Who Says Grand Rapids is America’s Greenest City?
Yesterday, the Grand Rapids Press ran a front-page story about Grand Rapids being named “America’s Greenest City.” The designation came from the national business magazine FastCompany. According to the Press story, Grand Rapids received this designation for having “more green buildings per capita than any other US city.” However, the article states that area business leaders and educators think that being green is not enough, “we need sustainability.”
According to those who are sourced in the story, sustainability is what is good for business, society, and the environment–what some refer to as the Triple Bottom Line. In fact, the only sources cited in the story is a representative from Cascade Engineering, the Aquinas College Sustainable Business Program, the West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, and The Right Place Program, a local organization that helps businesses locate to West Michigan.
Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell is also cited in the story saying, “If we want to be a sustainable community, a place where people live well, where business thrives and where natural assets are protected, then we simply must begin to think differently and let our thinking drive our acting.” Despite all this rhetoric, the only example of sustainability in West Michigan cited in the article is Cascade Engineering.
The article highlights one of Cascade Engineering’s products called the EcoCart, a recycle bin that has a radio-chip and bar code on it which “allows recyclers to track the cart and even how much a household recycles.” Even with this several paragraph description of the EcoCart, the Press article never substantiates how this product promotes sustainability. In fact, the Press reporter does not even ask what is different about this blue recycle bin and the ones the City offers residents for free. the Press writer also doesn’t bother to ask about the other products that Cascade Engineering makes–like automotive parts–and how the manufacturing of those products practices sustainability.
This Press article, like much of the recent local reporting on “going green,” continues to present the business perspective of sustainability with no critical assessment nor independent voices that are challenging what some call “Green Capitalism.” Green Capitalism is capitalism that attempts to promote itself as environmentally friendly. However, one fundamental component of Green Capitalism is that it is all always about expansion, making more products and using more of the world’s resources.
FastCompany, the magazine that gave Grand Rapids “America’s Greenest City” designation, is simply a pro-market, profits friendly publication that fits into this new group of Green Capitalists. Even with only a brief look at their website, one can see that they are primarily about to promotion of business, not sustainability. Moreover, as long as the Grand Rapids Press continues to report on the Green Capitalist movement without a critical perspective, we can expect to see more businesses promote themselves as “green” without truly being sustainable.
Grand Rapids Press Contributes to Anti-Islamic Climate
You may have noticed an advertising supplement in Sunday’s Grand Rapids Press, a DVD called “Obsession, Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” This was produced by individuals with an anti-Islamic, anti-Arab agenda and I consider it to be harmful hate speech. They are sending this out at no cost to 28 million households, often thru a supplement to local newspapers. If you don’t live in Grand Rapids, check to see if your newspaper is distributing this DVD.
The film is ideologically slanted toward painting Muslims as evil and bent on the destruction of the United States and Israel. It combines inciting commentary with images of Nazis, 9/11 and suicide bombing indoctrination. The DVD purports to be informative but is instead inflammatory and ugly in its intent. There are indeed extremist elements within Islam as there are within Judaism and Christianity and other religions. But to use the extremists to describe a religion is inexcusable. It would be entirely inappropriate to look at Judaism thru the lens of Kach or Christianity thru the lens of the White Christian Patriots. Why then should we look at Islam through the lens of the extremist minority?
The film has a disclaimer in the beginning that says most Muslims are peaceful. But the next 60 minutes consist of violent bloody images, the collapse of the twin towers, and the atrocities of Nazi Germany. The film is clearly meant to play on our emotions; it is no mistake that this DVD was sent out the Sunday after September 11 and just before a presidential election. There is no political context in the film and no explanation of Islam thus making it difficult for the viewer to intellectually understand the message. The producers cleverly use a couple of Arab voices to lend credence to their concerns but the vast majority of the film paints Islam as a fanatical religion that breeds a culture of hatred. The danger is that the proliferation of emotion-laden misrepresentations will become the prevailing viewpoint and prevent us from gaining a better world understanding.
If you have time to view it, please do and respond to the Press, either by writing to the Public Pulse (pulse@grpress.com) – you must include your name, address and phone number – or by calling Mike Lloyd (616) 222-5455 directly to express your concerns about the Press’ decision to distribute this racist DVD.
