Export Compliance Daily is a Warren News publication.

AFL-CIO President Says They'll File a Rapid Response USMCA Case Within 30 Days

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaking to reporters Sept. 3, said the organization plans on filing a case under the rapid response labor enforcement mechanism within the next 30 days. “We have tremendous concerns with Mexico’s ability to enforce their own laws,” he said. Trumka gave no clue about which company, or in what sector, the unions are scrutinizing.

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.

The rapid response labor mechanism targets a specific factory where it's alleged that workers do not have freedom of association or the right to collective bargaining. After a period of consultations, an investigation can be done into whether the allegations are true, and if they are, the tariff benefit of the goods from that factory may be withdrawn, or the goods may be barred for entry, but it's not clear if the U.S. would go for that nuclear option on the first offense (see 2006020052).

Trumka seemed to assume that would be the result if the company were found guilty of violating workers' rights in one of these areas. “We think that when we do the rapid response, and if we’re able to block products from coming in, it will get their attention real fast,” he said, and that will bring compliance.

He also mentioned the case of attorney Susana Prieto, who advocated for workers' rights near the border with the U.S. That would not qualify for rapid response, but could be the subject of a country-to-country dispute over compliance with the labor chapter. “They arrested her and threw her in jail for no reason, and then they said, ‘We’ll let you out of jail if you promise you won’t organize for three or four years,'” he said. “That’s a clear violation of the agreement, so we’re garnering the facts on that.”