There’s a current Thread which claims Obama stated Today..

[busterbrown]

that “Unions they are always against Trade”..

Anyone have a link? Please..

Many are in heaven today over this statement..

[Sunlei]

1. when you search in quotes “Unions they are always against Trade” only one result-the DU post

search your quote- “Unions they are always against Trade”..

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%E2%80%9CUnions+they+are+always+against+Trade%E2%80%9D


so I guess you're first on google, congrats!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I guess that's why you shouldn't put things in qoutes unless you know the exact wording.

The comment below yours found the link to an article about the press conference he gave, with the actual wording.

[Sunlei]

10. thanks, yes I see Obamas actual statement. I used the OPs "quote"

In search I used the OPs quote. and only the one DU topic (started by a different name) came up using OPs "quote"

[DJ13]

2. Obama Affirms Support for Trade Agreements in Asia, Europe

“There’s going to be a set of Democratic senators and House members who traditionally have just on principle opposed trade because the unions on principle, regardless of what the provisions are, are opposed to trade,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-affirms-support-for-trade-agreements-in-asia-europe-1429292046

[okaawhatever]

40. And that is true. The Unions' job is to keep jobs in the US. Unions exist for a very specific

purpose, not a general one. As such, they will most likely oppose any trade pact.

I do find it interesting that most of the union anti-TPP ads are directed at Fast Track Authority and not the TPP itself. I wonder if they
are trying to get an amendment in there rather than oppose it outright. The TPP gives workers collective barganing rights in each country so they are probably divided. I think they want some of these countries to have labor unions, it will increase the cost of labor in foreign countries and make the US manufacturing industry more competitive.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. What does 'in heaven' mean, and who are the many?

I've only seen a bunch of annoyed people so far. Hardly what I think of as 'heaven'.

[busterbrown]

6. Obama haters are frothing at the mouths over this..

Sarcasm..

[daleanime]

7. I don't know about 'haters'.....

but I imagine any one pro-labor would be kind of upset.

[busterbrown]

8. I’m pro union and sometimes Unions (as expected look out for their own self interests)

They supported the pipeline did they not?

Head of Immigration Union against Obama’s Amnesty Plan..

[daleanime]

9. Cool, cool, so if he said it....

let's try not to hold it against him too much.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Some Unions favored the pipeline, but most are strongly supportive of the President's veto. Info

down thread.


Unions Rally Behind Amnesty
Organized labor pushes for policies to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants
Some of the nation’s most influential labor leaders have heaped praise on comprehensive immigration plans that will help grant citizenship to many of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

The AFL-CIO, one of the nation’s largest labor unions, kicked off a 14-city rally backing the president’s plan on Wednesday.

“This is a top priority for America’s unions because a roadmap to citizenship for those who are American in every way except on paper is critical for all working people” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. “We understand that solidarity means standing together with predominantly immigrant workforces to improve wages and workplace safety.”
http://freebeacon.com/politics/unions-rally-behind-amnesty/

[Fred Sanders]

5. Unions sided with oil companies on building Keystone.....self-interest makes for strange bedfellows.

[Hoyt]

11. Exactly. They've been spreading real junk on the TPP.

I get being concerned, but their comments have gone far beyond concern.

[QuestionAlways]

13. Bu why Fast Track it

Besides it does not include China or India, so we have to abide by it while they do not

[Hoyt]

14. Why let Congres play politics with every sentence? Why not force China

and India to say "oh chit we better change our tune and join the emerging world trade movement?"

[QuestionAlways]

15. How are you going to do that

China has the largest market in the world, yet we run a trade deficit with them and this does nothing to change that. They can still manipulate their currency because they are not part of this agreement

[Hoyt]

16. If we trade more with other countries, we would trade less with China. They'll come around.

Admittedly, in theory.

But, having them develop alliances without us, definitely won't be to our benefit long-term.

[QuestionAlways]

17. We are by far the largest economy in the TPP

As of 2014, twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region have participated in negotiations on the TPP: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

There is little that will force China to change its behavior, that does not already exist. Nor does it mean that these countries could not enter into separate bi-lateral agreements with China

Hoyt, I respect you, so why in light of all the objections that have been made, do you support TPP.

[Hoyt]

18. I support a GOOD TPP and am awaiting the final document to see what Obama has come up with.

I do not believe he will sell us down the river, but I need to see the final draft.

Others have chosen to bash Obama and blame him for things started long ago.. The spreading of junk like "we won't see the agreement until 4 years after it goes into effect," "companies will take our national sovereignty," "jobs will move overseas" like they haven't alrready, etc., really don't bode well for our education system.

We were in trouble the first time we got a transitor radio in our hand and drove a VW Beetle.. The world is changing and some folks think doing nothing will make it better long-term.

Finally, I don't really care if we remain the largest economy.. In fact, I would love to see us become like Denmark. But, to satisfy what most people seem to want, we have to pursue new ways of participating in the world. And truthfullty, that might mean spreading a little wealth since we have surely sucked up more than our fair share.

