the fair track to expanded free trade: making taa benefits more accessible to american workers.
Aid for Trade Adjustment (TAA)
Production workers in the United States have the right-
If they are certified by the United StatesS.
Departments that have lost their jobs due to increased imports or transfer of production to foreign countries ---
It just seems to provide extended unemployment relief and training with questionable value. (1)
However, from the political and economic point of view of trade liberalization, TAA is the main way to compensate trade workers
Transfer of related work(2)
In the past 30 years, TAA has sometimes been an exchange condition for the fast track authority;
A political agreement on behalf of American production workers and free trade advocates. (3)
Without an expedited negotiating mandate, it would be difficult for the administration to reach multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements. (4)
Once it is reached, there is no actual opportunity for Congress to pass these agreements, if none of themor-
There are limited congressional debates, no amendments, no votes. (5)
Because of the changing nature of America. S.
In terms of trade politics, TAA is still an important feature of the US political economy. S.
Trade liberalization. (6)
This article does not claim that further trade liberalization is not possible without changing the TAA plan.
This is not a political assessment of whether workers hurt by expanding free trade have enough power to stop rapid development.
This is also not an economic assessment of the effectiveness of the TAA program.
On the contrary, this article is from a legal point of view of how and why the Department of Labor (
Labor Department or theAgency)
The process of qualifying certified workers for TAA benefits can and should be improved, and how Congress can conclude trade law in 1974 (7)
Certification of production workers-
If programs are extended to override them--
The central argument of this article is: If Congress once again wishes to pass the TAA plan in exchange for the authority of the fast track, and then, DOL has to fix its broken certification process, Congress should amend TAAAct, to reduce workers\' resistance to expanding free trade.
The inadequacies of the program have led to doubts as to whether it really helped the workers and, therefore, whether it is really enough to compensate those who have been hurt by expanding free trade.
Nevertheless, the accreditation process of the agency still needs to be repaired, as long as it remains the main mechanism to help workers adapt to the unemployment caused by expanding free trade.
This paper expounds the defects and causes of the certification process, and puts forward suggestions on how to repair the certification process.
In addition, the brokencertificate process has become more complicated due to the inapt program for judicial review of the agency\'s negative decisions in the United States. S.
Court of International Trade (CIT)(8)and the U. S.
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit). (9)
Therefore, this paper also explains the reasons and ways that the judicial review system is not suitable for litigation.
More importantly, this article advocates the revision of the plan.
Since the expiration of the fast track negotiation authority on June 30, 2007 ,(10)
The current authorization of the TAA program ends on September 30, 2007 ,(11)
It is time to identify its brokencertificate process for the Labor Department.
It is also a good time for Congress to revise the Trade Act of 1974 to make it easier for workers displaced by trade to access TAA benefits. (12)
If DOL improves the management of the TAA certification process, Congress changes the regulations recommended here to reduce workers\' resistance to expanding free trade, congress can again use the TAA program as an exchange for restoring the authority of the fast track. (13)
The second part of the paper outlines the politics of the United StatesS.
Trade since the medium term
1930, indicating that in the past 30 years, the TAA has sometimes been an exchange condition for fast tracking agencies.
The third part then explains how and why DOL\'s certification process is flawed, and how and why inappropriate judicial review plans compensate for this one-off process.
Part IV suggests what the agency can and should do to fix the defects, and suggests how Congress can amend the trade law of 1974 to make it easier for workers displaced by expanding free trade to get TAA benefits.
The fifth part of the conclud discussion briefly reminds everyone what interests will be if the taa plan cannot be used as an exchange for updating fasttrack benefits, and briefly summarizes the less attractive alternatives advocated by others. II.
Trade liberalization, which is used alternately in this article, the term \"trade liberalization\" or \"expanding free trade\" means: elimination of regional and bilateral trade agreements on goods and services through voluntary commitments made by sovereign states in multilateral trade-
International law mechanisms for promoting world economic integration and globalization of business relations. (14)
In a broad sense, trade liberalization or expansion of free trade includes lifting global commerce in goods and services out of trade barriers,
Distorted restrictions, protectionism, and any regulatory or commercial tax that actually puts a burden on international business activities. (15)A. U. S.
Trade liberalization after Smoot
From the middle, Holly
In its 1930 s, the United States had been pursuing a consistent and thoughtful policy of expanding free trade. (16)
Before World War II, the United States began to reduce the high tariffs imposed by Congress on imported goods.
Holly Act of 1930 (17)
Through bilateral trade agreements(18)
1947, United States and 20-
Two other countries have set up General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), (19)
Aims to promote free trade and prevent retrogression by voluntarily reducing trade
Distorted tariffs and export subsidies for non-agricultural products. (20)
Since 1947, eight General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations have been completed. (21)
The first batch of industrial tariffs were sharply reduced through parallel bilateral trade agreements. (22)
The last three General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rounds resulted in multilateral agreements to further reduce tariffs and subsidies for industrial and agricultural products, as well as non-tariff barriers to trade: * the Kennedy Round completed in 1967 lowered the world average
Through a cross-tariff, about 35% of the tariff is imposedthe-
The price reduction of most industrial products in developed countries is 50%; (23)
* The Tokyo round completed in 1979 further reduced tariffs on industrial products through more complex formulas and developed new codes to address non-tariff trade barriers; (24)
* The Uruguay Round completed in 1994 cut the average tariffs imposed by developed countries on goods by another 40%--from 6. 3% to3. 9%--
And a framework has been established to reduce quotas, tariffs and subsidies for agricultural products, while gradually eliminating textile and clothing quotas previously protected in multiple ways
Fiber Arrangement. (25)
The Uruguay Round is the hardest.
The conclusion of all negotiations. (26)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
Part of the reason was created during the Uruguay Round to resolve trade disputes between member states. (27)
Since the promulgation of the Trade Act in 1974, the United States has also promoted trade liberalization through non-reciprocal preferential trade arrangements, such as the universal preferential system. (28)
Just recently, the United StatesS.
Expanded free trade through reciprocal, bilateral and regional preferential free trade agreements, E. G. U. S.
The most striking of the 1988 Free Trade Agreement was the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). (29)B.
The rapid TrackAuthority fast track mechanism in compensation trade adjustment assistance has always been the \"central domestic politicalprerequisite\" US leadership role since the liberalization of global trade in assumedon-Hawley.
