In one conference I attended a speaker noted that a majority of the countries to which the U.S. exports, or tries to export, have value-added taxes that are in effect an import duty. The speaker said that they add as much as 30 percent to the cost of American goods in that country's market.

Most Americans are unaware that the average import duty (the U.S. does not use value-added taxing) is three percent. That is not a typo--3% is the average import duty.

The "Free Trade" agreements, this speaker continued, are in reality outsourcing agreements for large American corporations, which enables them to have goods produced at drastically lower cost, import them to the U.S. with minimal import duty, and sell them at a much greater profit margin.

Since that eliminates well-paid American manufacturing jobs, but allows U.S. companies to show excellent financial results that allows generous payouts to executives and shareholders, Free Trade is a leading contributor to U.S. income inequality, which continues today.

Thank you, Mr. Rouda, for posting this idea.

Thank you, sir. I've tried to explain it to people, but they just don't get it. . . You put it all in proper perspective.

       Agreements claiming to be "free trade" kill people.  Fair trade means eliminating these slanted agreements.  Imagine placing a watermelon (globalized corporation) in the same bathtub as a grape (you) and a cranberry (subsistence farmer), and rolling the bathtub around as if it were at sea.  The watermelon comes out fine, covered in crangrape juice, and we are supposed to call that "free trade"?   Better to make it fair by eliminating the race to see who can produce the cheapest exports by slashing wages and ignoring environmental safeguards. 

      One of the roots of hunger and overpopulation and all the problems it causes is dumping food, encouraged by these awful trade agreements.  Dumping cheap subsidized crops into the local markets of hungry areas depresses locally-grown prices in those local markets, driving local producers to leave their land or grow cash crops (which leads soon to leaving the land).  Breaking the link between that land's amount of food support and the local population supported by it is the break that drives population numbers up - and then drives them to seek new homes. 
        The problem is: somebody gets rich by destroying the home conmmunities of the global poorest with a flood of foreign (often US) food.  Incidentally, this market-driven wedge is also a separation from their traditional culture which knows how to care for the local land, and knows supports for stabilizing local populations and staying in community.  The food-dumping also drives the birth rate up, following the same law every animal follows:
    food excess = excess birth rate,
 homo sapiens is no exception.  As long as artificially-raised carrying capacity is present, humans will overpopulate.   
  http://www.panearth.org/panearth/
So it makes sense to make sure artificially-raised carrying capacity is not present.  Let the carrying capacity be where it naturally is, not where global food corporations distort it to.

These trade agreements make hunger happen.  Repeal and reverse them. 

Other good arguments for the repeal of awful trade agreements are at:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_nafta_and_cafta
  and:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/eliminate_nafta_ftaa_and_all_other_free_trade_agreements

NAFTA, CAFTA, Most Favored Nation trading status for China, and other lopsided trade agreements also pit habitats against each other to see which can be exploited the fastest.  Let's no longer hold treaties valid that declare environmental standards to be "trade barriers."

  Keeping government-subsidized crops from crossing borders is possible with trade agreement repeal and very important; those are the border crossings that actually cause overpopulation. 

      Relinking local habitats and local populations by having each area feed itself will bring the stability of secure local food supplies in sustainable communities, OR continuing to destroy local links by shipping in cheap food will provide the unstoppable pressure to rape the land and overpopulate as long as our trade policies support shipments.  Hyper-population growth is our greatest threat, and it is caused by cheap exports of subsidized crops that distort the carrying capacities of the places the immigrants are fleeing.  End the trade agreements that encourage this hunger-producing homicidal craziness. 

Just another way that corporate America has short sightedly led us down a path of destruction.  End Coporate Americas chokehold on Washington now!

Well, at least we'll kill competition in one fell swoop.

This wouldn't kill competition at all.  It would allow us to decide where we want to have competition and where we don't.  If we believe that it is a good thing to provide workers with safe work environments then we should not reward companies or nations that compete by opting not to invest in safety.  If we do, then we are really saying that the only thing important to us is price and everything else be damned.  Americans can easily be the low cost providers to the rest of the world... any time we decide we're ok living like third world peasants.

