MEXICAN LABOR NEWS AND ANALYSIS
September 2000
Vol. V, No. 6
About Mexican Labor News and Analysis
Mexican Labor News and Analysis (MLNA) is produced in collaboration with the Authentic Labor Front (Frente Auténtico del Trabajo - FAT) of Mexico and the United Electrical Workers (UE) of the United States, and with the support of the Resource Center of the Americas in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
MLNA can be viewed at the UE's international web site: HTTP://www.igc.apc.org/unitedelect/. For information about direct subscriptions, submission of articles, and all queries contact editor Dan La Botz at the following e-mail address: DanLaBotz@cs.com or call in the U.S. (510) 524-3391. The U.S. mailing address is: Dan La Botz, Mexican Labor News and Analysis, 941 Spruce St., Berkeley, CA 94707.
Most MLNA articles may be reprinted by other electronic or print media, but we ask that you credit Mexican Labor News and Analysis and give the UE home page location and Dan La Botz's compuserve address. Copyrighted articles may only be reprinted with the permission of the author; please contact the author directly.
The UE Home Page which displays Mexican Labor News and Analysis has an INDEX of back issues and an URGENT ACTION ALERT section.
Staff: Editor, Dan La Botz. Managing editor, Larry Weiss. Correspondents in Mexico: Peter Gellert and Michal Kohout. Regular contributors: David Bacon.
____________________________________________________________
Dear Readers,
I am very happy to announce that the Resource Center of the Americas will now be collaborating with Mexican Labor News and Analysis. The Resource Center of the Americas is a not-for-profit human rights organization established in 1983 and based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For more than 15 years the Resource Center has promoted justice, democracy and human rights in the Americas. The Resource Center, with 1,600 members and several thousand friends, has worked to build bridges across communities, highlighting the voices of the silenced and the ignored. (See the Center's website at: www.americas.org for more information.) The Center's Larry Weiss will become MLNA's managing editor, helping with the planning, production and distribution of MLNA to subscribers. We thank the Center for its support and look forward to working together. We know that with the Center's support MLNA will become a more effective publication bringing news about Mexican labor unions, workers, and social movements to readers in Canada, the United States and around the world in order to promote international labor solidarity.
In solidarity
Dan La Botz
______________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE:
Vicente Fox, president-elect of Mexico, faced his first big scandal even before taking office when Mexican newspapers reported in late August that Fox family businesses employed child labor. The Fox family firms employed children as young as 11-years-old to work on the ranch and in freezer plants in San Cristobal, Guanajuato in violation of Mexican labor law. After the press reported the incident, the Fox family immediately fired the underage workers, though it reportedly failed to pay them their severance pay, another violation of the Federal Labor Law (LFT).
Vicente Fox denied responsibility for the employment of children by the Fox companies, saying that other members of his family had been responsible. His brother, Cristobal Fox, told the press that Vicente had separated himself from the business in 1998. Another brother, Jose Fox, the person now in charge of the family businesses denied that the Fox family was responsible in any way for employing child workers, saying that the family firms used labor contractors to hire the laborers.
While Fox now denies any responsibility for the family businesses, in the autobiography he wrote for his election campaign Fox described his role in helping to run the Fox ranch, freezer, and shoe manufacturing firm. (See: Vicente Fox, A LOS PINOS: RECUENTO AUTOBIOGRAFICO Y POLITICO, Mexico: Oceano, 1999.)
Other workers at the Fox family businesses reported that as many as 34 children had been working on the ranch or in the freezer plant, and that it was common to have 13 to 15 year old boys and girls employed there. The last two children to be fired after the scandal broke were Brenda 12, and Adriana, 15 (no last names available). Adriana complained that she had been fired with no explanation, "It isn't fair," she told the press.
Human Rights and Labor Rights Groups Criticize Fox
Several human rights and labor rights organizations criticized Fox on the issue of child labor not only for his role as an employer, but also as governor of Guanajuato. The Foundation of Support for Children (Fundacion de Apoyo Infantil) claimed that Guanajuato's civil and penal codes failed to protect children. Director Allan Gomez reported that 12 to 14 year old ranch and freezer workers in the state had been exposed to pesticides, fungicides and insecticides, and that some had suffered serious liver and lung problems. The Center for Labor Reflection and Action (CEREAL), a Jesuit labor rights organization, criticized Fox not only for his failure to do anything about child labor while governor, but for his failure to do anything for workers whatsoever. "We know of no initiative that he has taken to improve the labor rights of the workers of Guanajuato," said Carlos Rodriguez, the director of CEREAL. "There is a striking contrast between the situation in Guanajuato and the improvements in labor policy in the Federal District, for example, where there have been efforts to protect the most vulnerable groups such as women and children."