Many of you have already signed a petition to get Democracy Now! on both 88.1 FM WYCE radio and WGVU TV Channel 35 in Grand Rapids. This media alert is the last push in this campaign to get the award winning show with Amy Goodman on the local airwaves in our community.
Here is what you can do in the next few days:
1) Sign the Petition online and get others to do the same no later than May 19:
http://www.mediamouse.org/campaigns/dn-petition.php
2) We need as many people as possible to come to the May 20 Board of Directors meeting of the Community Media Center to lobby for them to air Democracy Now! on 88.1 FM WYCE. The meeting is at 6pm at the Wealthy Theatre, 1130 Wealthy. Everyone will have a chance during public comment to speak on why you want Democracy Now! to air on this community radio station.
3) If you cannot make the meeting on May 20, you can send an e-mail to the Executive Director of the Community Media Center Laurie Cirivello laurie@grcmc.org. We are also delivering petitions to WGVU TV Channel 35 next week, so we encourage you to send an e-mail to Michael T. Walenta, the station manager of WGVU:
http://www.wgvu.org/about/contactWGVU.html
Also, please encourage others to sign up for future Media Alerts by going to:
http://www.mediamouse.org/griid/contact.php
– The Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID)
http://www.mediamouse.org/griid/
The national media reform organization Free Press has issued a new action alert demanding that Congress to take action against what they call a “domestic covert propaganda campaign:”
“Yesterday, the New York Times exposed a secret Pentagon campaign to infiltrate the media with pro-war propaganda.
The scheme reaches all the way to the Bush White House, where top officials recruited dozens of “military analysts” to spread favorable views of the war via every major news channel — without revealing they were working from Pentagon scripts and often lobbying for major military contractors.
Spreading “covert propaganda” is illegal under federal law. Congress must investigate these military pundits and their ties to the Bush administration, defense contractors and our national news media.
If we can get 50,000 people to join this call to Congress, they will likely take action to stop government propaganda.
The more than 75 analysts exposed by the New York Times have become fixtures of war coverage on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. The front-page article reveals the many ways that the Pentagon fed them pro-war talking points and misinformation. The White House even has a name for these covert propagandists – message force multipliers.
The pundits trade on their access to the media and the White House to secure high-paying jobs as lobbyists, consultants and contractors — vying for hundreds of billions of dollars in military business generated by the war.
An administration secretly forcing favorable views via the press is not a partisan issue. This is a violation of every conceivable standard of journalism — and possibly of federal law.”
Free Press is asking that people send an email to their Congressional Representative demanding action.
Free Press has also produced a video providing background information on the issue:
Workers are Blamed for Lower Wages in the Grand Rapids Press
On Sunday, the Grand Rapids Press ran a front-page story about what people make in West Michigan. The story was prompted by a similar themed story that was featured in the weekly insert publication called Parade Magazine, which also explore what people earn around the country, with an emphasis on what entertainment celebrities make. It is important to note that the same company that owns the Grand Rapids Press—Advance Publications–owns Parade Magazine.
The Grand Rapids Press story is typical in how mainstream media tends to cover economic issues and particularly wage and salary issues. They generally use vague data and rely on “experts” to “help” readers understand why wages are the way they are. The first expert cited is a professor from the Grand Valley State University’s (GVSU) Seidman College of Business, Paul Isely. Isely claims that West Michigan isn’t growing as fast as the rest of the country even though he provides no evidence to support this claim. The second “expert” cited in the Press article is one of the most frequently used by the newspaper on economic issues, George Erickcek, who is the senior analyst for Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo. Erickcek’s major contention is “West Michigan never became strongly unionized, and much of Michigan’s wage growth was in union shops.” Erickcek claims that is why wages are lower now in West Michigan. Unfortunately for readers, there are no organized labor voices to counter his claims, even though the article states early on that government employees in West Michigan on average have seen a significant increase in wages. It should also be noted that most government employees are unionized as part of AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and maybe being unionized is why these workers have better wages.
Professor Isely then is quoted saying as productivity improved elsewhere, “many jobs went away.” This is code for “jobs were sent elsewhere because companies could pay a lower wage elsewhere.” This shift in jobs was sometimes facilitated by trade policies such as NAFTA and CAFTA. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Michigan lost 63,000 jobs due to NAFTA. However, the Upjohn Institute “expert” Erickcek decides that blaming working people for not finding well paying jobs is easier than looking at corporate practices. Erickcek believes the problem lies with working people when he says, “We still have people thinking they can get good jobs with a high-school education and, increasingly, that’s not the case.”
