Cook, María Lorena. 1996. “National Labor Strategies in Changing Environments: Perspectives from Mexico”, in eds. Lourdes Benería and Mary Jo Dudley. Economic restructuring in the Americas. Ithaca, N.Y.: Latin American Studies Program, Cornell University.
- Which factors proved most important in shaping union responses to economic restructuring?
- political-economic environment
- statist government/economy leads to political tactics by unions
- shift to market economies undermines these tactics
- corporate ordering
- shift to market may undermine regime itself
- Organizations and structure of unions
- organization structure
- centralization of movement
- fragmentation or concentration (??)
- internal democracy or not
- sectoral/industry location, affects:
- bargaining strength
- target (government or private industry)
- Political Factors
- parties and political currents
- unions relationship with state
- union leaders’ ideology
- Changing environments and trade union strategies
- 1950-70s, Stabilizing Development
- high centralization under CTM
- CTM had close relationship with the PRI
- all important labor dissident movements had been defeated
- Goodies!
- wage increases, benefits, and direct subsidies to labor organizations
- leaders getting political offices
- labor is a joint partner in achieving ideals of Revolution
- Leftover ideology from Mexican Revolution and ISI makes this all possible
- Labor Insurgency, 1970-76
- Recessions, peso devaluation in 1976
- Political opening, due to loss of legitimacy after ‘68
- Independent unions allowed to register
- Early labor insurgency struggles mostly about internal union democracy
- autoworkers (UOI), SME, Mineros, lots of others
- New Strategies
- autonomy and economism
- no political entanglements
- focus on wages
- automobile workers, sections of the mineros and metalworkers, THE UOI, STRM,
- but hard for these unions to stay totally apolitical
- Democratic Revolutionary-Nationalism
- ideals of revolution:
- strong state intervention in the economy
- nationalization of important industries
- strong protections for labor, popular class
- some saw this as reaffirming corporatist
- more radical group saw corporate system too complacent
- SME, railroads, mining
- Fragmentation of labor led to
- Some CTM, CT unions head disaffiliate when see CTM weakenss
- CTM radicalizing its demands, strikes more
- Echeverria had been playing independent and official off each other, but returns to help official when private sector unhappy with economy
- no more independent unions registered after 1974
- Portillo (1976-82)
- demands wage restraint, has to lean on unions to get it
- when economy turns up again in 1978, CTM and CT head to Congress to make gains
- but did so by building alliances with independent unions
- New dissident groups emerge
- CNTE
- autonomist strategy, no politics!
- 1980s, economic crisis and narrowing of strategic options
- militance will not be tolerated
- (Independent) SUTIN workers lose jobs after parastatal closed in response to strike (199)
- PRi turns away from official unions, so official unions turn towards independent unions
- supports SME
- supports STRM when government occupies their buildings
- official unions moderation did not gain it as much power as they used to
- economic crisis hit all labor, but independent unions lost a lot more
- auto and steel unions “economicist” strategy fails
- labor just can’t win!
- 1990s, economic opening and political crisis
- neoliberal model deepened, labor loses some more: ECONOMIC STRATEGY UTTERLY FAILS
- political strategy also losing steam
- FESEBES founded, challenges CTM dominance
- CROC in 1980s was just a weaker CTM, FESEBES decentralized, better fit for new economic model
- CTM could only try to limit erosion of its powers, few strategies working for anybody
- Strategies NOW:
- CTM sticking to political strategy
- Employers demanding more flexible unions, willing to work on productivity
- CTM not doing that!
- FESEBES kind of doing that
- Transnational arena, through NAFTA/NAALC
- Conclusion
- 1970s: political strategy, fails later
- increased fragmentation of labor movement with FESEBES
- less militancy
- greater strain on internal democracy
- in this period SME and STRM actually move closer to PRI, through FESEBES!
No comments:
Post a Comment