Example:

Canadian company X can make widgets 50% less than any company in the USA.  We impose a 50% tariff.  Canadian company goes "wtf mate?" and sees that it can sell it's product in France without the tariff.

Now, tell me where the incentive is for Canadian company X to sell it's product here.

oh, PS...you may want to check your math...and mine really.  The child-killing coal is still less expensive.

You're missing the point.  If company X can make widgets 50% cheaper than any company in the USA, that's great!  We're going to happily import their products and take advantage of their productivity.  UNLESS the reason they can make widgets 50% cheaper is because they have opted to employ children, pollute their environment, refuse to provide worker safety protections, etc.  If 20% of their cost advantage comes from things like this, we're going to tack on a 20% tarriff to take away their advantage from doing that.  If the other 80% of their cost advantage comes because they are more productive, more efficient, have invested in better technology, have abundant natural resources that we don't have, etc.... then more power too them.  They deserve the profit they are going to be able to generate from those things.

The same needs to work in reverse.  If there are products we export to Germany that Germans have a hard time competing with because their workers get 6 weeks paid vacation and ours get 1, then the Germans should add a tarrif to our products to eliminate the cost advantage that comes from us not treating our workers as well as they treat theirs.  But whatever portion of our cost advantage comes from "American ingenuity"... we get to keep that.

There are lots and lots and lots of avenues for legitimate competition that don't come down to who can treat their workers the most like slaves and who can despoil their environment the most.

Oh, I got it.  I think I miss read your original post.  Yeah, this is a great idea.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm not sure that I understand exactly how the tariff system would be implemented... but overall I think this idea is great.  Additionally, I think that allowing for unionization is essential in having "fair" trade.

E,

The implementation would obviously be a little complicated, but it can grow from practices that we already know how to do.  We have been able to identify "dumping" for decades and we've been able to put in place tarrifs to correct the distortion.  We can calculate the degree to which US agricultural subsidies artificially lower the cost of US agricultural products.  Other countries should be able to correct the price distortion with a tarrif.  Day in and day out lobbyists tell the government how much new environmental protections, minimum wages, safety precautions, etc. will add to the cost of goods.  It will be important to make sure that we aren't just looking at "cost" because then there becomes an incentive to inflate cost and to implement regulations inefficiently.  But if the Congressional Budget Office can estimate the cost of lock-out tag-out procedures to manufacturers (which it can) then it (or a UN proxy of some sort) ought to be able to calculate the difference in cost between our stringent lock-out tag-out requirements and India's much less stringent ones.  Whatever that difference is should be folded into a tarrif.

It's not complicated at all, really.  It would simply be politically ugly because so much campaign finance money comes from corporations that want to keep the existing structure in place.

What this would require is for the United States to pull out of the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and just about every other multi-party signatory trade pact established over the last 50+ years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_American_history

The effort to lower tariffs has always resulted in lower cost products.  But lower cost products mean that profit margins for the businesses that manufacture and sell those products go down.  This puts downward pressure on wages, which reduces tax revenue, which means lower service levels from the government and demands for even lower costs because people can't afford the higher prices anymore.  It's a viscious cycle, and a downward spiral.

We have to stand up to other countries in our international venues.  Right now if we want to export a car to China, the tariff for that export is 20%.  If China wants to import a car to the US, the tariff is 2%.

The second bill to pass Congress in 1789 was the Hamilton Tariff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_tariff

If we want to restore the United States to a strong place in the world, we need to restore tariffs.  There is no other sure way to do it.

Thank you Chad, well said!

I'm suprised this is so low, 31st place for a topic that is a MAJOR economic issue.  While the goals of this idea are lofty, this is what is hurting this country right now more than any other single issue.  While we can't enforce our standards such as minimum wage on other countries, there should be some accountability that prevents other countries from doing things like "pegging" their currency to a fixed rate against ours.  The World Trade Organization certainly isn't going to help us, they seemed determined to stack the cards against us.

