Labor Standards in Trade Agreements
There has been some conflict recently in the U.S. Congress regarding whether it is appropriate to include labor clauses in pending Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama, Peru, and South Korea. Democrats are pushing to include language that would allegedly require countries to adhere to the core labor standards outlined in the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, signed by the US in 1998.
Republicans worry that the language would open the door for countries to push the US on domestic labor laws and practices that might be contrary to ILO requirements; examples include teenagers working summer jobs or on farms or the use of prison labor to manufacture consumer goods. Their concern also stems from the fact that the US has only ratified two of the eight ILO core labor conventions on the above labor standards. Republicans fear that including ILO standards in Free Trade Agreements would make them binding in US law. However, Democrats maintain that the inclusion of labor conditions would not raise the bar to incorporate these non-ratified conventions but only "the Declaration we have already signed."
Given this exchange, you might not think that it is already standard practice to include labor clauses in US trade agreements. However, since 1993, the United States has included labor provisions in all bilateral and regional free trade agreements it has negotiated, as well as a bilateral textile agreement it negotiated with Cambodia, according to Sandra Polaski, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who formerly served as a United States negotiator on international labor matters.
This led me to question whether the language in the Democrat’s proposal somehow presents something new. Although the Democrat’s actual proposal has not been made available to the public, a one page summary of the proposal uses the following language: "basic international labor standards."
What language has been used in other agreements? The Cambodia agreement used the term "internationally recognized core labor standards. The U.S.-Jordan FTA also refers to "internationally recognized labor rights" and then defines them as follows: "internationally recognized labor rights: (a) the right of association; (b) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (c) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; (d) a minimum age for the employment of children; and (e) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health." The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement contains the same language as the Jordanian agreement.
Given all this, there are 3 things I think lawmakers and business representatives should consider as they review the Democrat’s proposal:
1. Despite the disagreements in the Ways and Means Committee, there appears to be a surprising lack of reference to existing FTAs and their labor clauses. Lawmakers should consider these existing FTAs and what impacts they have (or have not had) on domestic labor practices, as well as the labor practices of our FTA partners, such as Cambodia and Jordan.
2. Public opinion supports the inclusion of labor rights in trade agreements. 93% of Americans believe that labor standards should be required in trade agreements, according to a poll conducted by the Century Foundation in 2006. The nine other countries included in the survey all had a majority of people in support of including labor standards in trade agreements, China with 84% and India with 56% in support.
3. Even if all trade agreements have a labor standards clause, each agreement may vary based on the obligations and enforcement mechanisms that are tied to labor standards in each FTA. Each FTA will have to stand on its own merits in these aspects and the current conversation surrounding phraseology of labor standards must go much deeper to understand whether the agreements will have sufficient clout to encourage improved conditions for workers.
