A Century Old Printing Plant in Pennsylvania Closes

It's another story that has become far too common these days: company demands union take pay cut...union refuses company demand...company shuts plant down. Here is the Lehigh Valley Morning Call with the details:

An historic printing plant in Wilson that has been in business for more than a century will close in two months, putting about 200 people out of work, according to documents the company filed with the state.

Cadmus Printing, which is owned by the Stamford, Conn. printing company Cenveo, will close and all employees will be laid off by April 27, the company said in a letter sent to the state department of Labor and Industry.

For most of its history, the operation was known as Mack Printing. It was sold in 1999 and then sold again to Cenveo in 2006 for $235 million.

And so goes yet another company that survived two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War and into the Internet age. And it looks even worse in the details:

Gregg Potter, President of the Lehigh Valley Labor Council, said the closure came as a surprise because the company and the Communications Workers of America have been in negotiations for months since a contract expired in December. The union represents about 150 employees at the plant, and the company wanted them to take steep pay cuts.

"Sometimes you have to make the hard decisions and lay people off, that's the nature of the business," Potter said. "To just out and out shut down a facility that's been in business for more than 100 years, it's a complete shock."

Sadly, no, Mr. Potter, it actually shouldn't be a shock to anyone who has been paying attention to the larger trends going on this economy the past few years.


Bonus: "When she got too close to her expectation...her dream went up like paper in fire"

When It Comes To Labor Disputes, There Are No Happy Endings In America Anymore

It's been a constant wonder of mine as I've covered these relentless plant closings/layoffs stories here on TDS--why don't more working people get angry and at least protest when their livelihoods are being destroyed? Perhaps its because they know that at the end of the day the effort will be futile. That point was driven home this past week, as reported by the Chicago Tribune:

A group of about 65 workers who occupied a Goose Island window factory in 2008 have once again locked themselves inside the plant in a desperate move to save their jobs.

California-based Serious Energy said Thursday it is closing the plant's doors and consolidating operations in Colorado and Pennsylvania.

"Ongoing economic challenges in construction and building products, collapse in demand for window products, difficulty in obtaining favorable lease terms, high leasing and utility costs and taxes, and a range of other factors unrelated to labor costs, have compelled Serious to cease production at the Chicago facility," the company said in a statement.

What makes this story particularly depressing is that this is not the first time these workers have been down this particular road:

The layoffs come more than three years after a group of about 200 workers from Republic Windows & Doors organized a six-day sit-in demanding vacation and severance pay after being laid off in December 2008.

The battle drew national media attention. After three days, a settlement was reached. Each union worker received a check for about $6,000 just days after Republic Windows filed for protection under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Serious Energy bought the 268,000 square foot plant in 2009 with the promise of hiring back the former Republic workers. Leah Fried, a spokeswoman for UE Local 1110, said that the new company never hired back more than 75 of the workers.

The lesson here is quite simple, in an age when labor is cheap and disposable, workers have zero leverage and no hope of saving themselves when bosses decide their jobs are no longer profitable enough. Take heed, because we are rapidly reaching the point where this could happen to any one among us who works for someone else.


Bonus: "We're the first ones to starve, we're the first ones to die...the first ones in line for that pie in the sky"

"Get Your Ass Down Here, Prime Minister Harper!"

Holy crap, what's this? The mayor of a city not taking lying down the gutting of a local factory's workers' pay and benefits after the foreign corporation which owns it was granted huge tax breaks? Not to mention that same mayor is also excoriating the nation's leader for favoring corporate interests over those of the workers? Fabulous! Too bad it is only happening north of the border, as reported Saturday by Digital Journal:

"Get your ass down here, Prime Minister Harper!" bellowed Joe Fontana, mayor of London. In 2008 Harper visited the city's EMD plant, announcing corporate tax cuts to increase job security for Canadians. Now, EMD workers are locked out by their U.S. owner.

So what exactly has the mayor all up in arms?

