Obama decides not to renegotiate NAFTA after all, will allow Mexican trucks to destroy the Teamsters

[brentspeak]

As they said, Obama tapped Wall Streeters to be his economic advisers so that they would implement his policies.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/mar/03/official-obama-mexican-president-reach-trucking-ag/

Official: Obama, Mexican president reach trucking agreement

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Thursday will announce a plan to open up U.S. highways to Mexican trucks, removing a longstanding roadblock to improved relations between the North American allies.

An Obama administration official said the two leaders have agreed to a phased-in plan that would authorize both Mexican and U.S. long-haul carriers to engage in cross-border operations, provided that the Mexican trucks meet U.S. safety standards. Both countries were given this authority under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, but the U.S. has refused to allow Mexican trucks access amid concerns over its ability to meet America’s stringent safety and environmental standards.

Mexico has placed higher tariffs on dozens of U.S. products in response to the unresolved dispute. The official said Mexico will agree to lift those tariffs in phases, with all tariffs lifted once the first Mexican carrier receives authorization to travel on U.S. roads.

Negotiating teams are still working out final details of the plan, and are expected to send an agreement to Congress this spring, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the plan ahead of Obama’s public statement.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

1. Sometimes I wonder who's side he's on (nt)

[ClarkUSA]

5. Here's an idea... if you're at all interested in facts instead of the OP's spin.

Link to facts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=621787&mesg_id=621787

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. That's odd... the words NAFTA, truck, trucking, and Mexico appear exactly ZERO times in the link

you provided. On edit, I forgot Teamsters. Zero times.

I'll file your post under "things that make me go hmmm".

[tsuki]

109. What do your facts have to do with the Teamsters?

[libmom74]

27. I don't wonder anymore

I've figured out he is on the Corporatist's side.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Oh, is that why every Senate Republican voted against his Wall Street Reform bill?

Yeah, and that's why Wall Street and The Chamber of Commerce spent billions of lobbying dollars trying to defeat that signature bill of Obama's?

:sarcasm:

What I "wonder" when I hear that old debunked meme you're pushing is where you get your facts from. Or maybe facts don't matter?

[amandabeech]

42. Yeah, that bill isn't exactly what Wall Street wanted,

but that doesn't make it a good bill for the rest of us.

I will be greatly, and pleasantly surprised, if it makes any real difference in really reducing the financial risk in our system.

In addition, any regulation system is only as good as the regulators who enforce it. Elizabeth Warren will not be around long. Sheila Bair is the best of the rest and she's not great. The SEC is a complete embarrassment at this point.

I suggest that you curb your enthusiasm until we see how this system works out.

[ClarkUSA]

48. How is the Wall Street Reform bill not "a good bill for the rest of us"?

Here are some facts about it that refute your claim:

The very first thing that the Reform Act done was lower interest rates. In the past, credit card companies had the ability to charge outrageous interest rates and then had the leverage to increase that rate on people who had a hard time paying their credit card payments. Credit cards had to be written off due to non payment and the amassed bad credit paid a toll on the companies. They say this contributed to the credit crisis. It did, but then again the credit card companies were still giving credit to anyone and everyone knowing that they had the option of the card being written off. Lower interest rates mean that cards will be paid off and not written off.

More benefits of credit card reform:

Fees Controlled

The biggest thing about the Credit Card Reform Act that has helped consumers is that the credit card companies can no longer charge those outrageous fees. Now they have to keep the same due date each month and not change it because someone is late on their payment. Credit card companies can no longer charge fees for payments made online or over the telephone. The little outrageous fees that the credit card companies were profiting on are now eliminated.

http://www.usmoneytalk.com/finance/credit-card-reform-act-does-this-actually-do-anything-for-anybody-909/

Here are some definitive positive changes that credit card reform created for consumers:

5 Positive Aspects Of The New Credit Card Regulations:

1. No retroactive interest increases – a credit card company cannot increase the interest rate and have it apply to a pre-existing balance.
2. Limits on Fees – the fees on a yearly credit card can be no more than 25% of the initial credit limit
3. Rates Cannot be Changed for Late payments on unrelated loans. If miss payments on an unrelated consumer loan, the credit company cannot use the practice known as universal default to increase your interest rate.
4. Application of Balance – If you pay over the minimum amount on your credit card each month, the additional amount must apply the payment to the balance with the highest interest rate.
5. Timely Billing – The credit card company cannot issue a bill several days before it is due and then charge you late fees. The bill must be issued at least 21 days before you must pay the bill each month.