The article does manage to cite a few working people who are frustrated with the cost of living and cost of gas. However, their voices are marginal compared to the ongoing commentary of the economic experts. This type of reporting is consistent with what we have documented in the past when it comes to economic issues. While the story covers increases in gas prices cited by interviewed workers, it only provides data on how much gas prices have gone up and ignores the record profits of the oil industry. (http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912)
This story in the Grand Rapids Press once again demonstrates a clear bias in reporting that favors the business community over working people.
Full Grand Rapids Press Story
Local wage race brings lots of pain, little gain
Is your paycheck showing stretch marks?
Not surprising.
Average weekly wages for private-sector jobs in West Michigan are well below national and state averages.
And the gap is widening.
Private wages averaged $633 a week in Kent County in 2001, about 5 percent below the national average.
By 2007, the local number was $732, nearly 10 percent below the national
average.
The disparity is greater for Ottawa County, going from about 11 percent to almost 16 percent below the average, according to federal Bureau of Labor statistics.
“The rest of the country is still growing faster than we are, and inflation is eating most of that away for us,” said Paul Isely, associate professor of economics in the Seidman College of Business at Grand Valley State University.
Life is a lot better, though, for government employees.
State, local and federal workers in the Grand Rapids area have seen increases roughly twice that of the private sector.
In Kent County, local government employees — anyone from teachers to street sweepers, police to city administrators — have seen average pay jump 29 percent since 2001.
Federal employees working in Grand Rapids received a 40 percent hike during the same period.
And private-sector workers: 15.6 percent — less than the inflation rate.
The cost of living in West Michigan is up 17.4 percent from 2001 to 2007.
Facing tough decisions
So while government employees are ahead of the game, the treadmill is moving faster for the 90 percent of workers in the private sector: They’re falling behind, if not falling off.
“Our income didn’t go up anywhere near as much as inflation,” economist Isely said, “and, for some particular things, it’s even worse.”
That’s not news to Stephanie Springfield, of Cedar Springs.
“Some weeks are tough,” said Springfield, 35. “Especially with the costs of home heating oil, fuel costs in the winter months are a little tougher.”
Jeff McCoy, an architectural draftsman from Muskegon, commutes daily to Grand Rapids.
“Gas is killing me,” said McCoy, 52. “I commute a long way, and the general cost of everything is a lot more than 10 years ago. Living expenses in general are chewing up every bit of extra money I have.”
Isely said big jumps in basic goods are forcing tough decisions about what we spend.
After gasoline spiked 20 percent from 2005 to 2006, it rose another 4 percent by April 2007 and more than 6 percent since then, he said.
Bread went up 12 percent from April 2006 to April 2007, and another 10 percent since.
Of course, averages always have an up for each down.
David Syrba, 45, of Walker, an installer for Vos Glass, is on the up side, thanks to the big construction projects on the Michigan Street Hill.
“I’m making as much money as I ever have,” Syrba said.
Overall, however, Isely said this is the bottom line: “The rest of the country is keeping up with inflation, and we’re not.”
Why is that?
First, West Michigan historically had lower pay levels, explained George Erickcek, senior analyst for Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Kalamazoo.
West Michigan never became strongly unionized, and much of Michigan’s wage growth was in union shops.
As a result, wages here were slower to increase, he said.
But within that limit — and counter to conventional economics in which higher education produces higher pay — jobs in the region paid relatively well for lower education levels, Isely explained, thanks to high productivity and high-value products. Local office-furniture jobs were one example.
But as productivity improved elsewhere, many jobs went away.
That leaves West Michigan with a problem: a work force accustomed to well-paying jobs without a higher education.
“We still have people thinking they can get good jobs with a high-school education and, increasingly, that’s not the case,” Erickcek said.
A recent study showed an “outrageous number of parents didn’t think college is necessary,” he said. And 2006 Census reports show West Michigan behind the state and nation in attaining higher education.
Noting the work of economist Lou Glazer, about how income potential is tied to education achievement, Erickcek added, “West Michigan is at a disadvantage. So it is no surprise because of that, that wages are growing slower.”