One more finally - I think we need to help corporations do well so that we can tax the hell out of them to provide welfare, health care, education, etc. We aren't going to produce enough to make people happy trading among ourselves.

[QuestionAlways]

19. I believe "companies will take our national sovereignty"

The fact that conflicts are adjudicated outside the normal court system is a lost of sovereignty. In fact the show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" did a segment about how tobacco companies are using are using trade agreements to prevent countries from regulating them (see 6 minute mark)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Hoyt]

20. Those are trade disputes. They don't have anything to do with most laws including

wage laws.

The disputes we are talking about is where a BMW plant moves here, provides good jobs, but some xenophobic right winger gets a local tax passed that only applies to BMW and not the Ford plant down the street.

In that case, BMW could sue for damages, but not change the law, because it probably violates the principles of trade agreements. They might not win.

Besides, these things are in over 2000 trade agreements worldwide right now, and no one's sovereignty has been jeopradized.

But, good example of the kind of crud people are spreading about TPP and Obama. Almost sounds like those who expect Obama to install Sharia law.

[QuestionAlways]

21. My friend check it again

you are mistaken.

This to me has nothing to do with Obama, he is getting bad advice and using a bad process, but his heart is in the right place

[Hoyt]

22. Nope I'm not mistaken. Whoever you are listening to, especially folks like Elizabet Warren, are

taking advantage of you to promote herself. I like a lot of her views, but she's wrong about this.

Why don't you give us some examples where we've lost our national sovereignty from NAFTA since it pretty much has had the same dispute resolution for over 20 years.

[QuestionAlways]

23. None of this would be happening if the negotiations were public

None of us know what will be in the final agreement. This is why fast-track is wrong

[Hoyt]

25. The dispute resolution is just like NAFTA, how much more do you need to know?

Go look it up. Read several balanced sources.

[LuvLoogie]

30. Here is an article stating several examples of the exact thing regarding NAFTA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

"..The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination...


...Even when countries win the legal costs of fighting an investor claim, it can cost millions of dollars. Sinclair estimates Canada has spent $65 million defending such claims over the past two decades.

About 63 per cent of the claims against Canada involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management programs that allegedly interfere with the profits of foreign investors.

The government has lost some of these environmental challenges and has been forced to overturn legislation protecting the environment."

ergo loss of sovereignty

[Hoyt]

35. The case seems reasonable to me. In any event, Canada must think it's worth it because they begged

to be part of TPP.

The case summary is at

On April 15, 1997, Ethyl Corporation, a Virginia corporation with a Canadian subsidiary, submitted a claim under the UNCITRAL Rules on its own behalf to arbitration against Canada. Ethyl claimed that a Canadian statute banning imports of the gasoline additive MMT for use in unleaded gasoline breach Chapter Eleven's requirement of national treatment (Article 1102), prohibition of expropriation (Article 1110) and prohibition of performance requirements (Article 1106).

A Canadian court subsequently found the act to be invalid under the Canadian law, and Canada and Ethyl settled the Chapter Eleven claim.

So Canada's own court found the law used against our company to be invalid. I'd say they have a case just as if I were arrested/cited for something that was later invalidated.


Again, Canada is still a sovereign nation and begged to join the TPP. Apparently , they like the dispute mechanism, as being preferable to other ways of handling international trade disputes.

The whole idea of such trade dispute protections is to attract investments by others who might not invest if they are afraid the country will try to take advantage of them by trumped up rules, or discriminating against the foreign country.

Canada, or any of the 12 countries, parties to the TPP can drop out if they don't want the hassle or foreign investment. But, sovereignty is not jeopardized. In the Canadian case, their own courts invalidated the law.

Foreign car companies would not build plants in American, and bring good jobs, if they thought our government could disadvantage them willy-nilly.

In most other cases, the laws remain and if there is an award -- and that's a big if -- the best the company gets is damages.

I can see where the threat of one of these suits and the award of damages might make a country think twice about passing some laws that would violate a trade agreement. But, you have t have a way to settle disputes and suing in a foreign country is about like trying to convict Emmitt Till's killers in Mississippi. Besides, the country can always drop out if they want to.

[LuvLoogie]

37. You only cite one of the examples.

The several others refer to the tribunal making the determination, the last with the citizens having to pay a corporation for the privilege of protecting their groundwater. This is a subordination of nation/state/municipal/self determination to a tribunal conducted on a corporate entity's behalf.

Citizens don't enact health/safety/wage/environmental protections "willy nilly." They do it for survival in the face of a corporate/industrial calculus which does not voluntarily factor in those costs of doing for-profit business. There are a lot of dead miners and factory workers that would attest to that.

Canada can beg into the TPP and President Obama can lobby for fast track, but increasingly the citizens and their representatives are opposed.

This pact also disallows the promotion of local and domestic businesses. Made In the USA incentives/preferences are subject to tribunal arbitration. The expected gain or profit of the foreign corporation trumps the local economy. No labor or environment advocates are involved in the construction of this pact, only corporate/industrial advocates are involved.

