Mexican Labor News & Analysis

Obama, Calderón and Harper in Mexico Resolve Few Issues

The three heads of state of the North American nations—Barack Obama of the U.S., Felipe Calderón of Mexico, and Stephen Harper of Canada—met in Guadalajara, Mexico in early August to discuss major issues, but few problems on their agenda were resolved. The meeting of the “Three Amigos,” as it had been billed, certainly did not address the economic problems, human rights issues, and environmental concerns that challenge the continent's citizens. Obama, who as representative of the U.S. superpower dominated the meeting, brushed off concerns of the Mexican and Canadian heads of state and dismissed the demands of workers, peasants and human rights activists.

Calderón, Harper and Obama had a full agenda as they met, with issues ranging from trade to security, yet on virtually none of these issues was there significant progress. The agenda included:

* The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which regulates trade between the three nations. Labor unions and peasant leagues had called for reform of the treaty which had exacerbated deteriorating economic and labor conditions in all three countries, but especially in Mexico. Obama said, however, that now, during a time of economic crisis, was not time to revise the treaty.

* Among the NAFTA issues was the issue of Mexican trucks being permitted to enter the United States. Under the treaty which took effect in 1994, Mexican trucks should be able to enter the U.S., but Congress, under pressure from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and some U.S. trucking companies, has refused to allow them to do so. Obama promised to resolve the issue, but offered no specific timetable.

* Immigration reform is also a matter of concern to all three countries. But confronting fights over his economic program and health care reform, Obama said that immigration reform would not come onto the legislative agenda until 2010, disappointing many immigrants and immigration reform organizations.

* “Buy American” clauses in U.S. economic stimulus packages concerned both Mexico and Canada, particularly the latter. Obama, however, brushed off the protectionist clauses, saying that within the context of the enormous volume of U.S.-Canadian trade, the impact was really insignificant.

* Mexico in its war against the drug cartels has militarized large regions of the country, leading both national and international human rights organizations to accuse Calderón's government of tolerating human rights abuses. President Obama, however, supported Calderón's war on drugs and promised more U.S. aid.

Obama: U.S. Military Aid Will Continue

During the last three years, the Calderón administration has dispatched 45,000 troops to several Mexican states, leading to about 11,000 total deaths in the drug wars, as well as many documented cases of human rights abuses, including rape, torture and murder. (See for example the Human Rights Watch report at: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/13/mexico-us-should-withhold-military-aid) Nevertheless, U.S. President Obama declared that he would support the Calderón administration and its approach. “I have great confidence in President Calderón's administration applying the law-enforcement techniques that are necessary to curb the power of the cartels, but doing so in a way that's consistent with human rights,” Obama said.

Calderón also rejected the claims of Mexican and international human rights groups. “Our commitment to human rights is absolute," said Calderón. "We have met and will continue to meet this commitment, not because of any money that may or may not come through the Merida Initiative, and not because a U.S. congressman asks for it, but because of our profound convictions.” Mexican and international human rights group replied to at once, rejecting his claim. “There is plenty of evidence showing that army abuses in Mexico routinely go unpunished," said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Rather than pretending it doesn't exist, the Calderón administration should address the problem and stop defending the failed system of military justice that perpetuates it.” (See HRW response at: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/10/mexico-calderon-denies-military-impunity)

Obama stated, “We have been very supportive of the Merida Initiative, and we remain supportive.” The Merida Initiative calls for $100 million in anti-drug aid to Mexico. Senator Patrick Leahy, head of the subcommittee which must approve funds for the Merida program, has succeeded in preventing the funds from being released, in part because of his concerns about human rights violations. Human Rights Watch has asked Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to refuse to certify that Mexico has met its human rights obligations under the Merida Initiative legislation. But with Obama backing Calderón it is doubtful that Clinton would refuse to certify or that Leahy could long hold up the money.

Mexican Protests Greet Summit

As the three heads of state arrived at the conference, they were greeted by about 500 demonstrators marching under the banner “A Better World is Possible.” The demonstrators' demands included:

* No more border walls.
* U.S. out of Iraq.
* End the economic blockade of Cuba.
* Close the U.S. base at Guantánamo.
* Reject the coup d'état government in Honduras.
* Reduce green house gases.

The National Peasant Confederation of Mexico (CNC) also demanded changes in the NAFTA treaty, arguing that in the last 15 years unemployment in the rural regions of Mexico had increased by 50 percent, there had been no foreign investment in the Mexican countryside, while 600,000 producers migrate out of rural zones each year (either to cities in Mexico or to the United States), and Mexico's food dependency increases at an alarming rate. The National Union of Workers (UNT) also called for a revision of NAFTA to protect workers in all three countries. (See statement below.)

