Suit May Help Workers Overseas

A fascinating test case was filed recently to try to force the Bush Administration to vigorously enforce some provisions of U.S. trade laws that can have a profound economic and political impact around the world.

In sum, the relatively new provisions of our trade laws say this country must sharply restrict our trade with nations that fail to provide their workers with some fundamental, internationally recognized rights.

Those range from minimal health and safety protection to prohibition of compulsory labor to the right to organize unions.

Led by former Labor Secretary Ray Marshall, a coalition of unions and human rights organizations has asked a federal court in Washington to require President Bush, U.S. Trade Representative Carla A. Hills and others to stop virtually ignoring “the express language and the intent of Congress” by not cracking down on countries that abuse workers.

The worker rights provisions were written in part to help workers in other countries. But the basic motivation behind them was to help American workers.

The law does not, of course, say other countries can get trade advantages only if they match the wages and benefits paid to Americans. That would reduce the competitive advantage they get by offering cheap labor both to their own employers and U.S. companies moving there to slash labor costs.

But the admirable law was designed to make it harder for companies in foreign countries to compete against American workers by exploiting and abusing their workers.

Targeted in the initial, unprecedented case are alleged continuing, gross abuses of worker rights in many Third World countries, including Malaysia, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Thailand, Turkey, Indonesia and the Philippines. The groups doing the targeting seek to have the countries’ favored trade status revoked.

The court action was filed under a provision of the trade law adopted in 1985 aimed only at 140 Third World countries. It gives them substantial trade advantages if their workers are given some minimal rights.

Even more intriguing is a plan by worker rights organizations to expand their case by invoking a provision adopted in 1988 that includes far more economically powerful nations, such as South Korea.

Holly Burkhalter, spokeswoman for one of the plaintiffs, Human Rights Watch, said a team of investigators is going to South Korea soon to see if there is proof of allegations that the South Korean government is brutally repressing workers.

Last week, government police battled an estimated 50,000 students and political activists who joined workers in cities across South Korea in violent demonstrations against the policies of President Roh Tae Woo’s ruling party.

More dramatic evidence of government repression of workers came two weeks ago when executives of the Hyundai Group, one of South Korea’s largest conglomerates and owner of the world’s largest shipyard, asked the government to intervene to stop a strike by 20,000 workers.

Thousands of riot police beat workers and, firing tear gas, stormed the shipyard to break the strike, which had been called to protest the jailing of union leaders accused of leading other strike actions.

Last year, nearly 12,000 police stormed the shipyard to force an end to a bitter, 109-day strike. Many union leaders have been imprisoned in other labor disputes.

Human Rights Watch’s Burkhalter said attacks against workers by the South Korean government “are exactly what the worker rights law was designed to protest.”

If the United States finds that South Korea is repressing its workers, then action by this country is mandated by a second worker rights provision adopted in 1988. The Koreans could suffer severe penalties, including imposition of heavy tariffs on goods exported to the United States.

Rights of foreign workers weren’t mentioned in U.S. law until 1985, except for a 1930 prohibition of imported products made by slave labor.

In 1984, then-President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the first proposal to go far beyond that. The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Don J. Pease (D-Ohio), avoided a veto by attaching it to the Comprehensive Trade and Tariff Act of 1984, which the President wanted.

Under the law, developing countries were automatically given significant trade advantages, such as the right to sell products here duty-free. That can amount to substantial savings--as much as 70% of the cost of some products but averaging about 15%.

But if the U.S. government finds that those countries fail to give their workers minimal protection against abuse, they lose the trade advantages.

So far, no action has been taken against industrialized nations such as South Korea--the law covering them is pretty new. But John Melle, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative, said seven Third World countries have either been removed or suspended from the favored-trade status for abusing basic rights of workers.

The treatment of workers in two of those countries--Chile and Paraguay--is now under review. If the review is favorable, the two may be restored to the good graces of the United States soon, Melle said.

Melle argues that despite allegations in court of lax enforcement of the law, the Bush Administration is doing a good job.

“Our goal is to encourage compliance by offering developing countries trade advantages if they afford workers basic rights. If a country is making progress in protecting workers, we want it to continue, and we would take away those advantages only as a last resort,” he said.

But so far, the government has done little to help expand worker rights, and few abuses have been punished, as required by the law.

If the law is properly enforced--and it may take a court order to do it--it could prove a boon to workers in all countries.