Bama Athreya and Sandy Levin: Integrating and Enforcing Labor Rights in Trade

Bama Athreya and Sandy Levin talk free trade and human rights. February, 2020

Transcript:

I'm John Ciorciari.

I'm the director of the Weiser

Diplomacy Center here at the

Ford School.

I'm happy to welcome you to

this Harry A. and Margaret D.

Towsley Foundation lecture.

We want to thank the Towsley

Foundation which was established

In 2002 with a policy maker in

Residence program that allows

The Ford School to bring

Individuals who have a wealth of

Policy making experience to

Campus including our own

Professor Sandy Levin.

And so please join me first in

Thanking the towsley foundation

For this wonderful program.

[applause]

Today we're going to be speaking

With the nexus between labor

Rights and trade which, of

Course, is a crucial topic as

U.S. And global trade agreements

Are being renegotiated.

And it is a conversation between

Two experts who have worked for

Long periods of time to advance

Workers' rights in the context

Of global trade.

Dr. Bama Athreya is a visiting

Policy expert here at the weiser

Diplomacy center who arrived

Today and who is going to

Leading a number of sessions

During the course of the week

Including a three-part course

For students on related to the

Future of work and also a

Session of in my class next week

Of values and ethics.

Dr. Athreya has worked more than

Trade and labor rights.

Her former organization, the

International labor rights

Forum, pioneered the inclusion

Of a labor clause in trade

Programs as an material active

To protectionism with the goal

Of using it as a race to the top

Instead of the bottom.

She is an economic and quality

Fellow at the open society

Foundations where she is doing

Research on worker conditions in

The digital economy.

She is also an advisor to the

Laudes foundation and most

Importantly got her phd in

Anthropology from um.

Welcome back to dr. Athreya who

Is also on the external advisory

Board.

Of course, most of you already

Have the pleasure and privilege

Of knowing professor levin.

Professor of practice here at

The Ford school with support

From the towsley foundation for

Over 35 years.

Professor levin represented

Residents of southeast michigan

In congress.

He's been actively involved in

Essentially any major debate you

Can think of confronting our

Nation over the recent past

Including welfare reform, the

Auto industry rescue, china's

Entry into the world trade o,

The iran nuclear deal and a host

Of key economic policy issues.

He was chair of the house ways

And means committee during the

Passage of the afFordable care

Act.

He successfully fought against

The privatization of social

Security.

And very relevant to today's

Topic, he pioneered language to

Add enforceable labor and

Environmental standards in trade

Agreements for the first time.

We'll talk more about that in

Our conversation.

Born in detroit he earned a ba

From the university of chicago,

Ma in international relations

From columbia and a jd from

Harvard.

Between the two of them they

Have decades of expertise in the

Area we'll talk about today.

They'll begin by discussing

Historical challenges to

Including labor clauses in trade

Agreements and to enforcing

Them.

And they'll also review some of

The current dynamics.

Labor clauses in recent trade

Deals and how they've been

Tormented and forced --

Interpreted and forced and

Thinking about some of the keys

To effective enforcement of

These provisions going forward.

One last note on format.

We'll have a few of our students

Who are going to be walking

Around the room later with cue

Cards if you want to write down

Questions.

And then we will also have a few

Designated questioners who will

Introduce themselves and then

Ask us selected questions in our

Q&a session.

With that, I'd like get started.

The first thing that perhaps I

Could start with you,

Dr. Athreya, is to set the scene

By sharing with us how you got

Involved and importantly how you

First began to intersect with

Professor 11 rn as you were

Working in the civil society

Space and he was working in

Official channels on a similar

Range of issues.

bama Athreya: thank you so

Much.

It is a pleasure to be here.

Thanks for the invitation to

Participate in this event today.

I will say that professor levin

And I are a little bit of an odd

Couple up here in front of you

And maybe it would help to

Explain that.

I really started out working on

These issues of trade justice in

The streets and was in the

Streets of seattle in 1999 and

That was in november of 1999

When tens of thousands of

Activists converged on the city

From around the world to protest

The world trade organization

Negotiations.

And, you know, I start with that

History because, of course, you

Know, professor levin was the

Insider really trying to see

What could be done with the

Rules. We were on the outside

Pointing out all of the flaws

With the rules as constructed.

You know, this brings me to just

A few big picture points I want

To kind of put out there and

Will probably keep coming back

To over and over again just to

Remind us of why we're even in

This discussion.

And the one is, you know, there

Are days when it feels like

We're in a very sort of

Depressing and hopeless time.

And we look around the world and

We see what looks like

Incredible concentration of

Power.

Particularly corporate capture

Of governments.

And so one of the things that I

Would say I reflect on as I

Think back about, you know, sort

Of where I and my trade justice

Colleagues and friends were 20

Years ago and where we are today

Is that what was clear to us

Then and, you know, was one of

The reasons why we pushed for

These changes to the trade rules

Is still clear to me today.

And that is this concentrated

Power that corporations have

With respect to governments and

Rules really cannot be broken

Without the counter weight of

Organized labor movements.

And so we have as much need

Today as we did then for that

Space for labor movements to

Organize and be that voice and

That weight to really, you know,

Sort of think differently about

The roles.

The second big point I want to

Make and I'll keep returning to

Is that trade rules are not

Free.

There's no free trade.

There never was free trade.

I'm sure professor levin will

Have his own comments on this

Subject.

What there is is heavily

Negotiated trade with hundreds

Of thousands of pages of rules.

So what is important to keep in

Mind -- you know I think -- I've

Always been allergic to sort of

This framing of free trade

Versus, you know, some people

Wanted to label us

Anti-globalization and that was

Never what it was.

It was about fair rules.

Rules that actually protected

People and not just profit.

So I want to disafuse this

Entire conversation of the

Notion there is free trade.

What we are talking about is

Whether we like the rules as

They are constructed or whether

We think a different set of

Rules might give us better

Balance in terms of the overall

Benefits they convey.

So, you asked me to talk a bit

About sort of my own trajectory

In this world and so I'll now

Pivot to that from those major

Points.

