May the 1st used to be the official unionist holiday in Mexico. Huge parades that took place in front of the Executive Power’s official venue symbolized the symbiosis between the President and the working sector, one of the fundamental cornerstones of the post-revolutionary authoritarianism. Several years have passed since that tradition has ceased to be. The Mexican Workers’ Confederation (CTM) lives off its past glories and doesn’t have the same power like it did a few decades ago, although its fidelity to PRI has remained the same. Likewise, three of the most powerful unions in the country – teachers, oil workers and miners – are going through important changes, especially regarding their relation with power. Not even the PAN administrations managed to decrease the influence of leaders such as Elba Esther Gordillo, Carlos Romero Deschamps or Napoleón Gómez Urrutia. Quite the contrary, these individuals kept on committing unpunished and opulent acts that severely contrasted the everyday situation of those people they claimed to represent: people that had to deal with fees and dues and remain undaunted with their bosses’ excesses. Currently, with a new plan for changing the relation between the unions and the federal authorities, one should wonder what will happen between both political stakeholders during Peña Nieto’s administration.
Two paradigmatic judicial cases regarding the two “giants” of unionism stand out. Firstly, the pending apprehensions order against the self-exiled the former leader of the National Union of Miners, Metalworkers and Allied Workers, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, also known as “Napito”. That way, the federal government can “surprise” the general public any time by presenting the secretary general of the aforementioned union. Likewise, May 9th is the deadline for the corresponding judge to define whether the criminal procedure against Elba Esther Gordillo, the former leader of the teachers’ union that was apprehended several months ago and was against President Peña’s education reform, is reinstated or not. On the other hand, after the delayed implementation of the secondary legislation of the energy reform, the oil union that is headed by Senator Carlos Romero Deschamps, is about to go through a new stage where PEMEX will eventually cease to be his only employer. One could conclude that unions have lost influence as groups of pressure within the political scenario. Nevertheless, what has really changed is the way in which union leaders state their support. The truth is that while their ideological stance is closer to the Executive Power’s, they run less risks of an early end of their political lives.
Redefining Mexican unionism is not recent by any means. During the last quarter of the past century, two factors have greatly influenced how the unions were linked with the government and employers: commercial liberalization and political transition. Oddly enough, the change of the relation between unions and power has not translated into a modernization of these groups or in a significant decrease in particular membership fees. Two examples of the latter are the leaders of the telephone union, Francisco Hernández Juárez, as well as the railway union, Víctor Flores Morales. These individuals have survived the privatization of their respective sectors and they have been successful in adapting to this process. Although they can be labeled as “success” stories, this does not necessarily mean that their workers have improved their conditions or that their companies function under criteria based on productivity, efficiency and generating added value. Nowadays, the telecommunications, energy, tax and education reforms will supposedly have an effect on different unions in the country. The government has “shown its strength” by attempting to pass its reforms with or without the approval of these unions. They have even managed to control, in their own way and whenever possible, any dissidence (for instance, the National Coordination of Education Workers). Unionism was an efficient tool of sociopolitical control in the times of PRI hegemony during the 20th century. Nowadays, the strength of a union – or rather, its leader – will depend on how “aligned” he or she is within the structure of power.
On the other hand, it is clear that the best way to build a solid basis of working relations, in both public and private sectors, relies on competition. Where there is competition, unions actively participate to maintain the source of employment and raise productivity: where there is not, unions try to plunder and take advantage of their position as tools for political control.
CIDAC
Comments