A second factor in slower wage growth, he said, is the trend of people with higher education seeking jobs in larger urban centers.
Then, consider that people who have lost manufacturing and other jobs are out looking for work, and wages stagnate, Isely pointed out.
“There’s not a lot of upward wage pressure right now in Michigan.”
Grand Rapids on top
That said, both economists see some light.
Of West Michigan communities, Erickcek said, Grand Rapids is probably best-suited to retain college-educated professionals.
And Isely said Grand Rapids’ job picture has actually improved some and leveled out since 2003 — while the rest of the state has yet to bottom out.
“We’ve replaced the majority of jobs we lost,” he said.
The best news: “For every four jobs we’ve lost in manufacturing, we’ve gained three jobs in health care and education,” Isely said. And those 15,000 replacement jobs pay almost as much as manufacturing.
Compare that to the Detroit area, which is down 240,000 jobs — out of the state’s decline of 300,000.
The job gains in that area? Only 4,500 spots in the leisure and hospitality industry, the casino business.
“And those jobs pay a lot less,” Isely said.
Local TV Stations don’t want to Adopt New FCC Rules
In 2005, the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID) organized a campaign to educate people about the License Renewal process that radio and TV station must go through every eight years in order to use the public airwaves. We told you how stations only have to pay $75 to renew their license with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and how limited their obligations are to the public. Now the local TV stations are fighting new FCC requirements.
According to a new media alert from the group Stop Big Media, the FCC has voted to make TV stations more accountable to their viewers by disclosing basic information about the ways they serve the public.
The new rules will help you monitor the media and make your voice heard. They require stations to form community advisory boards and have someone in the studio at all times for public safety alerts.
In addition, stations would have to post information on station ownership, educational and community programming, and public complaints on their Web sites. This information helps communities’ pressure stations to improve their programming — and even challenge their licenses at the FCC if they’re not meeting local needs.
Big Media’s lawyers and lobbyists are fighting rules like these. They are telling the FCC that no one cares about how their stations do business.
Prove the lobbyists wrong: tell the FCC you care about local media by participating in this campaign. Click here to send a message to the FCC.
Economy Enters Campaign Banter
Analysis
A Washington Post story that ran in the Grand Rapids Press makes the claim that both of the Democratic presidential candidates will be shifting their focus from Iraq to the US economy. The article states “Clinton’s policy address on Iraq at George Washington University yesterday was immediately followed by a news conference dominated by economic questions.” So, why was there no reporting on the speech that Senator Clinton gave on Iraq? Readers are led to believe that the news conference questions determined the shift in focus, but no where are we told who organized the press conference, nor who was asking the questions about the economy.
The article continues with statements from both Clinton and Obama that vaguely refer to the current economic crisis, but the Washington Post reporters never bother to ask fundamental questions about both candidates and their relationship to Wall Street nor their voting records on investment issues, banking, or homeowner mortgages. A visit to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database enables one to find that both Clinton and Obama have received over $6 million in campaign contributions from the Securities & Investment sector. Both of the Democratic presidential candidates have each also received over $1 million in campaign contributions from the Commercial Banking sector and from the Real Estate sector. Hillary Clinton has received over $5 million and Barak Obama over $3 million. What influence do just these levels of campaign contributions have on how the candidates would perform on economic issues? The reporters could also have gone to Project Vote Smart to provide readers with some background on their voting records as it relates to Wall Street or Housing issues.
Instead, the article cites former economic advisor to Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential race Jason Furman, with the Brookings Institute. Why did the reporters use a source that seems to have a history of partisan bias? Why not have an independent, non-partisan perspective from someone like Dean Baker with the Center for Economic and Policy Research? Baker said in a recent article that appeared in The Guardian Unlimited:
“Why did the Federal Reserve, an agency of the US government, use our tax dollars to keep Bear Stearns and its rich managers and shareholders above water? After all, the government supposedly doesn’t have enough money to provide kids with healthcare and child care, to guarantee families decent housing or to meet a long list of other needs. Why do we have the money to lend tens of billions of dollars to prop up Bear Stearns at discounted interest rates?”
These comments are significantly different from those of Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute.
The only information that readers are provided in regards to the economic policy positions that both Clinton and Obama are taking was to say “Both candidates have now endorsed legislation unveiled last week by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that would allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new mortgages for lenders willing to help homeowners facing foreclosure.” Unfortunately, there are no details of what this new legislation would actually achieve.