When we were advocating around

These issues, again beginning

For my organization back in the

End or curtail trade between

Nations.

We were seeking to say, if trade

Is being used, and particularly

With respect to developing

Countries, if it's being used as

A development tool it's being

Used as a tool to rift up

Economies -- lift up economies,

There is no need to make a

Virtue of cheap labor.

So, back to my first point which

Was about creating that space

For workers to have some agency

To negotiate for fair terms and

Conditions of work.

We said can these rules be

Written in such a way as to

Provide that, you know, not to

Do it for them.

And this is a third point that I

Think I'll probably end up, you

Know, coming back to over and

Over.

Not as a magic bullet, not as a

Solution.

The rules are not the end.

The rules are the means.

Can we use the rules so that

Workers as they begin to

Organize have something to use

As leverage to support their

Efforts to make those demands.

So that was the nature of what

We were looking for in terms of

The conditionality.

What we did over the years is we

Were really very practical about

Looking at what we were able to

Gain.

And, if we look at -- you know

I'm sure, again, I'll sort of

Wait for professor levin to do

Some explanation of some of the

Instruments that we're talking

About, but whether it was trade

Preference programs,

Multi-lateral agreements,

Bilateral agreements, we always

Got what I would consider half a

Loaf.

But I am going to be the person

Who is here to tell you that

That is still better than not

Having gotten anything at all,

Right.

And so it was incumbent upon us,

And my organization, you know,

Really took this as one of its

Principal roles and reasons, you

Know, for part of our mission

Was whatever rules there were,

To use them to bring cases on

Behalf of worker organizations

Around the world.

Because we couldn't even, you

Know, really benefit from the

Incremental gains in language in

These agreements without the

Case work behind it bringing up

The cases year after year after

Year.

I think later in the talk we'll

Talk about some of the specific

Cases add what we were able to

Gain.

But I am the half a loaf.

And I think one of the things

Just kind of quickly pivoting to

The current moment that dismays

Me is I think a lot of that work

That was done in the 1980s and

The 1990s and into the 2000s is

Still there.

There's actually a body of work

That took us three decades to

Build up.

But I think current-day human

Rights and labor advocates have

Forgotten those instruments are

There.

And at a time when we could be

Doing more case work than ever

I'm seeing less of it and I'm

Seeing advocates really not

Understand how to use the

Important leverage we have built

Up to work in solidarity with

Those workers organizations

Around the world.

So I think I'll stop on that for

Now.

that's great thank you.

I want to turn to professor

Levin.

A very big and important slice

In that half of a loaf that we

Do have is the language that you

Introduced with colleagues in

Environmental provisions in

Trade agreements.

I wonder if you could take us

Back to 1999 when you were a few

Blocks away from her in the

Battle of seattle and talk about

The progress over those eight

Years.

How did we get from seattle 1999

And the conversations around

Nafta to lodging labor and

Environmental provisions in

Trade agreements as a normal

Matter of practice?

sander levin: okay, I wasn't

Sure how to proceed but maybe

Seattle is a useful turning

Point.

We may end up talking about more

Recent events.

And the dean is here and we're

Honored you are here.

I am honored to be here.

sander levin: and I think it

Is a secret because I have a

Copy of what the dean wrote --

I'm dating you a bit -- almost

Nafta.

And I think everybody should

Read it, including those who put

Together a successor.

Maybe we'll come back to that.

Let me just talk briefly about

Seattle and try to frame it in

Terms of how trade policy has

Evolved.

I'm going to try to be brief.

It's very difficult for me to be

Brief about trade issues.

And I'm always -- I was always

Teased by staff because it's

Such an invigorating and

Important subject.

Before seattle labor in

Environmental rights really had

A second place.

And the reason for that was

Basic trade ideology.

The ideology goes back to

Recardo, even to adam smith.

The notion was more trade is

Better.

And that worked more or less

When trade was between like

Econ

Economies.

It was challenged 100 years ago

When there was an effort in the

'20s, the 1920s to essentially

Involve labor issues not so much

Environment into the trade

Dialogue.

But that was washed away partly

By smoot holly which washed away

All discussion of trade because

It was so incorrect in

Temperate.

And tariffs became a

Historically, not anomaly, but

Monster.

So, there was a notion going

Back to the 19th century, more

Trade is basically better.

And it bumped into japan.

But there it was between two

Economies basically that were

Very much alike, right.

There were labor rights in

Japan.

There was a market economy.

Though it was a rigged one.

And what happened was that japan

Took advantage of our open

Markets while they had a very

Closed market.

I was going to bring with me

What I have in the office, a

Universal joint that I bought

For $11.40 in detroit in royal

Oak, joe's auto park main

Street, of all places, and it

Cost $105 in japan.

The very -- and we could not

Export to japan our products.

So that's when it began to break

Down the kind of monolithic

Notion more trade is better.

But there was a dialogue here to

Attribute to this university.

And I just want to quote.

It was in 1987.

And this is what clayton yoyter

Who was then the ustr said.

Over the past 40 years all

Administrations and leaders of

Both parties in congress have

Shared the conviction that

Expanding trade opportunities

Will bring higher living

Standards for all.

The key two words I think are

"For all."

It wasn't much longer when --

And this is forgotten -- pat

Buchanan challenged president

Bush in the primary in 1992 over

Trade.

But that also was kind of washed

Out and bush survived it.

And then, of course, next came

Nafta.

So I want to say just a word

About seattle and then go on.

It's an interesting history

Because we began in the late 80s

As a result of japan to really

Say to president clinton, you

Need to look at the conditions

Of trade and its impact.

And so after nafta he began to

Shift gears.

And he began to talk about the

Need to level up not level down.

Bill clinton had a way with

Words.

Level up not level down.

Right.

So we pressured the clinton

Administration to go to seattle

And set up a working group on

Labor in the wto.

Revolutionary.

He got carried away.

And while there was all this

Disturbance outside of the

Halls, he proposed not a working

Group but enforceable labor

Provisions in the wto.

And we said to him, that isn't

What we were proposing.

It was steps too far.

And while there was all of the

Turbulence outside the hall,

Inside the hall there was

Immense turbulence reacting to

What the president said.