\"By delegating responsibility to the administration and helping to establish a system that protects legislators from harm --
Congress has imposed one-sided restrictions that have made it possible for successive presidents to maintain and expand the free trade order. \" (30)
As shown below, Congress often attracts workers\' interests by improving the TAA program, at least to a certain extent, in exchange for support from major trade legislation, including the fast track authority. (31)
Before the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay RoundS.
Trade liberalization is usually based on broad consensus, based on clear economic theory that the benefits of trade are greater than costs, so the net welfare effect of expanding free trade is generally positive for consumers and exporters, even if it creates a \"loser\" in the mouth\"
Competition sector: the implicit domestic political negotiations contained in the liberalization of tariff and trade agreement trading regimes are that the losers of expanding free trade will be compensated by the winners, therefore, due to the issue of distribution justice, losers will not stop trade liberalization: as long as the economic benefits of expanding free trade are clear, and losers seem to have received general compensation for losses, American politicsS.
Trade liberalization is fairly simple: Congress will grant power to the executive fast track, and workers replaced by expanded free trade will be entitled to bankruptcy. (34)
But the political economy of US trade has changed since the medium term1990s. (35)
Following the expansion of fast track authority in mid
1993, adoption of the NAFTA implementation statute in late1993, and re-
In early 1994, Congress refused to grant President Clinton the power to fast track because it expired at the end of 1994. (36)Since the mid-
The further development of the US economy in 1990S.
Trade liberalization has become more vague and opposition to it has become more evident. (37)
Then after 8.
Suspended for a year, the authority of the fast track negotiations resumed in 2002, but not without the intense political struggle of the United StatesS.
The necessary fast track authorization if there is no Congress to authorize the fast track to the administration, it is difficult for the United States, if not impossible, to expand free trade because trading partners must avoid entering into trade agreements with the United States, unless they believe that a negotiated agreement will not change substantially in Congress;
And unless Congress makes its own claims from protectionism
And curb the development of trade.
Through excessive amendments and debates to implement the agreement on legislation, trade agreements reached by the administration are rarely negotiated by Congress.
In fact, they may not be voted on at all.
So all the major U. S.
Since the promulgation of the Trade Act in 1974, the rapid passage law has been adopted in trade legislation. (39)
Although Section 8 of the United StatesS.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to \"arrange and collect Taxes, Duties, imports and exports\" and \"manage business with foreign countries \",(40)
In the past, Congress has proved itself unable to resist the self-protection of the protectionist.
Direct control of the interests of the United StatesS. trade policy.
Holly Act of 1930-
Legacy directly controlled by Congress-
\"For high-Water marks in AmericaS.
Protectionism in the 20 th century\" (41)
Since the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 ,(42)
Congress has usually authorized the image of the United States. S.
Implement departmental trade policies. (43)
According to the regulation, the United States reached a parallel bilateral agreement with its trading partners before World War II, greatly reducing tariffs and extending them continuously, the United States further reduced tariffs in the first round of multilateral trade negotiations since its establishment in 1947. (44)
Before the start of the Kennedy Round of negotiations, Congress passed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, authorizing the administration to negotiate further tariff cuts and cancellations, while sowing institutional seeds for the fast-track approach in the United StatesS.
The trade liberalization that still exists today is: * the establishment of the Office of the special representative for trade negotiations, the predecessor of the current Office of the United StatesS.
Trade Representative (U. S. T. R. );
* Require the executive branch of any concluded trade agreement to be forwarded to Congress with a statement stating the reasons for the conclusion of the agreement;
: Members of the Senate Finance and House approach committee are authorized to participate in multilateral trade negotiations. (45)The U. S. T. R.
Members of Congress from these \"gatekeepers\" committees remain key players in ofU politics. S.
Trade liberalization. (46)
However, under the Trade Act of 1962, the administration went beyond the power that Congress granted it to negotiate non-tariff barriers ,(47)
When this mandate expired in 1967, Congress spent seven years, again authorizing the administration to negotiate the removal of non-tariff barriers and other trade under the Trade Act of 1974 --
Twisted restrictions in the Tokyo round. (48)
This authorization is called a \"fast track\" authorization because it sets six clear procedural requirements/restrictions for the expedited legislative consideration of trade agreements negotiated by the administration :(1)
Notice issued by the administration to Congress 90 days before signing such trade agreements; (2)
Consultation between the administration and members of the Senate Finance and House approach Committee; (3)
The administration will forward a copy of the agreement to Congress, in addition to a draft implementation bill containing a statement of any administrative action proposed for the implementation of the agreement, and the interpretation of how the implementation of the act or declaration changes the existing law; (4)
40 time limit
Five days to lift the commitment to the House or Senate, and fifteen days to vote in each chamber on the implementation of the bill; (5)
Any changes to the implementation act are prohibited; and (6)
The limited debate in each chamber is no more than 20 hours, divided equally between members who favor and oppose the implementation of the bill. (49)
The trade agreement Act of 1979, which implemented the Tokyo Round agreement, extended the authority of the fast track for nine years and was widely regarded as a success in achieving a dual purpose, even if the administration can successfully complete the important round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations and promote
But nine years later, Congress passed the comprehensive trade and Competition Act of 1988, and passed the previous fast-track legislation, taking back some of the powers it handed over to the executive. (50)
The two most important restrictions on negotiating authorization are :(1)
Need to have a broader discussion with the congressional gatekeeper Committee, and (2)Create \"two-
The House derailment program, later known as the \"reverse fast track. \'\" (51)
By the time the 1988 fast track authority grant program expires in June 1, 1991, Congress has provided a variety of mechanisms for the derailed fast track authority. (52)
The political struggle around the North American Free Trade Agreement in early 1990, and the subsequent 8-
A year before Congress resumed fast-track power in 2002, it not only showed that more and more people opposed the United States. S.
Trade liberalization is also a rising \"price\" in the exchange conditions that the TAA grants to the fast track authority \". (53)
Just as 1992 presidential campaign is underway, the first major battle on the North American Free Trade Agreement took place. (54)
President George H. Bush said that 90 days before the 1988 authorization was due,W.
Bush asked for two.