Since the start of the year, about 425 unionized Electro-Motive Diesel workers in London have been locked out by Progress Rail, a subsidiary of Caterpillar Inc. The highly profitable, global company shocked many by demanding London workers take a 50 percent drop in pay, accept deep cuts to their benefits, and stand by as their pension plans were gutted.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. I can see why people might be pissed off. And I found these quotes to be particularly delicious:

Stop, ask a pleasant looking older woman why she is there. You learn her son has worked at EMD for years and his reward is being locked out, put onto the street in January in the middle of the Canadian winter. "Tell Harper to get the money back . . . It's our money he gave to those bastards!" She spits out the words with venom.

Everyone hears the personal story of the Jones family when Brianna Jones and her father, Ian, take centre stage. Brianna made her contempt for the giant American company clear. Without unions she said, "We'd all be living in the slums. They don't care." She continued, "Our family's budget will be slashed in half." Brianna is attending university in Windsor and plans on going on to earn her doctorate. A crumbling family budget would hurt.

"It is morally wrong to call (my father's) life's work unskilled," she says talking about her dad. Brianna is proud of her father. "We should not have to inherit a society where greed trumps morality." The crowds loudly chants, "Greed. Greed. Greed."

Oh, and here you see the lingering effects of the Occupy movement:

But it was not only private and public-sector labour unions that were attracted to the rally; It also drew non-labour supporters as well. Sister Sue Walker of the Sisters of St. Joseph in London warned, "The social contract is breaking down." She said, "Wealth is trickling upwards" and this is "tearing at the fabric of society. Now is the time for the 99 percent to stand together."

The biggest question I have every time I read the latest story about a factory being shut down so that production can be moved to China, or workers being laid off by CEOs who are still paid tens of millions of dollars is: where is the outrage? Every time this kind of shit happens in America, the workers just meekly take it and don't ever protest. Why not yell and scream and make your voice heard? Ultimately, it might not save your job, but it might serve to finally wake people up to what is really going on in this country.


Bonus: Which side are you on?

What's the Matter With Philadelphia, Part 2: Million Dollar Buyout for School Superintendent Amid Layoffs

This must be bash Philadelphia day here at TDS blog. I'm so old, I can remember when people went into "public service" with the mindset of wanting to serve the public rather than line their own pockets. Guess that idea has become quaintly outmoded, as this article from NBC Philadelphia shows:

The Philadelphia School District has sent layoff notices to an additional 1,400 employees as it struggles to contain costs while facing a bleak budget picture.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports the district issued the notices last week to blue-collar workers who clean buildings and attend to buses. The layoffs don't take effect until Dec. 31, 2012.

The district laid off nearly 850 similar workers in September. More than 1,000 teachers were laid off over the summer.

A district spokesman says the layoffs were necessary because the union rejected a contract extension that included $16 million in concessions. Union leaders say the proposal was rejected after the district paid nearly $1 million to buy out the contract of former Superintendent Arlene Ackerman.

There is absolutely no justification for a school administrator to be paid a million dollars at any time, let alone as a buyout. You can call the unions unreasonable if you want, and many of them certainly are clueless about what is causing the funding crisis in school districts across the land. But personally, I think the compensation paid to this particular school executive is even more unreasonable.

The apologists will say that the school district needs to pay top dollar to attract "top talent." To which I would reply that if School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman is so damn talented, why is her contract being bought out?


Bonus: Frankly, kids, I think this whole fiasco provides you with quite an education about what's really wrong with your school system

Hostess Brands on the Verge of Bankruptcy, Possible Liquidation

Let me start off this post by saying that Hostess makes shitty products. Their snack cakes alone have contributed as much as any single factor to the obesity epidemic in America. And Wonder Bread is actually a crime against the fine art of baking. Still, it's tough to see anyone facing the prospect of losing their job, especially right before the holidays. Here is the New York Post with the details:

Hostess Brands, America’s biggest bakery, is on the verge of filing for bankruptcy again — perhaps as early as next month, The Post has learned.

Staying out of Chapter 11 is proving tough for the Twinkies maker, a source said, adding the question now is whether it will be a pre-packaged bankruptcy or not.

“We are working hard to keep it out of [Chapter] 11,” another source close to the months-long talks with lenders and unions said.

The tipping point: Hostess maintains it cannot afford to stay current on its $700 million in outstanding loans and keep contributing to the unions’ pension plans, sources said.

