Statement issued by Senator Sherrod Brown on the decision of Kongsberg Automotive to close its Ohio plant and move its production to Mexico:
December 15, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC – In response today’s Kongsberg Automotive announcement to close its Van Wert plant – formerly Teleflex – and move the jobs to Matamoros, Mexico, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) issue the following statement:
“I am deeply disappointed by this decision. For more than 40 years, Teleflex was an excellent corporate citizen of Ohio. This is a betrayal of generations of Van Wert workers who raised families on Teleflex salaries and who helped build the company and support the community. This also underscores the need to review the results of trade deals like NAFTA, and move our nation’s trade policies in a new direction. We must also ensure that Kongsberg’s Van Wert workers get every benefit they deserve. I encourage workers to call my Cleveland office for assistance. My staff and I stand ready to assist workers and their families.”
Norwegian-based Kongsberg bought Teleflex last year. Shortly after the purchase, Kongsberg locked out Teleflex workers and moved a production line to Mexico. Brown, who contacted Kongsberg directly to call on them not to close the plant, has been working closely with workers as the situation unfolded.
Showing posts with label free trade agreements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free trade agreements. Show all posts
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monday, April 07, 2008
Rep. Betty Sutton Statement on Columbian Free Trade Agreement
Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Betty Sutton issued the following statement on the decision by the Bush Administration to force action on the “so-called” U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA):
“I strongly oppose the U.S.-Colombia FTA and will fight this harmful deal. Not only is it a continuation of bad trade policy, but it ignores the gruesome human rights and labor rights violations which have plagued Colombia .
Today, Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for union and labor organizers, who are simply fighting to improve the lives of working families and communities in the country. Since President Uribe came to office in 2000, over 400 trade unionists have been killed. In 2007 alone, 72 union members were assassinated.
It makes no sense to push an FTA with a country that seems to ignore the continued blatant violations of basic human rights. How can a trade agreement be beneficial when the workers in one of the countries involved lack basic labor rights and are punished and often killed for their involvement in union activities? We should not even be considering a trade agreement with Colombia until this horrific violence ends and those responsible for the murder of thousands are brought to justice.
Aside from the unspeakable violence that rages on in Colombia , the fact remains that this deal is just another reincarnation of the same broken trade policies. The communities in Ohio that I represent are full of hardworking people with the sole expectation that their government will work with them, not against them. Our trade policies have a direct impact on American workers, and unfortunately, they have not treated American workers, businesses and communities kindly or fairly.
The U.S.-Colombia FTA lacks strong or enforceable labor and environmental provisions, important food and product safety standards and many other important provisions that would make it an agreement that would benefit my constituents and one that I could therefore support.
The key issue is why we are focusing on this FTA instead of fixing the problems with our current trade policies that accept foreign governments’ use of unfair tactics, such as currency manipulation, to provide themselves and their companies a significant advantage over businesses and workers in the United States .
By this action, the Bush Administration continues to show how out of touch they are with the realities facing working families and communities across this country. I will fight against the U.S.-Colombia FTA and for a trade model that will finally work for our people rather than against them.”
“I strongly oppose the U.S.-Colombia FTA and will fight this harmful deal. Not only is it a continuation of bad trade policy, but it ignores the gruesome human rights and labor rights violations which have plagued Colombia .
Today, Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for union and labor organizers, who are simply fighting to improve the lives of working families and communities in the country. Since President Uribe came to office in 2000, over 400 trade unionists have been killed. In 2007 alone, 72 union members were assassinated.
It makes no sense to push an FTA with a country that seems to ignore the continued blatant violations of basic human rights. How can a trade agreement be beneficial when the workers in one of the countries involved lack basic labor rights and are punished and often killed for their involvement in union activities? We should not even be considering a trade agreement with Colombia until this horrific violence ends and those responsible for the murder of thousands are brought to justice.
Aside from the unspeakable violence that rages on in Colombia , the fact remains that this deal is just another reincarnation of the same broken trade policies. The communities in Ohio that I represent are full of hardworking people with the sole expectation that their government will work with them, not against them. Our trade policies have a direct impact on American workers, and unfortunately, they have not treated American workers, businesses and communities kindly or fairly.
The U.S.-Colombia FTA lacks strong or enforceable labor and environmental provisions, important food and product safety standards and many other important provisions that would make it an agreement that would benefit my constituents and one that I could therefore support.
The key issue is why we are focusing on this FTA instead of fixing the problems with our current trade policies that accept foreign governments’ use of unfair tactics, such as currency manipulation, to provide themselves and their companies a significant advantage over businesses and workers in the United States .