With the permission of the 1988 Grant, Congress extended one year to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and multilateral trade negotiations on tariffs and trade agreements. (55)
Strong opposition to the president\'s request and resolution against the extension proposed by the representative of Byron dugen (D-N. D. )
And Senator Ernest Hollins (D-S. C. )
Chairman of the Senate Committee on fiscal and family approach-Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex. )
Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill. )--
The president is urged to submit a \"plan of action\" to address several of the most controversial issues surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement, including its impact on Labor and the environment. (56)
In the end, the congressional plenary rejected the resolution and extended the fast track mandate until June 1, 1993. (57)
Then, under his fast track obligations, President Bush informed Congress on September 18 that he intended to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement. (58)
In November 3, 1992, the United States reached an agreement with Mexico and Canada on a North American Free Trade Agreement. (59)
Then, after three countries reached a \"side agreement\" on labor and environmental issues, Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Legislation ---
Use the quick tracker--in the U. S.
On November 17, 1993, the House voted 234 to 200 in the United States. S.
The Senate passed by 61 votes to 38 on November 20, 1993. (60)
By amending the comprehensive trade and Competition Act of 1988, the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was less controversial. (61)
An amendment extends the authority of the fast track from 1993 to April 16, 1994, but is limited to the Uruguay Round Agreement. (62)
Another amendment also applies in particular to the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement, authorizing the executive branch to notify Congress 120 days before the agreement is reached, rather than the normal 90-day notice. (63)
So, after giving full notice to CongressS. T. R.
The Uruguay Round ended on April 15, 1994, and Congress passed. -
Use the fast Channel Program--in the U. S.
On November 29, 1994, the House voted 288 to 146 in the United States. S.
On December 1, 1994, the Senate passed by 76 votes to 24. (64)
Part of the reason is the political struggle of the North American Free Trade Agreement. S.
Trade politics changed in the middle
1990, especially in the United States. S.
In the House\'s view, \"The main new challenges to trade liberalization are growing concerns about the impact of trade on Labor and the environment, and the deepening of party cooperation in Washington. \" (65)
House Democrats, in particular, are under pressure to further oppose the US election. S.
North American Free Trade Agreement and trade liberalization after Uruguay Round66)and--
Coupled with growing party politics and further divisions between opponents and free-trade supporters ---
On 1997, Congress vetoed President Clinton\'s fast-track rights by 180 votes. 243 in the U. S.
\"No president has lost.
Since Franklin Roosevelt and Cordel canceled the reciprocal trade agreement plan in 1934, trade policy votes in the US Congress! \" (68)
Despite its shrinking size, organized labor has proved that it still has enough muscles to influence the U. S.
Trade Politics: organized labor has been showing its strength since the medium term
1990, because \"the average American skill, female, blue-
Members of the Union. .
Seems to be on the verge of globalization [since][t]
Hey, there is both competitive pressure on the salary level and a greater possibility of unemployment. \" (70)
After an eight-
This year\'s gap, after \"intense debate\" and \"unprecedented scratch\", the fast track authority was re-established with trade law in 2002.
\"Meager voting profit\" in the United States\"S.
The longest gap was eight months in 1988. (72)
Awarded under this new wording of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
Administration during George W.
President Bush took part in the WTO Doha Round of multilateral negotiations and the free trade area of the Americas, and signed several bilateral free trade agreements, which Congress has implemented in accordance with the fast-track procedure. (73)
However, the political struggle around TPA further divided supporters and opponents of expanding free trade. (74)
\"The process has angered many participants and has caused further damage to the fragile bipartisan consensus guiding the United StatesS.
Trade policy from the second world war to the North American Free Trade Agreement. . . . \" (75)
In 2002, without a bipartisan compromise led by Senator Max Baucus in the Senate, the grant of the fast track may not happen (D-Mont. )
Centered on improving the TAA project: in fact, the most intense struggle on the fast track authority will also lead to the most significant expansion of the TAA project since its inception 40 years ago.
\"President Bush and USTR zoellick have their negotiating powers and there are no major bans or restrictions. Trade-
Displaced workers have a program that is more commensurate with the scope of their needs. \" (77)2.
Since Congress passed the Trade Expansion Act in 1962, production workers have the right to trade adjustment assistance, and it has repeatedly stated that its intention is, american production workers injured by expanding free trade are entitled to assistance to accommodate unemployment and transition to a new livelihood. (78)
Congress created the taa program when it passed the Trade Expansion Act in 1962 (79)
Before that, it had revised the original aid for trade adjustment act five times. (80)
In addition to the changes made under the 1981 OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act ,(81)
Through each amendment, Congress makes it easier for workers to access TAA benefits and/or expand their coverage: eligibility criteria were relaxed in 1974 ,(82)
Increase the coverage of agricultural workers in 1986 and workers in the oil and gas industry in 1988 ,(83)
In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement added transitional aid benefits to production transfers in Canada and Mexico. (84)
However, according to the Trade Reform Act of 2002 and the current Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, Congress has carried out major reforms and expansion of the TAA plan (TAA Act)(85)
In general, workers involved in \"article making\" are entitled to a range of benefits through state unemployment (re-employment)
If the DOL determines that they are eligible to apply for TAAbenefits, it is the agency. (86)
These benefits are designed to help workers adapt to the unemployment caused by expanding free trade and transition to new jobs and provide: * Up to 130 weeks of training, including 104 weeks of vocational training, and 26 weeks of remedial training (e. g.
English as a second language or ability to read and write)(87)
* Long term revenue support for up to 104 weeks--
Except for the state unemployment rate (re-employment)
Insurance benefits under state law (
Usually 26 weeks)--
During the training period, unless the training conditions are waived (88)
* Up to $1,250 for job search, up to $1,250, plus up to 90% reimbursement for certain relocation costs for relocation work in different regions (89)
* For workers over the age of 50 who lack easy transfer of skills and are reallocated, a two-year salary allowance of $10,000
Employment within 26 weeks (90)
* A tax credit equivalent to 65% of the two-year medical insurance premium paid by certain workers over the age of 50 (91)
So TAA\'s commitment has always been a routine and sometimes a key aspect of the political agreement reached on behalf of the United StatesS.
Production workers and American supportersS.