Hostess has not been paying future pension benefits since August, thereby breaking its union contracts.

Even with the pension expense savings, the company still needs more money within the next several weeks. And private-equity firm Ripplewood Holdings, which holds a controlling ownership in Hostess, will not reinvest capital unless it gets its union concessions, one source said.

“I would read that as pretty drastic,” another source said. “It’s not easy to resolve that kind of issue.”

It's an all too common theme these days, lose your benefits or lose your job altogether. Here is a telling quote:

A Hostess worker said, “We understand that, should we pursue some form of legal action to require the company to live up to the terms of the contract, they may close, but we have come to believe that they will close anyway.

So what exactly will bankruptcy mean?

Much is at stake for Twinkie the Kid. The firm filed for Chapter 11 in September 2004 and spent 4 1/2 years there before Ripplewood in February 2009 bought it after gaining union concessions.

There is a concern that if it files again, the result could be liquidation with many of its brands, including Hostess, Wonder, Nature’s Pride, and Drake’s, sold for cash.

In that scenario, the first to be paid would likely be the company’s lenders, including General Electric, Monarch Alternative Capital and Silver Point Capital.

The unions will likely rank behind them in a bankruptcy, and Ripplewood’s equity stake would be wiped out, sources said.

So typical, the financial institutions get paid while the workers get the shaft. Just another sad tale of modern corporate America. Almost makes me wish I had some comfort food to help me forget all my troubles.

Are American Workers Just Getting What They Deserve?

Ian Fletcher

Activist Post

If you don’t think American workers are being inexorably scr*wed by our governing establishment’s embrace of “free” trade, stop reading right here.  If you do, I have a dark question for you, one that may have occurred to you in private already:

Did we bring this whole mess on ourselves?
That is the gauntlet thrown down recently by, among others, one Ray Buurmsa, a columnist for the Holland Sentinel in Michigan.  He writes:

So you’re an American employee. Maybe you make car parts. Maybe you’re an engineer or designer. Maybe you’re an accountant, store clerk or tradesman. Whatever you do, you’re probably stupid or lazy. Yes, I wrote it, and I mean it. You are either stupid or lazy. Maybe both. 

Now, I’m not referring to your work ethic or job performance. No, most of you are competent and devoted to your profession or vocation. I’m addressing the way you view economics and employment. I’m challenging your gumption to advocate for yourself and your fellow Americans. Here’s what I mean.

Remember the Reagan standard? Are you better off today than you were a decade ago? Two decades? Three? Unless you make more than $380,000 a year, the answer is no. In fact, your standard of living over the last quarter century has actually decreased while millionaires have added 30 percent to their net wealth. Why? Two reasons. 

First, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs went overseas while the politicians you elected did nothing to stop them. Yet you continue to elect leaders who offer nothing but tax cuts, as if that would stem the flow of disappearing jobs. 

Did you demand your leaders address America’s trade imbalance or continuous outsourcing of jobs? Did you demand your leaders require foreign countries to buy a dollar’s worth of American goods for every dollar of goods they sell here? 

No and no. You didn’t bother. You simply crossed your fingers and prayed, “I hope my job’s not next.” You made concessions to your employer and hoped that would stem the exodus of jobs, or at least yours. How’d that work for you? 

Not exactly polite or patriotic, is it?  Feel-good journalism this is not.

But then again, without self-criticism, we can all just ride to hell in a handbasket while smiling all the way.  Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t tell Americans, “Way to go, boys. You’ve done great. Just keep at it and everything will be fine.”  They told us when we were wrong.   Sometimes things won’t be fine.  And yes, sometimes the mess is our fault.    

So—can ordinary American workers be blamed for their economic plight?

 
To some extent, they can, simply because yes, they did vote for the clowns who have made the mess we’re in.  (Or didn’t vote at all, which isn’t much better.) But there are important caveats to this fact.

For a start, let’s remember the fact that, in the words of that great Los Angeles philosopher, private eye Phillip Marlowe, “Voters elect, but party machines nominate.” So have we had real political choices, or just two slightly-different dishes (from the same kitchen!) on a steam table of political school lunch food?