Washington Post story in the GR Press 3/18/2008 – Economy enters campaign banter
The contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination raced to inject themselves into the debate over the credit and housing crisis yesterday, slamming the Bush administration’s failure to do more to avoid a crisis as the economy once again surged to the forefront of the campaign.
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) had expected to focus on Iraq this week, marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion with a renewed debate over which candidate foresaw the war’s consequences and who could end it more effectively. But Clinton’s policy address on Iraq at George Washington University yesterday was immediately followed by a news conference dominated by economic questions.
“I am reminded every day as I meet with families and listen to their stories that the effective functioning of our financial markets isn’t just about Wall Street. It’s about Main Street,” Clinton said before reeling off examples of voters ranging from construction workers to college students she had met who were struggling to make ends meet.
Obama, campaigning in Monaca, Pa., was also peppered with questions about the Federal Reserve Board’s intervention this weekend in the collapse of the Wall Street investment firm Bear Stearns and a second emergency interest rate cut.
“I think there is no doubt we are teetering on a potential crisis on Wall Street that could have ramifications all over the country. We have a credit market that is locked up,” he said. “Until people have a sense that there is a floor, until they have a sense that the existing debt that’s out there has all been accounted for, we’re going to continue to have some very, very severe problems.”
For Obama, Clinton and the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the gyrations of the credit crisis have helped to reshape the playing field for the campaign season. In January, Obama and Clinton were prepared for a detailed debate on their respective universal health-care proposals, noted Jason Furman, a Brookings Institution economist and former economic adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign. Instead, they argued about economic stimulus proposals. McCain’s surprise visit to Iraq this weekend, meanwhile, was virtually lost amid coverage of J.P. Morgan Chase’s fire-sale purchase of Bear Stearns under Fed supervision.
“This is clearly the biggest substantive issue of the campaign right now,” Furman said.
“The red phone is ringing at 3 a.m.,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) quipped yesterday, referring to Clinton’s controversial television advertisement that questioned Obama’s readiness to deal with a foreign policy crisis.
Both campaigns began the week attempting to bolster their candidates’ economic credentials — at times pushing the boundaries of fact. Both candidates have now endorsed legislation unveiled last week by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) that would allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new mortgages for lenders willing to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
Clinton tossed in that she had spoken yesterday morning to Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about the Fed’s actions.
“Those 3 a.m. calls can be about economic crises as well as national security ones, because it’s all intertwined today,” she said.
The housing crisis has been the subject of a simmering dispute between Clinton and Obama for weeks. Obama has criticized Clinton’s proposal to freeze foreclosures for 90 days and subprime mortgage rates for five years, saying her plan would send interest rates for new and refinanced mortgages skyrocketing.
But to the surprise of many Democratic campaign strategists, neither candidate has consistently sustained a focus on the economy — despite a barrage of polling data showing it has vaulted over the Iraq war in the past four months as the most pressing concern of voters. Last Thursday, both Obama and Clinton were on Capitol Hill when Dodd and Frank unveiled their legislation that would expand the government’s intervention in the crumbling housing market. Neither of them showed up at the news conference, nor have they come forward with new proposals since the contagion in the mortgage market spread to Wall Street.
“Our campaign for over a year has been very worried about how severe the housing crisis would be and its impact on the general economy,” said Gene Sperling, a Clinton economic adviser. But he added: “It’s been more of a continuing series of discussions and decisions about when to put forward proposals.”
Omitted portion of the WP story
Clinton stuck with her Iraq speech yesterday morning, castigating what she described as the “Bush-McCain Iraq philosophy” of “keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary.” She also continued her criticism of Obama as a rhetorical foe of the Iraq invasion who was reluctant to go beyond speeches until it became politically expedient to do so.
Obama fired back, saying, “The truth is, the judgment of Hillary Clinton and John McCain gave President Bush a blank check for war.” He, too, will shift his focus from the economy today with an address on race in Philadelphia, where he will explore his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a controversial Chicago pastor.
Stop Big Media from Getting Bigger
A few days ago Sen. Byron Dorgan introduced a bill (SJ Res. 28) in the Senate that would overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) disastrous December vote to gut media ownership rules. But there is a catch. The bill will expire unless it is passed in 60 legislative days.