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Mexican, Canadian and U.S. Unions' Statement on NAFTA

[On the occasion of the tri-national meeting of North American heads of state in Mexico, major labor confederations of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. put forward their issues in the statement found below.]

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has, to a significant extent, defined the relationship between the three North American nations over the last fifteen years. NAFTA was sold on the promise that it would bring more and better jobs and faster growth to the region and reduce emigration from Mexico to the United States and Canada. While trade and investment flows did increase, NAFTA did not create more net trade-related jobs and those that it did were very often less stable, with lower wages and fewer benefits. Instead, increased trade largely benefited the corporate elite in all three countries. Income inequality has also grown in the region. We believe that the trade liberalization and investors' rights provisions contained in NAFTA were an important contributor to these results.

These difficult social and economic conditions have been exacerbated by the current economic crisis which was precipitated by neo-liberal policies and the deregulation of international finance. Further, the global recession is likely to be long and painful. However, the current crisis does provide an opportunity to reassess prevailing economic doctrines, arrangements and institutions and work for common prosperity through the implementation of a continental strategy for economic and social development. These problems must be addressed through an open and participatory process which includes workers and unions.

Our governments will need to undertake measures to address the economic crisis, such as directing fiscal stimulus to meet national priorities, including rebuilding our infrastructure and making a transition to clean renewable energy sources, re-regulating the financial sector, passing labor law reform, strengthening public services, reducing inequality and solving the protracted housing crisis. We will also need concerted international economic policy coordination, and the U.S., Canada and Mexico can play an important role in that regard both regionally and globally.

We believe in the potential for the people of North America to strengthen common ties and participate in broadly shared economic prosperity. Fixing the flaws in NAFTA is only one part of the challenge we face. We also need to work together to address a number of pressing issues, which include labor law reform, migration and development and the promotion of the rule of law.

Labor Law Reform and Enforcement:

With respect to the most fundamental of the ILO core labor rights, freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively, the United States, Mexico and Canada are out of compliance with their international obligations due to substantial restrictions on the right to organize and bargain collectively, both in law and practice. All the North American countries must ensure that workers can exercise their most basic and fundamental rights or face appropriate sanctions.

We are concerned that the reform legislation proposed by the Calderón government points in the opposite direction -towards further reductions of workers' rights and wages. The Mexican government must end practices that limit workers' right to freely choose their representatives, including employer-controlled “protection contracts,” government refusal to recognize independent unions and elected leaders, firings of workers who advocate union democracy, and declaring strikes to be illegal. In the United States and Canada, recognition of basic labor rights entails majority sign up and first contract arbitration. For this reason, passage of the Employee Free Choice Act is essential, as it would contribute to further demand-driven recovery in the U.S. through expanded organizational and collective bargaining rights for U.S. workers. This increase in U.S. demand would also be a plus for the Mexican and Canadian economies.

If NAFTA is to contribute positively to the regional promotion and enforcement of labor rights, several substantive changes must be made to the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. First the common obligation should be -- at minimum -- the adoption of domestic laws and regulations that are in total compliance with the International Labor Organization's (ILO) core labor rights, as well as the effective enforcement of those laws and regulations. Enacting the legal reforms mentioned above would be a positive and significant step in that direction. Second, the dispute resolution procedures must be overhauled so that a dispute concerning a violation of any of the agreement's labor obligations are resolved fully, fairly and expeditiously and with appropriate remedies. Finally, each government must demonstrate the political will to act upon the findings and recommendations that result from the dispute settlement process. Failure to act upon those recommendations should be subject to immediate and dissuasive fines or sanctions.

Migration and Development: The failure of the North American economies post-NAFTA to create the decent jobs necessary to absorb displaced workers and new entrants has forced many into a desperate search to find employment elsewhere. This problem has been particularly acute in Mexico. Even before the crisis, Mexico's economy failed to create enough formal jobs to absorb new entrants into the labor market, and many of the jobs created pay low wages. Mexico's future prosperity depends on creating decent jobs that expand workers' purchasing power, stimulate domestic consumption, and reduce the pressure to migrate.

In the U.S. and Canada on the other hand, employers, with access to a large and poorly regulated workforce of undocumented and temporary migrant workers have undermined all workers by failing to afford the basic labor rights and protections to everyone. In Canada, guest workers are subjected to dangerous working and living conditions, without government over-sight or a comprehensive compliance, monitoring and enforcement system. Meanwhile, the economic crisis has created thousands of internal migrants. We believe that all workers, regardless of immigration status, should be protected by labor laws and able to exercise their fundamental human rights — including the right to unionize. Governments in all three countries should intervene forcefully to prevent wage theft, end ineffective raids, stop abuses by labor recruiters, and offer a clear path to citizenship.