Fox Child Labor Scandal and the PAN
The scandal over the Fox family firms' employment of child labor becomes more significant when related to the political program of the National Action Party (PAN) of which he is the leader. The PAN has proposed legalizing certain forms of child labor for those as young as 12. Cecilia Romero, out-going PAN congresswoman and in-coming Senator recently informed the press that her party would once again present a bill to legalize apprenticeship in the upcoming 58th Congress. She explained that the law would permit 12 and 13 year old children who had left school and had no intention of returning to work as paid apprentices in different trades.
"This concept of apprenticeship would help many street children learn a trade," she said. The PAN had presented the bill to the 57th Congress but it failed.
President-elect Fox and his family are not the only Mexican bosses employing children. Child labor in Mexico appears to be a constant and continuing problem according to various national and international authorities on the issue. While the investigators' figures do not always agree, the numbers are shocking:
*The Mexican National Institute of Statistics (INEGI) reports that 4.5 million children under the age of 14 work in Mexico, or 12 percent of the child population.
*The Secretary of Labor and Social Welfare estimates that more than 3.5 million young people between 12 and 17 work in Mexico, and that 42 percent work in agriculture.
*INEGI, in another study, the latest National Survey of Education, Training and Employment for the year 1999 indicates that 3.1 million students in the country over 12 years old combine their academic activities with work.
*The Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL) found in a recent study that 23 percent of the children in Mexico between 13 and 17 years old have to work in order to support themselves or contributed economically to their families.
*The National Program in Favor of Childhood 1995-2000 study found that most child labor in Mexico was found in agriculture: 1.47 million, followed by services: 805,000, and trade: 595,000.
*The National Confederation of Peasants (CNC), affiliated with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), estimates that one million children between 6 and 14 years old work in agriculture.
*UNICEF estimates that more than 500,000 children work in the fields of Mexico from very young ages.
*UNIFCEF's Integral Development of the Family (DIF) study of child labor in 100 cities found 114,497 child workers under 17. Most work five or more days a week, and the average wage is less than 50 pesos per day (or less than US$5.00 per day).
The Mexican Constitution in Article 123 (the labor rights article), the Federal Labor Law (LFT), and other federal and state laws forbid the employment of child labor.
The Mexican Constitution, Article 123 forbids the employment of children under the age of 14, and limits children between 14 and 16 years old to a maximum workday of six hours. The same article forbids the employment of children under 16 years old from working after 10 p.m. Employers may not require workers under 16 to work overtime.
Mexican Federal Labor Law, Article 173 to 180, also regulates child labor. Article 175 requires employers to get a medical certificate for workers under the age of 16 certifying their ability to do the work. Article 177 requires employers to give workers under 16 who work six hours a rest period of at least one hour between two three hour shifts
Several U.S. labor organizations have written to Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor of the United States and to Mariano Palacios Alcocer, Secretary of Labor of Mexico, to protest the beating of Mexican workers at a seminar held in Tijuana on June 23 under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). John Sweeney, president of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), John Becker, international president of the United Steel Workers of America (USWA), and John H. Hovis, Jr., president of the United Electrical Workers (UE), the writers of the letters, also demanded the holding of a new seminar in which all unions and workers will be allowed to participate without fear of repression.
The three letters refer to the NAFTA seminar called to "promote the principles of freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize and the right to bargain collectively." Leaders and members of the "October 6" union who had been denied those rights in Tijuana's maquiladora zone and other labor activists showed up to participate in the seminar but they were then violently attacked by members of the government-controlled Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants (CROC). The CROC thugs kicked and beat Enrique Hernandez, the head of the "October 6" union, and other activists, eventually forcing them from the room; the seminar then continued as if nothing untoward had occurred.
All three letters pointed out that the attacks on the members and leaders of the independent "October 6" union took place in the presence of Mexican Assistant Secretary of Labor Javier Moctezuma Barragan and the Acting Director of the U.S. National Administrative Office of NAFTA, Lewish Karesh. UE president Hovis called for the dismissal of Karesh because he failed to speak up and continued to participate in the seminar as if nothing had happened.
AFL-CIO president Sweeney wrote in his July 18 letter to Palacios Alcocer that "the seminar demonstrated that persons exercising the right to organized can be assaulted publicly with impunity, and that freedom of association does not exist for the 'October 6' union." He called for the convening of a new seminar that "will truly promote the principles of freedom of association and the right of Mexican workers to organize and bargain collectively."
Hovis, in the UE's letter wrote, "The fact that nothing was done to protect these workers highlights both the inadequacy of NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and indicates a lack of political will to protect workers' rights." He suggested that the seminars were being used "as a substitute for real steps-such as requirements for secret ballot [union representation] elections and public access to registries of unions and contracts."