The national media reform group Free Press is asking people to send e-mails to their Senators to tell them that media consolidation is bad for local communities, that it limits opinions and perspectives, and that it is anti-democratic. The activist branch of Free Press, StopBigMedia.com also has this to say about how the public stopped the media giveaway in 2003:
“In 2003, when the FCC tried to do away with all media ownership rules, nearly 3 million people took action, writing their members of Congress, telling their friends and organizing their communities to speak out on this important issue. With that kind of momentum, lawmakers had no choice but to listen. The Senate voted to overturn the FCC decision, before the courts tossed them out altogether.”
“The situation isn’t going to repair itself,” proclaimed Commissioner Copps on the day of the FCC vote last December. “Big media is not going to repair it. This Commission is not going to repair it. But the people, their elected representatives, and attentive courts can repair it. Last time the Commission went down this road, the majority heard and felt the outrage of millions of citizens and Congress and then the court. … Last time a lot of insiders were surprised by the country’s reaction. This time they should be forewarned.”
On Saturday, March 1 the Grand Rapids Press ran a front-page story entitled “Is NAFTA not so bad for us?” This story is very typical of how this issue has been reported on for years. The main issue in the article whether or not the North American Free Trade Agreement has been “good” or “bad,” not who has benefited and who has suffered.
The article cites four people who think NAFTA has been a good policy and only one that thinks it has been bad. Of the four pro-NAFTA sources, two are with area corporations, one with the US Department of Commerce, and one is with the Michigan District Export Council West. One of these sources claims, “Conditions for some Mexican workers and their plants’ environment are improving because socially conscious corporations are demanding it.” This claim is never verified by the reporter, nor are any other claims made by sources in the story. The only anti-NAFTA perspective is a local UAW union representative, but her comments are clouded because she says that the UAW endorsed the Peru Trade Agreement.
The story is oversimplified since it only explores job creation and job loss. There is no discussion about environmental issues, immigration or quality of life issues. Lastly, there are no real independent perspectives presented nor reference to the tremendous amount of research that has documented the impact that NAFTA has had on the US, Mexico, and Canada for thirteen years.
We urge you to write to the Grand Rapids Press and demand better coverage on such a crucial issue.
TAKE ACTION:
Send a letter to News Editor Andy Angelo:
Pre-Written Email Action
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
http://www.mediamouse.org/griid/dissecting/2008/03/01/is-nafta-not-so-bad-for-us/
MORE ON NAFTA:
http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THE LOCAL MEDIA HAS PRAISED NAFTA:
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/031704local.php
Is NAFTA not so bad for us?
Analysis:
First, how does the headline, “Is NAFTA not so bad for us?,” set up the reader for what the story is about? Nowhere is the story does the reporter actually explain what the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ) is nor who it means when they use the word “us.” The second sentence gives readers the impression that Senator’s Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are “hammer(ing) the trade pact for its lack of environmental and worker safety standards.” The reporter never verifies that the two Democratic Presidential candidates are actually making critical comments about NAFTA, even though the group Fact Check has critiqued this idea with regard to their recent debate in Cleveland. The third sentence quotes Governor Granholm saying that NAFTA and CAFTA was bad for Michigan at a rally last year. Again the reporter does not provide any details of why Granholm would make such a comment, nor whether or not her administration took an active role in trying to defeat the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) when the US Congress voted in favor of it in 2005. The story also never explains CAFTA.
The bulk of the article provides readers with five perspectives–four that are in favor of NAFTA and one that is opposed. The four in favor of NAFTA are Tom Maguire with the US Department of Commerce, Craig Meurlin, chairman of the Michigan District Export Council West, and representatives from Steelcase and Herman Miller Inc. The two business representatives simply say that NAFTA has been profitable for them. Craig Meurlin of the Michigan District Export Council West said, “Conditions for some Mexican workers and their plants’ environment are improving because socially conscious corporations are demanding it.” Again, the reporter never verifies such a claim.
Sue Levy, with the UAW, is the only anti-NAFTA perspective presented. The quotes the Press used present little evidence of how this trade agreement has been negative, particularly for workers. At one point, Levy says that the UAW supported the recent Peru Trade Agreement because “had environmental and labor standards.” Again, there are is no verification of this claim. There are no workers who lost jobs due to NAFTA in this story, nor the perspective of people and organizations who have actively campaigned in West Michigan against both NAFTA and CAFTA.