How much administrative role the agency has played in proving the worker\'s eligibility for TAA benefits, which to a certain extent determines whether workers injured by expanded free trade are adequately compensated for their losses. (92)
In addition, the agency\'s inadequate coverage and poor management performance may increase workers\' resistance to expanding free trade. (93)3.
The political mechanism for the next transaction between the next counterparty of the fast track authority and the supporters of expanding free trade has been launched, and TAAprogram seems to once again become a possible exchange condition for fasttrack updates (Trade promotion)authority.
On Thursday, October 26, 2006, the State Affairs Bureau (BNA)
The report said the U. S. Economic outlook is bleak. S.
Trade liberalization, statement i]
It is likely that Congress will vote to approve a legislation to extend the president\'s power to negotiate a trade deal by the time it expires next year, especially if Democrats control the House. . . . \" (94)
BNA also reported on the same day that the DOL would raise the regulation \"dealing with certification issues arising under [
Aid Program for Trade Adjustment
One day in the future\" (95)
Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (2007)D-Mont. )
Put forward a bill (S. 122)(96)--co-
By Senator NormColeman (R-Minn. )
Maria cantville (D-Wash. )
Ken Salazar (D-Colo. )--
\"Re-authorize the federal government\'s Trade Adjustment Assistance program by 2012 and expand its coverage to include service industry staff. \" (97)
In a speech by President George w. Bush on January 31, 2007
Bush \"called on Congress to resume power to negotiate a trade deal\" and said it would \"work with Congress to re-authorize and improve aid for trade adjustment [sic]this year. \" (98)
Fast Track Authority (TPA)
President George W.
Bush expired on June 30, 2007 ,(99)
Before the successful conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations, the free trade area of the Americas was not established. (100)
Therefore, before further expansion of free trade, new access rights must be granted to the administration.
But the political cost of gaining fast-track power from democratic countries
An unpopular, lame-duck Republican president-controlled Congress could be high.
Taking into account alternatives, participants in free trade should seek to improve the TAA program to make it more effective, to become the main mechanism for assisting workers who have been hurt by expanding free trade and to be more adequate
At the very least, administrative defects in the DOL certification process should be fixed.
Also, if Congress again chooses to use the TAA program as an exchange condition for the renewal of the fast track authority, it should consider amending the TAA act to reduce the resistance of workers to further development in the United StatesS.
Trade liberalization. (101)III.
For workers, the defective certification process and the inappropriate judicial review program, TAA is a virtual right unless the DOL proves that they are eligible to apply. (102)
Under the TAA Act, a group of workers or their employer or duly authorized representative may apply to the agency or their state unemployment office for a certificate of eligibility for TAA benefits. (103)
Under the regulations, the DOL should \"determine if the petition panel is in compliance [eligibility]
Requirements of paragraph 
\"The TAA Act was passed within 40 days of filing the petition. (104)
A qualified worker may apply and obtain TAAbenefits from his or her state unemployment (reemployment)office--
If he or she is certified and applied within two years from the date of his or her redundancy ---
If the worker: there is enough (minimal)
Employment income from 52 weeks to 26 weeks before layoffs;
Have the right to enjoy the state unemployment insurance, and others have not been disqualified from extending unemployment compensation;
And register in the approved training program unless the training requirements are provided by the DOL. (105)
The petition itself, however, generally does not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether it is eligible. (106)
As shown below, DOL frequently uses requests for voluntary remand to comply with 40-
The statutory period for the investigation of worker qualifications, in fact, did not collect any additional conclusive evidence. (107)
However, the deficiencies in the investigation of the DOL have nothing to do with the written guidelines of the existing inquiry TAA petition. (108)
In fact, the agency\'s written guidelines for investigation seem to guarantee due process for workers. (109)
In the Sub-Section B of the guide, the agency appropriately sets out the type of investigation required: The agency also equipped itself with all the necessary for a thorough investigation in Sub-Section B
Findings, including public hearings-
Filled with testimony, evidence, briefings, oral debates, certifications, transcripts and appearances ---
And the right to subpoena. (111)
Similarly, in Subsection B, DOL, based on the findings of these facts, correctly sets out the necessary contents of the institutional records to which it is obliged to make a qualified decision :(1)
A considerable number or proportion of workers in these workers\' companies (
Or a proper breakdown of the company)
Has been completely or partially separated or threatened; (2)
The sales or production of the company or the market segment, or both, is absolutely reduced; and (3)Increases (
Absolute or relative)
Imported items, such as or directly competing with the items produced by these workers\' companies, or their appropriate market segments, have significantly contributed to this complete or partial separation or threat, as well as sales or production. . . (112)
The TAA Act requires the agency to certify the qualifications of workers, but of course not all workers are eligible. (113)
If the DOL determines that the worker\'s layoff or threat of layoff is due to the following two situations, it must certify the qualification of the primary production worker: * increase the import, such as or directly competing with the products produced by the worker\'s company or division, which \"makes an important contribution\" to the threat of absolute reduction in sales or production, worker layoffs or layoffs;
Or * transfer the production of items similar or directly competing with the items produced by the worker\'s company or division to a foreign country if the country is (1)
Party to a free trade agreement with the United StatesS. , or (2)
Beneficiary countries under the anshande trade concessions act, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, or, if an import of an item produced by a worker\'s company has been or may be increased, such as or directly competes with it. (114)
The DOL must also certify that a batch of secondary production workers are eligible to apply for TAA benefits in the case of two other types of unemployment, if it determines that: * a large or proportional number of workers have been terminated --
Offor faces the threat of dismissal
If the assembly part is provided by the upstream \"supplier\" of the related product,-
Accounting for at least 20% of its production or sales-
Companies that employ a group of certified junior workers who can apply for TAA benefits;
Or * a large or proportional number of workers are fired-
Offor faces the threat of dismissal
Leaving from the \"downstream producers\" of the relevant article, if the business losses of the secondary worker Company and the primary worker company \"contribute little to the redundancy or dismissal threat of the secondary worker \". (115)
Therefore, the certification of workers depends to a certain extent on the administrative performance of Dole.
The performance of the agency in the performance of its statutory duties has always been the target of criticism, not only organized labor ,(116)
But members of CIT also expressed their views. (117)
DOL has been working hard to complete the professional tasks of certified qualified workers ---
Thus helping them to adapt to the unemployment caused by the expansion of free trade and the transition to a new livelihood ---
Even if the Democrats occupy the White House. (118)
So for some workers\' congress, the benefits of the TAA are not as readily available as expected.
