PPAS 2110 – 6.0 Canadian Government Week 22 March 3, 2011 Labour in the NAFTA Economy

Introduction We can perhaps see three different narratives for the fate of labour as a class of people and as a social movement under NAFTA – Labour on the Side? – Labour on the Sidelines? – Labour Sidelined?

Labour on the Side In order to bring his Democratic party “on- side” and gain US ratification for NAFTA, President Clinton re-opened the negotiations previously concluded by President Bush (sr.) – The three countries agreed to add two “side agreements to the treaty” The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation The North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation

What the Side Agreements Do Officially: Enforce their own laws fairly Un-officially: Serve as a symbol of both accomplishment and if things go bad failure to live up to expectations (this is very powerful as we saw when we dealt with the enviroment

Federalism’s confounding impacts Labour laws are highly decentralized in US and Canada and consequently it might have been hard for the parties to reach an agreement Federalism, along with other institutional and economic constraints has also prevented NAFTA from having as deep an impact on labour standards and labour organizations as had been anticipated in Canada and even in the US

In short Labour on the side is a narrative that decision- makers either could not, or had no interest in doing much to harmonize up Mexico’s labour standards, nor did they wish to see Canada and the US’s fall, nor as luck would have it, did they. Shallow governance was what was aimed at in this policy area and that is what happened.

Labour on the Sidelines Another narrative found in the chapter is that the impact of NAFTA has been to place Labour (as an organization or organizations representing the interests of working people) on the sidelines Post-WWII “Keynesian” economic policy in Canada and the US was built on the notion of a strong labour movement that would bargain up wages and working conditions buttressed by safety-net welfare state programs.

In this model, labour was meant to be a player in major policy decision-making In 1980s we began to back away from that model and seek ways to enhance competitiveness and flexibility for which organized labour was seen as a barrier. Labour in Canada and US interpreted NA economic integration as part of a strategy to “sideline” labour and took a relatively oppositional stance against CUSFTA and NAFTA Consequently was on the sidelines as these deals were negotiated. That has continued today with Unions seeing little reason to invest in the trilateral process

Labour Sidelined Was Labour correct? Was NA Integration part of a strategy to sideline labour? Some (eg Wolfgang Streeck) argue regional economic integration in general is an effort by capital to escape the democratic confines of nations. MacDonald is sort of ambivalent here but does point to an important fact: – Once institutions are established, they can be re-purposed. – And this is precisely how democratic rights were established after capitalism blazed the trail to ensure liberty and protection for property.