Well seattle blew up.

And we haven't had

Demonstrations about trade since

Then like that.

So, just a few words what

Happened after that.

Cafta happened afterwards.

Enforce your own laws was the

Standard.

We came within two votes of

Defeating cafta.

Then, of course, what came

Afterwards you refer to as may

And for the first time there was

Placed in trade agreements

Enforceable labor and

Environmental standards.

And to show how bifurcated it

Was, the bush administration,

Which was still in place, we

Were in the majority for the

First time in seven and eight,

They reduced to negotiate an

Agreement with may 10th in it.

So, essentially, two of us in

The congress negotiated a free

Trade agreement.

It's not a good idea.

It's not supposed to be our

Function.

And we did so with peru.

And I will just say a word about

That.

Because in addition to labor

Standards we included

Enforceable environmental

Standards.

And we laid out requirements of

Peru as to the amazon.

And what happened in later

Administrations including the

Obama administration, they

Failed to enforce it.

They failed to enforce it.

So the most recent battle has

Been over u.S.-mca.

I think that's where I'll stop

So that we can have some

Discussion about it.

In the course that I co-taught,

We didn't talk about usmca.

I have some deep feelings about

What happened in a way to pick

Up the threads of that forgotten

Dean's article in the law review

Which I still have, dean.

So, is that enough to start

With?

And let's have a lot of vigorous

Discussion.

Because my own judgment is, is

To usmca, that it is just the

Opening, the opening kind of

Argument about what happens when

You put together a developed

Country with a developing nation

On its borders.

There are more automotive

Workers today in mexico than in

The united states.

A foreign auto company, bmw,

Opened up a plant not so long

Ago, signed a phony agreement,

And the pay there is a

Dollar-and-a-half an hour.

Okay.

moderator: thank you for

That.

And I wanted to come back to

This issue of the enforceable

Language.

Dr. Athreya, as you mentioned

These are tools for people to be

Able to implement in the defense

Of labor rights and don't

Necessarily ensure labor rights

Unless they are in fact

Enforced.

And I'd be grateful for your

Comments on how in fact some of

The provisions that

Representative levin was so

Influential in lodging in trade

Agreements, how have those been

Enforced?

What are your comments on recent

Developments and, in particular,

With the trump administration

But even in the lateral obama

Years in enforcing them in key

Cases like bangladesh or africa.

bama Athreya: I think this is

A great kvgs because

Enforceability, what is

Enforceability I think is really

Sort of a critical question.

I know one that you grappled

With as a congressman for many

Years.

And we did as well again because

We were were bringing cases.

And I don't think there's a

Fixed answer to at what point,

You know, you consider something

Is fully enforceable.

We would have said that even the

Earliest labor clauses, the ones

That I mentioned in the 1980s,

Which were in unilateral

Programs, trade preference

Programs, were enforceable but

Were not enforced.

And so if we look at the

Trajectory from those early --

You know the first labor

Condition at was in a program

Called -- well it was in the

Caribbean based initiative in

That was a single phrase.

The first full clause was in the

Generalized system of

Preferences program which is a

Unilateral trade preference

Program.

It is a benefit we give by

Reducing or eliminating tariffs

On products in a unilateral

Manner with developing countries

And with least developed

Countries.

The idea being this is to give

Them a leg up and ability to

Sort of enter our markets and

Improve their economies.

And I think, you know, professor

Levin raises an excellent point

About what happens when you've

Got that, you know, friction

Between a highly developed

Market and a really, you know,

Sort of poor developing market

Such as bangladesh or cambodia

Countries that I worked in and

Brought cases on.

So, there was that labor

Conditionality that was

Introduced in 1984.

And we tried throughout the

Subsequent decade to bring

Cases.

And there was total discretion

Because there were no rules as

To what ustr needed to do with

Those cases.

So we saw really widely varying

Responses to the cases depending

On what our other equities were

In the diplomatic relationship

With the particular country.

And it came to a point by the

Early 1990s where my

Organization actually sued the

Bush administration, the first

Bush administration, under

Something called the

Administrative procedures act

For complete failure to enforce

The law.

So, fast forward then to the

I think we can jump around a

Bit.

I might even sort of -- I'll do

A quick note on cambodia and

Then go straight to one of the

Free trade agreements, a

Bilateral agreement with more

Binding stand arts after the

May 10th deal that professor

Looked.

In the late 1990s, my

Organization wrote a case on

Cambodia.

Cambodia had just received

Benefits in 1999 under the

Generalized system of

Preferences program.

Remember, they were coming out

Of basically a long period of

Conflict and had the first

Democratically elected

Government that had just been

Stood up in that country and

They really did not have a

Functioning labor law.

We brought a case forward in

Timing is everything.

The bilateral relationship with

Cambodia was such that this rose

To the top of the priority list

In that diplomatic engagement.

There was robust engagement of

The cambodian government around

This case.

As a result of which the

Cambodian government in 2001, I

Believe -- okay so they passed a

New labor code which was not

Perfect but wait an improvement

Over the old french law that was

The only thing on the books.

They stood up and entity called

The arbitration council which

Could arbitrate labor disputes,

And they put in place or allowed

To be put in place a program

Administered by the

International labor

Organization, the ilo, which

Monitored the entire brand-new

Apparel sector.

Which was the major export

Sector in the country just

Getting off the ground in

The ilo program was able to

Regularly monitor and audit

Labor conditions in all of

Cambodia's garment factories.

That was a long time ago and

Time permitting we can come back

To the what's going on lately

Because there was a very

Interesting -- as I am sure you

Saw -- announcement last week

That the eu is likely to suspend

Its benefits to cambodia over

Human rights abuses.

So, be interesting to reflect on

Really gain.

But that was one example of very

Effective use of a case to

Stimulate very, very specific

Things.

That didn't solve -- cambodia is

Not a worker's paradise, very

Poor country, but there was

Specific outcomes from that

Case.

The labor code, the arbitration

Council and the introduction of

A really quite innovative ilo

Program.

I am going to just talk about

One other case then we can do

Work back and forth.

