We have to bake labor provisions into the core of an agreement. TPP would do that. Under NAFTA, countries had to simply promise to uphold the laws of their own nations.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I share the skepticism that my friends have about NAFTA. It was woefully weak in protecting workers and on the enforcement side. The question is can we meaningfully build a trade regime that has as its North Star protecting American workers and American jobs through meaningful enforcement? I think we can.
NAFTA recognizes the reality of today's economy - globalization and technology. Our future is not in competing at the low-level wage job; it is in creating high-wage, new technology jobs based on our skills and our productivity.
When it is fair, American workers can compete and win. I cannot support the TPP in its current form because it doesn't provide that level playing field.
To open up new markets and create American jobs, we need to make global bilateral free trade agreements a priority as they were under the Clinton administration.
If you don't have collective agreements between unions and employers, governments have to legislate more.
The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.
The establishment of free trade agreements can be a critical and progressive step towards greater economic integration, and continues to become more valuable in an increasingly global world.
The North American Free Trade Agreement marked a fundamental change in the global trade scheme.
Our thinking behind these agreements is that we want all jobs in General Motors to be good jobs.
The developing countries must be able to take a more active part in trade negotiations, through technical assistance and support from the developed countries.
No opposing quotes found.