Finally, economic development is a key part of the equation for a more prosperous North America. Together, we need to help stimulate more robust, equitable, and sustained economic growth in all three of our countries. Within the European Union, the Structural and Cohesion Funds provided a substantial transfer of investment funds to generate job growth in less developed regions of Europe. A similar investment fund for Mexico should be provided within the context of a renegotiated NAFTA. However, in exchange, Mexico should agree to changes in laws and institutions to better protect the rights of Mexican workers and allow their income to rise as their economy grows.

Rebuilding our industrial base is essential for maintaining our living standards. As high-wage countries in a globalizing world, we must restore our competitiveness by developing national industrial strategies centered on innovation. This means raising the level of public and private investment, harnessing distinctive technological and organizational capacities and developing the skills of our workers. Further, we need to use government purchasing power and attendant social policy to renew our local economies, creating the conditions necessary for broad social inclusion. We should also be thinking regionally to enhance the long-term competitiveness of these industries vis-í -vis the world market. This will require cooperation, both among governments and between governments, labor, and management, to improve productivity while respecting labor rights and improving wages.

At the same time, we would oppose any new initiative that would prevent local governments or sub-national levels of government from using public money to support national, regional or local development initiatives, as well as any reform which would promote further privatization of services and expand investor rights into those services at the sub-national level.

Rule of Law: Mexican and international human rights organizations have carefully documented the human rights violations in Mexico committed by police and military personnel as well as the high levels of corruption within the judiciary. These state actors have committed horrendous acts of murder, torture, and sexual abuse; however, few have been punished. Murders and imprisonment of union members have gone unresolved. A true commitment to rule of law requires not only the undertaking by the United States to reduce the demand for illegal narcotics and stem the flow of arms to the drug cartels, but also respect for human rights and an end to impunity for Mexican security forces. In all three countries, we believe that true security can only be achieved through social and economic development predicated on human rights.

Without a serious consideration and incorporation of all of these dimensions — repairing the critical flaws in NAFTA, effective and authentic compliance with international labor standards, migration and sustainable development, and human rights and rule of law — the vital and essential security agenda involving our three nations ultimately will not succeed.

In conclusion, the time has come to recalibrate our relationship and focus on a path built upon shared economic growth and sustainable development. We hope that the Leaders Summit serves as an opportunity to lay out a new agenda for North America, one which makes our region competitive, sustainable and just, and our organizations commit to working together to promote that agenda.

Francisco Hernández Juárez, Presidente Colegiado
Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT)

John J. Sweeney, President
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)

Kenneth V. Georgetti, President
Canadian Labour Congress — Congrès du Travail du Canada (CLC)

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Crisis of the Mexican State, Human Rights and Impunity

The tri-national meeting of the U.S., Mexican and Canadian heads of state, respectively Barack Obama, Felipe Calderón and Stephen Harper, took place this month amidst the continuing war on drugs, the militarization of several Mexican states, and U.S. plans to tighten border security, raised once again the question of the state of Mexico—and of the health of the Mexican state. Throughout the country Mexico’s citizens are preoccupied with the government’s neglect of criminal and social problems—from the continuing murder of young women in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, to the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster, to the fire that took the lives of children at the ABC child care center in Hermosillo, Sonora—and with the impunity enjoyed by both criminals and public officials, military officers, and the police. Impunity—the failure to bring justice and to punish—may be the central preoccupation of millions of Mexicans at the moment.

Shortly before the meeting took place, Vera Raúl Vera López, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Dioceses of Saltillo, Coahuila, described the growth of a “narco-state” within Mexico, the result of an apparent “pact of impunity” between the government and the political parties. Said the Bishop, “as a result of complicity at a high level the drug dealers are creating their own state functionaries who are paid by the people and by the drug business. A drug-dealer state (el estado narcotráfico) is being created within the Mexican state. They have more force (in money and arms) and they can’t be stopped.” If the situation doesn’t stop, said the prelate, “We will have in Mexico a failed state.”

“It is clear,” said Vera López, “that if the president of the Republic, Felipe Calderón, doesn’t ask the leaders of the national parties to inform the government about those implicated in organized crime, that this is not going to stop. It appears that there exists a pact of impunity between the government and the political parties, and that is why they haven’t thrown down the gauntlet.”