That is after the agreement that

Professor levin has described in

The mid-2000s, one of the

Bilateral free trade agreements

That was passed was with jordan.

The u.S.-jordan free trade

Agreement.

Which had a labor chapter

Commiserate with the may 10th

Agreement.

And subsequent to the

U.S.-jordan agreement being, you

Know, sort of passed, adopted, a

Number of u.S. Apparel

Companies, you know, went to

Jordan and began sourcing

Apparel from jordan.

And the selling point on this

Agreement, one of the selling

Points had been creating jobs

For jordanian women.

In reality, virtually all the

Women in those factories were

Imported migrant workers from

Bangladesh, sri lanka, india,

Even burma.

So, here you had an industry

That had been stood up, you

Know, sort of in the shadow of

This new shiny agreement that

Had labor conditionality but all

The workers wering my rabidity

Workers.

And a labor rights organization

Exposed just a few years after

The agreement had been passed,

Exposed that many of these women

Had been trafficked.

So, they were victims of labor

Trafficking.

And many had been victims of

Gender-based violence as well.

What was interesting was that in

The wake of the expose, again,

Because of the existence of the

Labor chapter and the agreement,

There was rapid diplomatic

Engagement channels of

Communication between the u.S.

Trade representative and the

Jordanian counterparts to say,

This is a problem for us, we

Can't have that.

You just negotiated this

Agreement with us.

Arguably an issue that without

That labor chapter would have

Been way down at the bottom of

The list for any sort of

Diplomatic engagement with

Jordan.

Think about jordan and where it

Sits, its strategic importance,

Its importance as a long

Standing place where we've had

To have military engagement,

Humanitarian engagement because

Of referees, et cetera.

All that is so important and yet

This trade issue about these,

You know, couple dozen,

Literally a few dozen garment

Factories rose to some serious

Diplomatic engagement around the

Issue.

And I will say I didn't say and

It wasn't in my bio but I spent

The past six years working for

Usa-id.

And I mention that because I can

Tell you -- now, you know, sort

Of this is getting just closer

To the time when I joined aid.

Although it is a little bit

Before my time.

That one of the very first

Things that happen and I

Resuscitated this from the files

Was that usa-id was ordered to

Come up with funding to hire a

Consultant and look and see what

Could be done to improve labor

Rights conditions in the

Factories which they did.

And through the course of the

Negotiations a few things

Happened.

One of which was a version of

That same ilo program to monitor

The apparel factories was stood

Up in jordan.

So the jordanian government

Agreed to, you know, several

Changes including changes in the

Law that made it possible for

The first time for jordanian

Unions to actually represent

Migrant workers. So there was a

Legal change.

There was an actual change

Because those workers actually

Then had access to

Representation.

And there was the introduction

Of a monitoring program that

Assisted and facilitated to

Actually improve overall and

Raise up overall conditions in

Jordan's apparel sector.

So, you know I can talk more

About that and, you know, sort

Of where things since then, but

Yeah, I would say those are a

Couple of examples of, you know,

You go in and as advocates we

Were always really very tactical

About the use of the

Instruments. The case itself

Wasn't going to solve the

Problem.

It was important for other

Actors to come in and say here

Are practical things that can be

Done as a result of which you

Know we can accept resolution of

The case.

So I think I'll stop.

I've got lots of other

Interesting cases we can talk

About as we go but I'll stop

With those two for now.

moderator: I do think the

Cambodian case is interesting

For the point thaw made about

The diplomatic context and the

Broader equities what are the

Conditions that the u.S. Or

Other major players can advocate

Effectively for labor rights.

My very brief time swimming in

The same stream as the two of

You was in the mid-2000s in the

Treasury department when we were

Working with cambodian

Government on that and the

Context of other development in

Debt related negotiations.

At that time 58 percent of c

Cambodia's exports went to the

U.S.

So there was a high degree of

U.S. Leverage.

There was a relationship between

The government that was still --

The government was not in full

Control and the royalist forces

Still had a major say in

Government.

So the dynamics were very

Favorable for negotiating on

That issue.

I think you are right that in

The early part of the 2000s,

Cambodia saw the emergence of

Some of the strongest labor

Unions anywhere in southeast

Asia as you also referenced more

Recently it's gone the other way

As the government has seen them

As a source of political

Opposition and has carried out

Targeted assassinations against

Labor leaders and so forth.

But for a phase when the

Conditions were favorable, I

Agree that it had a major impact

On the conditions for workers in

That country.

Particularly in the garment

Sector which is such a major

Employer.

sander levin: let me just

Comment briefly on those cases.

Very briefly.

As to cafta and as to mexico, a

Bilateral agreement can

Basically work if it's done

Right.

We're in the same neighborhood.

And there isn't a way easily for

Producers to shift from mexico

Or central america including

Dominican republic some place

Else.

So the challenge in a bilateral

Agreement is to really make it

Work.

And with cafta it was totally

Unworkable.

Enforce your own laws as bad as

They are.

And I should point out I think

One of the two major sources of

Immigration from central

America, two causes.

One is violence and the other is

Our economic conditions -- are

Economic conditions.

So we paid a very heavy price in

Cafta for failure to have

Enforceable labor conditions.

A high price.

Secondly, in terms of other

Countries, I think you have to

Have a multi-lateral structure

Contrary to the view of this

Administration which wants to do

Everything unilaterally or

Bilaterally.

Because cambodia is a perfect

Example.

It was the only place where the

Labor movement of the united

States became engaged.

And they supported our agreement

With cambodia.

The labor movement.

The date exactly.

It is the only case I can

Remember where the american

Labor movement in those days

Were supportive of a trade

Agreement.

The problem was that once unions

Were allowed and working

Conditions got better the

Companies moved their production

To other places, especially to

Vietnam.

So, while a bilateral system

Will work in some cases,

Contrary to the present notion

Opposed to any multi-lateral

Kind of structure, that was

Critical as to cambodia.

moderator: on similar lines

It was a peeric victory for the

Labor groups in 2019 got a new

Law finally passed on labor

Protections in cambodia and the

Wages went up by something like

Garment factories literally

Folded and moved as you are

Suggesting.