Story:
For some West Michigan workers, NAFTA is a four-letter acronym.
The 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement is getting lots of ink this week, as Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hammer the trade pact for its lack of environmental and worker safety standards.
And last year, Gov. Jennifer Granholm told a rally, “NAFTA and CAFTA have given us the SHAFTA!”
So, just how evil is the pact that opened the markets of Canada and Mexico to West Michigan manufacturers?
Depends on your vision.
“There are always winners and losers in any trade agreement,” said Tom Maguire, of the U.S. Department of Commerce. From his angle, the deal was a good one.
“I think the NAFTA agreement has been very good in spite of what you and I hear,” Maguire said.
Greenville hit hardest
But it is not without pain as the region faces the equivalent of another industrial revolution.
The coldest cut came in 2005, when Electrolux abandoned Greenville for a Mexico border town, leaving 2,700 West Michigan workers in the dust.
“NAFTA began it. We see nothing good about it,” said Sue Levy, of United Auto Workers Region 1-D. “It’s been used as a way to eliminate manufacturing jobs in the U.S. for low wages and no environmental protections.
“Electrolux is a perfect example,” she said. “It was a money-making factory. It’s just a matter of greed.”
UAW wants labor standards
Not all trade agreements are equal, in the eyes of the union.
“The UAW just supported the Peru Trade Agreement,” Levy said. “It had environmental and labor standards. Some people say, ‘No trade,’ but the UAW is not saying that.
“We’re saying agreements have to have those standards; they have to be enforceable.”
Conditions for some Mexican workers and their plants’ environment are improving because socially conscious corporations are demanding it, said Craig Meurlin, chairman of the Michigan District Export Council West.
His worldview matches Maguire’s: “NAFTA generally is a good thing.”
Meurlin acknowledges the painful losses hitting Michigan factory workers, describing the Electrolux shutdown as an “unfortunate reality.”
“Michigan is doing particularly badly economically, but in some sense, I would argue that is not because of free trade,” he said.
The pressures are global and are testing the region’s ability to embrace change.
“That (Electrolux) job went to Mexico, but that job probably was going to go somewhere anyway, because of the labor costs involved,” Meurlin said. “The only question was: where?”
Grand Rapids has benefited
NAFTA actually is helping preserve jobs in Grand Rapids, said Renee Goetzinger, import/export manager for Steelcase Inc.
Last year, 13,000 Steelcase products qualified for duty-free NAFTA status.
“We saved millions of dollars in duty savings,” Goetzinger told a gathering of export planners Friday. “NAFTA is the No. 1 free trade area we participate in. There were 30 percent duties in Mexico. We would not be cost-competitive unless we were NAFTA-certified.”
Without the free trade relationship, companies such as Steelcase would be pressed to shift more production to Mexico or Canada, to sell products there more easily.
Herman Miller Inc. has a similar upbeat view of NAFTA.
“Unequivocally, it’s been a positive for our business and for our employees,” spokesman Mark Shurman said. “We don’t produce in either market. We ship to both markets, and our sales have been better.”
Other sectors are likely to take a bigger hit, Shurman said.
“Across West Michigan, I think it’s going to vary by company and by nature of the individual business,” he said.
Across the vast Amway global network, free trade agreements saved the corporation more than $7 million in duties, according to Bob King, manager of import/export customs compliance for Amway’s Access Business Group.
“It’s clearly been good,” King said of NAFTA. “No. 1, it has lowered our costs, and No. 2, it kept manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and opened markets where we would not have been as competitive.”
Amway had 1,900 products qualifying for NAFTA export last year.
“NAFTA overall has helped,” King said.
“Whether you want to address it or not, we are in a global economy. I’m a big exporter, and the free-trade agreements are beneficial to us as a manufacturer.”
Although the UAW opposes NAFTA, Levy said the bigger problem lies beyond North America.
“The loss of manufacturing jobs? I think that has more to do with China,” Levy said. With demands for global pricing, automakers and the world’s biggest retailer are pushing their suppliers to run around the world for the cheapest sources.
“The Big Three and Wal-Mart have changed the landscape tremendously, that’s for sure,” Levy said.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 