On May 1, the deadline for unions in Mexico to ratify their collective bargaining agreements expired, in accordance with the provisions of Annex 23-A of the Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada (T-MEC) and in the very Reform to the Federal Labor Law (LFT) of 2019.
This commitment was one of the key elements that helped to guarantee the approval of the USMCA. We must not forget that one of the most difficult criticisms to tackle in the old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was precisely that it did not include binding labor provisions, and therefore, a violation of workers’ rights would not result in in commercial punishment.
Therefore, in the USMCA, discussions around labor issues were a priority for the US. For Mexico, the issue was undoubtedly complex, since it was perceived that these disciplines would be used by US unions as a mechanism of trade protectionism.
On the contrary, in the US, various unions and other relevant actors have always argued that Mexico was committing “labor dumping” by artificially creating competitive conditions. According to this argument, low wages were achieved by awarding contracts to unions that did not necessarily represent the best interests of their workers.
Regardless of whether this is correct or not (and there is certainly a great debate about it), what is indisputable is that these new requirements have forced a rethinking of all labor policy in Mexico. In the first instance, the T-MEC helped to adequately measure the number of existing collective agreements: according to recent reports, the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (STPS) estimates that there are around 140,000 CCTs, although originally 580 had been estimated. thousand.
This suggests that indeed a large number of contracts did not exist, or were “protection” contracts, as those contracts are known in slang where the employer agrees on specific conditions with a union behind the workers’ backs, presumably in exchange for money or other rewards, to lighten employers’ obligations in labor relations.
According to the Federal Center for Conciliation and Labor Registration (CFCRL), at the time of writing these lines, just over 17,000 collective labor contracts had been legitimized. Although this number will surely grow, since there are 18,000 contracts in the legitimation process (that is, contracts that were registered on time but their votes have not yet been carried out), it is striking that the number is low; even assuming that all those contracts will be effectively ratified, we would have approximately 35,000 legitimate contracts, or a quarter of the total.
It should be noted that the absence of legitimization of a collective bargaining agreement will cause it to be automatically terminated, but will not generate negative consequences for workers in terms of their labor rights or the benefits and working conditions derived from it.
For the first time that an exercise of this magnitude has been carried out, it does not seem that the result is necessarily bad, but it is clear that we have a lot of room to improve, both in worker-management relations and in the behavior and representativeness of the unions. In this sense, two initial ideas arise:
to. Prepared and motivated workers are a fundamental element to be able to successfully attract greater investment to the country. It has been reported that in various regions there simply is not the necessary workforce to be able to increase the demanded production. A true trade unionism, representative of the workers, can help in this sense, by negotiating favorable conditions to increase productivity levels;
b. The new labor obligations can promote a “level floor” between national and foreign companies. It has been documented that on many occasions there were situations where workers’ rights were abused, with minimal consequences. The obligation to ratify the collective bargaining agreement will necessarily make companies reconsider these abusive practices.
We must take advantage of this opportunity to resume the good practices that exist at the international level in this area, which will surely reinforce the commitment and commitment of the workers. But for this, it is necessary to stop promoting growth models that are based on low wages and think more in terms of productivity. The union dynamics in Mexico will undoubtedly change after these events.
The author is an academic from the Universidad Panamericana; Prior to that, he had a twenty-year career in the federal government dealing with international trade negotiations.