So, there is a pushing the

Balloon dimension to this that

Merits attention.

Let's get some of your thoughts

And questions.

It looks like michael is going

To start.

Maybe introduce yourself and

Share with us the first of the

Audience questions.

sander levin: no holds barred

Right?

I'm serious.

Trade is such a vital and

Volatile issue that unless you

Say no holds barred and people

Are totally frank, we kind of

Talk around each other.

understood.

I'll do my best to pull out the

Questions.

First thank you so much for

Being here.

Michael vice.

A first year student focusing on

International policy.

Our first question is the u.S.

Has expressed its displeasure

With the lack of accountability

For the wto appellate body.

What do you think could be

Possible reforms to correct this

Problem?

sander levin: let's answer

That briefly.

The wto enforceable system, it

Needs a basic reform.

But the president is using the

Lack of it to make a point.

S, approve aappointments so the

Infrastructure today is totally

Vulnerable.

There's only one person I think

And it requires three.

We had lots of fights.

I won't bore you with the fights

Over the wto enforcement.

They went way overboard at

Times.

It needs to be reformed,

Democratized.

But the notion that you should

Do without it and destroy it,

Well we just used as an ask.

Hopefully the day will come when

Labor and environment are

Part -- they are internationally

Enforced standards, right.

Because, otherwise, companies

Move.

I mean look what happened in

Central america.

I went to a place and I figured

Out how much the workers were

Making.

It was three women's panties and

It happened to have the price on

It.

And where it was going.

$5.

They were making a dollar an

Hour.

When we figured out how much

Labor went into that $5, you

Could double the minimum wage

That those mostly women, and

Many single women with children,

Were making and it would have

Increased the cost of the

Panties at that place in the

United states from $5 to $5.25

Doubling the wage they were

Receiving it would have increase

The cost to the consumer of

$0.25. So we need to have

Workable structures.

audience member: thank you

For being here.

My name is pa tasha.

I am a first year dual degree

Student in master of public

Policy and master of science

Information.

I have questions --

sander levin: say it loudly

To everybody can hear okay.

audience member: I have a

Question for both speakers.

The american labor movement is

Often portrayed as being

Insullyar.

Protecting the benefits of

Particular workers in a specific

Industry.

Is that characterization fair?

What is the best way to create

Solidarity between white male

Blue collar union members in the

U.S. And immigrants in the u.S.

Working around the world.

moderator: so, basically, the

Question is about when are we

Going to see more of what you

Described in cambodia in which

The u.S. Labor unions go to bat

For workers rights, conditions

In other parts of the world and

See them as part of the same

Effectively the same mission.

Does either of you want to start

With that?

bama Athreya: I can just talk

About -- let me talk about a

Couple of examples of, again,

Uses in cases.

I think it's important to, you

Know, recognize -- first of all

To recognize that labor

Movements are large membership

Based movements and accountable

To their members.

And that's fine, right.

That's how democratic

Institutions work.

That being the case, you know,

Again I feel like it's a

Situation where it depends on

What you look at.

If you look at what statements

The labor movement, you know,

And its representative

Organizations the afl-cio may

Have to make in a very high

Profile debate about whether or

Not to ratify a new trade

Agreement.

It's understandable why there's

A certain political cue lus that

The afl or another union might

Have to make in that

Circumstance.

It can be very different when

You look at this very granular

Level at what is happening with

Worker movements in particular

Countries at particular times.

I'm going to talk about two more

Cases.

The one is bangladesh.

And I think if people know

Nothing else about bangladesh,

Most people know that there is a

Very large garment sector in the

Country and that it has been the

Subject of some incredible

Tragedies in recent years.

The most well-known traffic

Incident is the collapse of the

Rana plaza building in 2013

Leading to the death of well

Over a thousand workers.

But labor groups in bangladesh

Had been in touch with labor

Groups in the united states for

Many years.

And there were solidarity

Campaigns targeting some of the

Big buyers of the apparel from

Bangladesh.

In 2013, there was a review of

Bangladesh's benefits under the

Unilateral preference program,

The gsp.

The afl-cio for years prior to

The rana plaza collapse year

After year had been filing

Submissions to ustr, I mean, for

Many years, saying bangladesh's

Labor laws are inadequate,

They're not protecting these

Workers, workers are not allowed

To organize, there must be

Reforms.

And in 2013 that case finally

Was taken up in a serious

Manner.

And I think professor levin had

Something to do with that as

Well.

He may want to comment.

And there was a suspension of

Bangladesh's benefits.

Now that was a situation in

Which the u.S. Labor movement

Was very comfortable and had

Been comfortable for years

Pushing the u.S. Government to

Enforce labor conditionality in

A way that showed solidarity

With groups on the ground in

Bangladesh.

I think, you know, there are

Other recent cases, actually

I'll just talk about one other

Case because people don't know

About it and it's another great

Case.

But again back to my point about

Cambodia, a lot of this is about

Timing is everything and where

We are in the diplomatic

Relationship.

Suazee land had trade

Preferences under a program

Called the africa growth and

Opportunity act, agoa.

Guess what sector got stood up

There.

Yes the apparel sector.

I don't mean to just talk about

The apparel sector but seems to

Be a thing that countries do

When they get trade programs in

Place.

You know, in the early 2010s the

Country is a monarchy, it's very

Autocratic, it's very

Repressive, was getting more and

More so.

And went as far as outlying all

Civil society organizations.

Right to I a shoesh yate,

Freedom of assembly, wiped it

Out.

So that did not only affect

Labor movements in suazee land.

You aren't even allowed to have

A business organization because

It was an association.

All the human rights groups got

Wiped out.

Church groups got wiped out. You

Know, again, afl-cio brought a

Petition to ustr on behalf of

Its allies in the trade union

Movement.

And the simple push was that the

Country had to reform its law

And organizations to allow a

Associations, you know, allow

Organizations to exist freely

Once more.

Very successful case.

In the course of a few years --

I mean, and ustr yanked the

Benefits.

They took away the agoa

Benefits.

That was controversial.

People were being hurt.

The union was telling us we'll

Take the pain.

