Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:32:27.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forging New Labor Activism in Global Commodity Chains in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2007

Mark Anner
Mark Anner
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International industrial restructuring has fomented a decline in unionization in Latin America and has forced labor organizations to pursue new forms of activism. Due to the segmentation of the production process and the dispersion of the locations of production sites, the coordination of collective action has become more difficult. At the same time, labor law reforms have failed to respond to the challenges presented by market-oriented industrial reforms. As a result, labor activists are resorting to new or modified forms of labor organizing, ranging from domestic cross-class collaboration to international alliances and sporadic campaigns with labor and nongovernmental organizations. The sources of this variation in new labor actions can be found not only in contemporary political and economic contexts, but also in labor histories and ideational influences. An exploration of labor actions in the Salvadoran export apparel sector and the Brazilian automobile industry illustrates these processes.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Labor and Working-Class History , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , Fall 2007 , pp. 18 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The International Labor and Working-Class History Society 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Piore, Michael J. and Sabel, Charles F., The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.

2. Harrison, Bennett, Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility (New York, 1994)Google Scholar.

3. Gereffi, Gary, Korzeniewicz, Miguel, and Korzeniewicz, Roberto, “Introduction: Global Commodity Chains,” in Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, ed. Gereffi, Gary and Korzeniewicz, Miguel (Westport, CT, 1994), 2Google Scholar.

4. Gereffi, Gary, “The Organization of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chains: How U.S. Retailers Shape Overseas Production Networks,” in Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, ed. Gereffi, Gary and Korzeniewicz, Miguel (Westport, CT, 1994), 97Google Scholar.

5. Ibid.

6. Collier, Ruth Berins and Collier, David, Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America (Princeton, NJ, 1991)Google Scholar.

7. Bronstein, Arturo S., “Societal Change and Industrial Relations in Latin America: Trends and Prospects,” International Labour Review 134 (1995), 163–186Google Scholar; Bronstein, Arturo S., “Labour Law Reform in Latin America: Between State Protection and Flexibility,” International Labour Review 136 (1997), 6–26Google Scholar; Cook, Maria Lorena, “Toward Flexible Industrial Relations? Neo-liberalism, Democracy, and Labor Reform in Latin America,” Industrial Relations 37 (July, 1998), 311Google Scholar; Murillo, Maria Victoria and Schrank, Andrew, “With a Little Help from My Friends: Partisan Politics, Transnational Alliances, and Labor Rights in Latin America,” Comparative Political Studies 38:8 (2005), 971–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Mark Anner, “The Impact of Labor Law Reform in Latin America: When More Protection is not Enough,” (paper presented at the 2006 Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2006).

9. These are defined as networks of, “actors working internationally on an issue, who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchange of information and services,” Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY, 1998), 2Google Scholar.

10. Lieberman, Robert C., “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002), 697–712, 697CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Sabel, Charles F., Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry (New York, 1982), 189–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Godio, Julio, Historia del Movimiento Obrero Latinoamericano: Socialdemocracia, Socialcristianismo y Marxismo (1930–1980), 3rd ed. (San José, 1985)Google Scholar; Zapata, Francisco, Autonomía y Subordinación en el Sindicalismo Latinoamericano (Mexico City, 1993)Google Scholar.

13. Banco Central de Reserva (BCR), Boletín Económico: La Industria Maquiladora en El Salvador, 2002: http://www.bcr.gob.sv/.

14. Banco Central de Reserva, Indicadores Economicos Anuales, 1995–2002: http://www.bcr.gob.sv/boletin.htm.

15. Bulmer-Thomas, V., The Political Economy of Central America Since 1920 (New York, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. BCR, La Industria Maquiladora.

17. Quinteros, Carolina A. et al. , Dinámica de la Actividad Maquiladora y Derechos Laborales en El Salvador (San Salvador, 1998)Google Scholar.

18. See American Park: http://www.americanpark.com.sv/.

19. Arriola, Joaquin and Candray, José Antonio, Derechos Prohibidos: Negociación Colectiva y Sindicatos en El Salvador (San Salvador, 1994)Google Scholar.

20. Ministerio de Trabajo y Previsón Social, Estadisticas del Trabajo (San Salvador, 2001)Google Scholar.

21. Anner, Mark, “Between Solidarity and Fragmentation: Labor Responses to Globalization in the Americas” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 2004)Google Scholar.

22. Mahoney, James, The Legacies of Liberalism: Path Dependence and Political Regimes in Central America (Baltimore, 2001)Google Scholar.

23. Although he does not study El Salvador, Charles Bergquist persuasively makes this argument in reference to labor unions in export sectors elsewhere in Latin America. Bergquist, Charles W., Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (Stanford, CA, 1986)Google Scholar.

24. Menjívar, Rafael, Formación y Lucha del Proletariado Industrial Salvadoreño, 1st ed. (San Salvador, 1987)Google Scholar.

