A story and some considerations on development strategies based on the maquiladora industry in Guatemala and in Chiapas.  (1)

This is the first time that I’m interviewing someone; behind the tape recorder, I don’t feel comfortable and it amazes me that the person on the other side opens up and tells me so many things.  Mostly when on the other side there is a person like Virginia.

Virginia is 25 years old, a little older than me, and she has a three year old child.  The father of her child did not have the courage to share the difficulties in raising a child, so he left.  So Virginia, at 22 years old, found herself with a newborn, without a partner and without a job; without a job because in the house where she worked they fired her for being pregnant.  She was also fired from the first job she had; she was a secretary in a notary’s office and was doing her job well.  Until one day, on the street, a stray bullet caught her in the back, leaving her prostrate in the hospital for a long time, and leaving her without her secretarial position, because her employer did not have the patience to wait until she got out of the hospital.

How could she raise a child without a job?  How could she give him a dignified life?

Fortunately, Virginia’s country, Guatemala, offers a fabulous opportunity to young women and single mothers like herself: work in a maquiladora.

The Guatemalan governments of the last 20 years, sincerely preoccupied by the situation of unemployment, poverty, and violence in which thousands of Guatemalan youths live, has pledged to seek and create opportunities, before all else, of work for them.  In Guatemala labor has some peculiar characteristics: scarce economic resources that the population possesses, strong concentration of this in the hands of few people, and little public investment in sectors like education has created great numbers of workers with few qualifications and no specializations; the coffee crisis (one of Guatemala’s principal products) that caused a dramatic fall in its price, and of the agricultural sector in general, has left thousands of Guatemalans in an economically grave situation in its primary sector, most of whom have chosen to leave their rural homes and go to the cities, seeking opportunities for work and life.  This migratory phenomenon has increased even more urban masses willing to accept any job in order to earn the money necessary for their “bean and tortillas.”

What jobs are offered to this ignorant, indigent people, many of them young and women?

Moreover, the civil war that affected Guatemala for decades has left behind a strong social heritage: the total disarticulation of the workers’ movement.  During the war, labor activists, workers who were simply seeking that their rights be respected were repressed, harassed, tortured and killed.  The climate of fear and terror made the union workers lose affiliates and support: today, the percentage of workers registered with unions is low even though the Guatemalan labor code guarantees the freedom to join unions.

In this way, the Guatemalan governments, together with national and foreign or transnational corporations, had a great enlightenment: make the scarce qualifications of the workers, of their poverty, their extreme need, and their vulnerability not a disadvantage on the road to integral human development, that must be combated through investments in education, social programs and effective tutelage in labor rights, but an advantage.  Better said, a comparative advantage useful in attracting and fomenting national and foreign investments like maquiladoras: thanks to the abundance of cheap, unqualified labor and thanks to the fear that the workers still have of organizing themselves to organize their conditions, Guatemala can attract great numbers of factories where the most simple production phases are carried out and that require more labor (assembly, etc.).  The government worked to facilitate even more investments of this nature, making agreements with investors in the manufacturing sector on fiscal easements for the importation of raw goods, in the processing of these and in the exportation of manufactured goods.

Guatemala knew to transform problems that, generally, negatively affect a country’s development into elements that sustain and foment it.  Instead of expensive public programs combating these diffuse problems, which would be unsustainable in an epoch when it was recommended to the states that they restrict spending in the name of neoliberal dogma, Guatemala has enjoyed “becoming an export country,” as it is announced in large billboards placed alongside the highways by AGEXPRONT, the Guild Association of Exporters of Non-Traditional Products.

The Guatemalan strategy has had great success: the comparative advantages enumerated and fiscal easements have attracted many maquiladoras to the country, the majority in clothing and textiles.  In October 2004 in Guatemala there were 225 clothing factories, 33 textile companies and 276 for accessories and services, with a total of 145,511 employees.