Something has to change.

Benefits were removed.

Swazee government reformed the

Law.

In the interval because many of

Us that were working with the

Swazee labor movement they were

Able to survive through the

Period of incredible repression

And hold open that space for the

Rest of civil society, the human

Rights that groups that had go

Go underground because they

Could exist because they were in

The spotlight because of this

Case.

So, when the law was amended and

It was possible to openly

Associate once more, unions were

Able to, you know, it had been

In the wedge in the door to open

That door wider for other

Organizations.

Indeed I believe it was in 2018

We restored agoa benefits.

So a couple examples where the

Labor union was there and they

Were the ones bringing the case.

sander levin: just a couple

Of comments about labor.

The labor movement is going to

Play a more substantial role in

The enforcement of usmca.

That's been provided.

But I think the problem is going

To be the way it's structured.

Mexico is the only democracy on

Earth which has the kind of

Structure it now has with tens

Of thousands of so-called

Protection agreements that

Workers have never seen, never

Voted on.

It's going to be very hard to

Make a dent in that.

And my concern is the way the

Law is constructed it will make

It even more difficult because

It relates to individual

Locations.

But let me just say a word about

Bangladesh.

To the credit of the european

Apparel makers, when they set up

After rana plaza where 1,100

People died, the european

Organization included the labor

Movement.

But the one that was set up by

American companies did not.

And so while working

Conditions -- and you know more

About this first-hand than I do;

I haven't been there for a few

Years now.

While the working conditions in

Terms of safety have improved,

The other conditions for workers

I don't think have.

So if you look at your clothing,

My guess is if we did it here

Now probably a few of us would

Have garments on that say

Bangladesh.

And the workers there continue

To be paid close to a dollar, a

Dollar and a quarter an hour.

And how can you live on that?

That's what this country needs

To ask.

How can people live on it?

And the answer is to central

America they can't.

So it's one of the reasons they

Leave.

audience member: that leads

Into our next question which is

Focused for dr. Athreya but

Please jump in.

Dr. Athreya you worked in the

Ngo, private sector and the u.S.

Government.

Where do you feel most effective

In protecting workers and why?

bama Athreya: so, yeah, I

Mean, there's not -- there's not

A choice there.

There's not really a choice.

And it's interesting because

Most recently I've been in

Government.

And in government had the

Opportunity to see the flip-side

Of cases I had brought when I

Was on the outside as an

Advocate.

We had some very -- even over

The past, you know, couple of

Years, right, so we have had

Some very good work by people in

Public service in the various

U.S. Government entities that

Work on these trade cases, you

Know, with integrity bringing

The cases forward.

But people in government can't

Do that without the outside

Groups who find the facts, bring

The cases forward.

You know, so to put the

Information forward.

So this gives me an excuse to

Come back to one of the early

Points I made in the first few

Minutes.

That is I don't think groups on

The outside quite realized the

Potential of what they could be

Doing with these cases.

And the appetite that people and

Particularly people who are just

Charged with enforcing the laws,

Right, not the politicals, not

The people who are making

Policy, the people whose job it

Is just to enforce the laws that

We have.

What they could do with more

Information on more of the

Conditions, you know, of what's

Really happening on labor and

Environment in more of these

Countries.

So, you know, I won't go on.

I will just say, like, that's

Just such a necessary compliment

You really can't choose between

Where you are more effective.

As for the role of business,

That hasn't come up at all so

Maybe an interesting moment to

Take just, you know, a minute to

Think about that and just as a

Discussion, you know, sort of

Open up a discussion.

A lot of what I have observed

And indeed what also when I was

Working with the private sector

Worked on, was standing up

Systems to manage supply chain

Issues.

To mitigate risk in supply

Chains.

Reduce the risk of the exposure

Of labor rights violations.

And those kinds of voluntary

Risk management efforts are, you

Know, fine, but I feel they are

A thing unto themselves and they

Don't really get at the heart of

What is meant to be addressed

With these labor clauses in the

Various trade instruments.

The reason they don't get there

Is, again, going back to another

One of the points I made early

On.

Because really what all of those

Inst

Instruments do is create that

Wedge, right.

Wedge open that space as I

Described with the swazee.

Then it's really up to workers

And worker organizations.

At the end of the day, who is

Really going to improve

Cond

Conditions of those supply

Chains.

Workers themselves if they had

The agency to do so.

I think the business side

Private voluntary programs, I

Think professor levin you quite

Rightly point out there are very

Few of the accord, which is the

Eu agreement that was stood up

After bangladesh, is one of the

Very few that actually puts

Unions into the equation and,

You know, considers them as a

Partner.

For the most part, the rest of

Them are perfectly happy to work

On health and safety.

They're perfectly happy to work

On, you know, ending child

Labor.

But they will not go as far as

Actually creating that space to

Negotiate with workers.

sander levin: to its credit

The university has a committee

That works with the business

Community in terms of its

Purchases.

And I went to a meeting and I

Think it would be well for the

University to talk further about

How it is more effective.

It is a difficult issue.

But, you know, if we don't face

Up to this, we're going to have

Demons

Demonstrations.

Institutions need to step up to

The plate.

If there were another rana

Plaza, my guess is with all the

Vitality among students at this

University, you would see

Activity.

Rightfully so.

Moment.

By the way they did not want to

Go into rana plaza and they were

Told, if you don't go in, you're

Fired.

So that's kind of what's at

Stake.

In part.

What's next?

A lot of back and forth.

What's the most controversial

Issue you can think of?

Most controversial question?

audience member: I don't know

If this is the most

Controversial, but current labor

Laws in the u.S. Struggle to

Adapt to new and different forms

Of employment such as the

Economy.

How did this affect labor right

Promotion both domestically and

Abroad.

sander levin: say that again.

audience member: current

Labor laws in the u.S. Struggle

To adapt to new and different

Forms of employment such as the

Gig economy.

How does this affect labor

Promotion both domestically and

Abroad.

bama Athreya: I can start on

This since I've started doing

Some research this year on

Digital economy issues.

And so there's -- we don't know.