Steelworkers: Re-Negotiate NAFTA
In his letter of July 28, George Becker of the steelworkers wrote in his letter to Alexis Herman: "It is hard to fully express the shock and anger I feel at what transpired at this seminar. It is the height of irony, shame and tragedy that workers were permitted to be physically beaten at a seminar which purported to educate them about their rights. The fact that this occurred underscores the very concern which the Union has been raising even before the passage of NAFTA-i.e., that NAFTA constitutes an agreement which leaves workers in the U.S., Canada and Mexico without any meaningful means to enforce their rights to freely organize. In short it leaves them at the mercy of business interests which value profits over people. "We sincerely hope that the type of events described herein will be an impetus for the administration to re-negotiate NAFTA to add meaningful and enforceable labor standards and to include such standards in future trade agreements."
Several major Mexican labor unions, including the Mexican Union of Electrical Workers (SME), the Mexican Teachers Union (el SNTE), and the Mexican Petroleum Workers Union (STPRM) have proposed the creation of a new labor federation that would apparently be a rival to both the old state-party controlled Congress of Labor (CT) and to the relatively new independent labor federation the National Union of Workers (UNT).
Clearly flowing from the election of Vicente Fox to the Mexican presidency and the Institutional Revolutionary Party's loss of power, this new development complicates the politics of the labor movement in Mexico. Until now workers and unions have been presented with two clear alternatives: the CT controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) versus the independent UNT. While it appears that the unifying factor of the new federation is opposition to privatization-an important issue for both the electrical and petroleum workers-this development also represents a moderate, middle ground alternative between the PRI-dominated CT and the independent UNT. Or it could even be a group of unions hoping to become president-elect Fox's chosen interlocutors in the labor movement.
The New Federation
The proposal for the new federation has come from a number of powerful unions: the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME), the Mexican Teachers Union (SNTE), the Mexican Petroleum Workers Union (STPRM), the Federation of Unions of Workers of the Governments of States and Municipalities (FSTGEM), the Revolutionary Workers Confederation (COR), and a number of others. Several of these unions have played leading roles in the history of the Mexican labor movement, as well as in the recent past. But they have also often been on different sides of the issues. Some of the unions involved in the new federation have been leaders in the struggle against the PRI and its policies. SME, the electrical workers union, has been the leader in the fight against the privatization of the electric power industry.
But others have been stalwarts of the old PRI-dominated system. Carlos Romero Deschamps, head of STPRM, the oil workers union, has been a loyal PRI follower. He is also a dictator in his own union, who faces challenges from various other officials as well as rank-and-file groupings. Yet other union leaders appear to be moving toward Fox. El SNTE, the teachers union, headed by Tomas Vazquez Vigil, has historically been allied with the Institutional Revolutionary Party. However, Elba Esther Gordillo, the woman believed to be the power behind the throne of the teachers union, has recently been rumored to be available to become Fox's secretary of education.
While it remains too soon to tell just what this incipient labor federation represents, it will represent an important challenge to the UNT, and could become a major factor in restraining movements toward labor union independence, democracy and militancy.
The more pro-labor leaders of the left-of-center Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the conservative National Action Party (PAN) will attempt to find common ground on the question of labor law reform, according to spokespersons for both parties. This effort is no doubt motivated by the fear that Vicente Fox and the pro-business groups within the PAN will seek to weaken unions and workers in the coming 58th Mexican Congress.
Senator Rosa Albina Garavito of the PRD, secretary of the Senate labor commission, has suggested that the PRD and the PAN to discuss labor law reform and find their points of agreement. She explained that while they have their differences the two parties also have much in common regarding the labor law reform issue.
Garavito pointed out that president-elect Vicente Fox, leader of the PAN, had signed a statement agreeing to 20 points for the reform of the unions. Those points, she said, would lay the foundation for a more independent and democratic union movement, end the system of state control known as corporativism, and make it possible for workers to win higher wages.
Similarly, PAN congressman Javier Paz Zarza, secretary of the Labor Commission of the House of Representatives, stated that the PRD and the PAN could agree on reducing the work week from 48 to 40 hours, doing away with the National Minimum Wage Commission and creating an independent body to set one national minimum wage, and establish a registry of unions and collective bargaining agreements.
Garavito and Paz Zarza, however, represent the most open-minded and pro-labor positions of each of their parties, and will surely face opposition, particularly from conservative forces in the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the PAN, and from a few PRD Senators and Representatives. COPARMEX, the Mexican Employers Association, and other pro-business groups will be pushing for a law that weakens unions and strengthens employers' control over the workforce.
The National Union of Workers (UNT), the independent labor federation, and some unions affiliated with the Congress of Labor (CT), the federation affiliated with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), have called for the abolition of the National Minimum Wage Commission (CNSM), arguing that the commission has failed to fulfill its mandate of defending workers' wages and well being.
The UNT calls for the abolition of the CNSM in its draft bill to reform the Federal Labor Law (LFT) that it will present to the next Mexican congress. That bill not only calls for abolishing the CNSM, but also for a 100 percent increase in the minimum wage. The Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM), the most important organization in the CT, has opposed the abolition of the CNSM, saying that while it may be necessary to reform the organization, it is important that the government continue to establish a minimum wage as the floor of the wage structure.
