Rep. Rice, switching sides, backs trade deal opposed by labor unions
Source: Newsday
By TOM BRUNE
Labor union leaders accused Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-Garden City) of "betrayal" after she announced Saturday that she has switched positions and now supports congressional approval of fast-track authority for President Barack Obama to negotiate a trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Rice announced her new position in an op-ed in The Hill, a Washington paper, in which she conceded she might face a "political cost" for her decision, which breaks ranks with other Democrats representing Long Island.
"The congresswoman has decided to flip-flop and betray her constituents . . . Her betrayal will not be forgotten," said New York State AFL-CIO president Mario Cilento.
Working Families Party director Bill Lipton said, "We are outraged that Rep. Rice would break a promise she made to Long Island working families."
FULL story at link.
http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.10515548.1433626757!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG
Rep. Kathleen Rice is seen at Garden City Village Hall in Garden City on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014. Photo Credit: Howard Schnapp
Read more: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/rep-rice-switching-sides-backs-trade-deal-opposed-by-labor-unions-1.10515515
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)Her opinion in The Hill reads like an apology for NAFTA. She claims there will be enforcement on worker protections and environmental issues without ever discussing the by-passing of legal structures here and elsewhere that is written into the pact.
ibewlu606
(160 posts)THIS is why I will never support HRC and will encourage all my members to do the same. Why should labor help elect a Dem that will turn around and screw us, when Republicans will do it for free?
msongs
(67,417 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Obama followed in the footsteps of his favorite Ronnie Raygun by betraying his promise to the Unions and pushing through labor hating trade agreements.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Thru less than gentle words, I conveyed my displeasure and speculated as to what her "price" might have been to prompt her to turn her back on her constituents. I also said I'd be anxious to support whoever opposes her when her term is up!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)support this. I for one will donate only to the individual.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)At least according to some posters here.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Disagreement it is, betrayal it is not.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)this is caving for whatever reason and to further
discredit the unions.
This trade agreement has far too serious consequences
to be called a "simple disagreement".
However, we have seen how often Obama put on his
walking shoes to protect the American workers!
NEVER!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)lark
(23,105 posts)It is truly anti-worker, pro big pharma, pro big business, anti-labor, anti-environment. It gives big business the ability to override government laws that reduce their expected profits. It goes further to neuter workers than NAFTA. Open your eyes and see what's out there aobut this. If it's so good, why is it so hidden? Where is the transparency? Why were no labor or environemntal reps. appointed by Obama, but instead all were big business lobbyist?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)alp227
(32,032 posts)Demonaut
(8,918 posts)know this is a good program and may even endorse portions.
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)AFL-CIO have a long argued against TPP as one more means of off-shoring jobs, undercutting US wages, weakening environmental controls and endangering work place safety regulation.
What have you read that suggests otherwise?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They'll like to be able to do the same to Malaysia and Vietnam, too. Like most trade deals this will be a mixed bag for labor. Heavy manufacturing in the US will be helped, and consumer manufacturing will be hurt, just like it was with NAFTA and CAFTA. The increasingly silly attempts to portray the TPP as some sort of Armageddon rather than the kind of give-and-take that trade agreements have been for the past 25 years doesn't really help opposition to the TPP...
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)I think you must read a different history of economics and trade negotiation than I. The wholesale rape of the economy is not what I had in mind. If the details of this pact are so beneficial why are they classified so they cannot be discussed by congress and the people? What happened to advice and consent? The Unified Executive is the only law of the land?
After watching my career off-shored, along with thousands of other people, I no longer trust this kind of trade pact. NAFTA and CAFTA are not healthy responses to our economy. If TPP and TISA are such a good deal for us why were we locked out of the room while the lobbyists wrote the agreements?
AFL-CIO won't back down and I won't either. I think you live in another world, not the one we work in.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)history says you are wrong about the AFL-CIO and the tpp is far from being a good program, unless you love big fat, obscene corporate giveaways.