I don't think it's correct to say that the WTO is determined to stack the deck against us.  Rather, the WTO is a one-song-wonder.  It believes in Free Trade and the devil take the hindmost.  It assumes that the most efficient producer will win and all people will benefit from that efficiency. 

Problem is that the WTO doesn't seem to have any way of dealing with inconvenient issues like bread is four times as expensive as some other countries.  An American worker has to make four times as much to enjoy the same standard of living.

WTO doesn't seem to deal with events like the Donora smog of 1948 that killed 20 and sickened 7000 because of uncontrolled coking oven emissions.

WTO doesn't seem to deal with safety issues like people being exposed to some really nasty industrial chemicals.

So the only way we can compete is either a) reduce our standards to agree with the lowest cost countries or b) (well, I can't really think of a b), can you?

Actually, truly FREE trade gives opportunities other than prostitution to tens of thousands of kids in 3rd world countries.  FAIR trade and anti-FREE trade puts them back on the street corners.

If you factor climate change into this and, particularly the destruction of tropical Rainforest which contributes 20% of global carbon outputs, you soon get to the idea that we don't have time for Free Trade. The World Fair Trade Organization has developed a tool called the SFTMS (Sustainable Fair Trade Mangement System) that can be applied to a business or organization. When applied (over three years) it will transform that business into a sustainable one. Meaning that it adheres to the priciples of 100% Fair Trade and operates sound environmental and social policy. The World Fair Trade Organization is the global body behind World Fair Trade Day which falls on 09 MAY 09 this year. Anither opportunity to vote for change.

And the bottom is hit!  This issue coincides with international slavery and human trafficking!  "Free trade" that promotes slavery is an oxymoron!  End it now!

Agreed. Human sex trafficking is now the second biggest illegal business on the planet and something that Anita Roddick predicted would be the biggest.

No company has any choice but to compete at the lowest common denominator of social responsibility until the economic advantage to doing so is removed.

If we create economic advantages for responsible nations and economic disadvantages for irresponsible nations, companies will knock down the doors of their governments to create socially and environmentally responsible standards within their countries.

Fair Trade doesn't eliminate opportunities for starving children around the world.  Fair Trade creates the only incentives that can ever exist for them, their families and their communities to do what they should with these children... build schools for them and educate them!  8 year olds working in deep mines, really, is how much more desirable from 14 year olds prostituting themselves?  Neither one should be happening and we have the ability, through our trade policy, to make sure that neither one does happen.

If you believe in this idea... don't just vote for it... spread the word.  Tell others.  E-mail your lists.

Robert, how exactly does that work?  I have a different opinion, but I want to understand yours.

If corporations are allowed to go anywhere and do anything to get the cheapest labor costs, how does that help anybody in any country?

Robert Reich discusses this VERY well in his book called Supercapitalism.  He tries to move away from traditional left / right, employer / labor and says that most of us are consumers, all of us are citizens (of somewhere) and many, many of us are investors, in one way or another.  So often when we first among groups we're really fighting over which aspects of ourselves we're going to favor.

Increasingly unrestrained competition has had tremendous benefits for us as consumers (far better products at far lower prices) and as investors (record stock market performance over several decades (uh... last year notwithstanding) but that it has had terrible consequences for us as citizens.  It is the citizen part of us that has concerns about inequality, distribution of income, safety, the environment, healthcare, education, young people being forced into prostitution, child labor, poverty, etc.

Fair Trade means that, and this is to be quite honest, that we will accept slightly lower returns on our investments and slightly higher prices for what we consume in exchange for clean air, sustainability, safety, more fair income disparity, etc.  We will "invest" some of what we spend today as consumers in ourselves as citizens.

Very well said, Keith.  However, I think the "returns" that we have been getting over the past 6 months show just how much that paradigm is folly.  We can get 3-5% gains constantly for years or decades if we stay focused on balancing citizens, investors and consumers.  If we let investors take the reins, we get 50% losses.  I don't think that's a difficult choice at all.

I see it slightly differently. We are moving from a consumer society and into an investor society. We want to know the impact of our money and time and energy. The returns on our investment will be far greater than anything witnessed before but they will be different. Financial returns are only one facet. Security and belonging and meaning are others. When you buy a Fair Trade product you invest both money and values in the future. We all become investors in a sustainable Fair Trade economy. We don't have to lower expectations of reward just reframe them.