Other Aspects

One aspect that may impact college age consumers is that a new credit card cannot be issued to a person who is under 21 years of age. Students in college and young people who enter the military cannot be issued credit cards. This prevents them from abusing credit, but it also prevent responsible people under the age of 21 from building credit.

http://www.usmoneytalk.com/finance/credit-card-reform-act-5-positive-aspects-for-americans-904

[Armstead]

100. It still allows huge monopolistic banks to own the economy

[ZombieHorde]

103. Great argument. nt

[dotymed]

87. To illustrate how far right

our (paid for) politicians have become: The Glass-Steagal legislation was introduced and supported by republicans. Now it is considered too leftist even for most of our "Democrats." Protecting people, putting people before profits (which Glass-Steagal did not really accomplish, but did somewhat protect consumers) has become a fringe, leftist goal in our current corporate politics.
We must organize and follow Egypt's lead.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[golfguru]

114. Only reason was they wanted even MORE corporatist bill

[jefferson_dem]

30. SATAN'S

for sure!

[hollowdweller]

2. Does this mean the mexicans can join the Teamsters?

Truck driving is one of the very few halfway decent jobs a hs graduate can get in the US.

I hate to see it go down the tubes.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Not unless there are Canadian Teamsters right now. This arrangement is similar.

Read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=622178&mesg_id=622239

[former9thward]

33. There are Canadian Teamsters.

They are one of the largest unions in Canada. NAFTA has been a disaster no matter how much you want to defend it.

[ClarkUSA]

35. So there is that possibility, although Mexico is a different kettle of fish, legally speaking.

Quote me where I defended NAFTA anywhere on this thread.

[doc03]

3. Obama has become a real disappointment, I don't believe he

will draw a line and take a stand on anything. I know in this 3 dimensional chess game of his he has them right where he wants them.

[ClarkUSA]

14. How so? Was DADT repeal "a real disappointment"?

Speaking of a true political Chess Master's move, how about his opening up HCR this week to include the possibility of single-payer and the public option for states who choose to do so? Is that "a real disappointment" too?

:sarcasm:

[doc03]

18. When he had a chance to put the single payer option in the

HCR bill he wouldn't back it. On DADT he kind of backed it after a lot of kicking and screaming and foot dragging from what I saw.

[ClarkUSA]

23. When was there "a chance"? Prove it. Name the 60 votes in the Senate.

[MadBadger]

36. Name the 50

[Knight Hawk]

108. Forceful leaders............

don't wait or "hope" for there to be 60 votes in the Senate.They push damn hard and arm twist and get the 60 votes.Think LBJ,it may be before your time,or any effective leader .Obama simply does not have the experience or the "fire in the belly" we need at this time to be a strong ,effective leader.

[vaberella]

25. Huh....were you paying attention?

When did single payer EVER have a chance to get passed through. The PO didn't even have a chance. DADT was dragged on? Congressmen voted against it 3-4 times---it was Reid who relentlessly pushed it at the insistence of the President. Even Reid said implied this. Where are you getting your info.

[Armstead]

101. You are correct. No real heaklth care reform had a chance

Because Obama and too many other Democrats (not all of them) copped out before the "debate" was even started.

[ClarkUSA]

106. Yeah, that's why Obama opened the door to single-payer and the public option for states this week.

Just this past week, President Obama opened the way to single-payer and the public option for states at the National Governor's WH conference:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/146523-liberals-see-open-door-for-public-option-single-payer

Do the facts mean anything to you? There weren't the votes for either single-payer or the public option in Congress, period. So the Chess Master did it this way. Obama supporters always said that HCR would open the door to single payer and the public option. We were right to defend President Obama's strategy, despite being reviled here.

[Armstead]

115. He was goaded into it by Bernie Sanders

I doubt Obama sat down at the beginning of the health care fight and said "Well I'll push through a health care plan and sorta pretend I'm for public insurance (public option) for a while, then I'll cave in. Then later on I'll change the original timetable and pass the buck to the states..And that will bring us universal health care.....I can just see those good folks in Mississippi and Arizona rushing to implement Health Care in their states."

Not exactly the behavior of a chess master.