Calderón Denies That Mexico’s a Failed State

While not responded directly to Vera López, shortly after the tri-national summit, Felipe Calderón declared that the idea that Mexico was a failed state was absurd. Citing a long list of challenges, from the supposed airplane accident that took the life of his close friend and Secretary of the Interior Juan Camilo Mouriño to the hand grenades thrown into the independence day celebrations in Morelos last September 16, to the H1N1 (swine flu) virus and El Niño weather systems, Calderón declared, “Against all the prognostications of those who said that the country was not going to be able to take it, that the government did not have the capacity to confront these adversities, that the Mexican state was not strong enough to confront these problems…for all of those reasons, it was said that Mexico was a failed state, which was absolutely absurd and wrong…because we have been overcoming these problems little by little.”

The Nature of State Failure

Calderón, however, may have misunderstood the nature of the criticism now being leveled at his government, which is not so much criticism of an absolutely failed state as it is a critique of a state which can only avoid failure by becoming increasingly authoritarian and undemocratic, while ignoring the country’s most important economic, social and political problems, and providing to those who in government, the army and the police who enforce the state’s will the protection provided by a policy of impunity.

Recently it is the Mexican Army which has come under the most severe criticism. Virtually every international and national human rights organizations – Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), Amnesty International (AI), the Miguel Austín Pro Juárez Center for Human Rights (Prodh), and Mexico’s own governmental agency, the National Commission for Human Rights (CNDH) – has documented the Mexican Army’s abuse of human rights, cases of torture, rape and murder which have gone almost entirely unpunished. These criticisms, among other issues, have led Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont to attempt to hold up the funding of the Merida Initiative which provides military assistance to Mexicon’s war on drugs.

President Calderón defends the Mexican Army and its behavior and the Mexican Supreme Court in August dismissed a demand that soldiers responsible for human rights violations be tried in civilian courts. The Mexican Bishops Conference (CEM) rejected calls for investigations into military abuses, saying that with war raging between the army and the drug cartels this was not the moment to undertake such an investigation.

Then too, there is the failure of the Mexican authorities to deal with the more than decade long history of femicide, the murder of hundreds of mostly young working class women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. In a recent conference, two researchers, one from Mexico, Patricia Ravelo of the Center for Research and Higher Studies in Social Anthropology (CIESAS), and the other from the United States, Héctor Domínguez of the University of Texas (UT), suggested that the femicide, militarization, and organized crime, issues which had previously been concentrated particularly in the border areas “now begin to expand throughout the country.” The lack of justice in Mexico and the prevailing impunity has led to a situation that has “gone beyond all limits” and now “worries people in other parts of the world.”

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Mexico's Economy in a State of "Shock" says Finance Secretary

While President Felipe Calderón assured the country that Mexico was making progress in dealing with the world wide economic crisis, his own Secretary of Finance, Agustín Carstens, told the press in early August that the country was in a state of financial “shock,” the worst situation in the last 30 years. Mexico’s economy is expected to contract 6.9 percent in 2009, according to the Bank of Mexico. Industrial production has declined 10.6 percent, according to the National Institute of Statistics (INEGI).

Mexico’s principal sources of income—petroleum, tourism, remittances from workers in the U.S., and industrial manufacture—have all fallen. The decrease in the price of petroleum has resulted in a shortfall of 300 billion pesos. By the end of the year this will become a shortfall of 480 billion pesos. (US$1.00=13 pesos). Consequently, Mexican governments at all levels—federal, state, and municipal—find themselves unable to pay their bills. Some 95 percent of Mexico’s 2,400 municipalities (similar to counties in the U.S.) do not have the resources to pay their public employees such as garbage collectors, clerks, and firemen. Most have already cut back by 20 percent. The National Conference of Mexican Municipalities has asked for Federal assistance.

Rising Electrical Prices

At the same time, the Mexican government has reduced the subsidy for electric power and it says it is gradually allowing prices to rise. Government officials say that customers now pay only one-third of the real cost of electricity. Some Mexican Senators from the left of center parties—Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Workers Party (PT), and Convergencia—argue that if electrical prices are raised there will be social disturbances. A National Network of Civil Resistance to Electrical Rate Increases has been formed, made up of organizations from several of the central and southeastern states and the Federal district. They complain that the government had engaged in repression and the criminalization of social protest—an increasingly common complaint from all social movements in Mexico today.

Meanwhile, the PRD, the PT, Federal Government officials and union leaders have called for the creation of legislation to develop and protect jobs. Officially, Mexico has 2.5 million unemployed (at least 800,000 jobs lost this year), while another 5 million are under employed, and 12 million labor in the informal economy, according to Benito Mirón Lince, the Secretary of Labor of the Federal District. So out of 47 million in the economically active population (PEA), almost 20 million do not have full-time employment in the legal economy. These various officials are working on creating a national front on behalf of the unemployed.