This non-proximity stems from two root causes: first, DOL\'s own investigation process is flawed and the staff is responsible for providing evidence ---and proving--
They lost their jobs due to the expansion of free trade;
Second, the judicial review programme of the DOL award is not suitable for TAA cases. (119)A.
Criticism of the DOL certification process makes sense. (120)
Taike electronic v.
Labor Department (Tyco IV)
A good example. (121)
In this case, CIT ordered a lawyer fee of nearly $76,000 from the worker\'s lawyer (122)
The reason is that the agency\'s conduct during the proceedings was not sufficiently justified. (123)DOL\'s hard-
In that case, the slight litigation position against the worker and the excessive opposition were particularly wrong, but unfortunately it was not isolated. (124)
While the attorney fee award for Tyco IV is not pointless, it is well below $119,993.
The request of 70 persons may not be sufficient to prevent the agency from repeating its actions in future TAA cases. (125)
It also does not compensate workers for long delays in obtaining benefits they are entitled to under the regulations.
Nevertheless, the award commemorates DOL\'s lazy administration of the TAA Act and the unreasonable position taken in the taiko electronic proceedings. (126)
It sends a signal to future public welfare workers.
It is claimed that in the DOL case, the attorney\'s fees may be awarded when the administrative actions of the DOL and the actions during the proceedings are unreasonable. (127)
There is nothing in the TAA Act that requires the agency to take such a confrontation position against the workers. (128)
Rather, DOL\'s position against workers who have been hurt by expanding free trade is primarily a product of the agency\'s flawed investigation and the brokencertificate process. (129)
So sometimes, DOL fails to fully fulfill the intent of Congress to provide assistance to workers adversely affected by the expansion of free trade. (130)
This failure has, to some extent, led to the current lack of political support for expanding free trade and will continue to hinder further development of the United States. S.
Trade unless the agency does a better job to prove that the worker is eligible for TAA benefits. (131)B.
The defect certification process of the Inapt judicial review program DOL has become more complex because it is not suitable for a plan to conduct a judicial review of the agency\'s decision, which grants both CIT and Federal Circuit court jurisdiction. (132)
This inappropriate scheme resulted in an inappropriate distribution of power between DOL, CIT and federal circuits. TheMarathon v. Chao (Marathon I)litigation (133)
The certification process showing how is exacerbated by this inappropriate distribution of power. In Marathon v. Chao (Marathon II), (134)
Federal Circuits overthrew CIT\'s view that the \"Gower\" who conducted quality control tests \"---
Gao claimed whose company is engaged in \"producing an article \"(crude oil)--
Entitled to TAAbenefits. (135)
The decision of the Federal Circuit Court is based on an explanation of a particular statutory phrase ---
\"The rest produce oil. \" (136)
The DOL explained the sentence in a way that excluded the gaol people from the TAA coverage because it concluded that their company was not engaged in crude oil production,, just ship it after it\'s \"produced. \"(137)
But CIT refused (1)
DOL\'s explanation of the word \"otherwise produce oil\"-and (2)
Dole concluded that the gaol people were not covered by the statute because the edol did not fully explain its reasoning. (138)
CIT alsorejected rejected the decision of the DOL that the gaol people were not eligible for forTAA benefits because the agency failed ---
After four chances. -
Fully investigate the reasons for their layoffs. (139)
Because when the case came to him for the third time, DOLalready had four opportunities for full investigation, and Justice barzilay granted the worker\'s motion for judgment on the records of the agency, and ordered the DOL to certify the worker\'s qualifications because he believed that another rehearing of the DOL was futile: But the agency\'s decision to CIT was appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. (141)
The handling of CIT holdings by the Federal Circuit Court is both disturbing and confusing for workers, DOL and CIT.
DOL in particular, should not be inspired by its \"victory\" in marathon II.
The argument here is not that the Federal Circuit Court\'s interpretation of \"otherwise it will produce oil\" is wrong, nor is it inappropriate to re-examine the CIT\'s interpretation of the term. (142)
There is nothing wrong with the Federal Circuit Court to overthrow the CIT on a purely matter. (143)
There is no doubt that this is a clear and appropriate (
Most likely correct)
Exercise its exclusive appeal authority to review CIT\'s final judgment under the age of 28 in the United StatesS. C. [section]1295.
But the chaos of the Federal Circuit144)
About the types of reviews it and CIT should conduct on the legal interpretation of the agency in the United StatesS.
The case law of the Supreme Court is disturbing. (145)
TheCIT has clearly analyzed Chevron\'s decision under the Chevron standard ,(146)
The same is true of the Federal Circuit, at least implicitly. (147)
However, as clearly stated by the Federal Circuit Court, the legal interpretation of the DOL in the world of Maradona II makes no sense because \"whether or not [Chevron]
Respect, \"it will achieve the same result. (148)
Suffice to say that the Federal Circuit Court\'s exploration of this issue in marathon II is likely to bring economic integration to the TAA litigation parties, which can only be resolved in future litigation, unless Congress steps in to clarify and define the appropriate role between DOL, CIT and the Federal Circuit Court.
On the other hand, the federal circuit court\'s handling of CIT\'s judgment on the issue of mixed facts and laws is not very clear and even more disturbing.
When there is no dispute over the facts, it is clear ---
Judging from the federal circuit court\'s decision on BarryCallebaut v. Former employeesChao (149)--
The Federal Circuit Court conducted a new appeal review of CIT\'s judicial review of DOL\'s findings of fact: \"In reviewing the court\'s ruling on substantive evidence, this court adopted [s]
Became the shoe of the Court of International Trade and copied its comments. \" (150)
But when the facts are disputed, the appeal role of the Federal Circuit Court is not good --defined.
Although its comments on legal issues are always Brand New-
Official employee v. Sonoco ProductsChao, (151)
The Federal Circuit seems to have set up a three.
The category scope of the nature of the appeal review it will review the issue of mixed facts and laws, depending on whether the facts are in dispute and whether the criteria chosen determine the outcome of the case: if nothing else, the Federal Circuit Court has concerns about the disputed fact-finding results in marathon proceedings (153)
Missed the opportunity to clarify their respective roles, DOL it, the Federal Circuit Court should play a role in the TAA case, when there are complex factual and legal issues, CIT accepted the fact-finding results of DOL on purely factual issues, but rejected its legal conclusions.
