Labor leader explains anti-FTA stance
Donga (Korea) | 14 September 2006
Labor Leader Explains Anti-FTA Stance
One of the major agendas in the Korea-U.S. summit meeting held on September 14 is the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The heads of the two countries will encourage the conclusion of the FTA by saying in unison, “A Korea-U.S. FTA will help the economies of the two countries significantly.”
However, not only in Korea but also in the U.S., the voices raised against the Korea-U.S. FTA are loud.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), which is the umbrella group of the U.S. largest labor union, staged a demonstration together with Korean labor organizations in opposition to the FTA during the third round of FTA negotiations in Seattle.
On September 12, this newspaper had interview with the president of AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, who is leading the organization for 11 years, and listened to their opinion. When we walked into the presidential office at the headquarters of AFL-CIO downtown Washington, the White House is overlooked from its window. When we said, “This is a good place to monitor the White House, the president grinned and said, “The George. W. Bush administration is the most anti-worker among the administrations in the U.S. history.”
During the interview, director of public policy, Thea Lee sat with chairman Sweeney and explained the position of AFL-CIO in detailed way, adding to the president’s answer.
Labor organizations in both Korea and the U.S. are arguing that if the FTA is implemented, they will lose their jobs. Isn’t this argument a bit conflicting?
“Let me take Mexico as an example. When NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) took effect, jobs and plants were moved from the U.S. to Mexico. In the short term, the labor market situation in Mexico was slightly enhanced. The foreign capital investment surged and hundreds of thousand of jobs were created in the area near the border with the U.S.. However, in the agricultural sector, millions of people lost their jobs. In fact, Mexico’s labor market as a whole turned out to be worsened. Large corporations also moved to China later. After all, workers in both countries were harmed. Although the number of jobs in the U.S. had increased as the entire economy progressed, but most of those newly created jobs were concentrated in low paying service sectors. Jobs in manufacturing sector were moved to outside the U.S.
Don’t you think it is somewhat unreasonable to compare Korea with Mexico?
“Of course, it is. Korea is a strong, industrialized competitor. That is one of the reasons we are worrying about a Korea-U.S. FTA. Korea is aggressive, industrialized and advanced nation with strong competitiveness. The U.S. government tells us that when a U.S.-Korea FTA is concluded, we can sell more cars and electronics to Korea. However, we cannot believe that the U.S. government will protect the interest of workers. The situation for worker in both countries will be worsened. During the negotiation between the two countries, some measures should be discussed to protect the right of workers more effectively and strongly.
From the U.S. perspective, which is the most vulnerable sector that would be hit hardest once the Korea-U.S. FTA is signed?
“The most vulnerable sectors are automobile, steel, fiber and consumer electronics. But it is hard to say that Korean will become a winner in the area where the U.S. becomes a loser. The U.S. will probably gain some benefits in the agricultural sector. But agriculture is not labor-intensive industry. If we lose many jobs in manufacturing sector and gain a little in agriculture, it will be a problem.
Are you saying you’re against the Korea-U.S. FTA itself?
“We are asking to put the negotiations on ice until the participation of workers is guaranteed in the process of negotiation, so our voices are also reflected in the FTA. We are not against the FTA per se. We do not oppose globalization and trade, either. But only with the premise that not only corporations but also workers are treated fairly.
To the issue whether the products made in the Gaesong Industrial Complex should be included or not, even the AFL-CIO is expressing its objection to the inclusion. However, for the Korean government, the issue almost represents the symbol of South Korea’s reconciliation policy toward North Korea. Is there any room for concession?
“It is an uncompromising issue. If the South Korean government insists the inclusion, the issue can be a deal-breaker. Even if the Bush administration accepts it, the U.S. Congress will never accept it.
The U.S. government and Congress are saying that they are concerned that money earned in the Gaesong Industrial Complex may be diverted to produce weapons of mass destruction. Then what is AFL-CIO’s reason behind such a strong opposition?
“The workers in the Gaesong Industrial Complex do not have freedom to form an independent union, to have labor collective agreement and they do not have freedom guaranteed by International Labor Organization (ILO). Their labor situation is miserable. They work in very oppressive situation, they are threatened, and receive a low wage. For us, what is also not acceptable is that the wage is paid to the North Korean government. In democratic society and free labor market, governments cannot own workers. It is not right for the Korean companies to tolerate such situation. To us, it seems unconscionable for Korean companies to use labor force of North Korean workers, whose basic human rights are not respected, at low wage as a way to compete in the world market.
We’ve never heard that the Korean companies are forcing North Korean workers to work in a miserable situation and exploiting them.
“The focus of this issue is not whether the working condition is bad and dirty. The focus is that those workers do not have right to organize, which is a basic human right of workers and international consensus. The situation in Gaesong Industrial Complex is definitely repressive. The Korean government and companies are more responsible for that situation than they admit now.”
What do you think about the future of the labor movement?
“In the U.S., the labor movement has a great future ahead. But now there are numerous challenges. Because of the government’s anti-union, wrong trade policy, about 3 million jobs for the middle-income households has disappeared in most manufacturing sectors for the past few years. Small number of jobs created by the government is only part-time and low-paying jobs. Amid these challenges, labor movement should organize new workers in a more aggressive manner. Every year we organize hundreds of thousand workers, but the number of jobs, which disappear every year, is higher than that. We should not blame somebody else for these challenges. We should blame ourselves. The international cooperation should be also strengthened. These days, everything is done at a global level.”
In Korea, labor unions are under criticism for their illegal, violent activities.
“It is hard to give advice or simply compare behavior pattern because every society has a different culture. In the U.S., leaders of labor unions also stage demonstrations and wage civil disobedience movement. However, in the long term, the real activity should focus on how to change the laws and systems. Therefore, we should choose lawmakers, who are willing to revise the current laws in the Congress in the way that is favorable to workers.”