Absolutely, Robin!  However, what you're talking about is a deep cultural shift, something that is going to take a lot of effort by people in our society to do.  The efforts of the conservatives to define growth and return on investment as purely financial started in the late 60's and early 70's, and only bore fruit in the mid 1980's when the kids who grew up learning things in that term in school got into positions of higher and higher authority in business and government.  Changing it back will take the same kind of effort.  And we have to have the media on our side, which is not going to be easy.

Let's not change it back, let's change it forward. Roll on 09 May 09.

SOCIALIST PROLETARIAN WORLD-VIEW VICTORIOUS!!! THE PEOPLE VICTORIOUS!!!!!

More of a survival concept really.
Deep cutural shifts happen pretty damn fast when communities are threatened with bombing, flooding, water shortages, food shortages, power rationing, financial crisis etc so we can look forward to having plenty of good motivation for doing things differently; being world aware, investing in each other and driving innovation and growth -  all of which is core to Fair Trade and the sustainable economy.

While I approve the title of this proposal, I don't approve the explanation given for it. Why should other countries "meet OUR  mandated standards for minimum wages, worker and product safety, environmental protection, etc." The problem with such a proposal is that it will always sound imperialistic to other poorer countries, whose governments argue that those type of standards are not identical in other countries, and that imposing standards defined in the USA or in the West on other countries hides protectionist interests.

The only way to make the proposal acceptable is to refer work and environmental standards agreed in international treaties. Work standards for instance should be referred to agreements within the International Labor Organization, environmental standards to international agreements such as the Carthagena protocol, and so forth. While those international standards may not have always pleased the US (take for example the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions), they are an acceptable compromise to all countries.

As a Fair Trade activist, I argue for voluntary purchases of fair trade products by private citizens, companies and within public procurement, as well as an involvement in international negociation that takes into account labor and environmental rights before trade rights.

I don't understand why the people in the U.S. can't figure out why we went bottoms up.  It's very simple.  First we have become so computerized that initially this cost thousands of employees their jobs.  Then, the large corporations like the one I work for which is a global company has simply closed down our large factories and sent the jobs to Mexico and most of the customer service overseas.  Try having a system problem and calling your Help Desk, you can't understand a word they say.  Very frustrating when a message tells you to press (1) for English and you get someone on the other end who cannot understand you, nor you them.  If something isn't done to halt our large corporations from outsourcing our jobs, we will never get out of the dreaded nightmare we're in.  My husband is unemployed and we're losing our home which we have invested everything we had into it.  It's so sad.

Pierre: Or agree and implement one set of globaly recognised standards. Potentially the Sustainable Fair Trade Management System Standards developed by the World Fair Trade Organization

Janice: The way people are treated by our economic system is simply merciless. The turbulence we are all experiencing now is but a shadow of what people living off the radar have had to deal with as a way of life for as long as anyone can remember. It is great that you can look at your employer and see it for what it is. Sorry to hear about your house, i have some idea of what that feels like. Time to trade profit at any cost for quality of life.

I see SHARING as the principle that will pull the world out of the violence and impoverishment spirals active today.  When all have a reasonable standard of living and adequate food with functioning infrastructure, health care, housing and education I am certain that we will see the beginning of the end of most violence in the world.  Environmental factors causing brain and developmental problems no doubt exacerbates these problems.  Therefore, in parallel with fair world trade principles, we need to take quick action to reverse the proliferation of nuclear radioactive materials (causing unknown degrees of damage to health and the environment) and move to renewables until new truly clean sources of energy are found.

Fair Trade can not be fair until we adapt some of the trade promotion incentives that other countries provide to their manufacturers. American products don't get to market because of lack of capital. In addition, we need to protect consumers from product fraud by requiring the mfg name and country of origin to be indelibly labeled on each imported product.  Foreign sweatshops are making "art" and "craft" products that appear to be American. Retailers remove the "Made in China" labels and mis-represent the merchandise as having higher value.... handcrafted in America.  Our tradeshows have become a playground for unethical manufacturers (and retailers) who prey on small companies that can't afford to protect their designs in court.