To be precise, this is what existed before the marathon v federal tour.
Chao, but the Federal Circuit Court missed the opportunity to clarify the appropriate role between the DOL, CIT and the Federal Circuit Court, and also missed the opportunity to clarify the appropriate review criteria it will take in this case
Marathon H is therefore disturbing because it emphasizes that Congress has not clearly defined the role of the DOL, CIT and the Federal Circuit Court in The TAA proceedings.
In addition, the Federal Circuit Court acted rashly in the fact-finding results of handlingDOL, which CIT accepted ---i. e.
, The nature of the duties of senior workers, and the time and time for whom they perform their duties (
A problem in fact)--and rejected--i. e.
, The worker company did not participate in the production of the article in the sense of TAAstatute (
A mix of facts and laws)(154)--
Obscuring the disturbing reality that the Federal Circuit Court missed or evaded opportunities to shed light on why re-examination was an appropriate criterion for the case appeal review ---
\"At the end of the fact that there is no dispute, the case is resolved by choosing the appropriate criteria \"---
Even if it is on the \"other end of the case\", in this case, applying the criteria to the disputed facts is necessary to determine the outcome of the \"case. (155)
Because the marathon
Chao is not in the middle, and in these cases the appropriate criteria for the appeal review are still unclear.
Starting with marathon H, the Federal Circuit Court plans to re-appeal legal issues, legal issues, and mixed facts and legal issues, when the facts are in dispute, when the facts are not in dispute, as long as the review criteria resolve the case (i. e. , always? ).
In the second marathon, the basic facts are indisputable;
There is a matter of fact and law at issue, and the Federal Circuit Court is on the side of the DOL, not on the side of the CIT. (156)
Marathon II, therefore, is the most disturbing, because under the current DOL ruling judicial review plan, CIT is required to treat the findings of the facts with the same respect that the appellant would normally treat the findings of the trial court, although the findings of the DOL are not the results of the trial, even if the CIT refuses them, because they are not based on substantive evidence in the institutional records or they are the product of inadequate investigations. (157)
Essentially, by conducting a de appellate appeal review of CIT\'s legal interpretation, and conducting a de novo appeal review of undisputed factual issues as well as disputed factual and legal issues in marathon II, the Federal Circuit Court effectively denied workers the statutory right to judicial review.
Again, the argument here is not related to the Federal Circuit Court\'s re-appeal review of the city\'s misinterpreted law, but rather, the Federal Circuit missed an opportunity to clarify its respective roles, because the value of proper respect for the legal conclusion of the DOL was not expressed in the TAA case.
There are some issues with the current judicial review plan that require congressional action. (158)
But if the agency effectively deals with certification issues that arise under the TAA program, a lot of things can be corrected, or at least it doesn\'t make much sense for workers who are hurt by expanded free trade. (159)IV.
Making it easier for eligible workers to get TAA benefits, then, what can and should DOL do to fix its broken certification process, and how Congress can amend the TAA act to reduce further worker-to-U. S.
DOL will better perform its duty to certify that the worker is eligible for TAAbenefits :(1)
Improve the TAA welfare petition process; (2)
Conduct more effective surveys of workers\' qualifications while maintaining their primary role in assisting workers to adapt to unemployment and transition to new livelihoods; and (3)
By adopting a formal burden of evidence, the burden transfer that will provide evidence to workers\' companies and divisions --shifting rule.
However, the certification process to fix the broken DOL itself will not eliminate workers\' resistance to expanding free trade.
Therefore, Congress should consider amending the TAA bill :(1)
Correcting inappropriate plans for judicial review of DOL negative eligibility decisions; (2)
If the DOL does not take a formal, evidentiary burden, create incentives for employers to cooperate with the investigation of the DOL --shifting rule; and (3)
Provide services to service personnel. A.
When the DOL issues its notice of comment on the issue of certificates arising under the TAA program, the administrative improvement ,(160)
It should emphasize that it is looking for ideas to address the certification process by improving the petition process and its general approach to investigation.
The DOL should also propose a rule that formally puts the employer on the burden of proof as to why the petitioner is unemployed ---
Additional evidence that DOL needs to make a qualification decision-
Bear the burden of proof-Transfer Programme.
When combined with the improved petition process, such a plan will effectively overturn the current assumption that the worker is not eligible to apply for TAAbenefits, it is assumed that they are eligible to apply for taabenef unless their employees provide substantial evidence that the worker\'s unemployment is not due to the expansion of free trade or that their company is not engaged in the production of the product, or not an upstream supplier or a downstream producer. (161)1.
Brad Brooks-improve petition processRubin (162)
Several feasible suggestions were provided to improve the TAA petition process: DOL should form a focus group with workers who have been certified TAA benefits and rejected workers ,(164)
In addition to collecting more good ideas with experienced lawyers representing workers in TAAcases. 2.
Conduct more effective investigations to better perform the statutory duties of certifying the worker\'s qualifications, and DOL should conduct investigations better in four ways.
First of all, it should improve its fact
Ability to determine qualifications.
Second, it should give a clearer picture of the decisive facts on which its religious decisions are based.
Thirdly, it should ensure that sufficient institutional record personnel are able to conduct adequate judicial review of these decisions.
Fourth, it should be less keen to promote worker certification at CIT and Federal Circuit meetings.
In order to improve its administrative performance, DOL should adhere more strictly to its proper role in the certification process. (165)
First and foremost, members of Congress.
The statutory role of TAA casesis is to help workers adapt to unemployment and to help them transition to a new livelihood.
In the face and center of this main mindset, DOLshould then remained narrowly focused on the two main statutory obligations in the TAA case :(1)
Discover the confirmed facts and judge them on this basis; and (2)
Ensure that there are sufficient agency records in place for adequate judicial review of this decision.
DOL should not assume, or at least should not go out of their way to assume the law --
Play a role, especially when CIT\'s interpretation of the legal language of the TAA act is different from that of the agency.
