The initiative of the energy reform by the Executive Power represents one of the most serious blows to the power and participation of the Mexican Oil Workers’ Union (STPRM) in the national energy industry. The reform establishes a series of measures that undermine the leading role of workers and members of the union. It is calculated that PEMEX currently has 155,000 workers, from which approximately 101,000 are part of the union; thereby, a change in the association’s influence within the company as well as the energy sector is not a minor issue.
Generally speaking, the reform outlines the mechanisms and procedures used to weaken STPRM. The fade-out of the union power is a necessary, but not sufficient, factor to attract private investments towards the sector, something that the reform aims to achieve. Throughout the years, the union has enjoyed labor conditions that are more generous than those provided by the current laws, something that has resulted in high costs for the State and turned into enormous working liabilities. Among these bonuses, for example, is the fact that union workers enjoy of a pension scheme in which they receive 80% of their former income once they have retired, an access to scholarships to finance their children’s education, mortgage loans as well as fuel and gas vouchers at half-price. It is difficult to imagine that private companies would accept investing in the sector if they were forced to hire workers under these conditions and maintaining these expensive contractual schemes.
The reform sets the weakening of STPRM mainly through two ways. Firstly, the restructuration of PEMEX Administrative Council, issued on the 20th transitory article, which leaves the union out of the Council, is crucial. Until now, the Administrative Council is formed by 6 State representatives, 4 professional advisors and 5 members of the union. The reform establishes that the Council will only be constituted by 5 advisors from the federal government and 5 independent advisors. The Council has been the body through which the union has negotiated the terms of the collective contract and where most of the benefits for its workers have resulted, some of which can be justified whilst other are frankly excessive. Secondly, although the reform points out that the workers will maintain their previous rights, the new contract scheme will be ruled by international standards that refer to the best practices in the sector, which means that the union privileges will come to an end. What the reform doesn’t address is the relation between the leadership of the union and workers, something that is a critical factor in the corruption within the sector.
Although the (alleged) weakening of the union’s power and influence over PEMEX decisions is a transcendental change on itself, there has to be precautions regarding its potential impact on corruption and transparency issues. The union is rightfully accused of ensuing with corrupt and non-transparent practices. However, the weakening and perhaps even the disappearance of the union do not guarantee that the corruption in the Mexican energy sector will disappear overnight since it is not an exclusive trait of STPRM. There is a great number of actors, including contractors, suppliers and other bureaucracy members, just as corrupt and that are not affected by the reform. It is relevant to highlight that this weakening has not resulted in the discontentment of union workers or its leader, Carlos Romero Deschamps. Workers of STPRM have not joined protests or roadblocks against the reform and Senator Deschamps does not seem to oppose the approval of such a law. Before jumping into conclusions, the content of the secondary legislation must be reviewed and afterwards, the capacity of the government to implement it. The only certainty is that the ambition of the reform that has been passed this week, at least in its initial stage, will mobilize a large number of potential affected individuals. There is no doubt that the coming months will be crucial both for the different opponents to the reform – whether it is for reasons ranging from direct interest or ideological beliefs – as well as its promoters. The combination of both forces will issue its verdict in two moments: with the secondary legislation and with the implementation process.
CIDAC
Comments