It's more like Bernie Sanders and Patrick Lahet pushed this to make it possible for Vermont to do something on it's own, while the national Democrats go back to sweeping it under the rug.

It's also more like simultaneously, the GOP Neanderthals who are fighting to roll it back also caused Obama to give in to them and turn the whole mess over to the states.

[Bake]

118. And the states are surely lining up to enact a public option ...

:sarcasm:

It has to be national. And it will take a real leader to push it through. I don't think it will EVER happen. Not just Obama ... I just don't see it happening in this country unless/until control is wrestled away from the corporations.

Bake

[ClarkUSA]

4. Your OP is misleading. Nowhere in the article does it say anything about "destroy the Teamsters"

The Teamsters haven't complained, unless you forgot to include it in your OP.

[brentspeak]

13. ClarkUSA: "The Teamsters haven't complained"

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/03/2096309/us-mexico-reach-deal-to-end-trucking.html

But Teamsters union President Jim Hoffa charged that the agreement "caves in to business interests," adding that "Mexican trucks simply don't meet the same standards as U.S. trucks."

And a group representing 152,000 independent truckers said the agreement would make their struggle to survive amid a sour economy even more difficult.

"Simply unbelievable," Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said in a statement. "For all the president's talk of helping small businesses survive, his administration is sure doing their best to destroy small trucking companies and the drivers they employ."

[ClarkUSA]

15. That statement by Hoffa is far from "destroy the Teamsters".

End of story.

[brentspeak]

20. "(Obama's) administration is sure doing their best to destroy small trucking companies"

"Simply unbelievable," Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said in a statement. "For all the president's talk of helping small businesses survive, his administration is sure doing their best to destroy small trucking companies and the drivers they employ."

Oh...it wasn't Hoffa himself who said that. So, technically, in the technical sense of the word, we can say that technically that...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Hoffa didn't say that. Even Spencer does not go as far to say this will "destroy the Teamsters"

I repeat, your OP title is misleading.

Not only that, but you offer no facts to support your claim that this decision will "destroy the Teamsters" probably because there is none.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

50. How so? Because I proved the OP's title is misleading and unsubstantiated?

Give it a rest yourself. I'm not about to enable clearly false statements that smear President Obama.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. "The Teamsters haven't complained" is what you posted.

I can't see that as a true statement.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Before that, I declared the OP misleading because no one said this will "destroy the Teamsters"

Read it yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=622178&mesg_id=622182

And brentspeak admitted I was right but revealingly declined to correct his OP title.

No surprise there.

[Union Scribe]

65. Quit digging, we all see the hole you put yourself in.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

104. The truth hurts, eh? I won't stop pointing out the misleading OP which is totally unsubstantiated.

[olegramps]

90. You have that right, but it is the end of story for your blind support.

Our government should have responded with tariffs on all of Mexico's imports when they placed tariffs on our exports. The fact of the matter is that the astronomical imbalance of trade could be readily corrected with tariffs on products that American manufactures have outsourced. Yes, those jobs making numerous products could be returned if the greed of the corporations could be checked.

[ClarkUSA]

107. Sorry, my blind support for the truth won't end. If you support tariffs, then call Congress.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. ditto

[AnneD]

7. Delete

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyAndProud60]

10. Can't teamsters now go to Mexico? I don't see how this hurts the teamsters? WTF? NT

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. I'll bet you dollars to donuts our trucks are banned from Mexico.

[doc03]

19. Why would a company pay a Teamster to drive in

Mexico when he can get a local for $1.00 an hour?

[vaberella]

24. self-delete. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

31. This arrangement is the same as the one we have with Canada.

Canadian truck drivers hasn't done anything to "destroy the Teamsters" so I'm not seeing how this decision is going to.

"First off, there are no long haul teamster truck drivers. Most teamsters are local drivers and the last time I checked they can't cross over the border. The Mexican drivers that will be coming over the border will only be allowed to deliver their load and then pick up another load going back to Mexico. Just like Canadian drivers have been doing for years."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=622178&mesg_id=622223

[doc03]

38. Canada has comparable wages and standards to the US.

I don't care if they are Teamsters or not, low wage Mexican drivers will be taking American jobs. Hey if they got paid the same, had the same licence requirements and safety requirements it wouldn't be a problem and companies wouldn't be pushing for it. We both know what this is about, lowering the labor costs for corporations plain and simple. Oh and they will only be allowed to deliver their load and then pick up another going back to Mexico. That is presently a job preformed by an American! What is the deal with Teamsters, as long as they are not Teamster jobs they count or what. A good portion of the truckers are independent owner operators trying to make a living. I would be willing to bet you were dead set against this 3 years ago when GWB wanted it.