When the investigation resulted in insufficient institutional records, the biggest practical problem of the DOL investigation arose. Brooks-
Rubin suggested relying on third
Ensure that there is sufficient evidence of the parties in the TAA case with a proxy record: and Brooks-
Rubin\'s suggestion is a good starting point, it is not enough to solve the root cause of the problem, it may unnecessarily complicate the certification process. In particular, when the employer has solid evidence of whether the worker\'s unemployment was caused by an increase in imports or a transfer of production.
The fundamental problem with the agency\'s approach to investigation is that it puts too much burden of proof on workers. 3.
Bear the burden of proof-
The transfer plan employer should be the primary source for DOLneeds to effectively determine the evidence that the worker is eligible for TAAbenefits. (167)
This, of course, is the duty of DOL. -Not a worker. -
\"Collect all relevant facts\", make a reasonable decision on the worker\'s petition and ensure that there are sufficient institutional records for judicial review. (168)
While there is no justifiable reason for employers not to cooperate in the taa investigation, companies tend to have knees --
Jerk\'s response to the government\'s requests for employment issues, particularly those that result in unemployment due to work outsourcing and work outsourcing. (169)
Therefore, DOL should better educate employers how it is in their best interest to cooperate in the TAA survey.
After all, TAAbenefits are essentially \"free severance pay\" that companies can help get\"off workers.
At least, it is not in the company\'s interest to help laid-off workers.
Employees receive TAA benefits.
In addition to being a symbol of a good corporate citizen, employees who are still employed by the company may notice how the company treats laid-off workers --
As a result, make employees more motivated to contribute to achieving the company\'s goals.
Good place to start-
With respect to the TAA survey, air conditioning employers are at the annual meeting of human resources professionals sponsored by the Human Resources Management Association. (170)
Another place to reduce the employer\'s resistance to the cooperative TAA investigation is the continuing legal education seminar hosted by the customs and international trade Lawyers Association ,(171)
As well as departmental meetings of the American Bar Association, such as the Labor Law, (172)
General Counsel of the company (173)
And the international legal department. (174)
However, the question is not just who is obliged within the company to provide evidence.
The problem is: while workers are motivated to prove their qualifications, they are not qualified;
On the other hand, the employer has evidence of eligibility or non-eligibility but has no incentive to produce. (176)
Therefore, part of the certification process to repair the breakage of the DOL must include the use of appropriate \"carrots\" and \"sticks\" to motivate employers to present evidence they have that the agency needs to make a qualified decision
Some ideas to increase the employer\'s cooperation require legislative changes to the TAA act.
In the absence of any congressional action, one thing DOL can do on his own is to burden it through evidence --
Transfer rules similar to those applied by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)
Employment discrimination case under MacDonald Douglasv. Green. (177)
When combined with the improved petition process, the staff member may establish preliminary eligibility for TAA benefits through the petition process, and then the employee will be allowed to produce evidence that the petitioner worker is ineligible, because in addition to the increase in imports or the transfer of production, they have lost their jobs for other reasons, or because the company is not engaged in production and is not an \"upstream supplier\" or \"downstream producer \".
\"So when DOL issues its notice of commenting on certification issues arising under the taa program, it should declare that it intends to adopt the burden of evidence --
Similar to the transfer plan of the Macdonald Douglas framework.
An investigation plan that puts a burden on the worker\'s company to produce evidence of rebuttal-
Coupled with the improved petition process, it is easier for workers to identify preliminary evidence that they are eligible for certification ---
This would greatly help dol to fulfil its congressional mandate to certify the worker\'s eligibility for TAA benefits. Such a burden-
In fact, the transfer plan will overturn the presumption in favor of workers\' qualifications and stay away from the current presumption of workers\' qualifications
Evidence to the contrary.
The most capable hrystsionals and in-
House lawyers should already be familiar with the framework of Douglas cdonnell Douglas.
Reducing the burden of production for workers and putting their laid-off companies to account is more sensitive than DOL\'s current casual approach to investigation, because worker companies are more aware of the key facts on the basis of DOL qualification than workers, whether: * workers are laid off due to increased import or production transfer;
* The Company is engaged in the production of an item;
Or * The Company is an upstream \"supplier\" or \"downstream producer\" under the regulations \";
It provides 20% or more sales or production to companies whose workers have been certified as qualified forTAA benefits;
Or, the loss of business with such a company has a vague contribution to the redundancy or redundancy threat of secondary workers. (178)
DOL\'s current methods of investigation are also too hostile to workers. (179)
It is in the best interest of everyone to have the DOL\'s investigation process gather the agency\'s evidence more calmly to confirm whether the worker is entitled to TAA benefits and when to receive them. (180)
Of course, workers can and should present evidence to prove their eligibility, whether or not they are considered entitled to certification.
However, it should be up to the company that fired the worker to come up with sufficient evidence to determine whether its former employee was entitled to TAAbenefits.
If neither the worker nor their company is able to provide effective evidence for the DOL to determine their qualifications, then re-obtaining evidence in favor of the worker\'s qualifications will make the work of the agency less difficult, the certification process will create resistance and opposition to the interests of workers.
It is therefore more likely that the agency will carry out the tasks of Congress to help workers adapt to unemployment and transition to a new livelihood.
While taking into account the reality of today\'s global market, this assumption in favor of workers\' qualifications may open the floodgates for unqualified workers to apply to TAA, assuming that it is more fair for workers to lose their jobs due to expanding free trade than not.
In addition, DOL\'s qualification will still be based on a large amount of evidence in the institutional records, and the Macdonald Douglas program may ensure more and better evidence determined by the agency. (181)B.
Congress should consider amending the TAA act to correct the structural problems faced by workers in the workers Case: DOL, on the one hand, authorizes workers to obtain a TAA benefits certification ,(182)
On the other hand, they have the right to conduct a judicial review of the agency\'s decision to refuse certification. (183)
The difficulty of Dol in implementing congressional authorization to qualify workers largely stems from its apparent work assumption that the petitioner bears the burden of production and persuades them to be entitled to benefits under the TAA act(184)
The changes discussed in the above section are designed to address the root cause of the burden on production problems.
But if DOL does not repair the broken certification process as suggested above, Congress should consider amending the TAA act to motivate employers to work together in the certification process of the agency.
Both legal changes require fundamental reform of the TAA act.
