A Pathetic Argument for CAFTA

The Washington Post explores both sides of the debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The paper notes that "proponents say the main point is that by generating economic growth, CAFTA will do more for workers in Central America and the Dominican Republic than any law or regulation could achieve." Why? "Because worker rights are more likely to be strengthened when demand for labor is strong, thereby giving workers bargaining power." Sounds like a great argument - until you look at the facts on the ground.

Workers only can have "bargaining power" if they are able to organize into collective bargaining units. But earlier in the piece, the Post undercuts notes that "the region has a long record of hostility to unions." They use the word "region" as a euphemism for the repressive governments and huge corporations operating there that are allowed to run roughshod over people's rights.

"Union affiliates are sometimes threatened or fired and have their names placed on blacklists that make it difficult for them to find other jobs," the Post reports. For instance, "last year a U.S. union official organizing workers in El Salvador was killed." Meanwhile "no independent trade unions have been registered there in the past four years" while "in Guatemala, two collective-bargaining agreements exist in the country's more than 200 textile factories."

In other words, even if there is macro-economic growth in Central America because of CAFTA (which is debatable, at best), the region's hostility to unions will help prevent much of that growth from helping workers, because workers will have little ability to demand much of a share of any of that growth.

Then again, that's likely the reason why Corporate America and the Bush administration is pushing so hard for CAFTA - they know that Central America's hostility to unions means the region will be a prime place to find cheap labor - cheap labor that will allow companies to eliminate more good-paying U.S. jobs.