Franklin Vargo

Vice President

International Economic Affairs

Leading Innovation. Creating Opportunity. Pursuing Progress.

1331 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004 P 202 • 637 • 3144 F 202 • 637 • 3182 www.nam.org December 8, 2010

The Honorable Susan L. Kurland Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, West Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Kurland:

We are concerned that one of the issues which has been under consideration by the Secretary’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee is a requirement that the International Labor Organization (ILO) Core Conventions be incorporated into future open skies agreements. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) believes that international economic engagement and strong efforts to eliminate market barriers overseas and at home are more important than ever to the revitalization of America’s economy and new opportunities for American workers and

industries.

The NAM has been a leading advocate for economic policies, including international trade agreements, which open markets to United States businesses, provides expanded opportunities for economic growth at home and abroad, and creates jobs here in the United States. However, we oppose requiring the inclusion of extraneous provisions, like the ILO’s Core Conventions, in international economic agreements that are designed with those policies

in mind. Our reasons are several.

The United States has ratified two of the eight core conventions and already abides by the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The Unites States has a mature labor system which protects the rights of collective bargaining, the freedom of association, and protection against child labor. Five of the ILO Core Conventions, which have not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, have been found to conflict directly with United States law and practice. For example, Convention 98 w ould require the expansion of the scope of bargaining in the federal and other public sectors. Convention 29 conflicts with the ability of some states to subcontract the operation of prison facilities to the private sector. Convention 138 regarding minimum age conflicts with varying st ate laws and regulations as well as federal law related to areas of youth employment. Finally, Convention 87 would alter fundamental principles of United States labor law based on the rights of individual employees.

Aside from those concerns which are directly related to the core conventions, we do not see the benefit of including these provisions in open skies agreements intended to promote greater access to foreign markets for United States goods and services. As we have seen fromThe Honorable Susan L. Kurland

December 8, 2010 Page 2

previous experience, including these kinds of additional labor requirements in international economic agreements makes these agreements with foreign governments much more difficult to achieve. Having no agreement at all is in no one’s interest.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose any proposal that would recommend including the ILO’s Core Conventions as a standard provision of international economic agreements.

Sincerely,

Frank Vargo

FV/dg By Fax: 202-493-2005