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

PRD Carries Out Purge in Aftermath of 2009 Election

The Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), in the aftermath of the July 2009 mid-term election which proved such a disaster for it, is engaged in carrying out a purge of almost 3,000 members who allegedly either ran for office on the tickets of or supported campaigns of other parties. PRD members are accused of having gone over to the Workers Party (PT), Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), or even the conservative National Action Party (PAN).

During more than a year leading up to the election the PRD leadership was split between those loyal to a right-wing group in the union known as los chuchos (because so many of their leaders are named Jes�s) and a left wing loyal to former presidential candidate Andr�s Manuel L�pez Obrador (known as AMLO). AMLO�s supporters ran as candidates of or backed candidates of the PT and another party known as Convergencia.

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Electrical Union Division May Bring Gov't Intervention

Union leaders and activists within the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME) fear that an internal struggle could bring about government intervention, threatening the union's autonomy and its progressive role in the broader labor movement.

Following a recent election of union officers, Alfred Dí­az Solí­s of the group Union Transparency (Transparencia Sindical) argue that the SME failed to follow its own statutes and Mexican labor law. According to Dí­az Solí­s, the SME has failed to file the list of names of the union officers and other documents required by the Federal Labor Law (LFT). The dissident group claims that Martí­n Esparza and other union officials, therefore, make false claim their offices.

Secretary of Labor (STPS) Javier Lozano Alarcón, has suggested that if proof is presented that the SME officials failed to follow union statutes and the law, then the Local Board of Conciliation and Arbitration might intervene to seek a new election.

A Pretext for Government Intervention

Union leaders and activists fear that the claims of the Union Transparency group could provide a pretext for government intervention which could remove the union's progressive leadership. The SME has a long history of independent unionism and many believe that it is among the most democratic of the major unions in Mexico. The SME has also played a central role in mobilizing its members, other union members, and other working class and poor peoples' organizations in the Mexican Union Front (FSM) and in the National Front Against the Privatization of Energy.

Observing the experience of the Mexican Mine and Metal Workers Union (SNTMMRM), union leaders and activists fear that the government might attempt to replace the existing leadership with one more amenable to the government's policies. The SME leadership has long feared that the government might force a merger of the Mexican Power and Light Company, where workers are represented by the SME, with the Federal Electrical Commission, whose employees are represented by the much more conservative Sole Union of Mexican Electrical Workers (SUTERM).

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Oil Workers Union Calls for Removal of Corrupt Chief

The Independent Petroleum Workers Coalition marched to Los Pinos, the Mexican presidential seat, on August 10 to demand the removal of Carlos Romero Deschamps, head of the Mexican Petroleum Workers Union (STPRM). The dissident union members claim that Romero Deschamps engaged in a fraudulent reelection campaign, violated the union statutes, and robbed money from the union as well as from the state owned company.

The dissident presented an analysis supported by documents alleging that between 2000 and 2009 Romero Deschamps and his administration had carried away millions upon millions of pesos from the state company and the union.

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Mexican Miners and Metal Workers Strike Arcelor Mittal

Some 3,500 workers of Local 271 the Mexican Miners and Metal Workers Union (SNTMMRM) have struck the Arcelor Mittal steel mills in Lázaro Cárdenas, Mexico. The union rejected the company's offer of a seven percent wage increase.

Local 271 was also striking to preserve the union membership of workers at the Fertinal and Viga Trefilados firms, both of which are subsidiaries of Arcelor Mittal and whose workers are also part of the Mine and Metal Workers Union.

The Local 271 union leaders see Felipe Calderón's government and his Secretary of Labor Javier Lozano as involved in provoking the strike as part of a broader strategy to destroy the union led by Napoleón Gómez Urrutia. For three years the Mexican government and the Grupo Mexico mining company have worked together to crush the union.

Two workers were killed during a strike and violent conflict between workers and the police at the same plant in 2006.

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Democratic Teachers Claim Victory in Labor Board Decision

Elba Esther Gordillo, leader of the Mexican Teachers Union (el SNTE), organized a sort of electoral coup d'état in Local 9 a year ago. During that election, the polling place was repeatedly and secretly moved to make it difficult for the members to vote. Local 9 had been controlled by her opponents in the National Coordinating Committee (la CNTE). But in August, in an unprecedented move the Labor Court (TFCA) threw out the previous election, removing Gordillo's candidate Marí­a Teresa Pérez Ramí­rez and ordering a new election.

A victory in Local 9, located in Mexico City, would represent a significant achievement for the opposition in the union.

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Flight Attendants Remove Union Leader Raising Legal Issues

The Mexican Flight Attendants Union (ASSA), made up overwhelmingly of women workers, in a tumultuous meeting in August removed Lizette Clavel Sánchez from office, because of violation of union rules and suspicious irregularities in her running of the union. As a result of her removal, the union for the moment has no legal leadership, and consequently may not be able to negotiate the contract of 1,400 Mexicana airlines flight attendants. This would be the second year in a row that that group of ASSA members had no union contract revision, and consequently no wage increase.

