If the AFL-CIO were serious about protecting 'American' manufacturing jobs, wouldn't it be organizing around the issue of technical change rather than trade with China? Even the AFL-CIO's anaylsis only claims that trade with China accounts for a small portion of manufacturing jobs lost in the US. What accounts for the 'loss' of the others? Why is the IUC focusing mainly on trade?
I've always thought that the first principle of organizing is to find and create common ground among workers who are very connected 'objectively', but disconnected 'subjectively' (think of whose labor goes into the process of Walmart). The AFL-CIO is doing exactly the opposite here, working with the state to sustain divisions between workers along national lines.
I have no faith in the AFL-CIO's 'foreign policy' because I've seen what they've done in Taiwan. They were only interested in obtaining legal rights of organizing there for workers in the 80s, riding a very similar wave of trade backlash. Once those legal rights were enshrined in law (never, of course, realized), the AFL-CIO lost interest. The AFL-CIO has zero cred there, for good reason.
Cheers,
Jonathan
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/