Why aren't the Democratic Presidential candidates criticizing outsourcing?

[JoeMemphis]

Our party is supposed to be a pro-worker party, yet I have yet to hear one single Democratic candidate for President talk about the problem of outsourcing US jobs, both blue- and white-collar jobs.

Are the Democratic candidates afraid to take a stance on this problem? This is a great issue that we can swipe some significant GOP support and bring them to our side on the economy. Bush is a "free trader" and would never do anything to make his corporate masters angry, and the Democrats should take that opening to drive a wedge between greedy CEOs and workers in peril of losing their jobs.

Dean, Edwards, Lieberman, Graham, Braun, Sharpton, Kucinich, Kerry, and Gephardt -- get on this issue. You will defeat Bush with it.

[Ponderer]

1. Because that's anti-free trade

n/t

[Ponderer]

2. Remember, Clinton and Carter supported NAFTA

n/t

[JoeMemphis]

4. So?

Doesn't make it right. We should be protecting jobs here in this country. The party that does it, wins.

[Frances]

3. I have wondered the same thing

I think the candidates don't realize what an issue this is. It would seem to me that Bush would be very vulnerable here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. If I am not mistaken I think that Gephardt has

It seems to be a very big issue in the farmbelt. I would have to look through my links but it seems he was speaking out about a month ago.

To be frank, how would anyone know the majority of issues the candidates have spoken about? The war has dominated most of the story.

[JoeMemphis]

6. Gephardt? Cool ...

He needs to get on the ball then. Let me know ifyou find anything ... I'll look around the news search on Google and Yahoo and elsewhere. I need to support a candidate who supports US workers.

[sangha]

21. That's a good question

Too bad some people still believe "If the media hasn't reported it, it hasn't happened" when it comes to Dems positions.

[Devlzown]

7. Kucinich favors repealing NAFTA.

I'm not sure about the rest.

[revcarol]

8. Oh, it is my privilege to point out that ONE CANDIDATE is head and

shoulders above the others in this: KUCINICH!!

He will repeal NAFTA & WTO, replacing them with negotiated bi-lateral trade agreements. He will stop countries from going "offshore" to avoid taxes. He will keep good jobs in the U. S.
I'm sorry, it's late and I am tired. But I will try to be more thorough in answering your questions in the morning.

Meanwhile, check out: http://www.kucinich.us

He is so STRONG for labor. An AFL/CIO International organizer told me yesterday that he is labor's "dream candidate!!"

[burr]

9. Kucinich, while not specifically addressing outsourcing, has some ideas.

<http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_corporations.htm>

Although going after tax evasion and paper corporations in other nations will help this, it will not entirely solve this problem. But ending NAFTA, as Kucinich is proposing, and trying to reduce our trade deficits with other nations will help reduce most of the significant profit to be made in outsourcing.

[w4rma]

10. The DLC is funded by the big corporations who like that outsourcing

And this is the problem. The DLC Dems are using this position to get money with which they hope to get out a message that avoids talking about this which will get votes.

Also, note that the same big buisnesses who like outsourcing own and control our mainstream media outlets.

...
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
...
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=

[Yupster]

14. It's late and Dean's answer is long, but

I don't see what it would have to do with what my company did.

We aren't hiring kids or dumping chemicals. We're hiring educated, industrious Filipinos to answer our phone banks and conduct trades through their computers for a good Filipino but lousy Ameruican wage.

[JoeMemphis]

11. Thanks for the help folks ...

This is a crucial issue, and it's even more crucial that we get the Democratic nominees on board worker issues once again. I'm glad to see that Kucinich, Gephardt, and Howard Dean seem to be taking on this issue in an indirect way. However, the Democrats could practically split the GOP by taking on outsourcing, and I think all of us would LOVE to see that.

[Mechatanketra]

12. Just about every Dean speech I hear discusses it -- I think.

If by "outsourcing" you mean shipping jobs overseas instead of hiring domestically, Howard Dean brings it up a lot regarding its interactions with other policies, such as wanting to modify environmental treaties like Kyoto so they don't result in massive job emigration just to get around the regulations.

If I've mistaken what "outsourcing" means, just ignore this post. :dunce:

[Yupster]

13. Important issue to me

My company outsourced its home office phone banks to Manila. That took thousands of jobs away from America. More and more companies are going to be doing this.

It's obviously a disaster to our country, but I honestly can't think of what to do about it.

If the people of Manila can do close to just as good a job at a quarter the cost, why shouldn't the company do it? Patriotism? That's not what the company's in business for.

The only solution I could think of was a boycott.

[w4rma]

15. deleted

gone

[Merlin]

18. There IS a solution, if only us damn Democrats would wake up.

The solution is to demand -- that's demand -- that a fundamental condition of WTO membership and Free Trade Agreements be requiring one simple, fundamental basic freedom for the work force of the country with which we trade: the freedom to organize and collectively bargain.

No freedom to organize. No trade. Period. It's that simple.

By requiring this freedom, we put in motion forces which will lead to raising the standard of living and the compensation levels of workers throughout the third world. This means the workers benefit, not simply their bosses. And it means that over time wage rates will equalize.

Meantime, the short term solution for those effected, like you, is to find other work. Those jobs are gone for a long time. But at 6% unemployment, there's work out there to be found.

[cap]

19. nobody has reported back to you what the working conditions

are of those Filipinos... OSHA standards???

There are a lot of Indians getting sick working the night shift in those call centers.

[Merlin]

16. Why aren't they criticizing buyers of Chinese clothing? Foreign cars?

What's the difference. When was the last time you elected to pay 50% or 100% or 200% more just to avoid buying a product made in another country? This is a rhetorical question, which I am asking everyone to answer for themselves. The truth is--for 99% of us--never.

We don't willingly pay more for a thing because it is made in the USA. Neither can we expect people who build software or need things assembled or want parts made from buying them where they can get the best price for the quality.

That's the way free markets work. Free markets are a key component of the free enterprise system, and of freedom itself. Indeed, you cannot have freedom without free markets. (The war on drugs is an example of the kinds of police state activities needed to suppress free markets.)

[rman]

17. yea, wtf is the point of free trade

if everyone is unemployed.
increase production, empoverish the people.

What _is_ the measure of success of a nation?

[GBD4]

20. Indeed a problem

Bob Graham did say this on Meet the Press last week:

"MR. RUSSERT: But the centerpiece of your economic plan is a two-year lifting of effect on the payroll tax for...
SEN. GRAHAM: Fully paid for, incidentally.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’s $200 billion lost to the Treasury.
SEN. GRAHAM: No, it is not, Tim, because we fully paid for that by other changes in the tax law, including things like why should we allow a company to go to Bermuda, set up an office in a filing cabinet, get the full benefits of U.S. citizenship and avoid paying their fair share of taxes?"

I do think that several candidates have made statements of disappointment toward US companies moving jobs overseas, I am sure it is on the Internet somewhere . . .

[TheBigGuy]

22. what do you mean by "outsourcing?"

I think thats pretty much an accepted business practice...to outsource things like facility maintenance and computer services, and in manufacturing, to outsource parts manufactureing (GM has spun off its old parts division..DELCO..into something called Delphi)....so I dont see why this would be a political issue.

Government is starting to outsource alot, too..opening services up to public/prrivate competition (read "Reinventing Goverment" and "Banishing Bureacracy")..

So Im not sure this is a real issue.