There was a time when it was easy to distinguish between imported and US handmade products.  Today knockoffs and close copies appear everywhere hurting small American craft studios. 
The craft marketplace is not small or merely a hobby.  We are 125000 studios, 500000 jobs and 25000 stores forced to compete against stores that proudly promote "American Crafts" while at the same time they blatantly display "Made in China" items with the country of origin labels conveniently removed.
FTC regs are not enforced and consumers think they are buying an American craft when in reality the item is imported.
At every gift show you see hundreds of reps who display very "American Crafted"-looking items without any country of origin markings... but clearly (and deceptively) state the company name as American this or that. (MaryAnn's Angels, Cindy's Cottages
This growing problem has eliminated the 150000 US jobs. These are small family businesses, often located in small towns- the economic impact is significant.  In fact, the tribal arts field is now selling 10% of the items they sold a decade ago-- Why? Counterfeit crafts are sold in shops all across the country in resort areas-- even in our national parks.
As the producer of our country's only "Made In America"  trade show, with 1,800 exhibiting craft artists, I often receive  "fraudulent" exhibit applications are actually from importers- offering with country of origin labels removed.  Congress must demand enforcement of indelible labeling on imported products and to prohibit foreign manufacturers from using removable paper stickers for country of origin mark.  A new directive could mandate true indelible marking that would be pressed, burned, etched or painted under the glaze of finished products made of glass, ceramics, wood or metal.

This is a matter of decency and honesty rather than a matter of source. If you have an opportunity to leaf through the SERRV catalog you will see that all of their artisan products are clearly labelled, not just with country but with the name of the supplier too. In some instances SERRV uses a red map icon just to make really sure everyone knows that particular products are made in Africa. This is transparency, respect and authenticity. It's good to see that someone is maintaining their standards.

Pierre,

I appreciate your thoughts on this, but disagree somewhat.  Trade with the US is not a right, therefor meeting our terms for trade is not imperialistic.  More importantly, perhaps, is that I'm not saying that everyone should conform to our standards.  I'm saying that the higher the standards, the more economic advantage there should be.  Germany has stronger worker protections than we do in many ways.  That necessarily adds cost to their products and decreases their competitiveness.  It doesn't make them "uncompetitive", but "less competitive."  Because their stronger worker protections add more cost to their products than our weaker worker protections, when we are exporting to them there ought to be a tariff on our goods that eliminates the economic advantage we gain by having comparatively crappy worker protections.  The more competitive our worker protections are, the less tariff will be added to our exports to Germany.  With this in place, our manufacturers would have no reason to lobby against worker protections because there is no economic advantage to them to do so.  It gets taken off the table as an issue for them and we gain the opportunity to mandate the things we know we need to mandate but never can.

International standards are great!  Yea!  Wonderful.  If all we want to do is meet the level of the international standards, and that's all anyone else wants to do too... then there aren't going to be any tariffs in those areas.  No harm, no foul.  But if we have decided as a people to take the economic hit from forcing employers to clearly mark drop offs with yellow paint, and the International community decides they don't care whether or not workers fall off ledges, we should not accept an economic disadvantage for our responsibility.  Today, in this situation, American manufacturers will lobby until they are blue in the face to not have to paint that yellow line, and they're right.  But if we take it off the table and say there's no benefit for those who don't paint yellow lines, they won't lobby at all because they won't care at all.  The government wants yellow lines?  They'll give us yellow lines.

This is why we have federal regulations in the FIRST place.  If we left it up to the states would Mississippi and Kentucky care about lock-out tag-out rules if they felt scrapping them would help them compete against New York or Georgia?  Not on your life.

You are right about the foreign governments that consider their populations to be slaves and their environments to be sewers.  They won't like this idea at all.  Frankly... screw 'em.  Do we care about those governments, or the people that have to live in the pitiful conditions those governments think are appropriate?  When there is no economic advantage to be gained by NOT enforcing lock-out/tag-out rules, governments will find it a lot easier to put those rules in place and fewer of their citizens will be ground into hamburger or roasted alive.