So Congress is more likely to consider less basic reforms like those proposed in Senate Bill 122. (185)
There is no doubt that 110 Congress will consider the bill, which will amend the TAA Act to expand coverage for service workers and, on the face of it, address some, though not high, issues, shortcomings of the TAA act. (186)1.
Correct the Inapt judicial review plan in each of the above cases and the cases mentioned in theAFL
CIO\'s question briefing ,(187)
CIT expressed great frustration with the agency\'s administrative performance, but it also failed to address why DOL took an unnecessary confrontation position against workers seeking TAA benefits.
These cases indicate a very difficult problem: due to the wishes of the worker, DOL lacks evidence in the institutional records to determine the worker\'s qualifications ---
Their employees are willing or incompetent. -
Produce evidence of unemployment due to increased import or transfer of production, and other evidence that requires a qualification decision. (188)
Therefore, the workers in these cases (the losers)
It is likely that compensation will be rejected, and Congress intends to get them compensated for expanding free trade.
Before ending her opinion on the Chevron product case, JudgeRidgway (189)
Quote politics of a well-
She said it was \"touted as an exchange for free trade policy \"---
Quote from Senator Max BaucusD-Mont. )
TAA\'s importance to expanding free trade :\"[a]
Address the needs of workers in an honest and responsible manner. . .
Who will lose their jobs because of trade is perhaps the most important factor in a politically viable plan to expand trade.
If this is ignored, efforts to liberalize trade will eventually fail. \" (190)
Judge Ridgeway also pointed out that there is no potential serious labor cost of compensation in Chevron Products --
And quoted the words of aU. S.
Court of Appeal case noting the fair purpose of the taa program: Brooks-
Rubin suggested some legislative action to fix the dolsbroken TAA certification process: Brooks-Rubin is right;
Congress, in exercising its power to conduct a judicial review of the TAA case, should deal with the power of the CIT. (193)
But it seems that CIT has the right to reject the toremand TAA case. -
Order certification itself--
It is futile to pay back. (194)
The exercise of the power twice ,(195)
The Federal Circuit Court refused to revoke the CIT on the grounds that it refused to send the TAA case back to the DOL and dealt with it on its own. (196)
Still, Congress should consider re-examining
Assigning power between DOL, CIT and federal circuits because, as mentioned above, there is any apparent confusion about the appropriate role of DOL, CIT, the Federal Circuit in the TAA case makes access to TAA benefits for other eligible workers more difficult for some and impossible for others. (197)
By clarifying the appropriate administrative factsDiscovery and law
Congress will play a role in DOL, CIT and the Federal Circuit Court to establish a more appropriate programme for judicial review of the agency decisions in ag cases. (198)
But it all started with the role that DOL took on.
Under a more reasonable judicial review plan, the DOL will be responsible :(1)
Effectively investigate the petition of employees; (2)
Determining facts based on substantive evidence; (3)
Establish appropriate institutional records for effective judicial review by CIT; and (4)
Make a qualification decision in accordance with the law interpreted by CIT and articulate its reasoning clearly.
If the agency reasonably performs its administrative functions, then it will properly conduct a judicial review :(1)
If there is solid evidence in the agency\'s records to support the agency\'s findings of fact; and (2)
Adhere to the legal conclusions of the DOL, provided that they are clearly stated and in compliance with the law of the CIT interpretation.
In these rare cases, when the agency fails to fully perform its administrative duties, if there is no substantial evidence in the agency\'s record to support its findings of fact, the CIT sends the case back to the DOL, or, in due course, the law of the conclusion of reverseDOL if the judgment of the CIT :(1)
They are arbitrary and capricious; (2)
They do not comply with the law; or (3)
It is futile to remand DOL.
Cases, if any, rarely go to the Federal Circuit Court because DOL performs its administrative duties and CIT is able to properly review the negative decisions of DOL on appropriate administrative records.
In addition, the number of cases heard by the Federal Circuit Court is very small not because the workers can\'t afford to pay that far, but only if the CIT goes wrong will it enter the Federal Circuit Court ---
If the DOL or the worker brings them there on appeal.
In exceptional circumstances of appeal to the Federal Circuit Court, the court will effectively re-appeal CIT\'s holdings on the issue of legal interpretation, however, in accordance with the provisions of the United States, I will obey CIT\'s judgment of the facts and the mixed problem of the facts and the lawS.
The Skidmore and Mead cases of the Supreme Court did not carry out a new appeal review. (199)
Therefore, Congress should consider amending the TAA act to clarify and better divide the appropriate roles between DOL, CIT by better allocating power, make the judicial review plan decided by the DOL more appropriate and Federal Circuit in the TAA case. 2.
Creating incentives for employer cooperation Congress should consider creating incentives for employers to provide evidence of worker qualifications or non-qualifications, especially if the agency does not bear the burden of evidence --
As suggested above. (200)
To encourage employers to work together, Congress should consider carrots and sticks.
A positive approach is to build on the provision of trade adjustment assistance to companies (TAA for Firms)
Procedures that already exist under the TAA act. (201)
Business plan under TAA, trade-inimpactedfirms--that the U. S.
Ministry of Commerce, Economic Development Bureau (EDA)
Proof of eligibility--
Technical assistance can be obtained from private investors through one of the 11 trade adjustment assistance centres (TAACs)
: If EDA determines :(A)
A large or proportional number of workers in the company have been completely or partially separated, or are threatened with complete or partial separation. . . (B)that (i)
The sales or production of the company, or both, is absolutely reduced, or (ii)
Sales or production of goods that account for not less than 25% of the company\'s total output or sales during the [period], or bothpreceding year]
Absolute reduction; and (C)
The increase in imported items, such as or direct competition with the items produced by the company, has an important contribution to this complete or partial separation or threat and to this decision to sell or produce. (203)
But since Congress re-authorizes the Firms for firms project at a funding level of only $16 million a year, TAACs has chosen relatively few companies that actually receive assistance, although the show appears to be performing well. (204)
In fact, 1998 study of the TAA for Firms project by the city Institute-
\"Comparing changes in employment and sales levels in taac --
Assist the company to change these levels before and after certification. . .
Proven eligible for TAAC assistance, but the organization declined to seek assistance under the program-
Reporting the following successful results: The City Institute also concluded that the company\'s TAA project: \"Support a job for every $3,451 invested and generate $87 in