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Documents of the Labor Movement in Translation:
The Truth about the Mining Conflict in Mexico

[Published in Mexican newspapers on August 11, 2009; Note: we have made obvious corrections but in the absence of the original document were unable to provide a more polished translation. Nevertheless, we feel that the content is important and the meaning is generally clear. ]

It is crucial for our distinguished foreign visitors, who steer the fate of our brother countries of Canada and the United States, to know the reasons for which many leaders, union organizations, legislators and public figures in their Nations have contacted them for their intervention motivated by the mining conflict in Mexico. We provide this analysis so that the President of Mexico also analyzes objectively the problematic situation herein exposed.

It is a public and notorious fact that Grupo México (owned by Germán Feliciano Larrea Mota-Velasco), has spent a fortune on television, radio and written press to cause in the public opinion the following perception:

“That Napoleón Gómez Urrutia disposed of 55 million dollars of a Trust Fund, property of the mining workers.”

When a lie is told a hundred times (making a display of the money squandering upon hiring the most expensive spaces in the written press and most of all in electronic spaces), it starts to slowly become the truth for the public perception.

But the perception of things does not change the reality of things, and this is simply the following:

“Grupo México with the support of the Federal Government wished to impose Elí­as Morales as General Secretary of the Union, replacing Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and the National Executive Committee, who have the support of the workers. To achieve this, they fabricated criminal accusations repeatedly in different jurisdictions and States (always for the same events even when such is constitutionally prohibited), with the purpose of carrying out without any obstacles this new “administration” which they intend to impose. Since things did not turn out accordingly, they now want the Union to be handed over to Grupo México, and the Government, even though there are rulings that demonstrate that no crime was committed, they continue to carry out illegal investigations (that Mexico had buried) and formulated new accusations for the same events; therefore putting the state system at the disposition of Germán Larrea and his company, but always using Elí­as Morales in an already obvious political persecution.”

For some governmental officers, among whom the Minister of Labor Javier Lozano Alarcón stands out, it is easy to insist that there is no political persecution against Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and the other members of the National Union, among them Juan Linares, who is currently unduly incarcerated.

However, such persecution regrettably exists in a Country that calls itself democratic and respectful of Human Rights (even though the World states otherwise), and such will be accredited before the Canadian authorities — in its case — and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, in an objective manner. The Federal Government and more specifically the Secretary of Labor, along side with Grupo México (and the latter at the same time along with Elí­as Morales), have unduly used the Criminal Law in order to achieve purposes just as illegal in the working environment. Therefore, separating one problem from the other is simply a manner of avoiding responsibilities of the very own abuses of authority in which they have been involved. It would be interesting to see how they would respond to the following questions:

How would they explain that the Secretary of Labor acknowledged the unconditional supporter of Grupo México Elí­as Morales Hernández (in a record time of less than two hours), as General Secretary of the Union based on documents they presented and in which the signatures were forged of the First Spokesman of the General Surveillance and Justice Counsel of the UNION, Juan Luis Zíºí±iga, (which is proven by experts and even acknowledged by the General Prosecution of Mexico [hereinafter GPM] (Procuradurí­a General de la Repíºblica)?

How will they explain that the file of the previous investigation of the forging of signatures was “stolen” from the very offices of the GPM?

Why three years later, has there been no investigation from the GPM, much less any determination regarding those parties responsible for the forging of the signatures?

What motive is there for the Federal Government to protect Grupo México and its administrators from the criminal responsibility (of commission by omission) that corresponds, freezing the previous federal investigation 4085/07/08 regarding the 65 deceased miners in Pasta de Conchos as a product of their criminal negligence?

How is it that they insist that a banking felony was committed (113 bis of the Credit Institution Law) (Ley de Instituciones de Crédito), when the technical body that is the National Banking Commission (Comisión Nacional Bancaria), resolved — in a document that was also taken from the previous investigation and had to be obtained in an appeal — that “the conduct is not situated in the typical foreseen hypothesis and mentioned in article 113 Bis of the Credit Institution Law, nor in any other criminal type foreseen by this Law...”?

How would they explain that there are allegedly illegal operations and that the resources belong to the complainants (Elí­as Morales), when the Fifth Unitary Court in Criminal Matter of the First Circuit confirmed the rejection of the arrest warrants assuring precisely the opposite?

How would they justify that in Mexico there is no governmental repression when there is a video in which the PFP shoots at disarmed miners in Michoacan from a helicopter?