25. Anderson, Thomas P., Matanza: El Salvador's Communist Revolt of 1932 (Lincoln, NE, 1971)Google Scholar.

26. Goldston, James and Burkhalter, Holly, Labor Rights in El Salvador: An Americas Watch Report (New York, NY, 1988), 12Google Scholar.

27. Molina, Hugo, “Un Siglo de Modelos Económicos Impuestos y la Necesidad de Concertar al Final del Siglo XX,” in El Salvador a Fin de Siglo, ed. Béjar, Rafael Guido and Roggenbuck, Stefan (San Salvador, 1995)Google Scholar.

28. Previously, in the case of plant-based unions, fifty percent of the workers plus one were needed to form a union.

29. The reforms, however, do allow for voluntary negotiations, although this is not very common.

30. Figures are based on data from the Salvadoran Ministry of Labor. These figures do not include the construction sector.

31. Arévalo, Rolando and Arriola, Joaquin, “El Caso de El Salvador,” in La Situación Sociolaboral en las Zonas Francas y Empresas Maquiladoras del Istmo Centroamericano y República Dominicana, ed. Organización Internacional de Trabajo (San José, 1996), 141Google Scholar.

32. Ibid.

33. Author's interviews with business representatives and unionists, San Salvador, 2001.

34. Godio, Historia del Movimiento Obrero Latinoamericano.

35. At the 1968 Latin American bishops' conference, the Church called upon the religious community to “defend the rights of the oppressed [and] denounce the unjust action of world power that works against self-determination of weaker nations.” Montgomery, Tommie Sue, Revolution in El Salvador: Origins and Evolution (Boulder, CO, 1982), 99Google Scholar. For a period of time, the collaborative unionists linked to the Church also adopted more progressive views, but this waned as the Cold War deepened in the region, and the US encouraged these unions to adopt an anticommunist ideology.

36. Ibid., 125. By the late 1970s the Communist Party had joined the armed struggle.

37. Anner, Mark, “¿Hacia la Sindicalización de los Sindicatos?,” Estudios Centroamericanos 573–574 (1996), 599–614Google Scholar.

38. Villalobos, Joaquín, Una Revolución en la Izquierda para una Revolución Democrática (San Salvador, 1992), 47–50Google Scholar.

39. During the war, Cienfuegos's party, the National Resistance (one of the five organizations that made up the FMLN), encouraged the radicalization of the union movement as a means to augment the crisis facing the government.

40. Interview with author, San Salvador, 1996.

41. FEASIES, ByLaws, San Salvador, 1994.

42. Gilberto García, “La Maquila en Datos: Documento de Invesigación, Programa de Derechos Humanos y Libertades Sindicales en El Salvador,” unpublished paper, San Salvador, 1996, 21.

43. Ibid.

44. The Committee's original, full name was the National Labor Committee in Support of Democracy and Human Rights in El Salvador.

45. Cited in Krupat, Kitty, “From War Zone to Free Trade Zone,” in No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers, ed. Ross, Andrew (New York, 1997), 64Google Scholar.

46. Ibid., 73–74.

47. Cited in Krupat Ibid., 74.

48. Several years after its formation, COSDEMA disbanded, but the NLC continued to work with Salvadoran organizations that made up the core of COSDEMA.

49. Anner, “Between Solidarity and Fragmentation.”

50. Industry Union of Cotton, Synthetics and Related Industries (STIASSYC), “Breve Historia del Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Industria del Algodon, Sinteticos, Similares y Conexos,” unpublished report, 1999.

51. Mandarin is the same factory that was later organized by the left-oriented unionists.

52. Juan Hernández, General Secretary, STIASSYC, Interview with author, San Salvador, August 11, 2001.

53. Ibid.

54. El Diario de Hoy, “Sindicalistas Bloquean a Trabajadores,” February 10, 1995; Primera Plana, “Más Controversias en torna a Juan J. Huezo,” March 24, 1994; La Prensa Gráfica, “De Profesión Sindicalista,” October 15, 2000.

55. Valter Sanches, Worker Representative, Factory Commission, DaimlerChrysler, Interview with author, São Bernardo, December 11, 2001.

56. Comin, Alexandre, De Volta para o Futuro: Política e Reestruturação Industrial do Complexo Automobilístico nos Anos 90 (São Paulo, 1998)Google Scholar.

57. Sindicato dos Metalúrgicos do ABC (SMABC), Globalização E Setor Automotivo: A Visão dos Trabalhadores (São Bernardo, 1996)Google Scholar.

58. The idea for this new model of production came from José Ignacio Lopez, who was a Volkswagen vice-president and Latin-America operations chief at the time. Lopez saw that the biggest cost in auto production entailed auto parts, and modular production was a way to reduce the cost of auto parts. Lopez originally presented his plan to General Motors, which rejected it. He then went to Volkswagen, which allowed him to build his “dream plant” in Resende, Brazil.