The CNSM establishes the national minimum wage, today about 37.90 pesos per day or less than US$4.00 per day. Mexicans often speak of wages in terms of multiples of the minimum wages, so that two minimum wages would mean double the minimum wage. Using that terminology, the Workers University of Mexico (UOM) in its study "The Increasingly Precarious Situation of Work and Wages" (Precarizacion del trabajo y salario") estimates that between 59.7 and 66.3 percent of the workforce receives between one and two minimum wages per day. (In addition about 15 percent of families in Mexico have no reported income whatsoever.) UOM also estimates that the minimum wage lost 76 percent of its purchasing power in the last 30 years as real wages declined.
Nor does the situation seem to be improving for most workers. The Mexican National Institute of Statistics (INEGI) reports that of 1,979,000 jobs created between 1994 and 1994, 42.3 percent were minimum wages jobs, while 26.98 percent fell between one and two minimum wages.
Broader Impact of Minimum Wage
For unions, the CNSM has been a problem not just because of its direct impact on low wage workers, but because of its impact on union workers as well. The CNSM minimum wage becomes the wage on the basis of which government institutions, employers, labor unions, professional associations and others bargain wages. So a low minimum wage reverberates throughout the society, lowering wages for non-minimum wage workers as well.
But perhaps most important, the CNSM minimum wage has formed the keystone of the government's whole system of wage and salary management in Mexico throughout the last 30 years. The government, employers, and the government-controlled labor unions, using the CNSM as a point of reference, worked to establish national economic pacts that used wage ceilings (topes salariales) to keep wages low so as to attract both domestic and foreign investment. The government's pacts and the wage ceilings acted to keep the maximum wage as close as possible to the minimum wage.
Fox's election represents a change of regime, and will lead to an overhaul of many laws and institutions. Like many other proposed changes, the abolition of the National Minimum Wage Commission, should it take place, would both end an old system of labor control, and open up possibilities of greater freedom of negotiation, but also potentially greater risks for the working class.
by Michal Kohout
[The independent union at the Volkswagen plant in Puebla, Mexico won an important victory at the end of August when the company agreed to a 13 percent raise, a 5 percent productivity bonus and a 3 percent increase in benefits. Under the old contract, VW workers made $2.30 an hour, while under the new agreement they will make almost $2.80 an hour. They were and remain the highest paid autoworkers in Mexico. Our Mexico correspondent Michal Kohout tells the story below in full. - ed.].
On Friday August 18 workers at Volkswagen in Puebla went on strike demanding a 35% wage increase plus 7% in benefits. Volkswagen countered with a 9.2% total offer. During the next week the union would be pressured by the Mexican government and the company to accept the low increase. It would bend, but not break and through its newfound solidarity would emerge victorious. History would not repeat itself.
After more than 30 years of existence, the Independent Union of Volkswagen Workers (SITIAVW) became strong enough to successfully challenge one of the most powerful companies in Mexico. In the 1960's the union belonged to the CTM, but since 1972 it is an independent union belonging first to the Union of Independent Workers (UOI) and since 1992 to the Federation of Unions of Companies of Goods and Services (FESEBES). The union also belongs to the independent labbor federation, the National Union of Workers (UNT), which is not officially registered with the Ministry of Labor, but is nevertheless a powerful agglomeration of more than 200 unions. These alliances would prove to be instrumental in aiding the union to believe in itself and unite its members in the face of an all out assault by corporate and state interests.
VW: Corporate Power
On the other side of the picket line, Volkswagen has been in Puebla since the 1960's and is recognized as a leader in the automotive sector. Its productivity levels are among the highest in the world. Each day the Puebla factory produces 1,500 cars worth approximately U.S.$5 million. This year it was set to break the record and produce 430,000 units. Last year Volkswagen Mexico made approximately U.S.$5 billion mostly through a 32% jump in exports. The principal models manufactured in the Puebla plant are the New Beetle (manufactured only in Mexico), Golf convertible and the Jetta, most of which are exported to the U.S., Canada, and Europe.
Volkswagen's great cost advantage over other car manufacturers in Mexico is its cluster system of suppliers in a close-by industrial park. There are 82 of these suppliers, 53 of which are owned by foreign capital, and most of whom are not unionized. According to Huberto Juarez an economist at the Autonomous University of Puebla and an expert on the automobile industry in Mexico, these suppliers pay on average 40-50% less than Volkswagen, thus generating substantial savings for the company whose workers now assemble mostly prefabricated parts from the suppliers. Sixty percent of the New Beetle, for example, is manufactured outside of the plant. As a result the company has shed about 8,000 workers since 1990 and has reduced labor costs from 10% to 3.7% as a percentage of total costs since 1996, according to Juarez.
