Background here but in short, Labor's position is to allow foreign workers free access to our markets but oppose helping American workers by lowering tariffs on a reciprocal basis. Most U.S. labor unions have opposed nearly every trade agreement that has come down the pike since NAFTA -- whether negotiated by Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, in 2004, most U.S. labor unions opposed the U.S. free trade agreement with Australia. The AFL-CIO deployed its usual argument that the FTA represented a "race to the bottom." It made no difference that Australia has strong labor laws, had ratified six of the eight ILO "core conventions"—now seven of eight—or that Australia's minimum wage is nearly twice that of the United States.

Many have sought to compromise with labor. On May 10, 2007, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress and U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab reached a bipartisan agreement to address labor's concerns about how labor rights and select other issues are addressed in trade agreements.

Speaker Pelosi called the May 10th accord a "historic occasion" and "a bipartisan breakthrough for fair trade where we expand opportunities for American businesses, workers and farmers." Chairmen Rangel and Levin, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many others praised this bipartisan accord, which led immediately to changes in four pending trade agreements. The agreement with Peru was approved later that year by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate. But just weeks later, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney issued a statement declaring the organization would oppose the "flawed trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia." The speed with which the AFL-CIO pocketed these concessions—and then proceeded to move the goal posts—was enough to induce whiplash.

Repeatedly, political leaders in both parties who want to open foreign markets for U.S. workers have reached out to labor to seek a compromise to move agreements forward…each time, labor pockets the concessions…then opposes the deals anyway. It continues this year. In May, Thea Lee testified in opposition to the Panama FTA—which includes the very changes the AFL-CIO sought and won in the May 10th agreement.

Not only did she oppose it due to questions relating to Panamanian labor law, and some new concerns about tax policy, she said the AFL-CIO would oppose the agreement until the Administration and Congress "address concerns that have been raised with respect to the investment, procurement, and services provisions in the Panama FTA." In other words, the AFL-CIO was calling for a host of new, deep changes to the agreement—changes to the trade agreement "template," she said. The Panamanians were stunned. One official with the outgoing government said: "This isn't just moving the goal posts. This is moving the entire stadium."

Labor's recent endorsement of the so-called TRADE Act of Congressman Mike Michaud is also telling. The act would generate additional reporting requirements relating to international trade agreements on top of those that already exist. It would call into question America's existing trade agreements with countries around the globe, even though those agreements provide guaranteed access to markets that purchase more than 40% of U.S. exports. It lays out sweeping objectives for future trade agreements, but never contemplates giving President Obama the authority Congress has granted every president since FDR to actually negotiate such agreements. It might as well be called the "STOP TRADE" Act.

Several questions arise: Do we want to open foreign markets to U.S. workers? Do we have confidence in the ability of American workers to compete abroad? Are we prepared to act rather than see American workers put at a disadvantage by the spreading network of FTAs being negotiated by our competitors?

Labor's answer can be summarized, in practice, in three words: no, no, and no.