| 141. Some studies propose that this migration can be prevented
by extending job creation initiatives to areas further away from the border
region. This approach would at the same time strengthen environmental
protection and infrastructure creation programmes along the border. In 1984,
89.9 percent of the maquiladora industry was based in the border area, but
over the last five years, investment in maquiladoras indicates a growing
geographical dispersion in their location. According to official figures, in
July 1995, 70 percent of maquiladoras were in the border states, while 30 percent
were based in the interior of the country.
| 141. The latest news is that worker flows from Mexico to the
US are prompted more by family than wages. (Wall Street Journal 25 February
1997, p.1) "Young Mexican men with siblings who have worked across the border
are twice as likely to travel north illegally, a forthcoming study by Douglas
Massey of the University of Pennsylvania and Kristin Espinosa of the University
of Chicago concludes. Strong economic development in parts of Mexico also
boosts northward movement, as workers seek US cash for farm and business
developments at home."
"But the widely accepted theory that migration
is driven by widening wage gaps is a statistical dud, the five-year survey of
25 Mexican communities finds. Manuel Guillot, a vice-president at the Los
Angeles-based Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, agrees with
the findings. 'There are very strong family connections that are part of
immigration patterns,' he says."
Industries further from the border pay more to
reach the market in the US. Time delays are more evident.
|
| Trade union organising
|
| 142. Maquilas and trade unions have never had a good
relationship. Until 1970, the maquiladoras were exempt from labour laws, and
nothing was done about violations of workers' rights. In 1990, most (between 80
and 90 percent) workers were not unionised: Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana were
considered as "unionfree" zones, although there were reports of a stronger
trade union presence in the State of Tamaulipas.
| 142. WRONG! Maquiladoras were NEVER exempt from labor laws,
which are in the Constitution of Mexico. The State of Tamaulipas was the hotbed
of union corruption and union political control of government. Remember the
strike at Transitron? (our paragraph 120)
|
| 143. The maquila workers in Matamoros, Reynosa and Nuevo
Laredo were almost all affiliated to the CTM, the Mexican Workers'
Confederation, close to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), in
government for three quarters of a century. Trade union freedoms remained
limited. In order to establish a minimum wage, the Ministry of Labour created a
body called the Minimum Wage Commission, which carried out research to estimate
the cost of living per region in order to coordinate meetings of employers' and
workers' representatives.
| 143. And in the previous paragraph it is stated that most
workers were not unionized, yet almost all of them in Matamoros, Reynosa, and
Nuevo Laredo were affiliated with the CTM. It can't be both ways.
|
| 144. In a document entitled "The Maquiladora Industry in
Mexico" (1987, p.17) the ILO noted that "the levels established were in reality
the outcome of a political game in which the CTM plays the role of a monolithic
organisation, which for more than 40 years has exerted such control over the
labour movement that it actually inhibits workers' genuine demands. There are
more and more independent trade unions however and even factions in the CTM
that support workers' demands, even if it means opposing the view of the
leadership. Naturally, their fight is not an easy one."
| 144. Now it seems it can't be just any trade union, It has to
be a union with views as backwards as the ICFTU. Seems to us that this is a
union problem not an EPZ problem.
|
| 145. There are other factors which discourage trade union
participation, namely employer hostility to the organisation of the labour
force.
| 145. There just might be some "employee" hostility to unions
as well.
|
| 146. On paper, Mexican labour legislation is comparable to
that of the United States, if not better. According to the "Journal of
Commerce" of 16, May, 1989, Mexico was signatory to 72 ILO conventions on
workers' health and safety standards, while the United States had only ratified
10. None of the members of NAFTA (Mexico, Canada, United States) had ratified
the convention on child labour. The North American Free Trade Treaty (NAFTA)
between Mexico, the United States and Canada, in force since 1 January 1994,
has been the subject of heated debate either side of the border.
| 146. Mexican Labor Law is in the Mexican Constitution of 1916
which predated the 1917 Constitution of the Soviet Union -- a fact of which
Mexicans have been very proud. Mexican Labor law is therefore tough to change.
The "heated debate" has been a one-sided attack by US trade unions and their
allies in the Gang of 5: environmentalists/ religious agenda promoters/
consumer advocates/ anti-immigration xenophobes/, as well as Ross Perot and
Pat Buchanan. There is not much resistance being shown by Mexico or Canada who
are profiting nicely from the deal -- as is the USA!