And that’s leaving aside, of course, any number of value issues concerning the integrity of elections or the fact that the courts have removed any number of key decisions from electoral control.

Could we have “demanded,” as was suggested above, that things be otherwise? Perhaps. But the problem is that for millions of ordinary people to “demand” something, this takes leadership.  An elite. The “e” word.  A million people marching for civil rights on the Mall in Washington in 1963 was an inspiring sight, but those people didn’t just materialize. They were organized to be there, a process that went back decades and required a small number of talented individuals like Martin Luther King, Jr.

Without leadership, no mass movement.

Here’s where I get pessimistic, because the hard fact is that most of the people capable of exerting leadership in our society have been bought.  For a start, there is the blunt fact that trade policy, and economics more generally, is both complex and relevant to making money.  So most people who are able to master it are able to hoist themselves into the top 10-15% of population whose interests on trade issues diverge from everyone else’s. As a result, American society is, to a significant degree, self-decapitating with respect to all economic problems where the interests of the mass and the elite diverge.

Where’s the leadership on lob loss, outsourcing, and trade giveaways to foreign nations going to come from?  Frankly, there ain’t much now.  The organization I work for is one of the few groups operating on a national scale on this issue.  I never fail to be amazed how there are much larger and better financed organizations out there working on issues that, frankly, aren’t multi-trillion dollar issues of national economic survival.  (Don’t get me started on how much political effort in this country is wasted on causes that are, by comparison, small beer.)

I know.  I know.  There are the unions. They’re a part of our coalition here at the Coalition for a Prosperous America. But frankly, they’re a mixed bag.  I’ve seen unions like the Steelworkers and the Teamsters be pretty sophisticated about what’s wrong with “free” trade.  On the other hand, the United Auto Workers still doesn’t seem to get it—as evidenced by their recent crumb-guzzling sellout on the Korea Free Trade Agreement —despite the fact that they may have been hurt worse than anybody.

Unions depend, in the final analysis, on solidarity, i.e. people seeing their economic fate as dependent upon the fate of others.  If you don’t see the world that way, you can starve to death without ever trying to join a union. And the entire thrust of American culture since the late 1960s has been in favor of radical individualism. You can see this in everything from sexual mores on TV to the most abstruse academic economics. So the bottom line is that Americans may be simply too selfish to solve their own economic problems.

That’s the real nightmare scenario we’re fighting against here, because if that’s true, then we don’t have a chance against any of the other nightmares. Our likely fate, if this comes true?  We’re going to get beaten by high-solidarity societies—from the Confucian tyranny of China to the technocrats of Japan to the Social Democrats of Europe.

As Rousseau said, “a tyrant need not worry that his citizens hate him, so long as they do not love each other.”  Our problems may not be entirely our own fault, but we sure as hell aren’t going to get a solution from anyone else.

Ian Fletcher is Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to fixing America’s trade policies and comprising representatives from business, agriculture, and labor. He was previously Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, a Washington think tank founded in 1933 and before that, an economist in private practice serving mainly hedge funds and private equity firms. Educated at Columbia University and the University of Chicago, he lives in San Francisco. He is the author of Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Indiana prosecutor told Wisconsin governor to stage ‘false flag’ operation

Mario Piperni Image

Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story

An Indiana prosecutor and Republican activist has resigned after emails show he suggested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stage a fake attack on himself to discredit unions protesting his budget repair bill.

The Republican governor signed a bill on March 11 that eliminates most union rights for public employees.

In an email from February 19, Indiana deputy prosecutor Carlos F. Lam told Walker the situation presented "a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation."

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism discovered the email among tens of thousands released to the public last week following a lawsuit by the Isthmus and the Associated Press.

"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," Lam said in his email.

"Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest," he continued. "Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions."

Lam resigned from his position after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism published an article about his email.

Read Full Article 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

A Eulogy For Unions

Mario Piperni Images

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

It appears that March 10, 2011 will be remembered as the day that one of the last forms of resistance against corporate fascism in the United States breathed its final breath. 

