Jordan Trade Agreement

         

         



        Worker Rights and the New Jordan Trade Agreement

        Richard Wilson, December 13, 2000

        Worker rights, for the first time, are included as an integral part of an international trade agreement signed by the United States. However, Congress can still make amendments to this new free trade pact with Jordan which might eliminate both worker rights and environmental protections. But now, with the language already in place and agreed to, it's harder to knock out, especially when the other side, in this case Jordan, has already signed on.


        It has finally happened. Worker rights, for the first time, are included in an international trade agreement signed by the U.S. This is not a "side agreement" without teeth as with NAFTA. Instead worker rights are an integral part of the new free trade pact with Jordan.

        Congress can still make amendments which might eliminate both worker rights and environmental protections. But now, with the language already in place and agreed to, it's harder to knock out, especially when the other side, in this case Jordan, has already signed on. If the King of Jordan can buy worker rights, why not us?—will be the question.

        As a first step, both countries agree not to relax current domestic labor laws for advantage in trade. Next, they are committed to "strive" in bringing their laws in accord with "internationally recognized labor rights," including:

        "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."

        This is the same language amended to the General System of Preferences and other U.S. trade legislation but never before included in a trade agreement. And while mention is made of obligations under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, it differs from that declaration by the inclusion of "acceptable conditions…" and omits from the list "the elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation." An omission probably necessitated by sticking to the language Congress had approved in the past.

        A crucial issue will be how the promise of Jordan to "strive" in improving worker rights will be monitored. How much pressure will the U.S. Trade Representative put on the government of Jordan to improve their laws and enforcement? Will the interest and energy shown for improving intellectual property rights apply to labor standards? There are difficulties in securing the rights of workers that do not arise in trading goods between nations. Human rights are not checked at the border by customs officials. Information on violations is often scarce and building a convincing case takes considerable time and resources.

        All this is complicated because the parties to the Jordan agreement are countries. There is no space for others to complain under the rules unless they can convince their respective governments to take up the case.

        Further, any disagreement will not be about the behavior of private parties, for example corporations, but rather what the other government is doing or not doing to enforce worker rights. A dispute arises if Jordan fails to "effectively enforce its labor laws, through a sustained or recurrent course of action or inaction," but not, at least directly, when a company tramples on the rights of workers.

        What constitutes "enforcement" is also a bit tricky. For each country: ". . . retains the right to exercise discretion with respect to investigatory, prosecutorial, regulatory, and compliance matters, and to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources to enforcement with respect to other labor matters determined to have higher priorities." This convoluted wording could be a source of delay if the other side is not playing straight.

        These are a few of the speed bumps on the road to gaining and enforcing worker rights. None of them, however, take away from the dramatic change represented by this agreement. Worker rights are now up there, side-by-side with intellectual property rights, patents, services, and trade in goods. They are covered by the same dispute process and backed by the same sanctions if violations are not corrected.

        Negotiations are now underway with Chile and Singapore to establish free trade agreements similar to the one signed with Jordan. One cannot help feel that the Clinton administration's advocacy of labor standards is not only late but cynical. This new enthusiasm comes only after the most important issue, China, which dwarfs all else, was agreed to without worker protections. Moreover, the President has made the Jordan agreement, and the same will be true of Chile and Singapore, without "fast track" authority, leaving it wide open to any and all amendments. Of course, when the Jordan pact or others comes before the new Congress, Clinton will be out of office, avoiding any blame if worker rights or environmental standards are weakened or eliminated.

        Nevertheless, regardless of the motivation, the Jordan agreement does put, for the first time, worker standards into a trade pact, providing a measuring stick and possibly a line of compromise on future trade legislation.




        back to homepage