It is convenient for the ICFTU to leave out
that the US has not ratified the convention on Child Labor in part because its
national laws are far more restrictive. Convention 138 in article 7 paragraph 4
allows the employment of 12-year-olds in light work. Article 2 allows that 14
year olds can be generally employed in industry or transport jobs, and article
4 allows even younger exceptions to both categories.
|
| 147. On the American side, discussions focus on
the loss of "American jobs" to Mexico and the lack of measures to control
clandestine immigration to the United States. The supporters of the Treaty won
the day, but advisers to the US administration suggested that new American
investments should be directed at areas far away from the border in order to
prevent clandestine immigration and to avoid environmental damage.
| 147. Please identify the "advisors" to the Administration who
gave that advice. We'll bet they were from the US trade union allies listed
above. It seems odd to think that the environment will be improved merely by
moving factories inland. The self-centered attitude of the trade union is
evident here. It's not EPZs; it's illegal immigration and potential pollution
in their backyard that is their problem.
The old advice to detectives trying to find
the bank robber seems appropriate: "Follow the Money".
|
| 148. Between January and September 1995, 339
new maquiladoras were registered. But American investors did not heed the
advice of governmental experts as to the choice of location: only 20 percent
of the new maquiladoras are far from the border. The important question is the
integration of the maquiladoras into Mexico's development strategy and their
contribution to strengthening technological skills and the training of the
workforce. In the globalisation of the economy, "La Frontera" has made Mexico
part of the great North American market. But will Mexicans be able to break out
of the cycle of dependence?
| 148. The logic of using the logistics infrastructure on the US
side, the need for new maquiladoras to begin with US management which finds it
easier to live on the US side, and the high quality of EPZ management on the
Mexican side of the border led to these statistics.
ICFTU keeps saying the "important question"
when it is not important. Skill development at the border is the highest in
Mexico with good reason. It will take time for Mexican border technical people,
managers, and skilled workers to be attracted to the center and will require
that the center reward them as they are now being rewarded at the border. Only
in the last 20 years has the Mexican Government encouraged interior maquilas.
Before that they saw no advantage to them. It was, as pointed out in
paragraph 116,
the "Border Industrialization Program" and not a national development
program.
US/Mexico interdependence is forever.
|
| 4. Workers' rights in the Export
Processing Zones
|
| 149. "The jobs available to thousands of Latin American
workers in the maquiladoras should not be turned down, but neither should they
be accepted as a gift. We want jobs, but jobs with dignity." -- Amanda Villatoro
| 149. Most maquila jobs have dignity. The respect for the Mexican worker has increased
logarithmically from 1965 on. The dignity has been earned.
|
| 150. "The export processing zone is worse than a concentration
camp" -- Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions.
| 150. We have seen this is not so. It also shows sheer contempt
for the suffering of concentration camp inmates of all generations.
|
| 151. But what are they complaining about? Judging by the
glossy brochures distributed by the developers of the export processing zones,
and the advertisements they place in international economic reviews, working
conditions in them are almost idyllic: the buildings are modern, the workshops
super clean, and the workers all have a smile on their lips.
| 151. That is how happy unionized workers have been depicted
for generations. With ICFTU's Hollywood allies it must know this.
|
| 152. Most eyewitness reports contradict this image, however.
"Many factories are reminiscent of workshops from the last century where rows
of adolescents worked side by side twelve hours a day" said John Otis, special
correspondent for the Miami Herald, in March 1994 in Honduras.
| 152. Almost all assembly lines are linear, requiring workers
to work "side by side" as in most unionized shops in the US and Europe.
Adolescents are up to 19 years old. Was this in EPZs?
|
| 153. Of course these conditions are not exclusive to the
enterprises in the export processing zones. All too often, they are comparable
to those found in local companies. An ILO report, which clearly had to bear in
mind the point of view of the most obstinate employers, asks "what is the point
in comparing working conditions, social relations or work satisfaction" in the
export processing zones? Which in reality means:
| 153. And ICFTU notes they were NOT exclusively in EPZs, in its
view.
|
| 154. "Comparing the social audit in enterprises in the EPZs
with those of other enterprises in the host country doesn't mean anything.
Comparing them with small enterprises in the informal sector is fallacious,
given the generally very poor working conditions in this sector. Comparing them
with enterprises in industrialised countries may lead to questionable
conclusions, given the very great differences in per capita income, the
organisation of work or the alternative job opportunities."
| 154. It means the EPZs are better! It means a great deal! It
means the focus of the ICFTU on EPZs is misplaced.