[Hoyt]

38. Not exactly, the US company was disadvantaged by Canada when Canada closed their border to the US

company in violation of international law. In any event, the law still stood, but the company got an award for damages caused by unfair trade restrictions.

The US company processed the waste in Ohio, Canada tried to force them to take those jobs out of the USA and bring them to Canada. That's a clear violation of the intent of trade agreements.

Canada paid their relatively small fine and is begging for more trade under the TPP.

[LuvLoogie]

39. I meant the last example listed in the "more" section highlighted in blue...

at the end of the article. Still, the examples indicate precisely a subordination of citizen self-determination to corporate/investor interest in a tribunal outside of sovereign jurisdiction. Your dismissal of concerns over the TPP investor dispute regime because it is what NAFTA uses begs the question.

Industry seeks the lowest common denominator in the regulation of its actions, and in the enforcement of those regulations. The collective corporate will is encoding (TPP) dominance over the collective will of natural persons. It succeeds through the purchase of legislative votes and weakened (bribed) regulatory regimes.

[okaawhatever]

41. The idea is to isolate China and force it to adopt to our standards rather than have the world adopt

to theirs. Other countries are expected to adopt the TPP in the future. Yes, we are by far the largest economy in there but we are by far the largest economy in the world. Besides, Japan, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, and Singapore are nothing to sneeze at. China couldn't join right now if they wanted to (they've said they were interested). They don't qualify because of their environmental policies and lack of IP/copyright protection.

The TPP gives favored status to those countries who sign it. One example I was reading about was Vietnam and their garment industry. Vietnam wanted the definition changed of manufactured goods from something like yarn-forward to cut and label (I can't remember the terms). The reason being, Vietnam purchases it's yarn from China which would disqualify their goods. The 2nd largest supplier of yarn is the US. If Vietnam switches the purchase of yarn to the US (or other TPP signatory) the goods will qualify.

They were working the entire time to put currency manipulation rules in there. Whether or not it will work, and to what degree is unknown.

I have a few concerns, especially when it comes to patent protection for medicine and some of the financial regulations (or lack thereof) but I'm going to wait until it comes out. It could be a good thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Some Unions favored the project but not all of them, and many have supported Obama's veto strongly.

In fact, Membership in Unions supporting the veto is much larger than Membership in Unions that favored Keystone:
"WASHINGTON—A barrage of industry-led advertising and lobbying urging President Obama to "put jobs ahead of politics" has fueled the impression that labor unions universally champion the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

But that myth was blown apart just minutes after the president rejected the $7 billion project on Jan. 18.
That's when five labor unions that had kept low profiles on the pipeline—including the 2 million-member strong Service Employees International Union—issued a joint statement backing Obama's decision. Not only did they laud him for acting "wisely," but they also emphasized the need to address climate change and find sustainable and secure energy sources.
Since then, a more nuanced snapshot has emerged of where labor unions stand on Keystone XL. That newer picture weakens industry's argument that the pipeline has broad union support. The handful of unions that praised the president and questioned the project’s merits represent close to 5 million members. Membership in the five unions publicly promoting the project is near 3.3 million. (See chart.)
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120206/labor-unions-keystone-xl-oil-sands-pipeline-environmentalists-obama-climate-change-election

Talking about things you don't understand in reductive boilerplate verbiage should be left to FoxNews.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. http://server2.trutube.tv/files/photos/1382115304a050c9_l.jpg

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Here is the exact quote and an link to the entire statement from the WH's own site.

"There’s going to be a set of Democratic senators and House members who traditionally have just, on principle, opposed trade because the unions, on principle, regardless of what the provisions are, are opposed to trade. "
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/17/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-renzi-italy-joint-press-confe

It's a false and mean spirited put down. Profoundly disappointed in him.

[Hoyt]

26. I guess he shouldn't say the truth.

[AuntPatsy]

27. One of the reasons I count on DURs

[Bluenorthwest]

29. But it is decidedly not the truth. It's just not. Unions thrive on trade that is fair and equitable.

To say Unions are opposed to trade is just incorrect. Unions are opposed to getting shafted.

[Hoyt]

31. Unions are protecting their membership. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's not.

They should at least be truthful about it.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Yeah, it's Obama who is not being truthful when he says Unions are always opposed to trade

no matter what the provisions are. That's just a lie. It's false. It's self serving bullshit unworthy of the President.

[Hoyt]

36. I don't know, I saw a union leader on MSNBC yesterday pumping his fist and

yelling AMERICAN JOBS, AMERICAN JOBS, AMERICAN JOBS. Sounded like the nationalists and xenophobes I grew up with.

No doubt in my mind unions, and folks here, are criticizing Obama. In fact folks here keep acting like because unions gave him some money, he's supposed to bend over. Doesn't work that way.

I'm find with the standing up for membership, but they are lying about (OK, distorting facts) the impact of the agreement Obama is trying to get. Now, we might need to revisit that when the final agreement comes out if it's different from what I expect.

[fredamae]

34. "Many are in heaven today over this statement.."

Why?