[amandabeech]

46. Thanks for bringing out the point about the non-union operators and the independent owner-operators.

Some of us here, and I include myself, write like unionized workers are the only workers. Right now, unionized workers comprise only something like 7-9% of private sector workers.

As you say, ALL workers and, I think, owner-operators, skilled tradespersons and many very small businesspersons are in exactly the same world of hurt as their unionized counterparts.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Only for the past few years. Actually, Canada didn't for the longest time.

So there goes that argument. This will not "destroy the Teamsters" no matter what you say. Hoffa is annoyed, but he's not even saying that.

[Ikonoklast]

72. You would lose.

NAFTA works both ways, the U.S. megacarriers will now roll into Mexico.

The smaller Mexican truckers are worried about that, too.

They will not be able to compete with the economies of scale that the huge truckload carriers use to their competitive advantage.

[amandabeech]

45. Compensation for truck drivers in Mexico couldn't support

one person in a working class household here. They'll completely under price hard working U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It's the same thing that has happened with construction, meat packing, you name it. And it's not just Mexicans.

Ravenously greedy businesses incorporated in the U.S. will use low paid Mexican truckers anywhere they can here in the U.S. and a lot of truckers who are barely scraping by now will be put out of business and will have enormous difficulty finding any job that will support them and at least one other family member in working class style.

That's the way things have been going here for at least 15 or 20 years. Import cheap labor, and lay off or refuse to hire Americans who expect a living wage. Really, loss of jobs to cheap foreign competition is a constant theme here on DU. Please pay more attention to the threads.

The Teamsters are a very, very tough bunch. During the last Teamster strike in the 1970s, Teamsters shot non-union (scab) rigs on I-80 in Ohio from the over passes until they stopped running. When I was in college at about the same time, the teaching assistants went on strike for living wages. The Teamsters delivered all university supplies to depots in the northern area of the campus. The TAs knew that if they could get the Teamsters on their side, they'd win. The Teamsters went for weeks ignoring the TAs picket lines at the supply depots thinking that the TAs were a bunch of overeducated wimps. Finally, the TAs started lying down in front of the Teamster's trucks to slow them down, so that other TAs could climb up on top of the Teamster's cabs, hold on to their windshield wipers and scream, "On Strike!" This went on for a few days before the Teamsters decided that the TAs were for real. When the Teamsters refused to drive across the TA picket lines, the university gave in IMMEDIATELY. I'm telling you, the Teamsters can be VERY serious.

Teamsters like all unions, though, have decreased greatly in power. If they think that they can organize in Mexico to save their jobs, they will. However, it is my understanding that Yankees organizing in Mexico will have a rough time, and probably will be shot at and physically intimidated like they were 100 years ago here. I wish them well, but I have my doubts that even they will be successful. Organizers can only organize people who are ready to do so. I haven't seen many signs that Mexican workers are ready yet.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

11. This is fucking bullshit Mr President!!!

[Autumn]

16. That's NAFTA . Clinton did it.

Obama has nothing to do with it. Rinse, wash, repeat. Rinse, wash, repeat.

[Union Scribe]

66. Yeah and fuck him for that, but Obama isn't doing anything to help.

Which is, I've noticed, his default position on basically everything.

[polichick]

77. He's a corporatist too - and filled his cabinet with Clintonites...

When we all finally get who he represents, we'll be in a position to choose differently.

[Teaser]

97. He has 3000 Neo-Nazi's and racist skinheads and nihilists in his adminstration.

Every cabinet meeting starts with a 10 minute chant of "WHITE POWER!", fists raised in the air.

Oh, and he has a swastika and an inverted pentagram burned into the palms of his hands.

[rhett o rick]

91. Pres Obama is reaffirming NAFTA. His corporate advisors tell him to. nm

[Autumn]

98. You got that right,

what used to be a bad thing is now a good thing.:crazy: i guess anything can be rehabilitated.

