Clinton supporters: Where do you stand on the TPP and Glass-Steagall?

[cascadiance]

186. Sorry but that propaganda doesn't hold up! It was far more rigged for corporate America than unions

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Labor-s-So-Called-Seat-at-the-Table-at-TPP-Negotiations

Labor's So-Called "Seat at the Table" at TPP Negotiations
...

I’ve heard “labor” has a seat at the table and gets to see the TPP texts. Is this true?
No. Under U.S. law, there are several trade advisers—private citizens appointed by the President—who advise on trade policies. Of these advisers, the vast majority
(85% according to the Washington Post) represent businesses. About 5% of the advisers represent labor. The other 10% represent local and state government officials, academics, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Labor advisers are allowed to review and advise on draft U.S. proposals—advice that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) can freely ignore. But we are locked out of the negotiating room and cannot see the actual negotiating texts, which combine the proposals from all 12 countries and evolve over time as negotiations progress. Nor can we share what we learn with members without violating national security laws.

...

By February 2014, it was becoming clear that labor's discussions with trade negotiators were not making the TPP a more progressive trade deal. However, members of Congress were under the mistaken impression that labor unions were very influential in the process. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka wrote to policymakers to set the record straight, emphasizing that mere "access" is not meaningful participation:

More important than quantity of access, however, is quality of access. A seat on the LAC [Labor Advisory Committee] is not a seat at the negotiating table, much less an assurance that labor’s policy proposals will be incorporated into either the U.S. proposal or the final agreement. Because LAC members do not have access to the full negotiating texts, or to information regarding USTR priorities and choices, we cannot effectively influence the inevitable trade-offs in ways that would build the middle class and protect our democratic systems. And because we cannot share what little we do know with our membership or the larger public, we cannot use the traditional tools that civil society uses to offset the power of economic elites: education, organization and mobilization of the public.

Perhaps the best proof, however, that the LAC has not been a valuable tool in creating people-centered trade agreements is the actual content of the final agreements. The AFL-CIO has criticized the vast majority of trade agreements since NAFTA. If these trade agreements worked to create good jobs for workers, the AFL-CIO would be fighting for them as hard as or harder than Wall Street and the global corporations do. The tragic fact is that—despite some marginal progress over the years in some chapters—the model hasn’t changed. This flawed model has led to many trade agreements that skew their benefits toward the 1% and have exacerbated trade deficits, wage suppression, the dismantling of our manufacturing sector and income inequality.