Juarez offers an interesting comparison of labor costs in the industry. In 1992 10% of the cost of building a car went to pay workers in Mexico compared to 15% in the United States. Today these numbers have been reduced drastically to 4% in Mexico and between 10 and 12% in the U.S., indicating that manufacturers are relying more on suppliers to manufacture parts. The year 1992 marked a watershed year for the production process in Volkswagen since the company was able to rescind all individual contracts, due to an intra-union conflict arising from workers' confusion over the collective contract, and rehire the entire workforce. Unopposed by the union, the company established a process of flexible regulation on the shop floor with team concept and earnings pegged to production. Bilateral relations with the union disappeared and the collective bargaining agreement was weakened.
Government Support for VW
The loyal support of the federal and state governments is a source of much power for Volkswagen. "The government of Puebla is nothing more than a voice box for the company," claims Juarez, adding that "the Archbishop of Puebla proclaimed the strike a sin akin to abortion." The Ministry of Labor is also very responsive to Volkswagen's needs. Its Federal Labor Board (JFCA) judged this year's strike to be illegal because the workers raised their red and black strike banners one minute before the designated legal time. The union itself was "surprised by the government's tactics because it disqualified the strike for such a trifling reason," says Jose Luis Rodriguez, the general secretary of SITIAVW. Although he concedes that "the union feared that the strike might be deemed illegal at that point in the negotiations because talks broke off and Volkswagen was very much opposed to the union's petition."
As opposed to 1992 when the government used similar tactics to divide and subsequently destroy the union, this time the workers showed restraint and returned to work on Wednesday, August 23 because they did not want to lose their collective bargaining agreement. The union then had to "fight differently - from the inside out," says Rodriguez. Workers turned down bonus hours or extra days of work that the company depends on to meet production targets. Many workers rely on these bonuses to increase their paychecks, but in light of the on-going negotiations these sacrifices became important tools for the union to use to impress its will on the company. In other words the company's precarious production schedules built on overtime and Sunday shifts crumbled under the unwillingness of workers to take on extra work.
Workers' Pressure Company
Those workers not working their shift continued the protests and pressure on the company outside the plant and in the community. Taken aback by the workers' strategy the Ministry of Labor issued a statement urging Volkswagen to begin negotiating in earnest with the workers. The company responded by reassuring all parties that it was willing to continue the negotiations, and extended a new offer to the workers consisting of a 12% pay raise and 2% for bonuses. The union countered that it would not lower its modified demand of a 20% pay raise and 3% bonus raise.
When asked how the union determined its salary increase before negotiations began, Rodriguez outlined a process whereby eight division assemblies (divided geographically within the plant so they contain an equal number of workers) deliberated for 4 months to determine how much they needed to feed and clothe their families and how much they deserved for their world-class levels of production. The union's executive committee aided the workers by presenting studies and a percentage they felt would be justifiable. But, according to Rodriguez, the workers had the final say in the matter and consequently the average percentage of the assemblies was presented as the union's demand 10 days before the contract expired.
Workers also made demands for changes in the collective bargaining agreement based on their expertise. Some objected to the presence of contractors in the factory, others made proposals about the work process itself. A revision committee was formed to gather the workers' ideas and revise the collective contract. In general, the union was defending itself against the entry of contractors who are presently working in the plant and who "have no interest in quality control because they make less and have high turnover," says the secretary general. Asked if the union ever tried to organize these workers, he said that the union makes little effort because the company frowns upon such advances, threatening its contractors and the union that "it will terminate their contracts."
In terms of production, the company's main goal was what came back to haunt them in the 2000 negotiations because workers achieved levels unmatched in both quality and quantity within the consortium. Backed by their impressive production numbers and "vital" international and domestic support from workers in Europe, North America and South America the union felt justified in holding firm on its demands.
Role of International Labor Solidarity
According to Rodriguez, the international backing and pressure on government officials and the company was especially important because it meant that the movement had global support. Labor groups such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, Volkswagen workers in Brazil and Germany, and the UNT sent letters to the Mexican government and to Volkswagen. Even the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) affiliated with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) sent a letter of support to SITIAVW. Despite the fact that the federal government proclaimed their strike illegal, the SITIAVW was able to mobilize mass support for its cause and realize many actions outside the factory, especially in Puebla and Mexico City. With its UNT allies, many of whom also filed strike petitions claiming violations of their collective bargaining agreements, the union organized blockades of the main highway between Puebla and Mexico City and participated in "plantones" or sit-ins in front of the Ministry of Labor and in front of the plant itself.
Facing increasing pressure, the federal government refocused its attention on Volkswagen. "They slipped up and then had to make up for it," opined Rodriguez referring to the Ministry of Labor's ruling that SITIAVW's strike illegal. "They may have also feared the reaction of Mexican labor as a whole, because the JFCA threatened the legality of strikes as a tool workers can use," he added. Finally the Ministry of Labor made an offer to the company: 20% (12% salary, 5% productivity benefits, 2% benefits, 1% scholarships) that the company and union ratified. Huberto Juarez argues that the offer is actually 15% because the 5% productivity benefits "means nothing." Upon calculating the salary increases from a table provided by the union, the increase is indeed 15%, ranging from U.S.$15 per day ($1.76/hr) to U.S.$39 per day ($4.59/hr). In comparison with other car manufacturers in Mexico the new deal gives Volkswagen workers the highest direct salary raise.
