Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

TRADE: Agreements truly need to be ‘fair’

Letter by Robert B. Dickinson, Auburn on June 6, 2011 at 10:53 am with 5 Comments »
June 6, 2011 2:13 pm

I think supporters of past fair trade agreements (NAFTA, etc.) should be designing any future agreements as fair trade agreements, in the letter and spirit of the law and with the correct connotation.

We are seeing a de-industrialization of this country and a decimation of our middle class unabated. These agreements with no safeguards against wage and benefit races to the bottom for American workers are not “fair” by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreements crafted to benefit only the multinational corporations are not fair trade agreements for working class people. We have shuttered 50,000 factories in the U.S. just since 2000, representing the loss of millions of industrial jobs

Too much of our illegal immigrant problems come from more poor Mexican farmers, unable to exist, with large multinationals from the U.S. pouring grain into their country, driving them out of business. They in turn move to the city with no possibilities of jobs and are tempted to become illegal immigrants.

It is been documented, that when Mexican workers try to collectively bargain to better support themselves and their family, those jobs disappear to other places, where corporations can find workers to work cheaper. It is a huge “leapfrog” operation by companies, to find the cheapest international labor available enriching themselves, but not the workers.

Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. nwcolorist says:

    Mr. Dickinsom, it is not and never has been business’ responsibility to provide jobs for unemployed workers. Companies are set up to make a profit. If a worker helps the company achieve that end, he will be rewarded.

    The worker also has the opportunity to start his own business. There’s plenty of ‘fairness’ out there, if you look for it.

  2. NWC,
    But it is the responsibility of a company to look out for their employees. Not stab them in the back by exporting their jobs overseas.

  3. larsman says:

    Why did Coca-Cola USA just recently decide to move it’s corporate HQ operations to …China?

  4. larsman says:

    Polago, cute, but no content.

    Try this one…is Coke following WalMart’s business model by getting their expected waiver from Obama(s)care or is it more expedient in the long run to just leave?
    Those with oars seem to be jumping from Titanic to “offshore” life boats..
    oh wait, big bad rich biz.
    Tax them more and see if they will stay.
    Pleeeze stay.
    If you contribute heavily to my re-election campaign, I will give you a waiver AND temporary artificial stimulus capital, pleeeze stay.
    Then at least contribute from your new foreign address and we’ll give you some legislative advantage as a bonus offer, but act fast while supplies
    last , hurry sale ends soon…

  5. Lars,
    paying them to move overseas did work either.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0