Trading In Opportunities

IT'S dead in the water. For all of its merits and none of its flaws, the trade bill of 1988 will not make it past President Reagan's desk.

After months of balancing every member's special interest, the House and Senate succeeded last week in producing an omnibus trade bill designed to rein in the ballooning $170 billion trade deficit.

Surprisingly, most of the 1000-page bill is agreeable to Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Republicans like it because the most blatant protectionist measures--such as the Gephardt amendment--have been diluted or jettisoned. Democrats like it because it offers relief for beleaguered industries.

In essence, the trade bill rejects both unrestricted free trade and short-sighted protectionism, embracing "fair-trade." The bill authorizes the President to retaliate against trading partners that persistently engage in unfair practices.

But in spite of the bill's merits, President Reagan has vowed not to sign it. Sure there are some dubious provisions, such as the many pet projects of Congressmen more interested in their constituents than in an effective trade policy. Rep Beryl Anthony (D.-Ark.) inserted a provision lowering tariffs on watch parts, a move that would benefit the Timex plant in his district. Rep. Don Bonker (D.-Wash.) wants to restrict plywood imports that hurt his state's timber industry.

But Reagan is willing to overlook these petty indulgences. His opposition to the trade bill hinges on only one provision: a requirement that companies warn employees 60 days before closing a plant.

Forget the Reagan nonsense that requiring notification of plant closings would unnecessarily handicap American industry and endanger jobs. The provision would merely require that companies notify workers before laying off more than 500 of them, or one-third of their employees. Both West Germany and Japan have even stricter laws, and their competitiveness has not suffered.

The plant closing measure merely places human lives above corporate profit. Never again would multi-billion dollar corporations be allowed to wreck hundreds of families at a stroke without at least giving them a few weeks to rearrange their lives.

Admittedly, this doesn't happen often, and many companies already voluntarily provide such notices. But the plant closing provision would ensure that faceless corporations don't leave families without a chance to salvage their future.

Nevertheless, the President told reporters that the notification requirement would be "very restrictive on business and industry in America...if that item is in there, I can't sign it."

WITH that promise, the death knell sounded for the trade bill. The Democratic leadership was unable to win the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate to override the forthcoming Presidential veto. But whether or not another trade bill is passed, the veto could turn out to be a hidden blessing for the Democrats.

Few issues have such visceral appeal to workers as the plant-closing provision. Mike Dukakis, with his promotion of high-tech growth and labor management cooperation, has had some trouble convincing blue-collar voters that he can represent their interests. His declaration of support for the plant closing measure should go far in reasserting the Democrats' former hold on the blue-collar vote. Dukakis' support of the plant closing measure would serve notice that he represents the party of compassion, and Bush the party of privilege.

Once again, the Democrats have placed themselves firmly on the proper side of a polarizing debate, and they should relentlessly pursue the issue into the election.

During their recent efforts to stampede state legislatures into enacting anti-takeover laws, businesses like USX (formerly US Steel) have piously invoked their "attachments" and "responsibilities" to communities in which they are located. After years of shamelessly packing up their businesses and moving whenever profits dictated, these businesses are attempting to portray themselves as benefactors, interested only in the good of the community.

In response to this hypocrisy, Robert Reich, Lecturer in Public Policy at the Kennedy School, satirically proposed the "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Amendment" to such anti-takeover legislation. Under his proposal, businesses taking advantage of takeover protection would be obligated to live up to their professed responsibilities to the community by, among other things, providing 60-day notice for plant closings.

While his amendment is fanciful, his reasoning is not. USX complains about corporate raiders "serving only their self-interest at the expense of...the community." One might ask, then, what exactly motivated USX--if not self-interest at the expense of the community--to ruin hundreds of families in Gary, West Virginia, by suddenly laying off every single worker.

The point is, convenient "deep attachments" aside, corporations cannot be relied on to uphold their responsibility to communities that sustain them. The 60-day notification measure simply ensures that they will.

It will not seriously endanger fat corporate profits, but it will save families from financial disaster. Reagan cost the Republican party a wonderful opportunity to salvage its image with workers. The Democrats should play it for all it's worth.