Linking salary increases to production could be divisive for the working class in Mexico, especially when considering that workers employed in the public sector rely on similar tactics in salary negotiations. When prompted on the issue, Rodriguez conceded that there are some risks in linking wage increases strictly to production, but he argued that higher incomes for companies such as Volkswagen generate more taxes, which will trickle down to the public sector. He added that perhaps some sort of a production agreement could raise the level of public services.
Referring to production-salary risks specifically within Volkswagen, Rodriguez believes that most of these stem from the company's inability to share power on the shop floor with the workers. The secretary general expressed hope that a new labor culture, through which all parties seek a consensus based on production, will also mean more decision-making authority for workers. However, he concedes "that companies defend their right to direct," and this becomes an obstacle for equality on the shop floor.
Successful Strike: Three Reasons
Jose Luis Rodriguez feels the strike was a success for three main reasons. First, by decoupling salary raises from inflation and linking them more directly to production the union was able to argue more convincingly for a higher increase. Second, by maintaining internal solidarity and mobilizing large international support the union demonstrated to the government that they should think through their decisions more carefully. "The government bet against the union's ability to defend its position and thought it would settle for the company's offer," Rodriguez said. Here Rodriguez is referring to the government's early posture that it would intimidate the union only to later change its tactics and putting pressure on Volkswagen to negotiate. Third, participation and solidarity of the SITIAVW members were the most fundamental criteria for the successful outcome and ensured that history would not repeat itself.
[Reporter's sources: LA JORNADA, August 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 31, and September 1, 2000, Interviews by author with Huberto Juarez, Autonomous University of Puebla, and Jose Rodriguez, Secretary General of SITIAVW (September 8).]
by Michal Kohout
"We are convinced that workers' strength can effectively change the path to development of the nation." With these words Augustin Rodriguez Fuentes, the General Secretary of the Union of Workers of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (STUNAM), opened the union's nineteenth general convention. In his presentation, Rodriguez outlined an agenda of worker opposition to current development policies in Mexico and their impact on Latin America's largest university.
Addressing general issues concerning the future of UNAM and labor politics in Mexico, Rodriguez singled out the recent student strike as a vanguard movement that showed the world the authoritarian structure of not only the university, but also the Mexican government. The university is especially sensitive to the government's economic policies, which have left it "mortally wounded." Last year, for example, Fobaproa, the bank bailout program, was used twice as an excuse to cut subsidies to UNAM. Most of these cuts affect workers directly through salary caps that fall below the inflation rate. To recover the capacity of the university to serve as a center of excellence, STUNAM proposes that the government double its current US$1.5 billion annual budget.
In reference to current Mexican labor politics Rodriguez labeled last July's election results as "change without an alternative." He called on workers all over Mexico to rise up and put pressure on the current government to reform such institutions as the Federal and local labor boards that side with business to undermine unions.
"STUNAM is a vanguard union, a combative union that opposes current trends in labor politcies of flexibilization through the modification of the Federal Labor Law," said the union's press secretary Guadalupe Gamboa. She believes that unions will be the main opposition to the economic policies of the new administration.
Union leaders believe that a change of government will create more room for negotiation and have some confidence that Vicente Fox will listen to workers' demands. That said, the union is troubled by the contradictory discourses of the president-elect. In an interview with a receptive Vicente Fox, STUNAM presented its demands for an increase in the UNAM budget, revision of university government, openness in negotiations, and salary increases. However, due to statements Fox has made on recent visits to the U.S., the union now believes that he wants to privatize education, along with the petroleum industry and electrical services.
Union Demands Pay Hike, Greater Role in University
The convention, which took place on the campus of the university August 25-27, resolved to take bold steps to ensure that the university would remain a bastion of education for the working class, and that its workers would be properly trained and paid. To signal the seriousness of the union's intentions, STUNAM filed a strike notice on October 31 should their demands for a 40% wage increase not be met.
The union also proposed three main points that need to be addressed by university administrators:
*STUNAM wants to reclaim control of the university workforce, much of which has been lost to non-union confidential employees.
*STUNAM wants general and permanent training for the workers.
*Finally, STUNAM wants a new system of job categorization to stimulate worker advancement.
Problem of Confidential Employees
Currently, the university employs about 32,000 workers of whom 25,000 are STUNAM members. The remaining 8,000 employees are non-union confidential personnel. STUNAM spokespersons claim that the confidential employees are hired through nepotism and favoritism to replace union workers. Confidential employees earn an average salary approximately three times that of union workers, have flexible schedules and enjoy greater access to training courses. While union workers toil on ancient typewriters, the confidential staff has access to computers and other technologically advanced equipment, thus creating the perception that they are more skilled. STUNAM claims that the high percentage of confidential employees is a clear violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Although the union has filed grievances with the Arbitration Board there has not been a settlement of the issue. The union is demanding the termination of the confidential workers and the distribution of their salaries among unionized staff.
