USW letter to Mexican Congress on labor law reform

Leo W. Gerard International President September 24, 2012 DIP. Manilo Fabio Beltrones Rivera arvizumauricio@gmail.com Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Revolucionario Institucional DIP. Silvano Aureoles Conjeo jessilvano@hotmail.com Parliamentary Coordinador for Revolucion Democratica DIP. Luis Alberto Villareal Garica barbaraxacur@gmail.com Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Accion Nacional DIP. Alberto Anaya Gutierrez rossy_gallegos@yahoo.com.mx Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido del Trabajo DIP. Lucila Garfias Guiterrez lucila.garfias@congreso.gob.mx Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Nueva Alianza DIP. Arturo Escobar y Vega arturo.escobar@congreso.gob.mx Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico DIP. Ricardo Monreal Avila ricardo.monreal@congreso.gob.mx Parliamentary Coordinador for the Partido Movimiento Ciudadano Dear Parliamentary Coordinators of the Mexican Congress, On behalf of the 800,000 members of the United Steelworkers in the United States and Canada, I write to express our deepest concern over the proposed labor law reform legislation that is currently before you under a new “preferential” fast track process.

The proposed labor law reform would result in a drastic reduction in current workers’ rights and protections. Specifically, they would: ■ Weaken the right to strike. Article 920.I of the proposed reform allows the Labor Boards to declare a strike illegal when the Union fails to state in its strike demand the precise violations of the collective bargaining agreement and the measures necessary to remedy these violations.

■ Perpetuate the system of employer-dominated “protection contracts” which has been criticized by the International Labor Organization. Article 899-C of the proposed reform states that the authorities will not allow a demand for control of a collective bargaining agreement to proceed if another demand has already been filed. All an employer needs to do is pay another protection union to file a demand, and it can indefinitely prevent its workers from obtaining a democratic vote to choose their representative. In addition, Article 899.A.III requires that an independent union seeking an election must provide the Labor Board with the names of all of its members. Since the employers and employerdominated unions are represented on the Labor Board, this is effectively asking the independent union to identify its supporters so that they can be fired. Article 899.IV requires the independent union to obtain a certification from the Labor Board, which will be impossible in most cases for the same reason. Finally, Article 920 allows the authorities to reject a strike demand if the Union’s statutes do not include the specific branch of industry or activity in which the company is engaged. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has consistently held that such provisions violate freedom of association.

■ Weaken worker protections and promote precarious work. The proposed reforms weaken or eliminate many basic worker protections relating to stable employment.

Subcontracting is legalized (Article 13, 15.A-D) without creating a regulatory mechanism to ensure that companies that subcontract work are held responsible for conditions in their production chains. Workers can be hired without security on six-month probationary or training contracts (Article 25) or hired by the hour (Article 83). The range of causes for termination is expanded, and the requirement of written notice of cause for discharge is eliminated (Article 47). Backpay in cases of illegal termination is capped at 12 months, despite evidence that employers often delay backpay cases for years to pressure employees to accept less than their legal entitlement (Article 48). Finally, the proposed reform eliminates seniority as a basis for promotion (Article 159).

■ Violate trade union autonomy. The reforms require union statutes to specify that election of union officers occur by secret ballot (Article 371.IX), and impose a requirement of an external audit of union finances (Article 373). While these reforms may benefit union members, the imposition of these requirements by the State violates ILO Convention 87 and appears to contradict the May 2, 2012 decision by the Mexican Supreme Court that clearly limited the scope of governmental interference in union affairs. Moreover, no similar requirements are imposed on employers.

Regardless of the legality of the fast-track process, the proposed legislation is clearly undemocratic and presents a truly unfortunate image of Mexico: utter contempt for the views of legislators, workers and citizens, and a clear disregard for international labor and human rights standards, including ILO Conventions 87 and 98; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 20 and 23); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 8); and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 22), all of which are incorporated into the Mexican Constitution.

Moreover, the promulgation of this legislation just as Mexico is seeking accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership raises serious questions about the Mexican government’s commitment to respect labor rights in future trade agreements.

We call on you to put an end to this proposed law reform initiative and instead help launch a national social dialogue, as requested by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, that will give a voice to independent trade unions and is fully consistent with workers’ human and labor rights, with particular emphasis on the full realization of the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

With best regards,

Leo W. Gerard International President