DIP. MANLIO FABIO BELTRONES RIVERA
Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Revolucionario
Institucional
DIP. SILVANO AUREOLES CONEJO
Parliamentary Coordinador for Revolución Democrática
DIP. LUIS ALBERTO VILLAREAL
GARCIA
Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Acción Nacional
DIP. ALBERTO ANAYA GUTIERREZ
Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido del Trabajo
DIP. LUCILA GARFIAS GUTIERREZ
Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Nueva Alianza
DIP. ARTURO ESCOBAR Y VEGA
Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Verde Ecologista de México
DIP. RICARDO MONREAL AVILA
Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Movimiento Ciudadano
Dear Parliamentary Coordinators of the
Mexican Congress,
We are writing to
you on behalf of the tens of thousands of members of the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) throughout the United States to
express our grave concern about the recent announcement by out-going president
Felipe Calderón that he has designated an extremely regressive labor law reform
proposal for your consideration under a new “preferential” fast track process
(which itself may be improper).
Provisions of this
proposed legislation violate the requirements of International Labor
Organization (ILO) conventions 87 and 98 on Freedom of Association and
Collective Bargaining, the mandate in Article 2 of the North American Agreement
on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) that the parties “provide for high labor
standards... and shall continue to strive to improve those standards,” as well
as many other international covenants protecting freedom of association:
1. American Convention on
Human Rights: Article 16
2. Universal Declaration
of Human Rights: Articles 20 and 23
3. International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Article 8
4. International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights: Article 22
5. Declaration of
Lima. Interamerican Democratic Charter:
Article 10
The proposed law reform would result in a
drastic decline in current worker rights and protections. It would cheapen the
cost of labor while provide further cover and protection for the system of
corporativist control that is the heart and sustenance of the employer
protection contract system. It would
destroy the independent trade union movement in Mexico by effectively
eliminating the already difficult openings through which groups of workers can
obtain representation by the union of their choice.
Among other things, the law would
violate rights of freedom of association
by making the procedural requirements for obtaining a representation hearing or
exercising the right to strike so onerous that they effectively negate such
rights. For example, workers seeking to
change from a corrupt to a democratic union would have to file documents that
include their names and a certification from the employer regarding their
status as employees. Given the routine practice, reflected in “exclusion
clauses,” of firing any worker who seeks to form an independent or democratic
union, this is tantamount to guaranteeing the discharge of such workers prior
to an election, with obvious consequences.
Another purportedly “procedural”
requirement mandates that workers obtain a certification from the labor board
in order to petition for an election.
Since the labor boards in Mexico are tripartite and virtually always
include representatives of the confederation to which the incumbent belongs, it
is unthinkable that such permission would actually be granted.
A final requirement worth noting is that
once an election petition has been filed, no other proceeding can take place
until at least a year has elapsed. While such a bar may serve a useful purpose
in some countries, in Mexico it is already standard practice for corrupt unions
to file multiple petitions to delay election proceedings to discourage provide
time for the discharge and intimidation of workers in order to prevent a
victory by an independent union. This proposed provision provides a perfect
opening for further collusion among corrupt unions through the filing of
successive petitions, precluding democratic unions from ever obtaining an
election.
The new proposals would also severely
undercut job security by removing existing protections for workers that limit
sub-contracting, temporary and short term contracts. In addition, they would
undercut worker protections against unjustified discharge, limiting back pay to
one year and further penalizing workers for delays in legal proceedings for
reinstatement that are beyond their control. It has been estimated that the
length of such proceedings average one year.
The renewed attempt to force approval of
this recycled proposal is particularly egregious when viewed in context.
Anti-union policies have escalated in Mexico as both companies and the various
levels of governments utilize corporativist trade unionism as a battering ram
against democratic trade unions, using violence and intimidation to impede the
free exercise of trade union association, imposing protection contracts on
behalf of employers, and blatantly disregarding the recent recommendations of
the International Labor Organization.
It has been estimated that some 90% of
union contracts in Mexico are protection contracts, where an employer selects
the union that it prefers and workers have no choice. The widespread use of
such contracts and their violation of fundamental union rights was raised by
IndustriALL, then International Metalworkers’ Federation, in complaint no. 2694
submitted to the ILO in 2009.
Recommendations put forward by the
Committee on Freedom of Association and approved by the ILO’s Governing Body in
the spring of 2011 called on the Mexican government to examine the issue of
Protection Contracts. Specifically, the ILO called on Mexico to investigate and
report back to the Committee regarding: “(1)
the questions relating to the trade union security clauses, “exclusion clauses”,
which were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and which may give
rise to the kind of situations contemplated in the complaint; (2) questions
relating to the minimum representativeness of trade unions in order to bargain
collectively; and (3) the alleged lack of impartiality of the conciliation and
arbitration boards (JCAs) and the allegedly excessive length of their
proceedings.”
The Committee stated that it “firmly
expects that a dialogue will take place with the most representative national
workers’ and employers’ organizations, as well as the six organizations that
are complainants in this case or that have supported it.” It also stated
clearly that it “trusts that legislative and other measures will be taken in
the near future to strengthen protection against anti-trade union practices in
breach of collective bargaining principles.”
Instead of social dialog, the executive
branch of the Mexican government has intensified its crack down on independent
unions and Freedom of Association. While cases are legion, the most glaring
example is this recent proposal for labor law reform that would actually make
the already dire situation faced by Mexican workers far worse.
The Initiative of Felipe
Calderón, far from encouraging job creation and the stimulation of the internal
market, will cause the instability of existing jobs and the generation of even
more precarious work than what already exists in the informal sector in Mexico.
We hope that these matters
will be considered when analyzing this initiative and that a national debate
can be initiated in which the opinions of workers, intellectuals who specialize
in economic and labor matters, as well as various labor currents will be taken
into account.
Sincerely,
Bruce J. Klipple Andrew Dinkelaker Robert B. Kingsley
President Secretary-
Treasurer Director
of Organization
cc: Hilda Soliz
Carol Pier
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario