From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Proceso 543: Labor
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:31:21 GMT

/** reg.elsalvador: 125.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 543: Labor **
** Written  7:11 am  Jan  6, 1993 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 543: Labor

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 543
December 16, 1992
 
LABOR:
Impasse in the Forum
 
     As 1992 draws to a close and talks in the Forum for Economic
and Social Consensus-Building continue to bog down, the possibility
of reaching any important accords this year appears to be
evaporating. This has been the year of the peace accords, and the
work undertaken to carry them out has borne fruit. Unfortunately,
the Forum did not receive the support necessary to play its role
effectively within the peace accords.
     Discussions in the Forum are currently bogged down around the
Intergremial labor coalition's demands for trade union freedoms,
and business complaints about labor pressures to end El Salvador's
standing in the Generalized System of Preferences for Salvadoran
exports to the U.S.
     The impasse is quite serious, since both business and labor
see their fundamental interests threatened. The government, for its
part, tried to propose palliative measures to some labor conflicts
such as the one in the Blokitubos cement factory. In this case, the
government tried to get management to compensate the workers for a
sum equivalent to the wages they would have earned during the
strike months. Although no one doubts that the workers truly need
the money after six months without pay, organized labor feels this
is a dangerous precedent for future struggles. Such a "solution"
would leave an opening for monetary settlements in cases where
management has flagrantly violated trade union rights, instead of
addressing the root of the problems.
     In the long run, such a precedent is very dangerous for the
Salvadoran trade union movement. No one denies that workers have
the right to be paid during strike periods, and this could become
part of an arrangement between labor and management, but only once
the legal issues are satisfactorily resolved. The danger lies in
the possibility of creating divisions between the specific
interests of a trade union local and the political interests of a
broader confederation. This point must be seriously considered by
those who lead the nation's social movements.
     Another sticking point in the Forum is each side's preference
for bilateral negotiations. We recently learned that business has
reached important agreements with the government on monetary
policies (cf. Proceso 540). These were settled outside the Forum,
even though the Central Reserve Bank measures directly affect
workers' interests. We also learned that in November, the
Intergremial reached an agreement with the government around the
amount of this year's Christmas bonus for the public sector. The
measure is highly positive and beneficial for public sector
employees, yet it was reached in bilateral talks with the
government instead of through the Forum. More recently, the media
has reported on new negotiations between the Intergremial's crisis
commission and the government, which produced an accord for a
public sector wage hike in 1993. Once again, the talks were
bilateral.
     This problem must not remain ignored by the different
political actors in El Salvador. And the fact that these are not
isolated actions, but rather an entire tendency, raises serious
questions about the Forum's ability to resolve conflicts between
labor, business and the government. Is the Forum thus incapable of
resolving sectorial problems? Are bilateral negotiations more
effective than trilateral talks? And if so, what will happen to
those labor sectors who are not strongly represented in the
Intergremial? Isn't this rather a trap to delegitimize the Forum
and weaken the social movement's potential for transforming
national affairs?
     For the time being, the sectors represented in the Forum must
urgently review their strategies in order to avoid the premature
death of this body created by the peace accords. The immediate job
for 1993 is to begin discussions around areas of vital interest for
all three sectors, such as the Labor Code, the Agrarian Code and
certain economic policies.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive