AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, here in Pacifica station WBAI in New York. Joining me is my co-host Juan González, a columnist with the Daily News and author of Roll Down Your Window: Stories from a Forgotten America. He’s also writing a new book now on Latinos in America.

Well, yesterday, Democracy Now! had a chance to catch up with Hillary Clinton. She came to New York to sew the first union label into a garment made by workers represented by UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees. UNITE is the result of July '95 merger of two of the nation's preeminent unions, the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union. As she stood there with the unions, we got a chance to ask her a question about the Clinton administration’s stance on labor.

AMY GOODMAN: Mrs. Clinton, these unions are fiercely anti-NAFTA. They say it’s anti-worker. How do you justify the Clinton administration’s pro-NAFTA stance?

HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, I think that everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. And I think that NAFTA is proving its worth. And the American worker, these women that you see here are as good as any workers in the world. And if you give them the chance — if you give them the chance to compete, and compete fairly, they will outdistance any competition. And that’s what free and open and fair trade like NAFTA is all about.

AMY GOODMAN: But the problem is, unions say that they can’t compete when corporations go south of the border or abroad, and they employ ununionized workers in very unsafe conditions. And these unions are, well, something we’re going to talk about in a few minutes. But before we go to reaction to that comment, we’re going to go to Jay Mazur, who is president of the newly formed UNITE, the two unions, the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union. And we’re going to talk to him about his standing with Hillary Clinton yesterday and also what his union is all about. Jay Mazur.

JAY MAZUR: Well, I was it’s symbolic in that we’re going to be sewing in the first union label of two unions, two great unions, that were established in this country in the early 1900s, and that the first label was sewn in by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1933, and now, 60 years later, the first lady of the United States, who, in the same vein, in the same history of fighting for working people and for children, is sewing in the first label of these two great unions.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you decide to merge?

JAY MAZUR: Well, I think it’s the wave of the future. I think it strengthens our strengths and strengthens our weaknesses. It brings two unions together that are in similar industries with similar histories and backgrounds, and it was a natural thing to do.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you something, with the first lady being here representing the Clinton administration. They were very staunchly in favor of NAFTA. What was your feeling about NAFTA?

JAY MAZUR: Well, we disagreed with the administration on NAFTA and on GATT. But there are so many other issues that we agree on that help preserve workers’ jobs, like minimum wage, like OSHA, like maintaining standards, like enforcing labor laws. And so that while we’ve had our differences, we have more in common than we disagree about.

AMY GOODMAN: The issue of minimum wage, the Clinton administration has come out strongly in support of increasing the minimum wage.

JAY MAZUR: That’s right. Right.

AMY GOODMAN: But while the Democrats were in power in Congress, in fact, they didn’t increase it in the last few years and have made it only an issue when the Republicans are in power, sort of using it as a battering ram to say, “See, the Republicans won’t do it.” So, what do you feel about the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?

JAY MAZUR: Well, first, I don’t think what you said was correct. I think that the president has been in support of the minimum wage. I think there was a long agenda, and the agenda inviting a — I had spoken to the president when he first came into office, and he agreed, and so did Bob Reich, that the minimum wage had to be increased. And I think he’s taken that position from the first day he got into office. I don’t think there’s been any disagreement between the trade union movement and myself and the president and his administration and the secretary of labor on the need to increase the minimum wage. This is not true of the Republicans. They have been against it from the very, very beginning. And we will continue to fight for it. We think it’s definitely necessary.

AMY GOODMAN: While the administration might have been for increasing it from the beginning, Congress, the Democrats, did not put it on the front burner from ’92 to ’94. Why do you think that was? And their —

JAY MAZUR: I think they felt — they may have felt that they had more important issues to put on the burner. We disagreed with them. We felt it should have been put on the burner. And in the same way that we don’t always agree with the president of the United States, we don’t we don’t always agree with the Congress of the United States. But as between the Republicans and Democrats and this administration and the Gingrich administration, there is no comparison. I mean, it’s night and day. Gingrich would bring us back to the Dark Ages. And so, we don’t have very much difficulty. We see the light at the end of a tunnel.

AMY GOODMAN: We see Pat Buchanan very fiercely putting out an anti-corporate message, anti-NAFTA, anti-GATT. In fact, a number of union workers are for him. Do you think he’s a pro-worker candidate?

JAY MAZUR: Absolutely not. He’s a demagogue. He tends to exploit issues which he feels workers — I mean, he’s never been pro-worker. He’s anti-worker. He’s anti-labor. He’s anti a lot of things. I think he’s antisemitic. He’s anti — I mean, he’s a racist. I mean, you can quote me. You know, I judge him by what he says and by what he does, and I think he’s an opportunist, looking for the weak points and taking advantage of workers’ sensitivities and workers’ hopes and aspirations. I think jobs are an issue in this country. Good jobs are an issue. Security is an issue. They’re a real issue. Wages are an issue. And I think the president has to focus on that. And I think he will in this campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the Democrats have to do some fierce examination of themselves and what they represent, that someone like Pat Buchanan could sound like he’s more pro-worker than the Democrats?

JAY MAZUR: Absolutely. I said that. I mean, you know, but he doesn’t deliver our message. We don’t consider him the messenger for us. And I think when people understand what he stands for, they will not support him. And they haven’t. You can see what’s happened. He’s on the down — you know, he’s out of it. He will not survive this campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think NAFTA is a key issue, one of the greatest trade agreements that threaten workers’ jobs here in this country?

JAY MAZUR: I think it will always be an issue. But the question is what other things that we can do. I think the president has the opportunity to do a number of other things that will secure workers’ jobs — as I said, minimum wage, OSHA, maintaining labor standards, doing a host — healthcare, the kinds of things that will — I mean, we’re not a single-issue union. We’re not a single-issue country. I think there are many issues. And I think, on the broad issues, the president is with us.

AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of healthcare, while it failed, what the Clinton administration put forward, President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, many feel that it failed because they didn’t have a clear message. They weren’t willing to go against the insurance industries.

JAY MAZUR: I think — basically, I think — I don’t think that was the issue. I think the issue, fundamentally, it was much too ambitious. I think was ambitious. We supported single payer, which was a lot simpler. They thought that they could fashion something else, and I think — but their intentions were correct. We supported their efforts. We spent thousands of dollars and extraordinary efforts to try to get it across, I think it was aborted by the Republicans, who don’t want any kind of healthcare plan.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think there’s any hope for it in the near future for some kind of healthcare package going through Congress?

JAY MAZUR: Well, I think if we can maintain the — if we can get back the majority of the House and maintain Clinton in the White House, I think we’ll come up with something.

AMY GOODMAN: Juan González of the Daily News has put forward, is pushing for labor unions to run a labor channel on television, that they would put aside some small percentage of interest on their pension plans or whatever, and actually have some kind of presence in telecommunications. What do you think of that idea?

JAY MAZUR: Well, we’ve think it’s a good idea. I mean, we’re exploring it. I’m on the public affairs committee of the AFL-CIO under the new administration of John Sweeney. And that’s being explored very seriously. But we’ve been looking at that for years. And it’s not a new idea, but I think it’s an idea whose time may have come.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it might happen? Are you actually looking into buying something?

JAY MAZUR: No, no, no. I might give you ancient history. In 1947 or '48. around then, the ILG, the then-ILG, had its own radio program called WFDR. The problem was that a year later, television came out. Then we had to sell the station. So, that getting on television, mass communication, our own ads, communicating is not new. I think the time has come for us to have our own vehicle. And that's being seriously considered.

AMY GOODMAN: Last question, and that’s about pension funds of labor unions are enormous, and where they’re invested make an enormous difference. And some have raised the issue, like González of the Daily News, that it shouldn’t be invested in corporations that are working against workers. Is it being raised right now, for example, by UNITE to see where your pension funds are being invested?

JAY MAZUR: Absolutely. First of all, we have our own internal guidelines. We’re very careful. We wouldn’t — when it was South Africa, we wouldn’t invest in South Africa, whether it was the Sullivan Principles, and we went beyond that. Domestically, we take the same position. Obviously, where there’s a labor dispute, we don’t get involved, too. We are very conservative in our investment policy.

But as to whether we can be as pure as Juan González wants us to be, that’s another matter. We’re trustees, and we have an obligation to make sure that we return as much in those funds as we can. That’s required under ERISA. It’s required under good judgment if there was no ERISA. And so, life is full of compromise.

Obviously, we don’t get involved. I don’t have any Caterpillar stock. I don’t have — I didn’t have stock in Eastern — and I say the union didn’t have stock in Eastern Air Lines, either before or after. Where the company has a clear history of being anti-union, we do not invest in it. On the other hand, we can’t be as pure as some people would like us to be, obviously, because it conflicts with our ability to return a maximum amount to the funds, which is required by law. So, I think there is a balance to be had, and I think we’ve done very well.

AMY GOODMAN: And that was Jay Mazur. He is president of the newly united the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union. They have formed in a new union called UNITE, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees. I was talking to him yesterday in the show room of Nicole Miller, where many UNITE workers were gathered to meet Hillary Clinton, as she first, well, kept us waiting for a little while as she learned in the back room how to use one of these sewing machines, and then came out to sew in the first UNITE label on some cloth.

You’re listening to Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, here with Juan González. In a little while, we’re going to be joined by two organizers, the national organizer for UNITE — they’re involved in a campaign to target companies that use sweatshop labor — and we’re also going to be joined by a local organizer who is organizing in Brooklyn, organizing Asian garment workers to unionize.

But right now, Juan González, there’s a lot to respond to, both in what Hillary Clinton had to say in response to how she justified the Clinton administration’s pro-NAFTA stance; they’re standing with unions that had fiercely fought it. What was your reaction to her response that free and fair trade is what we’re about, and these workers — and everyone applauded — can compete with anyone in the world?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I was amazed, Amy, first of all, when the first lady responded to your question by saying that NAFTA is proving its worth. I don’t know where she’s been getting her information. But I know that the few reports that have been issued two years into NAFTA all show an incredible failure so far of this, of the NAFTA treaty. There was a report that was issued by Public Citizen, “NAFTA’s Broken Promises: The Border Betrayed.” There is another one that was issued by the Institute for Policy Studies, “No Laughter in NAFTA: Mexico and the United States Two Years Afterwards.” And I think that it’s amazing how little attention — how much attention was given to the original treaty and how little attention has been given to the assessments that have now come in.

And I think there’s no way that the first lady or President Clinton, if they were to remember the promises of the Clinton administration — for instance, that NAFTA would create 200,000 new jobs for the American economy in the first year, when the reality is that even the government figures indicate right now that 42,000 American jobs have been lost as a result of NAFTA, and that the promises that all of this maquiladora development along the border would be dispersed throughout Mexico so you wouldn’t have this concentration of factories and pollution and so forth, well, since NAFTA, the maquiladora concentration has increased. It’s gone from 546,000 jobs, just before NAFTA was passed, to 689,000. It’s been an over 20% increase in the number of maquiladoras jobs along the border. The pollution has increased substantially. The estimates now are that every day 44 tons of hazardous waste produced by the maquila industries disappears, that it is neither brought back to the United States as it’s supposed to or disposed properly of in Mexico. Forty-four tons a day of hazardous waste are disappearing, that no one knows where they’re going at this stage. So, this is the kind of situation that is — so I don’t know how the first lady can say that NAFTA has proven its worth

AMY GOODMAN: Well, now, of course, since they staked their administration on passing NAFTA and spent millions of dollars paying off congressmembers to vote for NAFTA, and it was still a very close vote, maybe it is a little obvious that she would answer the way she did. But what about Jay Mazur, who is head of UNITE, saying that NAFTA was just one of a number of issues, when I asked him how he could stand with the first lady and the administration, considering what they had done around NAFTA?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I think — you know, I have a lot of respect for Jay Mazur. I think that UNITE is one of the more progressive unions within the AFL-CIO. And certainly their publicity campaign of late, their ads on television, are some of the best stuff that the labor movement has done.

But I think that there’s no doubt that you cannot equate the issue of NAFTA with the minimum wage, with even strike or replacement. Pat Buchanan is not getting all the success he’s getting over an issue like the minimum wage or strike or replacement. It’s over this massive loss of jobs that the American working class is feeling as a result of the continued export of industry abroad. And I think that you can’t equate these things. And I think that the reality is that the central issue confronting most American working people today is the tremendous insecurity that they feel about their jobs and their lives, and that NAFTA is a critical part of that.

And I think that’s — so, I think, in that sense, Jay is trying to, in essence, not paper over, but doesn’t really want to confront the fact that the labor movement has not held the Clinton administration responsible for delivering to Wall Street. I mean, the Clinton administration has delivered to corporate America the two most important questions that it was concerned about. One was NAFTA, and two was the telecommunications bill. The two most important economic issues that Wall Street was concerned about in the last few years, the Clinton administration has given them. And I think that Jay doesn’t want to confront the fact, because he sees all the other — he sees the other side, of the Republicans, and feels that he’s got no choice, so he’s trying to paper over what are substantial differences.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, in a future show, we’re going to be talking with a union activist who is calling on the AFL-CIO not to do the early endorsement of Clinton that they’re doing, but to make demands and say Clinton has to agree to some of these demands. Do you think this is why labor has been losing strength in this country, as people feel that they’re not a powerful progressive voice?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, you know, it’s interesting. There was a recent report that was put out by the Labor Research Associates, “The Edifice Complex.” And it was a study of the AFL-CIO. And in that report, Jonathan Tasini, who’s also the president of the Writers Union, reports that labor PACs, labor political action committees, donated, between 1979 and 1994, $239 million to candidates for federal office, $239 million, practically $10 million a year for 25 years, to federal campaigns, mostly to Democrats. And he asked: What have they gotten for it? Can’t even get a permanent replacement ban passed. Can’t get an increase in the minimum wage. Can’t get basic things, and yet are contributing over $10 million a year to political candidates. So that I think something is wrong when you see that much money being given to these political campaigns. And that’s only the direct contributions, not the soft costs, not the volunteers. So, at some point, you’ve got to ask: What are you getting for your money?

AMY GOODMAN: Juan, talking about money, let’s go to two things that we asked Jay Mazur, and those were two thoughts of yours, two actions that you’ve been pushing for unions to take. One is a labor channel, and maybe you could explain to our listeners what that is. And the other is this idea of where pension funds — labor’s pension funds are being invested.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Right. Well, see, I think there’s something very important that people have to understand. With the election of John Sweeney and Richard Trumka and Linda Chavez now to the new leadership of the AFL-CIO, the AFL-CIO is reassessing everything that it’s been been doing in the past. And it’s created certain committees at the national level, one of which is a media committee that is exploring what the AFL can do differently in the coming years. So, right now this stuff is being reassessed.

And I’ve had some discussions with some of the people who are on that committee. And one of the proposals that I raised some time back was the existence of an independent labor channel, whether it’s on cable or broadcast by satellite, where the labor movement could have a noncorporate-oriented voice on all of the issues, whether it’s to put up somebody like Michael Moore or some other great comedian up against Leno and Letterman at 11:30, have their own news programs, their own soaps, their own movies, and that when you think of the money that the organized labor movement has, for instance, the assessed real estate — the assessed value of the real estate of the national office buildings of these unions is over $300 million in Washington alone. The pension funds have trillions of dollars. And if a small portion of that was set aside to begin to provide the seed money for a national labor channel, there would be an alternate voice for labor throughout the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Juan, we’re going to have to break for a minute, but then I want to come back and ask you about where pension funds of labor do invest. And then we’re going to go to our two guests who are going to be talking about organizing at a national level, going after the corporations that use sweatshop labor, and at a local level here in New York. You’re listening to Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González in the studio. We’ll be back after this.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to Democracy Now!, Pacifica’s national grassroots election show. I’m Amy Goodman, here with Juan González, in the studios of WBAI in New York, where the New York primary is taking place today. And that’s why we’re in New York. I just want to let people know, Juan was quoting a lot of studies that have come out on NAFTA and GATT and also on the AFL-CIO, called “The Edifice Complex,” to let you know where you can get them. “The Edifice Complex: Rebuilding the American Labor Movement to Face the Global Economy” is put out by the Labor Research Association here in New York. Their telephone number is 212-714-1677. That’s 212-714-1677. “No Laughter in NAFTA: Mexico and the United States Two Years After” is put out by the Development Gap, IPS — that’s the Institute for Policy Studies — and Pueblo. And you can get this by calling the Development Gap in Washington, D.C. Their number is 202-898-1566. That’s 202-898-1566. And finally, Public Citizen’s very comprehensive report on NAFTA, “NAFTA’s Broken Promises: The Border Betrayed,” is put out by Public Citizen in Washington, D.C. And you can simply call information in Washington, D.C., to ask for Public Citizen’s number and ask for that report. But the only way to deal with these issues is to be informed, and that’s part of our job at Democracy Now!, is to ensure that you not only get information from us, but that you can get further information by calling the grassroots organizations that are working on these issues.

Now, Juan, you talked about the labor channel, and then you also talked about where pension funds are invested. Now, you heard Jay Mazur, the president of UNITE, saying, “Yes, we care about where these pension funds are invested.” How much money are we talking about here?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We’re talking about trillions — trillions, not billions, trillions of dollars. The California Retirement Teachers Association is probably the single most — pension fund is the single most powerful group on Wall Street. And the reality is that there are trillions of dollars of workers’ money being invested, some of them in the very companies that are helping to destroy the labor movement.

Now, Jay mentioned a very important thing, the fiduciary responsibility of the trustees of these funds. But there have been many instances in the past when labor unions have taken political stands with their funds. The number one was the bailout of New York City in 1975, when the New York City pension — the union pension funds lent millions and millions of dollars to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, a very risky investment to bail New York City out of its crisis. Another one that Jay did mention was the South Africa divestment fund. Another one, which many people don’t know of, is that many union pension funds invest in Israeli bonds, at lower returns than they would get in the normal market, as a means of supporting the state of Israel. And there are numerous pension funds that do that. So that if it’s possible for the labor movement to make political decisions, sometimes against the fiduciary interests of the membership, why can’t they do it in something that would create a media — an alternate media voice on a mass scale in the United States?

AMY GOODMAN: Is there any movement within labor that’s organized around this issue?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, there is. As I said, there’s an AFL committee. But from what I understand, they’re leaning right now to creating a new national radio program, which, as Jay said, they had back in the 1940s. So, why go back? Although I’m not saying that a national radio program is not important. The cutting edge today in reaching masses of American people in a way that will grip them is to have an alternate TV presence. And I think that that debate is still going on, and I hope that the committee of the AFL reaches a modernist solution.