By this action, the Bush Administration continues to show how out of touch they are with the realities facing working families and communities across this country. I will fight against the U.S.-Colombia FTA and for a trade model that will finally work for our people rather than against them.”
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Congresswoman Sutton Making an Impact in DC on Trade
Picture at left: Congresswoman Betty Sutton with Democrats at the Medina County Democratic Party Spring Gala.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer had a story about Congresswoman Betty Sutton, (D-OH13), in last Thursday's edition of the paper. The article talks about how Sutton is making a difference on trade issues in D.C. This is from the article:
Barely two weeks after her swearing-in last January, the freshman Democrat from Copley Township drafted a polite but pointed letter to one of the most powerful committee chairmen in the House. The letter said she and other freshmen wanted to be consulted on a "critically important" issue: President Bush's "misguided trade agenda."
Sutton corralled signatures from 39 of 42 Democratic freshmen. And her work paid off. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel met with the group in March to hear their views on revamping the nation's trade policy.
The article by Elizabeth Auster goes on to note that Sutton believes that many new Democratic Representatives, not only from the midwest, but from other areas of the country, believe that part of the reason for their victories was a belief among Americans that our country is losing out because of unfair trade competition.
Sutton's work is important because there are pending trade deals with several countries and Bush's fast track authority on trade agreements ends on June 30th. Once that fast track authority is gone, it will be significantly harder for this administration to get trade agreements passed in Congress, especially one that is Democratic. If you believe that Sutton is right about trade, contact your local Representative to Congress and tell him or her to support fair trade, not free trade.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Washington Post Editorial Board: Out of Economic Touch with Working Americans
The Washington Post ran an editorial on 4.4.2007 criticizing Democrats in Congress for opposing free trade deals. The editorial contained this concluding sentence: If the Democrats do not wish to be known for standing against the prosperity brought by globalization, they should pocket the concessions the administration has offered and make some compromises of their own. The question isn't whether globalization has brought prosperity, but how and for whom has it brought prosperity?
In 2003 the Economic Policy Institute did a study on how many jobs had been lost since the adoption of NAFTA. The EPI concluded that NAFTA had displaced production that had the net effect of costing 879,280 American jobs. The study put it this way: Between 1993 and 2002, NAFTA resulted in an increase in exports that created 794,194 jobs, but it displaced production that would have supported 1,673,454 jobs (see figure). Thus, the combined effect of changes in imports and exports as a result of NAFTA was a loss of 879,280 U.S. jobs.
What was true in 2003 is still true today: the rewards from globalization aren't spread throughout the economy equally. There are winners and losers in globalization. Whether you support trade agreements depends on how you see yourself and others like you faring under globalization.
Here's another fact from EPI released this week: Newly released data on income inequality reveal that all of the gains in 2005, the most recent year for data of this type, went to households in the top 10%. Moreover, those even higher up the income scale—say, the top 1% and above—saw the largest gains of all.
Our guess is that the economic elites who support globalization are people who live in the top 10% and most likely the top 1% of American households. People like the owners of the Washington Post. That's why those people support globalization. The Democratic Party, however, represents a lot of people who don't fall into the top 10% of American households. That's why a lot of Democrats oppose globalization.
In 2003 the Economic Policy Institute did a study on how many jobs had been lost since the adoption of NAFTA. The EPI concluded that NAFTA had displaced production that had the net effect of costing 879,280 American jobs. The study put it this way: Between 1993 and 2002, NAFTA resulted in an increase in exports that created 794,194 jobs, but it displaced production that would have supported 1,673,454 jobs (see figure). Thus, the combined effect of changes in imports and exports as a result of NAFTA was a loss of 879,280 U.S. jobs.
What was true in 2003 is still true today: the rewards from globalization aren't spread throughout the economy equally. There are winners and losers in globalization. Whether you support trade agreements depends on how you see yourself and others like you faring under globalization.
Here's another fact from EPI released this week: Newly released data on income inequality reveal that all of the gains in 2005, the most recent year for data of this type, went to households in the top 10%. Moreover, those even higher up the income scale—say, the top 1% and above—saw the largest gains of all.
Our guess is that the economic elites who support globalization are people who live in the top 10% and most likely the top 1% of American households. People like the owners of the Washington Post. That's why those people support globalization. The Democratic Party, however, represents a lot of people who don't fall into the top 10% of American households. That's why a lot of Democrats oppose globalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)