59. Elder Couto, Supervisor of Labor Relations and Human Resources for Volkswagen, Resende, Interview with author, Resende, December 19, 2002.

60. Author's visit to the plant and interviews with management and workers. Camaçari, Bahia, July 2002.

61. Anner, Mark, “Industrial Structure, the State, and Ideology: Shaping Labor Transnationalism in the Brazilian Auto Industry,” Social Science History 27 (Winter 2003), 603–634Google Scholar.

62. Humphrey, John, Capitalist Control and Workers' Struggle in the Brazilian Auto Industry (Princeton, NJ, 1982), 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. Ibid., 14.

64. de Almeida, Maria Hermínia Tavares, “Unions in Times of Reform,” in Reforming the State: Business, Unions and Regions in Brazil, ed. Gil Kinzo, Maria D'Avla (London, 1997), 27Google Scholar.

65. Humphrey, Capitalist Control, 15. The system had its limits. Recent scholarship has found that, despite “the statist straitjacket” on unions, there were many incidents of labor militancy and class conflict. John D. French, The Brazilian Workers' ABC: Class Conflict and Alliances in Modern São Paulo (Chapel Hill, NC, 1992).

66. A pelego is the blanket that is used between the saddle and the horse to soften the pressure of the rider. A pelego unionist is someone who softens the blow of the employers as they “ride” on the workers.

67. Cook, Maria Lorena, “Labor Reform and Dual Transitions in Brazil and the Southern Cone,” Latin American Politics and Society 44 (2001), 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. Almeida, “Unions in Times of Reform,” 29.

69. Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, International Labour Oorganization, 2005: www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc.

70. Ibid.

71. Voting rights were restricted through literacy requirements. From 1881 to 1930, between one and three percent of the total population voted in elections. Colomer, Josep M., “Taming the Tiger: Voting Rights and Political Instability in Latin America,” Latin American Politics and Society 46 (2004), 29–58, 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72. Humphrey, Capitalist Control, 129.

73. John Humphrey notes, “The São Bernardo leadership was antipolitical and antileft (particularly anticommunist), but it favored rank-and-file activism, organization in the plants, and giving priority to the defense of the immediate interests of the category.” Ibid., 130.

74. As Alfred Stepan explains, “By the mid-1970s the Brazilian Church had become the most theologically progressive and institutionally innovative Catholic Church in the world” Stepan, Alfred C., Democratizing Brazil: Problems of Transition and Consolidation (New York, 1989), xiiGoogle Scholar.

75. CUT Bylaws, Title II, Chapter I, Article 2.

76. Victor Augusto Meyer Nascimento, “Cadeias Organizatórias Operárias Dentro das Multinacionais: Un Fenômeno Internacional Emergente” (PhD. Diss., Universidade Federal da Bahia, 2000), 88.

77. Mario dos Santos Barbosa, Representative of the Factory Commission, Volkswagen, Interview with author, São Bernardo, December 13, 2001.

78. João Batista Cavalcente, the coordinator of the Brazilian Volkswagen factory commission and member of the delegation to Germany, explains how common problems created a common sense of struggle: “In Germany, […] even though their salaries are much different than our […] they are struggling against automation, unemployment, and crisis just like we are. Their struggle is at a higher level. But if they have more achievements it is because they have been struggling for a longer period of time.” Quoted in Jornal da Comissão, Órgão Informativo de Commão de Fábrica dos Trabalhadores da Volks, Divisões Caminhões, SBC, No.1, February 1985.

79. Jornal de Comissão de VW, São Bernardo, November 2001.

80. Volkswagen agreed to provide a new production model to the plant and a job stability clause. The union's concession to the company was to accept the reactivation of the Volkswagen Week, which accounted for 57.62 percent of the company's savings.

81. This was not always the case. Under the leadership of Walter Reuther (1946–1970), the union had developed a strong internationalist orientation. That changed with a change in the leadership and the crisis in the auto industry starting in the 1980s. Lichtenstein, Nelson, The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (New York, 1995)Google Scholar.

82. Nogueira, Arnaldo José França Mazzei, A Modernização Conservadora do Sindicalismo Brasileiro: A Experiência do Sindicato dos Metalúrgicos de São Paulo (São Paulo, 1997)Google Scholar.

83. Ramiro de Jesus Pinto, President, Metalworkers' Union of São Paulo (SMSP), Interview with author, São Paulo, March 21, 2002.

84. When it became clearer that the plant might close in July 1999, the union organized an occupation that lasted for twelve days. CUT unionists felt affected by what might happen in Ipiranga, because the other two major Ford plants were organized by the CUT and members of the Ford-Ipiranga factory commission were sympathizers of the CUT.

85. Interview with author, December 13, 2001, São Paulo.

86. Anner, “Between Solidarity and Fragmentation.”