[rhett o rick]

99. Of course his advisers were Clinton's advisers. nm

[ClarkUSA]

22. You have offered up zero facts to back up your claim that this will "destroy the Teamsters"

How misleading your OP title is.

How easily the pitchforks come out.

How pathetic.

[former9thward]

34. I guess the Teamster Union doesn't buy into your assurances.

Although you must know what is better for their members than they do. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110303/pl_usnw/DC59038

[ClarkUSA]

37. I already read that. Hoffa doesn't believe it will "destroy the Teamsters" either.

[former9thward]

39. No, no one thing will destroy any union.

But at some point there is the straw that breaks the camel's back. There is a reason that union membership is down to 7% of the private sector workforce. Unions have been under attack for decades now and they haven't been able to get relief any recent Democratic presidents.

[ClarkUSA]

47. My contention is that the OP title is misleading. That is clearly true.

As for your saying that unions have not been able to get any relief from recent Democratic presidents" don't forget that this President saved the US auto industry and the majority of UAW workers' jobs when he bailed them out in 2009.

Looking at the overall picture, this President has given labor leaders more of a seat at the table than any other in memory. For example, Trumka sat two seats left of from President Obama when Obama announced his intent to appoint Trumka and other individuals to the President’s Council on Job and Competitiveness just last week.

This decision merely puts Mexico on a par with Canada.

[brentspeak]

53. Unlikely you're typing with a straight face

"This decision merely puts Mexico on a par with Canada."

Seen many Mexican wages "on par" with Canadian wages, lately?

Do us a favor, and explain, in person, to a group of American truck drivers your theory that allowing Mexican truckers unfettered access to US highways will not cost US truckers their jobs or a significant decrease in their wages.

Then get back to us and tell us all about it.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Look who's talking. When are you going to correct your misleading and unsubstantiated OP?

Until you do, don't waste my time.

[brentspeak]

60. How's this?

"Obama decides not to renegotiate NAFTA after all, will allow Mexican trucks to destroy the Teamsters and the independent American trucking industry"?

Better?

[ClarkUSA]

70. Where's proof of your claims? You offer nothing but words. Not even a pretty speech to CYA.

:boring:

[olegramps]

93. You want to hammer on one word to the neglect of the potential for substantial harm.

This includes loss of jobs and safety. I have driven throughout Mexico and I can attest to the lack of proper inspections of all vehicles in Mexico.

[doc03]

40. What is your fixation on Teamsters? These jobs are presently

being done by Americans, some teamsters I suppose, non-union people and independent owner operators. The point is they are Americans making a middle class income that are being either forced to work for less or lose their job.

[ClarkUSA]

71. I'm fixated on the OP's misleading "destroy the Teamsters" title of which there is zero evidence.

I'm have low tolerance for those who misrepresent the truth.

[doc03]

80. So if the jobs lost aren't Union Teamster jobs they don't count.

The point is there will be American teamster jobs lost. The word teamster is a generic term for a person who drives a truck not necessarily a member of the Teamsters Union. So the OP is right in my opinion teamster (by definition a person that drives a truck are going to destroyed).

[littlebit]

26. This isn't going to hurt the Teamsters.

First off, there are no long haul teamster truck drivers. Most teamsters are local drivers and the last time I checked the can't cross over the border. The Mexican drivers that will be coming over the border will only be allowed to deliver their load and then pick up another load going back to Mexico. Just like Canadian drivers have been doing for years.

[doc03]

41. So if you drive a truck and you are not a Teamster your job

doesn't count, what a ----- argument.

[littlebit]

61. Are you in the trucking industry?

Do you understand anything about it? I own and operate a small fleet. I have been in the industry for 14 years. This agreement is NOT going to take away any american jobs. Mexican truckers have been allowed to operate inside the US for years. The only difference now is they can go more that 150 miles from the border. They will not be taking freight from American drivers because no american company will send a truck over the border to deliver.

The only thing screwing the teamster as far as the trucking industry is concerned is the teamsters.