Finally, I LOVE the idea of voluntarily buying certified fair trade products, and certified organic products, and certified green products, and every other kind of certified product, of the matter is that when you move from Whole Foods to Walmart... ain't nothin' doing.  Never going to happen.  We're never going to convince Walmart shoppers to buy the socially responsible six pack of socks if it costs more than pack made in Yiwu, China.

Keith,
I agree with your last paragraph, on the necessity to implement compulsory regulations, and not only promote voluntary private standard, such as fair trade. As for the rest of the discussion, I would simply advise to try to summarize the proposal in 2-3 strong synthetic ideas. Perhaps look at IATP web site and their proposals.  I have problems following the whole argumentation.
I'll vote anyway, because your proposal goes in the right direction.

I'm with you Keith, sounds like more trade tarrifs and barriers and yet more work fot the defunct WTO. I'm voting for the principle of Fair Trade here. It's a sound concept, built around a set of principles and about to be brought into the global markets by the World Fair Trade Organization as a internationally recognised certification system coveing all of the above. Hopefully the SFTMDS will get to President Obama's forst and last G8 msummit in Italy. Make FREE Trade FAIR Trade For Them AND for US is good a motto as any.

Yeah.  Honestly I always thought this should be done with an eye toward freedom and democracy in our trading partners.  Countries with lack freedoms and rights for their people should pay higher tarrifs for their goods.

A corollary issue that should be of interest to everyone - taxes. Not only have corporations outsourced good jobs that supported the American middle class, they can play with the books so that the amount of profit they are taxed on is reduced. Also, the tax rate is lower on income American companies earn outside of the country.

It was recently reported that American corporations pay little or no income tax. I'm sure that this is due to manipulation of costs (offshore division builds widget for $1 but charges parent company $4; parent company sells product for $5 but writes off $4 "cost". End result - company earns $4 income and pays tax on $1. Offshore division either pays no tax because it's not US or pays lower rate on $3 "profit" for same reason)

It's bad enough that corporations, in their lust for profit, chase after the lowest paid workers in areas with no environmental protections. That they are subsidized by US tax policy and not punished for the increased expenses their actions force on local governments at the same time depriving them of tax revenue - that's criminal. I will go out on a limb and say it's treasonous!

Here is a view of corporate practice from outside of the relatively safe confines of the US. This is a genuine SOS that circulated in July 08 and concerns a major US importer and trade lobbyist.

The undersigned members of the Asociacion Union de Bananeros Organico Immaculate Conception de Huangala, Pueblo Nuevo y Huayquiquira –UBOIC- (Organic Banana Planters Association of Immaculate Conception of Huangala, Pueblo Nuevo and Huayquiquira), attest to the community, authorities and public opinion nationally and internationally as follows:

1. That, we are a smallholder producers of organic bananas since 1998 thanks to the Organic Banana Program of the Ministry of Agriculture, that started the conversion from our conventional to organic plantations project, which was achieved in the year 2000, the year we were certified as organic producers by the certifying agency OCIA.

2. That, in 2001, the company Corporacion Peruana de Desarrollo Bananero SAC –COPDEBAN- (Peruvian Corporation of Banana Development), subsidiary of the transnational DOLE, began its operations by acquiring the production of small producers to export, gaining the support among producers, who have provided warehouse its stores and land for packaging area, etc..

3. That, during the nearly eight years it has been selling our fruit, this company has imposed the price per box throughout the Chira Valley, and taking advantage of their monopoly, committing a series of abuses such as ludicrous increases to finish each contract, non-transparent contracts and abusing their  dominant position by making them sign a Transfer of Land with a 99-year maximum term for the land on which they have built packaging centers, high prices of inputs purchased with the producer’s money, failure to delivery of inputs, etc., etc..

4. That, the last contract between producers and Copdeban-DOLE was in 2004, after which expired -automatically an extension occurred in 2006 – until the end of May 2008.

