At 10:19 PM 3/4/01 -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > ... I think the effects of trade are generally exaggerated, but
> > they're appealing because they locate the source of trouble abroad
> > instead of within our own economy and poliitcs. Besides, it's an
> > empirical fact that the U.S. working class did better in terms of both
> > employment and earnings in the 7 years since NAFTA took effect than it
> > did in the previous 7...
>
>Doug--
>
>Have you discussed the study by Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell, "The
>Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of
>Workers to Organize," commissioned by the NAFTA Labor Secretariat? She
>summarized it in "We'll Close! Plant Closings, Plant-Closing Threats,
>Union Organizing and NAFTA," Multinational Monitor 18:3 (March 1997)
><http://www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/mm0397.04.html>.
>
>Apparently the full study was released by Canada and Mexico, but the
>Clinton Administration initially refused to do so. (I don't know if they
>ever did.) One can see why. The study indicates that NAFTA had a big
>effect on strikes: (a) half of all union organizing efforts are disrupted
>by employer threats to transfer production abroad; and (b) when organizing
>was successful, plants were closed at triple the pre-NAFTA rate.
>
> --CGE