[doc03]

78. Duh who the hell carries the load from that 150 miles inside the

border to the customer now? When this changes the Mexicans can deliver the load directly to the customer anywhere in the USA. Before a Mexican driver delivered his load inside the border and then an American driver delivers it to the customer say to New York. Now if the American driver is no longer going to deliver the goods from the drop off point to the customer, it sure sure as hell looks like we are loosing jobs to me. It appears you are also anti union so maybe you would like to pay your drivers Mexican wages. I don't care if you are talking teamsters, non-union or owner operators someone in the USA is loosing jobs from this. I am not arguing about teamsters I am talking about people that drive trucks, there has to be a net job loss someplace. If not explain that magic trick to me.
Here is a link I got from the Teamsters site:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/03/109801/us-mexico-reach-deal-to-end-trucking.html

It quotes both James Hoffa of the Teamsters and Todd Spencer of the Owner Operator Independent Driver Association saying it will cost American trucking jobs.

Who backs the deal, the f----g Chamber of Commerce

[olegramps]

94. "The only people screwing the trucking industry...is the Teamsters."

The working man's "best" friend denigrating the union.

[Uta]

44. Its realistic

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-mexico-20110304,0,1896016.story?track=rss

[rhett o rick]

92. Of course it's realistic, to a corporatist. "In corporations we trust". Right ?? nm

[2Design]

54. more union busting

[ClarkUSA]

75. lol! Prove it. Jimmy Hoffa doesn't think so, why do you?

:eyes:

[doc03]

81. Oh he doesn't, link below

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/03/109801/us-mexico-reach-deal-to-end-trucking.html


James Hoffa of the Teamsters and Todd Spencer of the Owner Operators and Indepednat Drivers Association both say it will cost jobs. Who backs the deal? Why who else but the Chamber of Commerce. Admit it if GWB had done this you would be wanting to storm Washington with torches and pitch forks.

[ClarkUSA]

105. That's right. Hoffa says zilch about "union busting" or that this will "destroy the Teamsters".

[doc03]

111. He doesn't say those exact words in that column, but he

obviously doesn't approve. Then you totally ignore what Todd Spencer from the Owner Operators and Independent Truckers says. If Bush had done this you would be having a hissy fit. Besides that the OP dosen't credit Hoffa or anyone in labor for making any such statement. That is the OP's opinion and any person that can't see it will destroy jobs currently done by American workers has their head in the sand.

[doc03]

112. Here is another link from Hoffa from an earlier story Jan 6, 2011

http://www.teamster.org/content/hoffa-deeply-disappointed-mexican-trucks-proposal


"Why would the DOT propose to threaten US truck driver's and warehouse workers' jobs when the US unemployment is so high."

[ProSense]

55. FACT SHEET: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation

FACT SHEET: Enhancing U.S.-Mexico Cooperation

President Obama and President Calderón today announced that Mexico and the United States have found a clear path to resolving the cross-border long-haul trucking dispute. This path will allow for the establishment of a reciprocal, phased-in program built on the highest safety standards that will authorize both Mexican and United States long-haul carriers to engage in cross-border operations under NAFTA. Once a final agreement is reached, Mexico will suspend its retaliatory tariffs in stages beginning with reducing tariffs by 50 percent at the signing of an agreement and will suspend the remaining 50 percent when the first Mexican carrier is granted operating authority under the program. Mexico will terminate all current tariffs once the program is normalized. The agreed schedule will not affect the rights and obligations of Mexico or the United States under the NAFTA, including Mexico's right to apply its retaliatory measures.

This agreement will deliver a program that is safe, secure, efficient, and advances the economic interests of both the United States and Mexico. It also will feature a number of program improvements that are important to both United States and Mexican interests. U.S. and Mexican negotiators are continuing to work through the remaining issues and expect to have a draft final agreement in place very soon. As soon as all of the details are in place, the United States Department of Transportation and USTR will confer with interested members of Congress and publicly share the proposed agreement and seek comment.

<...>

The Teamsters expressed concerns.

The treaty isn't finalized yet, and still has to be ratified by Congress.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Thanks for the fact sheet. I prefer it to demonizing rhetoric overall.

Bookmarked for future misleading OPs on this topic.

[Union Scribe]

67. Yeah, I guess in one sense rank globalism is "cooperation"

In the same sense that invading countries is "proactive" and posting press releases is "being a valued board member."

[rhett o rick]

88. Yes the corporatist/centrists all love NAFTA. Soon the standard of living in the US will match

Mexico. Thanks Pres Clinton, thanks Pre Obama. God bless the oligarchy.