Another goal of the union is the integration of the academic staff into the union. At present, professors who already belong to STUNAM are also forced to join the rival APAUNAM to keep their jobs. APAUNAM is a far more conservative union, sometimes seen as a pawn of the administration. Under the current contract, academic employees are evaluated every semester and live in constant fear of being fired. "They're always on edge," insisted Guadalupe Gamboa, STUNAM's press secretary, who believes that her union could provide them with greater job security and, consequently, with greater academic freedom.
The union also feels strongly about job training for its members. Currently many workers receive little or no training for two main reasons. One is that the confidential employees receive priority access to training courses, and the other is that there is no political will at the university to train workers. For example, students required by federal lw to do social work end up doing meaningless tasks instead of serving "in the spirit of the social service contract," according to Gamboa. She argues that recent graduates of the university should be pressed into service to train the workers.
Another obstacle workers face is the lack of incentives to get training. Currently the union has 14 job categories with three subcategories within each. The pay differential between them is approximately 20 pesos (per day), hardly an incentive to spend hours or days after work staring into a computer screen. Furthermore, the university's Quality and Efficiency Program, devised to train workers, focuses more on attendance and participation than on actual training. Workers who have been exemplary students have not passed the course because they were sick a few days, according to Gamboa. In her words "the union is seeking to change the program to reflect its name."
by David Bacon
NUEVO LAREDO, TAMAULIPAS (9/5/00) I come from Mexico City.
My father had a business there, a small bookstore, until I was 11 years old. Then, because of the devaluation of the peso, his store went broke. My parents looked for work in Mexico City, but they couldn't find any, so they decided to come here to the border, to Nuevo Laredo.
We came here looking for a way to subsist.
So I went to school on the border. When I finished preparatory school, my plan was to go back to Mexico City to the university, to study physics and mathematics or law. But I couldn't continue my studies because we didn't have the money. I had to go to work. At first I began taking classes in air conditioning, so that I could get some training for a better job. It wasn't my intention to work full time, but to study and work at the same time.
But working in the maquiladoras, it's not really possible to go to school, mainly because of time. Also, the pay is low, and my job is very insecure. Despite all this, I haven't lost hope yet that I'll be able to go back. It's just that I'm not 100% sure anymore. Now there are other factors as well. I don't have any time to rest, and I'm getting physically exhausted. It's very hard.
I've been in these factories since I was 19 years old, and now I'm 26. I've gotten more and more worried, because I don't have time for any kind of personal life. I leave work so tired that on the weekends I don't want to even leave the house to go anywhere. I just want to rest. All my personal development has been put on hold so that I can just rest, just so I'll be able to work. I feel like my youth has passed me by.
Back in1993 I got my first job in a maquiladora, at Delphi Auto Parts. They paid 360 pesos a week (about $40). There was a lot of pressure from the foremen on the assembly lines to work hard and produce, and a lot of accidents because of the bad design of the lines. The company didn't give us adequate protective equipment to deal with the chemicals - we didn't really have any idea of the dangers, or how we should protect ourselves.
The union there did nothing to protect us.
From Delphi I went to another company, National Auto Parts. In that plant we made car radiators for Cadillacs and Camaros, and there was a lot of sickness and accidents there too. I worked in the area with the metal presses. There were no ventilators to take the fumes out of the plant, and they didn't give us any gloves. We had to handle the parts with our bare hands, and people got cut up a lot.
I worked in an area with a lot of lead. If you work with lead, you're supposed to have special clothing and your clothes should be washed separately. But the company didn't give us any of that. We had to work in our street clothes.
For all that they paid 400 pesos a week (about $43). We had no union, and there was the same pressure for production from the foremen and the group leaders as I saw at Delphi.
Now I work at TRW, where I've been for about a month and a half. There's really no difference in the conditions in any of these plants - if anything, my situation now is even worse. You could say it's forced labor, considering how the foremen talk to the workers, and how much psychological pressure they put on people.
We work an average of 14-15 hours a day. There's no transport service to and from work, and we get off shift at 4 o'clock in the morning. Usually we have to wait until 7 AM before we can catch a public bus. And when a bus does come, getting home costs 20 pesos. That makes a very big dent in your take-home pay - 380 to 400 pesos a week ($40-43).
My job is bending steel cables for seatbelts for GM, Ford and some European car models. The cable is about a centimeter thick, and I have to bend about 3500 a day. Because of what's passing through my hands every day, I can hardly sleep at night - the pain is so bad. Then I have to get up in the morning to do it again. In the future, I know that I can get carpal tunnel problems, which is a very scary idea. I've asked to change to another position, but no one wants to change because whoever works in this job gets a lot of pain in their wrists.