When I went to visit VESTEX (Guatemala Apparel and Textile Committee), the solicitous employee Claudia told me, illustrating with mountains of numbers, the history of this economic event, the success of the manufacturing industry in Guatemala, expending much time in informing me of the fundamental contribution that the factories provide to the growth of the countries in terms of exports, GNP, jobs created, etc.

On the other hand, Virginia told me another story.  Her story.

Finding work in a maquiladora has not been a problem; there are no requirements, specific competencies or determined education levels required.  Just the desire to work and contribute, uniting your efforts with those of other employees, to make “Guatemala an export nation”; this slogan almost sounds patriotic, although the fact that 166 of the 225 clothing manufacture companies have foreign capital (the majority, Korean) takes away from the patriotic sentiment.

Virginia had to work eight hours a day for a salary of 1,440 quetzales per month ($195), plus the extra hours that were clearly voluntary, although they are taken as a show of goodwill; this is what they have said.  Virginia, without many alternatives, clearly accepted; the salary did not suffice to buy beans and tortillas for her and her son, but at least it was a fixed and secure salary.

Then she entered the maquiladora.  There were more or less 400 people working there, the majority of them women.  There were only four bathrooms and, in these conditions, it was not easy to take care of their needs quickly as was required by the management.

On a whiteboard, every day, the management would write the production goals they had to meet.

Virginia did not refuse the extra hours because she didn’t want to lose the trust of the management and because she needed a monthly salary sufficient to meet her needs as a single mother; Virginia worked, then, approximately 13 hours per day and, sustaining her efforts, she was sure that at the end of the month she’d have a satisfactory salary.  There came a time when the fixed goals on the whiteboard were simply too high and her work took her 16-18 hours per day.  In those days her son got sick and Virginia, one day, done with her eight hours of work, said goodbye to her co-worker (with whom she almost never spoke so as not to fall behind on her work, even though their sewing machines were very close, as the management had placed them close together to save space) and left her post to take her son to the doctor.  A shout in broken Spanish stopped her, startling her.  The Korean responsible for the production line caught up to her, asking violently where she thought she was going; Virginia explained her situation.  The Korean almost hit her, yelling that if she left, she would never need to come back, and that they were far from meeting their daily production goals, so nobody could go home.  Virginia, scared, returned to her machine, while all the other workers were quiet, with their heads down and still sewing, without daring to look up at the Korean.  Her son, at his grandmother’s house, continued to have a fever.

Her salary arrived: 1600 quetzales.  The many extra hours worked to meet the goals on the whiteboard, including leaving her feverish child without medical attention, had given her 160 quetzales.  Virginia could not believe it and thought that it was an error, so she went to seek an explanation.  The human resources manager confirmed that 1600 quetzales was her salary and, moreover, showed her a resignation, signed by her, saying that in case she did not like the job or found it incompatible with her personal needs, she could go without a problem, naturally without paying any reparations, since she had already signed her resignation that freed her employer from any obligation.  Virginia could not say much; they told her that that part was part of her work contract and she, not knowing how to read very well, had trustingly signed it.  She actually apologized with her head down and returned to her sewing machine.

Leaving the plant, Virginia told her colleagues what had happened.  So, talking with them, she learned that the extra hours were not paid by hour, but at the discretion of the employers, although they were practically obligatory.

After a few months working, Virginia began to have grave problems breathing; many of her co-workers had the same problem and it was clear that it had something to do with the large amount of fluff and dust, residues from the work done in the plant, that fell on the machines and in the factory, since it was rarely cleaned and there was no ventilation.  Virginia had to go to Social Security, to find out her health conditions, so she asked for permission and the necessary documents from the management; again, they were on the verge of firing her and denying her permission, accusing her of being lazy and saying that she was sick to avoid working.  In truth, the management didn’t even have the necessary documents for Virginia, because they had never paid social security, although they had taken the money out of her check.