It was not difficult to see coming. Workers’ unions have been dying a very slow death in the United States since at least the 1970s. Truthfully, the beginning of the end for the union goes even farther back than that. Years of battling ravenous corporations, successive union-busting administrations, and even an American public that has been brainwashed into believing that it is the union who is the enemy (and not the corporation who desires to rule over every aspect of their lives), all played a role in the demise of the American workers’ union. Ultimately, it was corruption from within that dealt the biggest blow.

This is almost always the case in any resistance.

Yet, while for years, the Union managed to continue stumbling along, the final death knell was sounded only days ago with the passage of a Wisconsin bill  that strips public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights. 

But it wasn’t the bill itself that killed the unions. Nor was it the Koch-controlled, reactionary puppet Gov. Walker that is totally at total fault. Not even the Federal government, with its subservience to international bankers and corporations can fully be blamed. Unfortunately, much of the blame lies with the Unions themselves. 

To be fair, American labor unions are far weaker now than they have ever been. Thus, their bargaining power has been significantly diminished. According to Webster G. Tarpley, out of the entire US working population, only 9% are union workers. In the private sector, less than 8% are unionized.

Compare this with the fact that, in 1945 when living standards and economic growth were both much greater, around 36% of the workforce was unionized. Since 1970, a number of serious attacks were launched against American workers (and unions in particular) and, as a result, US standards of living have declined by up to two-thirds. 

As Tarpley points out, the one bright spot in these statistics is that, currently, around 37% of the public sector workforce are members of unions. This is largely due to the fact that public sector jobs are much more difficult to outsource as compared to the private sector. This is, essentially, their only advantage. 

Ever since union leadership began to be gradually bought off by the companies and corporations they were supposed to be fighting, the successive years of anti-union legislation and rhetoric, and a public easily brainwashed by television and charismatic pundits, the American labor movement has been fractured into many different pieces. 

Although one could argue that separate unions should not involve themselves in the fights of their counterparts (so long as business owners show the same restraint), an attack made by the government, whether it be Federal or State, is clearly a just reason for coming together under a common cause. It is precisely this solidarity which has been lacking in the labor movement for over 40-50 years. 

Like indigenous populations throughout history, allowing oneself to be divided by petty differences and the false belief that if you yourself are left alone, you should just “stay out of it” will always result in your own subjugation. Inevitably, they will come for you once they are finished with your neighbors. At that point, the time to call for unity has passed.

It is for these reasons that the unions have failed the American worker. Unions, ironically, even after merging, have become even more disjointed and almost completely fractured. They exist merely as a formality and act more as an attenuated political third party than a radical defender of worker’s rights.

Indeed, workers themselves have allowed their unions, which are supposed to be a UNION of WORKERS, to become a wing of big business that serves mainly to soak up union dues and put forth the pretense of whatever is passing as workers’ populism at the time. Modern strikes, when they happen, are usually isolated and non-productive. 

The American people, after allowing our government to ship American jobs oversees and outside our own borders, have unfortunately made sure that unions now find themselves with their backs against the wall in virtually every bargaining process.

What should have happened in Wisconsin, of course, is entirely different from what did happen. Instead of sitting on the sidelines until it was much too late (but just in time to receive some photo ops and TV time), private sector unions in Wisconsin should have come to the aid of the public sector unions.  They should have realized that their own fate is tied up with that of the public sector workers. This would no doubt have had to happen from the bottom up, as the leaders of these unions understand this completely, but choose to do nothing. After all, such a response would damage their big business connections wouldn’t it?

Immediately, when reactionary fanatic, Scott Walker, announced his attack on public sector workers, Wisconsin private sector unions should have announced their own support in the form of a statewide strike. They should have unequivocally demanded that the right to collective bargaining be restored and respected. While this would not likely be enough to stop such a corporate fascist in his tracks, perhaps a strike in neighboring states would do the trick. A nationwide strike, being the last resort, but absolutely a tactic on the table, would, at the very least, have prevented the chain reaction of State governors attempting to cripple the unions in their own states.

Now, in states such as Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas, and Ohio, as well as other states, all with reactionary puppets in charge and the co-opted Tea Party acting as scabs, there is a nationwide movement in the direction of pro-corporate dominance and an attempt to end the American worker’s union – even as the mere formality as it currently exists. 