Owners of the original 600 square meter
factory buildings in Puerto Rico in the 1950s and at Shannon, Ireland and in
Mexico's industrial parks in the 1960s need not apologize in comparing them
with the best in the United States. The very first RCA plant at the Bermudez
Park in Juarez, Mexico in the 1960s set standards that have been lived up to
ever since. The plants in the EPZs of the Asian Tigers are of comparable
quality.
|
| 155. Should we then close our eyes to the
situation, in the same way as some in the '80s asked human rights organisations
to close their eyes to torture in Chile or disappearances in Argentina "because
the countries cannot be compared" to the old western democracies? To accept
this reasoning, that social rights are relative, amounts quite simply to
calling into question the most important international conventions on human and
trade union rights, which uphold the principle of equality between persons, and
to agreeing to the views of those who believe that exploitation is an
inevitable step along the road to development and democracy in the Third
World.
| 155. On the contrary, insist on the best and find it in most
EPZs -- in buildings, the treatment of workers, and the productivity.
That principle is "equal opportunity" not
"equality". The word "exploit" means "use" or "employ" -- first definition --
nothing more. Democracy is happening, slowly but surely.
Closing one's eyes to torture and
disappearance anywhere is not an apt phrase to use in discussing EPZs.
Unfortunately, ICFTU seems to believe it is.
|
| 156. Internationally recognised workers' rights
are minimum rights, as they cover the principles that constitute the basis for
all social democracy: the freedom of association, the right to organise and to
bargain collectively, the prohibition of all forms of forced labour, the
establishment of a minimum working age and the respect of acceptable working
conditions in terms of a minimum wage, working hours, and health and
safety.
| 156. This is not the argument we are discussing when ICFTU
attacks EPZs. If anything EPZs come closer to meeting human rights objectives
than many other forms of social enterprise. The problem may be that workers in
EPZs are treated well enough that they don't need oppressive trade unions.
|
| 157. Export processing zones are created by definition in
countries situated on the fringes of the industrialised world Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean around the United States; Philippines, Indonesia,
Malaysia and Indonesia around Japan and Australia; and North Africa towards
Europe countries that belong to the developing world and where in most cases
social and political conditions are deplorable, and are condemned by the trade
union world.
| 157. Back to basics: EPZs are duty-free zones for
manufacturing. The 500 zones in the United States meet this definition, as do
zones in Europe and Asia in the NICs. Countries on the fringes have EPZs. So
can countries well away from the fringes -- such as Kazakhstan, which has a new
EPZ law in place. Don't blame "deplorable" conditions on EPZs. If anything,
they are the highways out of deplorable conditions.
Incidentally, don't believe they are
universally condemned by the trade unions. In paragraph 102
the Mauritian Labor Congress discusses the contribution of EPZs as positive, and in
Paragraph 103
we see the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) introducing EPZs to
Zimbabwe. We will also see in Paragraph 181
that they have support from trade unions.
|
| 158. You only have to look at the ICFTU's
annual report on the violation of trade union rights to find that the black
list includes most of the countries that are host to export processing zones.
Are the conditions worse in the zones than in the host country in general? The
ICFTU's survey and other reports give a mixed picture. In some of the
industrialised countries that have free trade zones, such as Australia,
enterprises are expected to respect national legislation and to observe
collective agreements and industrial relations practices. Although some try to
get away with it.
| 158. Since there are EPZs in 75+ countries of the world, it is
of no significance that they are included in the blacklist. Please list the
unions' blacklisted countries, and include whether any of ICFTU's listings are
in EPZs.
Since ICFTU's own survey does not show EPZs to
be places of unusually repressive labor relations, it would seem this entire
diatribe is misplaced.
Australia has only one EPZ -- at Darwin in the
extreme north of the country -- which, as ICFTU says, respects national
legislation.
|
| #159. According to Tony Woolgar, from the
Australian textile union, there are currently no restrictions concerning either
trade union rights or collective bargaining in Darwin's "development zone".
Working conditions and wages are in line with legislation, regulations and
national standards. But this "normality" did not happen of its own accord. The
Australian trade unions, as shown by the dispute with Hengyang (Darwin) Pty
Ltd., had to take very firm action against the enterprises in the
zone.
| 159. The 200 hectare Trade Development Zone (TDZ), Australia's
first and only EPZ, was founded in 1985. Hengyang, a Hong Kong company, was,
unfortunately, its first important client employing 800 workers brought from
China to serve Asian markets.
|
| The Darwin case
|
| #160. Hengyang (Darwin) Pty. Ltd., which came
to the zone in 1988, treated its employees, who were temporary workers from
China, appallingly, violating regulations on the working week and overtime
and failing to respect the pay scales set out in the collective agreement. The
workers thought they were bound by contracts signed in China and by the
factory's regulations, which prohibited them from complaining about their
working and living conditions, from comparing their working hours and pay
scales with those of their colleagues, and from joining a trade union movement
or taking part in industrial action, or even from having normal social contacts
in Australia. In response to trade union action, Hengyang (Darwin) Pty. Ltd.
had to close down.
| 160. The contracts were between the workers and the factory;
the provisions were not EPZ regulations.
|