointed out.

With only one-third of Salvadorans in regular 'permanently salaried' jobs, CAFTA would eliminate 400,000 permanent jobs in agriculture and textiles alone in 14 years, FMLN warned.

Among senators present--not all were--only Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) unconditionally backed CAFTA. He said it would help U.S. workers by removing Latin American tariffs on U.S. goods. He specifically mentioned Caterpillar, arguing tariffs of 5 percent to 14 percent on its farm machinery, made by UAW members in Decatur, Ill., he said, would end.