> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> [Just for the record, this is the AFL-CIO's official line, passed at
> their recent conference, on globalization/trade issues.
>
> Their "position" is not the issue. Their political practice is.
> They could have opted to stay off any committee without
> getting something in return. That's the issue for debate.
Hmmm...I was pretty pissed when I saw the first news reports, but I think on this one, Sweeney et al have a good case that it was business spin on what could fairly be seen as gains by the AFL-CIO. THe reality is that the labor-business letter did state that labor agreements should be considered as part of the WTO agenda, a gain by labor that is being echoed by the Clinton administration in the run-up to the WTO negotiations - much to the annoyance of some other countries.
Whether pushing labor agreements as part of the WTO is the best strategy is an open question, but it is fair to say that labor agreements would not even be on the agenda without labor pressure, so it is inaccurate to say that Sweeney et al were not getting something in return for their inside game-playing.
--Nathan Newman