How can they justify that the GPM, in view of their failure, had sent to several States of the Republic simple copies of the initial investigation (the one that gave place for the rejection of the federal arrest warrants), to now obtain local arrest warrants for the same events?

Can it be said that there is no illegal persecution when the Governor of Coahuila Humberto Moreira made public in an interview with journalist Jacobo Zabludovsky and with national media coverage, that he was summoned to Los Pinos and the very President himself along with the Secretaries of State and of Labor pressured him to “find a crime” and to imprison Napoleón Gómez Urrutia and cover the responsibilities of the former Minister of Labor with regard to the explosion of the mine in Pasta de Conchos, expressing that he refused to do so considering that Napoleón Gómez Urrutia had not committed any crime?

How can they justify what Moreira accused? “In my state Napoleón is not responsible for any crime, (Fox) told me ‘lets look for one', I told him there was nothing. ‘You won't go along (warned the former leader)'; no, it's just that he has done nothing in my state”, responded the governor of Coahuila.

If Governor Moreira refused, others did not. Who could explain before an impartial Canadian authority that a Judge in Sonora and a Judge in San Luis Potosí­ issued arrest warrants for the same events (which by the way were canceled as a product of favorable decision on appeal) and coincidently wrote their warrants in literally the identical manner and even with the same orthographical errors?

How will they be able to explain that they accused the fiduciary delegates of Scotiabank Inverlat of the same events that were attributed to Mr. Gómez Urrutia and other members of the Union and it turned out that the Federal Justice determined that NO CRIME OF ANY KIND WAS COMMITTED in the mining trust?

What would the Federal Government reply when asked the motive of having tolerated the transfer of millionaire dollar spots paid by Grupo México (even though in the spot it incredibly says that they were paid for by the miners), in which they say that Napoleón Gómez Urrutia stole 55 million dollars in clear violation of human dignity and the presumption of innocence?

How will they expose that there is an alleged fraud when the National Convention (highest body of a Union in which all of their sections were present) approved in a unanimous manner the accounts and denied that there was any kind of patrimonial detriment?

What will they have to say regarding the fact that the Institute of Legal Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico and the Iberoamericana University (Instituto de Investigaciones Jurí­dicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y la Universidad Iberoamericana) (both of acknowledged and proved academic reliability) rendered opinions in the sense that the Mining Trust was incorporated, amended and terminated pursuant to the Law, in opposition to what the Federal Government, Grupo México and Elí­as Morales proclaim?

How will they be able to explain that for the exact same events they accused Mr. Napoleón Gómez Urrutia in the federal complaint they presented criminal complaints before the Prosecution of the Federal District and it resolved NOT TO BEGIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST HIM AND terminate three previous investigations (FDF/T/T1/794/08-10; FDF/T/T1/854/07-11 and FDF/T/T3/884/06-11)?

How will they explain that the very own Public Prosecutor of the Federal District determined that the complainants (once again Elí­as Morales), are not victims of any patrimonial detriment and therefore they lack standing regarding the funds of the trust belonging to the Union?

Who will explain that the Federal Judicial Branch (Poder Judicial Federal), in April of 2007, ordered by means of an appeal's decision to acknowledge (month and year) Napoleón Gómez Urrutia as General Secretary, pointing out the illegalities in the Secretary of Labor when it granted the Official Appointment (Toma de Nota) of Elí­as Morales?

How is it that despite this, the Secretary of Labor once again denied the Official Appointment of Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, in June of 2008, even when he was reelected unanimously, a matter which up to today is still the subject of an appeal?

What reasonable explanation will they be able to provide for the irrefutable fact that Elí­as Morales is actually advised by Grupo México in their criminal actions and that his standing is not that of a real victim, since what he is looking for is to benefit the interests of the company?

How will they respond before the fact that Criminal Judge 18th of the Federal District issued a warrant for Juan Linares Montufar for the same events for which he is UNJUSTLY imprisoned based on the federal complaint and that even the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice had also already resolved this question in favor of Mr. Linares pursuant to the appeal presented by the capital Prosecution? What will they say given the fact that said Judge also denied the arrest warrant against Napoleón Gómez Urrutia in compliance with an appeal's decision for the same events contained in the federal complaint?

What logical response can be given before the fact that Gregorio Pérez Romo was imprisoned during three years and his procedure concluded with an absolutory sentence of total innocence, since THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED IN THE MINING TRUST?

What will they be able to say to the Canadian authorities before the fact that the Ninth Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Federal District resolved that the Mining Union is owner of the resources from the Trust 10964526 (before F9645-2) and therefore there is no and can not be any patrimonial affectation to the complainants with motive of the acts of disposition that would have been made in full exercise of the autonomy and liberty of the union that Mexico adopted as Supreme Law? How many times do we have to win the same matter and for the same events?