I feel that in three or four years my hands are going to be useless. I've been thinking that I'll have to get another job. What else can I do?
They say work in the maquiladoras is the best paid work here in the city. But there's not much difference from one factory to another. This is all just normal - the standard. Really, I'm living my whole life in the factory. Because of the time and money pressure, I have no ability to evelop myself even as a worker, much less as a human being.
After I had been working in Delphi for a year, I was invited to join a group that was trying to learn about workers' rights. People in this group said that things needed to be changed and better protections given to us, but that the companies didn't want to do it. At first I was undecided, because I thought that I could get into a lot of trouble if I got involved. I thought I would get fired, or other bad things would happen to me.
I heard about the movement in 1994, when Martha Ojeda [currently director of the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras - ed.] and others tried to democratize the union at Sony, to make it one that represented the workers and fought for their rights. For many years, Martha was a union leader in Nuevo Laredo, and during that time, she tried to democratize the unions here.
But the union leaders in Mexico City refused to recognize her. In 1994 the union general secretary here called her an agitator and a Communist, and she was forced to leave. But she became well-known among the workers because she tried to help them at other plants too. Then it seemed the whole world painted Martha Ojeda as a ghost to scare people, and used her as an example of what could happen if you got into these problems.
But a couple of years later, when I was invited to join one of the groups again, I went. They invited me to a workshop about health and safety - the problems you could suffer because of repetitive motion. I realized that it was ridiculous to believe that it was bad to show workers the dangers in their jobs. The companies and the newspapers say we're putting the maquiladoras in danger, but we're just showing workers what's wrong with the way the work is organized.
When I understood that, I decided to become a voluntary organizer, and we've been working together ever since. Everything I learn I try to pass on, so that it will help everyone else.
Every movement starts with just a small group, but they evolve and get bigger and bigger. Lots of people say you're just wasting your time because you'll never be able to change anything. But I say no. Nothing will ever change if we just sit on our hands. You have to keep trying and trying. And the little that we're able to achieve will grow, step by step.
Copyright 2000 by David Bacon. Contact the author for permission to reproduce in any form. david bacon - labornet email <dbacon@igc.apc.org> 1631 channing way, berkeley, ca 94703 phone: 510.549.0291
by Peter Gilmore
With salsa -- and salsa dancing -- and a capacity crowd drawn from the community and around the country, the night of August 29 was not a typical summer evening in the UE Local 506 Hall in Erie, Pennsylvania. It was, by most measures, extraordinary.
Workers from the General Electric plant just blocks away, friends and delegates to the 65th UE Convention celebrated the inauguration of the new mural, A Women's Place: Una Guerrillera para la Solidaridad Internacional, which appears on an internal wall of the union hall. "This is a celebration of diversity like this city's never seen before," enthused Local 618 President Betsy Potter. Her local represents salaried workers at the Erie GE workers; Local 506 represents production workers. Local 506 President David Adams relayed his co-workers' excitement.
Microphone in hand, another production worker, with some 20 years' service, conveyed his own personal excitement. "I am very proud of my union," exclaimed Julio Negrón, the singer in the band. "And I am proud of my culture."
The mural electrified the delegates, Local 506 and 618 members, and guests. Bright and vibrant, big in size and conception, it celebrates working women and international solidarity with scenes from U.S. and Mexican labor history. A companion mural will be created at the offices of the Authentic Labor Front (FAT) in Leon, Mexico. The mural project is jointly sponsored by UE and the FAT.
Muralist Juana Alicia proclaimed that "organizing and art are one and the same movement," making possible the eradication of racism and sexism.
Benedicto Martinez, co-coordinator of Mexico's Authentic Labor Front (FAT), praised the vision of international labor solidarity that inspires the UE-FAT alliance and the mural.
Amy Newell, former general secretary-treasurer, reminded listeners that for UE, interest in "international solidarity was there from the beginning." Cold War politics froze the AFL-CIO into an empty relationship with Mexico's government-dominated labor federation. As the fight against NAFTA loomed, UE looked for allies -- and found an independent, democratic union in Mexico. Then-political action director Robert Kingsley, who attended a tri-national conference in Mexico in 1991, made the initial contact with the FAT.
UE and FAT developed an alliance of different components, including the fight against NAFTA, but the heart was organizing, Newell said. "We put platitudes into concrete action." The alternative to rampant corporate globalism, she said, is "true internationalism."
Aiding Juana Alicia in unveiling the mural were the assisting artists -- Vaimóana Niumeitolu, Tomashi and Rhea Vedro -- as well as UE members who assisted in the project.
Erie school students who created posters about the mural project were there with teacher Judith Jester and received certificates.
Along with Julio Negrón and friends, music was provided by labor musician Anne Feeney, who sang "Union Maid," "Bread and Roses" and concluded the program with "The Internationale."