Tuesday, February 26, 2008

NAFTA



     As I watch the Democratic debate tonight, I take particular interest in the questions about NAFTA.
  In the early '90's, I walked--stormed, actually--into a meeting of F.W. Myers's executives at a hotel in Long Beach and resigned. Earlier that day, an "efficiency expert" they'd hired in L.A. took over West Coast operations. He tilted his head when he walked and his shoes squeaked. His advice to me revolved around the importance of never setting my notebook down on a customer's desk during a sales call and a demand that I "lose" my colorful ties and "dress the part". 
  Which "part", I wondered? The part that hadn't had a noticeable raise since I'd relocated from New York State? The part of me that had tried to hold steady through the breeze of a revolving strategic door? The part that still felt loyalty, knowing full-well it was one-sided and my lay-off was one bad month away? Which part of "part" was I missing?
  These V.P.'s also despised The Consultant. He was foisted on them, too. So John Rouse--the same guy who ended up giving me the opportunity years later to go to Russia--asked me if I'd be willing to relocate to San Diego. This was pre-NAFTA, but my role in that came later, and has continued on and off in this business periodically ever since.
  My time in San Diego gave me the chops to understand the Southern border. I already knew the Northern border; that was home, and where I began in the international trade and transport business. NAFTA soon became all the rage in the industry. Many resumes were rewritten--including mine--touting "NAFTA experience".
  By the time the agreement passed, I was once again back in Los Angeles. Due to my San Diego stint, though, I was one of only a handful of people in the company that had traveled to El Paso, Laredo, and Calexico on the U.S. side, and Juarez, Nuevo Laredo and Mexicali within Mexico, pre-NAFTA. I'm a guero, but I knew that border. Post-passage, I visited the maquiladoras in those same Mexican cities, and I saw at least two sides to the NAFTA story. I became the de facto "NAFTA guy" for the company. 
  On one hand, I saw jobs for Americans and Mexicans along the border where there had been few, particularly in Mexico. I saw lunch rooms, buses to the job, and soccer fields, built by the multi-nationals for the Mexican workers. Part of me said, "that's good". I also knew of the continuing reports regarding the dumping of raw materials and shit and not a lot of concern for workers or where the by-products of the twin-plant processes landed. That part of me said, "not good".
  If you are in the freight business in Southern California (or Champlain, NY, for that matter), NAFTA has been part of life since 1994. Many in this sector have benefitted, but not all. Cheap, exploitable labor and environmental disregard is bound to benefit certain players and harm many others. There's always a way to make a buck, but sometimes the cost is far more than a buck on the back-end. Never underestimate a guy with an empty truck to fill, nor his willingness to haul illegal hazardous material with out-dated, dangerous equipment for what he thinks is the right price. 
  I'm not careerist enough to support NAFTA, so I don't. I think it's been a bad deal for manufacturers in the U.S., for many of the daily maquiladora workers (abnormal numbers of whom it has been reported have developed rare diseases due to exposure to all that dumping of raw materials and shit), and to the environment all along the border. It has also contributed to the "Wal-Martization" of transport rates and worker wages and benefits. Trade and transport in North America preceded NAFTA and would survive and adapt to a needed renegotiation. I doubt NAFTA will be fully rescinded any time soon. 
  Mine is the world's second-oldest profession, and it really does make the world go 'round. Trade agreements may make that world smaller, but bad ones tend to cause bigger problems here at home.
  A postscript: the day I left Houston for Russia, John Rouse told me that The Consultant had recently relocated to India, and had contacted World Projects to "do business". I'm sure he's busy explaining to some Dell customer service rep in Bangalore that it's critical to never set his notebook on a customer's desk, to "lose" the turban, and "dress the part".
          
   
   
  
  
allvoices

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

...and Ralph Nader is somewhere saying,"I told you so."

I remember Clinton's catch phrase,"NAFTA we hafta."

Seriously that's no f'ing lie.

The Best Looking Man in Show Business Today

JohnnyRussia said...

NAFTA was proposed by Bush 1. Clinton came along and ran with it.

Anonymous said...

Well the orginal agreement was signed by Bush 1 in '92 but it was Clinton 1 who pushed it through congress in '93 because it required ratification.

And it is Clinton 1 who bares full accountibility for the NAAEC supliment to NAFTA which only obligates parties to enforce their own environmental laws. You've been to border macquilladero towns so you know what that's done to the environment. NAAEC provided US corportations an incentive to relocate processes that where not permissable in the US and have been environmentally devastating for those regions.

NAFTA we hafta. Pretty catchy.

The Best Looking Man In Show Business Today

JohnnyRussia said...

Actually, only NAFTA is considered a "treaty", and those processes are covered under the treaty, not the NAAEC agreement. Customs in the U.S., Canada and Mexico doesn't recognize the supplement, as it's an "agreement", and it's not in the HTS of the U.S. or covered in a Mexican pedimento. Only the treaty is recognized. The "twin-plant" (maquiladoras) are the "houses" under which the processes take place. The shell of the product is sent to Mexico, where the assembly work---and the toxins---are added to complete the process. It's all shit. I could write a book---or at least a pamphlet---on it.

Anonymous said...

What NAAEC is a gift from Clinton 1 for Democratic and GOP senators and representitives corportate sugar daddies when NAFTA was in deep shit and taking beating from the likes of strange bed fellows like Pat Buchannan and Ralph Nader on the hill.

Again, the NAAEC only obligates parties (Mexico, US, and Canada at the time) to enforce their own environmental laws. Since Mexico environmental laws are crap, it assured US manufacturers that they would not be subject to any restrictions that were in place in US following them to Mexico or Canada. That was not the case prior to NAAEC at least for US corporations. Prior to the NAAEC they did not have free reign to take advantage of woeful environmental laws in other countries. And you are right Mexico does not observe NAAEC nor does any other member of NAFTA. Why the heck would they? Just how many non-US manufacturers are moving enviromental dangerous processes to the US where they can't be performed? Last count was zero.

Clinton and Obama against NAFTA? They both just voted to extend NAFTA into Peru in late 2007.

NAFTA we hafta.

The Best Looking Man in Show Business Today

JohnnyRussia said...

The Peru expansion vote was ironic. One of the opponents was arch-conservative Duncan Hunter. Shows trade doesn't always break down by party or ideological lines.