In addition to the Koch-controlled Tea Party factions who fulfilled their role as what can only be described as scabs, the Wisconsin State Police cannot be ignored due to their assumed role of paid thugs. Not surprisingly, police and firefighters were exempt from the attack on worker’s rights, largely because the police would be needed to bust the heads of those fighting for their own rights. 

As always, the police have embraced this role with gusto as the head of the State Police stating that they would absolutely use force against protesters, once again proving that they have loyalty only to themselves and their brothers wearing badges, not the people they have sworn to protect. This proves the fact that all you have to do to in order to maintain a reliable team of enforcers is to give them privileges that the masses do not receive. This type of mentality is, by no means, unique to Wisconsin. However, it is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of it being discussed currently. 

Instead of a nationwide strike where unions, if they did lose the battle, would at least go out fighting, we were graced with an impassioned speech by Michael Moore and suggestions that the labor movement would remember this betrayal come election time.  Of course, the chorus of laughter could almost be heard as far as China, where most of the American jobs are currently located. We will remember this at election time? Really? Why?

Is it seriously being suggested that American workers will shift their support from reactionary Republicans like Walker to Democrats in the next go-round? If so, exactly what would this accomplish? If Americans think they will be able to regain some semblance of collective bargaining rights under a Democratic governor or congress, then they are sadly mistaken. 

Remember, Carter and Clinton both played major roles in the destruction not only of the American Union, but of the US economy as a whole. Obama, despite the avid sheep-like support he has received from sellout unions, has become an even bigger union-buster than his predecessor G.W. Bush. Not only did he force the UAW to accept massive wage reductions, but he has launched his own war against the Teacher’s Union as well. 

In the end, if there is to be any revolution in this country, it must begin by completely rejecting both of the major parties provided by the system. Placing your hopes in either the Democratic or Republican parties is the same as watching the Redskins play the Cowboys. It doesn’t matter who wins, the NFL (read the owners) always profit.

Unions must abandon party alignments (which are only part of the false left/right paradigm) and begin to assert themselves. Unions must fight for the right of the workers they represent and the workers, being the union, must ultimately force the unions to do this. Workers and their unions must ally with those who support them, but they should not be afraid to make enemies out of those who do not, whether openly or by covert means. 

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He is also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom  

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Candidates tiptoe around trade

An unusual story from Bloomberg's Hans Nichols and Julianna Goldman this morning. Unusual how? Well, for starters, it treats trade as a complex issue with wide-ranging, and by no means uniform, consequences.

Democratic presidential hopefuls are tip-toeing around an inconvenient economic fact: Iowa and New Hampshire, the states hosting the 2008 campaign's first contests, benefit from free-trade policies that many residents nonetheless blame for lost jobs. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are seeking to avoid alienating workers from agriculture and other export- intensive industries while appealing to those from U.S.-focused businesses that have fallen behind, especially union members.

In the past I have accused presidential candidates from both parties of engaging in "Campaign Protectionism." I have also offered an explanation for the unsettling phenomenon of declining support for free trade in the U.S.. Namely, the benefits are disguised while the costs are highly visible. Opportunistic politicians have often exploited this perception gap to great advantage. Hillary Clinton, especially, has wavered on support for free trade, giving the appearance of a naked play for labor union votes. Along with Obama and Edwards, she opposed the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement. Now, in this Bloomberg report, some nuances emerge.

"You have winners and losers from trade,'' New York Senator Clinton said at a Dec. 13 debate in Iowa. People "are gaining because we're exporting,'' she said, while others have lost jobs.

The location of this remark is significant. Support for Edwards is strong in Iowa and he is known as a union favorite. Could this be the beginnings of a navigation back towards the center in anticipation a general election campaign?

Sometimes, as in New Hampshire, trade's 'winners and losers' live side-by-side, making it difficult to tailor the message to the audience. Moreover, the unique juxtaposition of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries presents a difficult challenge to a candidate's desire for consistency. Nichols and Goldman cite poll numbers showing the two states are mirror images on free-trade: New Hamphire in favor, Iowa against.