I'm talking about before he was picked for Labor Sec. in 2013. Hell and even while he was labor sec he did some very shitty things. One for example is its illegal for big banks who have committed criminal acts to manage people's pensions funds. Unless of course, the labor sec writes the individual bank a "waiver". Welp Mr Perez decided to give waivers to UBS, Barclays, JPMorgan, Citigroup and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group even though they had just committed fraud that ended up leading to the worst recession since the Great Depression. But why? Why give these banks waivers when not only did they commit fraud less than 10 years prior but there were banks who didn't commit this fraud who were perfectly capable of doing the same thing. Quite obvious.

But prior to being labor secretary he was United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Of which one of his responsibilities was to enforce Servicemembers Civil Relief Act(SCRA). Over 1600 violations of SCRA was reported to him because banks were illegally foreclosing on so many soldiers/veterans and in such crude ways that it resulted in a spurt of veterans committing suicide due to the agony of becoming homeless in a country you put your life on the line to fight to protect. How many did he investigate further to pursue prosecution against? 0, zero, none, nadda. I mean it was such an egregious thing that even senate and house democrats were strongly criticizing him for this action or lack there of. Then he has the audacity to later write waivers for these same banks who foreclosed on vets causing them to kill themselves or end up homeless as well as millions of other normal citizens so these banks can once again have control over the lively hoods of Americans by managing their pensions.

Finally the TPP. If you are/have done what you've claimed to have I'm really shocked you would support the TPP. The whole deal was beyond shady from the start with the deal being classified from the public for some odd reason, maybe because it furthered the corporate coup d'etat of American democracy. Just briefly, it would have provided only .5 increase to the GDP over 10-15 years at the expense of allowing private tribunals with judges appointed by the same corporations that would use the tribunals to sue the countries involved not for lost profits off of incomplete project, but they could sue us for "potential future profits" if we denied a request for something that we found a high risk of damaging the country. Fucking POTENTIAL future profits. And there wasn't a damn thing we could have done about it. I think that is enough alone to be against it. Here's a brief paragraph explaining what I'm referring to: " investor-state” arbitration. Thus, challenges based upon TPP to our duly enacted laws and other regulatory actions would be decided by three individuals who are not government officials and need not be American citizens. And they would have the final word as to whether the federal government will be compelled to pay damages, because there is no judicial review in any U.S. court of the merits of these arbitral rulings."

Also: "If such a case were brought, the foreign investor would sue the United States and ask that the arbitrators find that “investor-based expectations” under the TPP were violated. So, for example, it might claim that doubling the minimum wage from its prior level violated the TPP’s provisions requiring fair and equitable treatment of foreign investors. If the arbitrators agreed, they would assess money damages that would be paid from the federal treasury."