Virginia understood that complaining was dangerous.  At least if she complained by herself.  Then she began to speak with her co-workers to see if they shared the same problems and if they could seek solutions together; many of her co-workers didn’t want to listen to her: they said that if she wanted to form a union, they could not commit themselves because it was too dangerous, that they preferred to endure the work conditions over placing themselves and their families in danger.  Virginia did not understand, place in danger, why?  Her colleagues told her that, in one of the factories, to whoever wanted to organize themselves into unions, they had harassed and beaten them.  They had raped one mother’s daughter, and they had threatened other workers’ family members.

Virginia was afraid, afraid for her son, but she also knew that in these conditions there wasn’t any future for either her or for her son.  Then, after she found some colleagues that were more willing, she became a promoter for a labor union in her factory.

Virginia and her colleagues affiliated with the labor union were fired; they presented demands of the Guatemalan authorities and the factory management, asking to be reintegrated in their jobs and are waiting for the sentence.  Moreover, in the factory, suddenly, another small group of workers that opposes the union, affirming that unions affect the interests of the workers because where there are unions, the companies lose production orders.  The same factory management has organized this group, ending up paying some of the workers to integrate and oppose the union.  For the management, there aren’t any problems in the treatment and conditions of the workers, as is confirmed by the fact that the company adopted and voluntarily complied with a code of conduct that guaranteed certain levels of protection for the workers.

In Guatemala, despite the efforts made by various federal labor unions, there are only unions in three factories, in a situation that is extremely difficult because the organized workers were fired.  The three unions belong to the FESTRAS union federation.

Could this be the story of Virginia, the history of a Chiapan woman?

Probably so, certainly within a few years.

As the Mexican politicians never cease to point out, Chiapas shares many characteristics with Central America and a development plan of this Mexican state cannot stop it from integrating with its Central American neighbors.  Chiapas, for example, shares many comparative advantages with Guatemala that have been a fundamental attraction for maquiladoras; which means that Chiapas has the same problems that Guatemala has turned into purported advantages: numerous unskilled laborers originating, in part, from rural areas (after the invasion of U.S. agricultural products and the coffee crisis expelled thousands of peasants) and that is cheaper than the rest of Mexico, a weak tradition of labor organizations.

The Mexican government, together with Central American countries, has launched, in recent years, “development” plans like the “Puebla Panama Plan” and the “March South” Plan that, granting facilities and privileges to investors and with the creation of infrastructure, promise to foment investments that will use the advantages of Chiapas; as for the weak union tradition in Chiapas, in the government’s site in Chiapas, there is a presentation of the “March South” plan (directed towards potential investors) that proposes, explicitly, this fact as an advantage for investing in Chiapas, forgetting and attacking the rights of workers to organize into labor unions, guaranteed by the national constitution and by the international ILO treaties ratified by Mexico.

The number of maquiladoras in Chiapas and in Southeast Mexican has risen significantly in recent years and the installation of factories in this area has been greeted by the highest authorities as the beginning of a new industrial development.

Mexico affirms, with regard to its development projects in the state of Chiapas, a myopic neoliberal posture; instead of educating local labor, of protecting agricultural production faced with U.S. imports, of fomenting an industry of high added value and capable of directing a true development, instead of caring for our fundamental native cultural and social heritage, helping its economic and social emancipation and exit from a state of poverty and marginalization, Mexico prefers to foment an industry, the maquiladora, that leaves its workers in poverty and in precariousness, that does not generate positive and strong relationships with local industry and in which they only assemble imported goods, producing manufactured goods for foreigners.  The option chosen by Mexico does not seem capable of inducing an integral human development that would foment improvements not only in macroeconomic indexes, but also in real levels of well-being and in the effective respect for the rights and liberties of the mestizo and indigenous Chiapans.

(Note: This article is based on the data, true histories and information collected by the author in various interviews conducted in Guatemala in December 2004 with: labor organizers with the central unions “FESTRAS” and “UNSITRAGUA,” notes from the independent monitoring group “COVERCO” and the NGO “CALDH”.)

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168