[sad sally]

56. Eliminating those pesky tariffs - that's where the pressure comes from.

So what if American truckers see their work decline? So what is equipment from Mexico doesn't meet safety or emission standards. So what if trucks entering the US are smuggling human cargo or drugs? Stop these unfair tariffs - - let Mexican trucks come to American.

Mexico, beginning in March 2009, has imposed import tariffs on a rotating list of 99 U.S. products valued at about $2.5 billion. Products subject to the levy may include rice, beef, soy sauce and sunglasses.

Jose Refugio Munoz, the head of the Mexican trucking industry group known as Canacar, said he is skeptical the program will work because of differences in Mexican and U.S. environmental and labor regulations.

“We see this as a decision by the U.S. government to get Mexico to withdraw measures such as tariffs on certain products,” he said in an interview.

It's not about saving one American job - it's all about the money.

[dionysus]

63. you've convinced me brent. obama is the worst ever and hates us all. i will never vote dem again.

you win. all your hard work has paid off. one voter at a time, you will defeat obama. you are a hero.




:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Pisces]

64. I second that sentiment!!! The OP's agenda has won the day.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Your self-manufactured OP title is completely wrong, tho' it did bring out the pitchforks.

Furthermore, no one in labor is saying this decision will "destroy the Teamsters". Why do you think that is, brentspeak? Perhaps they know something you refuse to acknowledge? Unless you have proof to back your made-up and quit inflammatory OP title up. Which you don't. I know this because I've asked you several times for any, and you have ignored me. Why is that, brentspeak? Isn't providing facts to back up your inflammatory and made-up OP titles important to you?

So let's look at some facts from someone who is an owner of a small fleet of trucks, shall we?

littlebit (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-03-11 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
26. This isn't going to hurt the Teamsters.

First off, there are no long haul teamster truck drivers. Most teamsters are local drivers and the last time I checked the can't cross over the border. The Mexican drivers that will be coming over the border will only be allowed to deliver their load and then pick up another load going back to Mexico. Just like Canadian drivers have been doing for years.

See Reply 26: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=622178&mesg_id=622223

littlebit (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-04-11 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #41
61. Are you in the trucking industry?

Do you understand anything about it? I own and operate a small fleet. I have been in the industry for 14 years. This agreement is NOT going to take away any american jobs. Mexican truckers have been allowed to operate inside the US for years. The only difference now is they can go more that 150 miles from the border. They will not be taking freight from American drivers because no american company will send a truck over the border to deliver.

The only thing screwing the teamster as far as the trucking industry is concerned is the teamsters.

See Reply 61: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=622178&mesg_id=622422

Go ahead and try to refute littlebit's personal testimony with any facts at Google's disposal.

I won't hold my breath.

[polichick]

76. It's bad enough that he won't renegotiate NAFTA - but no big surprise.

[uponit7771]

79. *******VERY MISLEADING OP TITLE***** (read details in link)

[NightWatcher]

82. then once the new Mexican port in Baja opens up (2014), they can shut down the Port of LA

and many union and non union people alike, will lose their jobs

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/25/business/fi-mexport25

First, allow their trucks to run here wide open without restriction, then open a port 150 miles S of TJ, then watch LA and Long Beach dry up as the Mexicans can do the labor for pennies on the dollar of what it costs the union workers to do now.

[treestar]

83. I doubt that he agrees with your conclusion

That's a big jump there.

[rhett o rick]

89. But why would you support NAFTA? You do dont you? nm

[treestar]

102. Huh? My point is that Obama probably does not think his actions

"destroy" the Teamsters.

I really don't know what it is that might or might not destroy the teamsters.

[rhett o rick]

113. You avoided answering my question. Do you support NAFTA? nm

[county worker]

84. I heard this morning that there is a port being built in Mexico to replace the port of

Los Angeles and to bust the long shore men also. The trucks from the Mexican port could drive up to the States.

[tsuki]

110. I wonder what is going to happen with $5+ diesel prices?

[TMcCaleb]

85. wheres

the teamsters when you need them?

[robcon]

86. The prejudice against Mexican trucks is finally (almost) over.

Canadian trucks were allowed in the U.S. since the NAFTA agreement was signed. Mexican trucks were discriminated against for more than a decade, and it is about time to correct that.

[MikeW]

95. thats becuase Mexican trucks werent under strict safety standards

[Teaser]

96. Obama decides to launch nuclear warheads at nuns, widows, and orphans.

.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.