In which manner do they pretend to explain that the Sixth Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters of the First Circuit has already pronounced in Full Session that the local accusations maintain direct factual relation with the federal, and that all of them come from the same previous investigation?

How can they explain that the SIEDO instead of persecuting organized crime, a presidential priority, has seized (without motive and even the existence of a complaint), ALL of the Union's accounts in the Government's eagerness to prevent the expenses of the strikes — that have been maintained with a great deal of effort for two years in Cananea, Taxco and Sombrerete — to be covered ?

In which manner will they reveal in Canada that some media coverage spread slanderous notes and interviews of Grupo México and Elí­as Morales, but when they are asked to provide the right to a response (legally and journalistically acknowledged), we are denied such right without any motive? Does it have something to do with the fact that Germán Larrea is Counsel for Televisa?

Why does the GPM protect Germán Larrea so that he does not have to appear to be interrogated by the defense of Juan Linares in his federal prosecution? What motivated the appeal of the judicial decision of having him appear (which by the way has already been lost)?

How will they justify that the GPM has been incapable (even when they state having used all means of investigation available) of presenting Germán Larrea with the use of public force, as so ordered by the First District Judge of Federal Criminal Procedures and for such purposes has issued reports that show that they have not even made the least real effort?

What logical explanation is there for the Federal Board of Conciliation and Arbitration (Junta Federal de Conciliación y Arbitraje) having issued a verdict in one hour and twenty minutes, leaving without a job more than one thousand families in Cananea and allegedly analyzing sizeable files consisting of thousand of pages?
How can it be explained that such Board only notified the confidential employees (by the way carrying out one notification every fifteen minutes even when they were dealing with distances that made this impossible) and not to the unionized employees, even when they were dealing with a process in which they would lose their individual labor relationship?

Who will be able to respond before the fact that the GPM pretended to obtain an arrest warrant against Sergio Tolano (which was also lost), for the mere fact of having filed an appeal (as so did more than one thousand other employees in Cananea), against the illegal verdict that determined as terminated the individual and collective labor relationships upon request of Grupo México?

How can they explain that in said labor procedure the Board refused to receive evidence from the Union and admitted all that presented by the company, and even before all these biases committed by the Minister of Labor, Javier Lozano Alarcón, pronounced himself as defending the procedure and its verdict as if he was part of Grupo México?

Why did they send over one thousand Federal Preventive Police officers to Cananea, funded by state revenue, lodged them in local hotels for almost two weeks and even declared by means of their Commanding Officer that they were checking hospitals and operating rooms since they would evacuate with force the mining workers from the installations of Grupo México?

Under what logic can they maintain that 55 million dollars were missing when 200 million pesos were seized by labor authorities (acknowledged by the Sub Minister of Labor í�lvaro Castro, who also declares as if he were Judge); when Elí­as Morales acknowledged before the Federal Criminal Judge that it was distributed (pursuant the determinations of the Union under the practice of their autonomy), among the unionized workers in Sonora; and when the difference is found in the union's patrimony?

How can they explain that a Swiss firm hired by the international union organizations determined that not even a penny was misplaced in the Mining Trust, yet still the Minister of Labor Lozano insists that crimes were committed as if he were Judge and in complete ignorance of his institutional position by making comments and formulating official bulletins with strong meanings and, clearly, without ever acknowledging the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence?
Why did they not request extradition from the Canadian Government and Mr. Napoleón Gómez Urrutia had to be the one to file an appeal before the passivity of the Mexican Government, in which he declared that such an omission created a detriment by denying him the right to appear before impartial Canadian Courts?

Napoleón Gómez Urrutia has always disclosed his whereabouts in Vancouver, Canada and has never hidden it. On the contrary. He is not a fugitive as some Mexican authorities irresponsibly affirm.
He has responsibly appeared before the Canadian authorities and is always at their service to appear at any time they so request.
Before all the herein questioned, there is only one more question:
Is it not evident that we are before a clear and illegal persecution and undue use of Public Power at the service of Grupo México and Germán Larrea?

It is time, for the well being of Mexico, the mining workers and the industry, to end this conflict and to make, now, real efforts to put an end in a respectful reciprocal manner and with positive and reasonable interlocutors that starts from an objective analysis.

Responsible for publication: J. Genaro Arteaga Trejo, Secretary of Political Matters of the National Union of Working Miners, Metallurgic, Iron and Steel and Similar of the Mexican Republic (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalúrgicos, Siderúrgicos y Similares de la República Mexicana).

Back to August , 2009 Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents of Mexican Labor News & Analysis articles.

Archived MLNA issues.