I mean, let me take a step back

To people who are looking at the

Changes in the economy that are

Being brought as a result of our

Moving into what some are

Calling the fourth industrial

Revolution.

Which is technology, artificial

Intelligence and the ways in

Which it is really sort of

Changing the entire global

Economic landscape.

We are -- and one thing that I

Am just going to observe and

Comment on is we are locked into

A conceptualization of labor

Rights that dates back 100

Years.

It dates back to the formation

Of the international labor

Organization in 1919.

Just after world war I.

And at a moment when governments

Were scared to death of what was

Happening in russia, you know,

Sort of communist revolution,

And workers rising up.

So we needed labor standards to

Deal with that world as it

Looked in 1919.

And so we have our current

Modern day systems of industrial

Relations.

And we have our notion of core

Labor rights which are centered

Around the premise that people

Have formal employment.

What are core labor rights?

The right to associate, the

Right to bargain collectively,

The right to a workplace free

From discrimination, the

Abolition of child labor and the

Abolition of forced labor.

Great, they're all still really

Important fundamental rights but

We absolutely need to think

About the ways in which work

Itself is now being mediated

Very differently.

And this is the subject of

Another talk.

[laughter] and not this talk

Today.

And so, I mean, I think it is a

Really interesting question

Because we have to ask ourselves

How do we make those rights real

And meaningful in a world where

Work itself is digitally

Mediated.

sander levin: we had a

Discussion on that yesterday.

That's how contemporary this

Place is.

I think it was just yesterday

Wasn't it?

And the economy is changing so

Fast.

So we need to ask questions.

By the way, universities are in

The center of this rather

Well-known institution on the

East coast is very much involved

In this very issue.

It isn't quite the same issue,

But it's -- these are not

Industrial workers, typically.

And it's going be even more so

With, I mean, what uber's

Facing, right.

So that could be controversial

For another session.

audience member: taking a

Step back and looking at

History, there's the korea-us

Trade agreement that lasted

Nearly ten years.

Despite extensive input,

Vetting, review and

Congressional oversight, what is

Wrong with the process that does

Not take into account the

Principal that both of you

Present.

How can we alter the process to

Get such comprehensive views on

The table?

sander levin: why don't you

Answer that.

[ laughter ]

I mean, the comprehensive

Issues about the broader

Relationship in which this is

Embedded?

It's not easy to answer that

Succinctly.

But I will say that a part of

It -- it's related to the points

That my colleagues have made

About multi-lateralism.

That it's difficult to imagine

Even in a highly favorable

Bilateral context of diplomacy

To be effective in this space if

The multi-lateral machinery is

Broken.

Because as we all have mentioned

In different points in the

Conversation, most of the labor

Operations that we're discussing

Are for industries that are

Quite easily movable.

And, therefore, will move if

There are incentives to do that,

To find cheaper labor with fewer

Restrictions elsewhere.

So I think that this is -- I

Guess where I would say to start

Is to repair and strengthen

Multi-lateral trade

Institutions.

Because without that no sum of

Effective bilateral diplomatic

Engagements is likely to resolve

This problem sustainably.

sander levin: we need to get

Bilateral correct.

But to simply think we can go it

Alone, that's another subject in

A way.

audience member: has the

Trade war between the u.S. And

China affected how labor

Standards are enforced?

Have any particular sectors

Placed pressure in the

Negotiating these deals?

sander levin: I'll just say a

Brief word about that.

Because when susan collins and I

Put together our course trying

To find two subjects which

Showed the huge bridge that

Needed to be built between

Strong academic learning and the

Challenges of implementing them,

We took unemployment insurance

That hasn't been reformed since

Its beginning really, and china

Pntr.

So, actually that could be a

Very controversial issue for

Those of who us worked on china

Pntr and eventually help to

Construct it.

It was more than controversial.

Labor issues were included but

Only in terms of the database on

Human rights, which is now the

Strongest database that exists.

It included labor rights.

But you could ask a

Controversial question: why are

You so upset about labor rights

In mexico when you redid usmca

But not china?

That's a legitimate issue,

Right?

And the answer I think is

Multi-fold.

Number one.

As is true for china, there's a

Direct impact of labor standards

In mexico in terms of jobs in

The united states.

And that's true as to china.

Finally, economists kind of got

Off the couch and some of them

Decided there were two to three

Million jobs in this country

Lost because of china's exports

To the u.S.

They've been less willing to

Cope with mexico though it had a

Clear impact in terms of the

Dual weight structure in the

United states which we're just

Beginning -- which is now being

Modified.

So the honest answer is you take

These step by step and where you

Can really bring about change

You do it.

As to china it was simply very

Difficult to really get at their

Labor practices through pntr.

There was no way to do it.

So, it is a really good question

And it is the kind of

Controversial issue that we

Should all discuss.

So, I'll leave it at that and

Someone may want to pick it up.

audience member: can you

Speak to legislation or laws

Which give individuals in unions

The right not to pay dues?

There's some state laws going

Into that allow people to --

sander levin: about what?

audience member: the right to

Work and the right for

Individuals in the union to have

The right not to pay dues.

They can be part of the new

Union without paying dues.

sander levin: this relates to

Right to work and dues paying.

bama Athreya: and also I

Think the supreme court case as

Well.

sander levin: maybe we should

Leave that to another time.

I mean, it's related but it's --

You can imagine how many of us

Think how important it is.

But I think this is such a juicy

Subject that we don't want to

Throw in another orange.

audience member: all right.

Shifting gears a little bit.

Please comment on the role of

Labor journalists and the

Unionizing of media companies on

The larger question of labor and

Trade.

So what are the roles of labor

Journalists and media companies

On labor and trade?

sander levin: key.

No, I mean, just look what's

Going on as to labor and

Everything else in this country

Today.

And there's a worrisome erosion

Of journalism in this country.

And that's again another subject

For discussion.

Very worrisome.

I mean, it's journalists who

Pick out, for example, the

Issues to usmca.

Interestingly enough the best

Journalism was done by some

American reporters in mexico.

There really wasn't a very good

Job done in my judgment.

But they're indispensable right.