5. That, the majority of the members have agreed within a series of General Assemblies: to communicate to the company Copdeban-DOLE their consider the contract signed in 2004 as  terminated by the end of May 2008, in order to have due freedom to invite exporting companies including COPDEBAN-DOLE to present their written proposals to negotiate a new contract to sell our fruit. As a reference, dating 19 March 2008, the company Copdeban-Dole paid producers  3.50 US$ per box (18.14 kg)

6. That, Biocosta SAC and Agroorganic-LeFruit were the only companies that complied with the proposal requirements. Copdeban-DOLE did not even respond to our communications, if only as a gesture of courtesy.

7. That, using our right to choose the best proposal for harmonizing with our interests and be in accordance the General Assembly partnership and our management structure, we chose to sign the contract with one mentioned companies, who start their harvest and packaging operations on the 30th May 30 of this year.

8. That, 12 and 13 of this month, Copdeban-Dole, proceeded arrogantly and in an abusive manner to destroy the packaging facilities located in the area Huangalá and Huayquiquira, witnessed by officials of the company, police, individuals and goons recruited from Bellavista. In addition to said destruction,  the producers lost their Globalgap certification for which they put much effort to obtain. They destroyed the hygiene services that was done under their Social Program, (Fair Dole), destroying toilets, considering the need in Huangalá for such facilities.
 
9. On the other hand, Copdeban-DOLE for 8 years has gone without paying a penny to producers for their land where packaging facilities and warehouse were installed, but enjoyed the luxury of mistreating producers by destroying their packaging operations.

10. Moreover, now that we want to be holders of the organic certification, COPDEBAN-Dole, conspire with the Certification Agency, Control Union and are putting obstacles, refusing to provide UBOIC with information and documentation related to status of producers, according to the Peruvian legislation should provide, in order to prevent the small producers are owners or owners of organic certification.

11. Faced with these acts of violence and abuse, UBOIC complaint to the company COPDEBA-DOLE and its representatives on its aggressions to remain a monopoly in the business of organic bananas.
                Huangala, ___ July 2008

JUAN NAVARRETE VERA       
President

RAMON GIRON NIMA
Secretary

Eng. FEDERICO CARRILLO SALDARRIAGA
General Manager
VALENTIN RUIZ DELGADO
President-REPEBAN

Robin,

Good example and finally I see more crossover between what I call Fair Trade and what the coffee people call Fair Trade.  While this is an abuse by an American company, my version of Fair Trade would force tariffs onto the bananas to increase the price in America to whatever the price would be, not if the people weren't being abused at all, but to what the price would be if US government mandated business practices here were being mandated there. With that there would suddenly be no economic advantage to be gained by the importer for abusing these folks.  This would no longer be worth their time and they could devote their energy to legitimate competitive factors.

Everyone, our little idea here needs publicity.  Please send it to union representatives and leaders, journalists who cover labor issues, bloggers interested in trade or labor, etc.  I even sent it to Lou Dobbs! (But it wouldn't hurt if some other people did too!)

GATT has not done what the USA citizens expected. GATT and similar trade agreements are partly the cause of the present economic down turn. The fix is easy. The USA tells our trading partners, we must produce ten percent (each item description, not average) of our strategic goods and services in the USA by Nov 2009, plus some of the fluff that we use. Our trading partners can make this happen by licencing small USA corporations owned and operated by USA citizens in competition with their exports. You can likely prevent The USA from moving even farther into isolationism, by exceeding our expectations by Nov 2009. Any thinking foreigner should consider this a reasonable goal, that will also benefit them by reducing foreign entanglements. You will likely need to offer cheap or free technical support to the USA start ups, because our wages and benefit are typically higher, and the poorly paid management of The USA start ups will often be lacking in competence and know how. Good luck on preventing the USA withdrawal from the million? pages of trade agreements, and identifying least favored nations who were not helpful in achieving this worthy goal.   Neil

I think that part of the problem is that the large multinational companies (how many are truly "American" anymore?) see workers as liabilities/commodities.

Their blind spot, which is apparent now, based on people's declining spending power, is that these workers are also the consumers who would be buying their goods!