And the closing of local

News

Newspapers. So we can just leave

It at that.

It's critical.

audience member: so climate

Change has played a major factor

In a lot of the developing

Countries.

It's affecting them the most.

Now how does climate change

Policy developing countries

Affect the labor market, labor

Laws and international trade?

bama Athreya: these are all

Such big questions.

So I always like to kind of

Speak by example.

We do think there is a direct

Relationship with -- I'm going

To go to a direct example on

This and that is bangladesh.

Bangladesh is is a country with

An enormous coastline, has been

Identified as highly vulnerable.

Highly vulnerable to climate

Risk and rising sea levels.

And that will displace

Increasing numbers of people.

We know already, right we can

Forecast that that displacement

Will then put additional

Pressure on labor markets,

Particularly urban labor markets

As people migrate from

Vulnerable regions to cities in

Search of some kind of

Livelihood, economic livelihood,

Which in turn will likely

Depress conditions in those

Labor markets even further than

They're already depressed.

And it's not obviously just

Bang

Bangladesh.

It just happens to be a very big

Populous country.

It's like a petrie dish where

You can see what's going to

Happen.

Arguably you will see obviously

Very different but related

Impacts when you look at

Vulnerable communities,

Particularly coastal

Communities, in a number of

Developing countries --

Sri lanka, coastal regions of

India, indonesia, philippines.

We haven't even gotten to other

Regions of the world yet.

And, you know, governments know

This.

And they know they're already

Having to start to adapt to

Shifting their approach -- their

Urban policy and urbanization.

Because they can see that

They're going to have to deal

With increasing waves of what

We'll call climate refugees.

I would argue we're not paying

Enough attention to climate

Refugees as a cross board of

Phenomenon.

We haven't talked except for a

Little bit about migrant

Workers. Most migrants in the

World are economic migrants.

They're looking for jobs.

They have been on the rise and

Really exponentially on the rise

Over the past decade.

People moving across borders,

You know, in search of economic

Opportunity.

With the changes, again, and

Vulnerabilities and risk to

Communities posed by climate

Change you're going to see

Increasing levels of migration.

We're going have to deal with

That as a labor market issue.

So, we're kind of off trade all

Together now.

So, again, you know, lots of

Good topics coming up in these

Questions for future lectures

But I think we need to think

About and we haven't talked

About what we are doing to

Manage migration flows.

And I mean manage.

I don't mean sort of -- we're

Not talking about keeping people

Out.

We're talking about the fact

That people are moving.

Goods move, services move.

We have trade agreements.

Let's have sensible migration

Agreements in place.

audience member: this

Question pertains to technology

And labor enforcement.

With the growing popularity of

Using predictive analytics to

Proactively enforce crimes in

Various u.S. Cities, can this

Technology be applied to

Enforcing labor violations at

Least in high income eocd

Countries?

Do you see any drawbacks to this

Enforcement approach?

bama Athreya: I'm all over

This question because this was

Some of the experimentation that

I got to, you know, had the

Great plashir of being --

Pleasure with being involved

With as my role at usa id.

We were actually interested in

Highly vulnerable and invisible

Populations of workers that we

Knew were at risk of very

Serious violations.

And one of my personal

Obsessions was the young men and

Boys who work on fishing vessels

Around the world and who have

Now been documented to, you

Know, by a number of excellent

Journalists to basically be

Slaves at sea.

They're enslaved on fishing

Vessels around the world.

Many are migrants from very poor

Countries.

Once they're on the vessels

They're not able to get off.

We knew they were off the grid,

No labor inspectors could reach

Them.

And and they were suffering

Egregious labor and human rights

Violations. So we were extremely

Interested in what could be done

With technology given that there

Was no other way to get eyes and

Ears and access to these young

Men and boys.

So we invested and we were not

The only ones but there were

Sort of a number of us that were

Seized with this question of

Whether we could use some

Combination of vessel monitoring

Technology and satellite

Technology to triangulate and

Identify where crew were most at

Risk.

So, that given limited resources

In the world, you could better

Pinpoint and get the resources

That you do have to the people

Who are most likely to be at

Risk.

You know, the jury is still out.

Investments have been made.

I think it will be interesting

To see what comes of them.

I actually, you know, we can

Talk more about this but, you

Know, I think this is an area

Where there's promise and

There's peril.

And the promise again is really

Finding people who are otherwise

Completely invisible and making

Them visible.

The peril has to do with, you

Know, as subject that I think

More of us are becoming

Increasingly aware of and that

Is the nature of surveillance

Technology and the information

It captures that should be

Protected private information.

So this has come up even with

Respect to some of the things

We've done to keep crews safe on

Vessels in southeast asia.

Things like using biometric I.D.

On crew so we know who has

Gotten on the boat, who's gotten

Off the boat.

It's been pointed out there's

Really serious privacy

Considerations.

And potential violations and

Abuses of the data that has been

Collected by governments for the

Purposes of keeping crews safe

But anything, you know, sort of

Can be used and subverted.

So that's I think a short answer

To the question.

Obviously I've got a lot more to

Say on this but it's an

Interesting question.

sander levin: you know, it's

More just briefly than

Technology.

Because in many countries I know

Somewhat first-hand about those

Who leave nepal.

Their passports are taken.

They're just taken.

And so we need -- that's why

There also needs to be a

Multi-lateral structure relating

To these problems.

Can you imagine going to work

And having your passport taken

So you can't leave?

It happens all the time in many

Countries.

In thailand, in other eastern

Economies.

bama Athreya: and just to

Make one more point to link it

Back.

So, completely agree that you

Can't just have, you know, tools

Are just tools you also need

Systems in place that protect

People.

But just to tie this back to

Trade.

That particular -- this

Particular case of thailand

Improving systems to, you know,

There's a long way to go but at

Least track crew that are

Getting on boats in thai ports

Happened at all because the eu,

The european union, brought a

Trade case against thailand.

And so it's just, you know,

Linking it all back together.

Some of these little things that

We might think are good ideas,

You still need to create the

Political space for them to be

Adopted as well.

And trade in that case, you

Know, trade scrutiny did that.

moderator: let's take one