First Published: The Organizer, Vol. 3, No. 9, November 1977.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
. . .The Puerto Rican workers’ movement is again confronting a campaign of slander 3nd repression. . .We warn the authorities that the workers’ movement is indivisible. Any action against a labor .leader or against a union, will constitute an act of aggression against the whole workers’ movement. . .We demand that (the authorities) suspend the harassment and persecution of labor leaders singled out by the government.
The Puerto Rican working class has paid in blood, in occupational disease and injury, and in hunger for the divided state of the labor movement over the past few years. When over 25 Puerto Rican unions came together in early October to make the statement excerpted above, they knew the full urgency of the situation; they knew that the time was long past for allowing differences to keep them apart.
For the workers in Puerto Rico, the 1970’s have been characterized by long, bitter, and militant strikes. And yet over the past ten years, almost 75% of these strikes have been lost. Only 15% of the workforce is unionized, unemployment is estimated at 40%, and over 70% of the population depends on food stamps.
Puerto Rico: “Showcase of Democracy”, the success story of U.S. capitalism, home of Operation Bootstrap, right? The Commonwealth’s own advertisements give us the real picture: “Puerto Rico: Gateway to Profits. . .Average hourly rates substantially lower than those on the mainland.” promises the brochure. “In Puerto Rico you can make good profits and keep them. . .Open a plant. . and we’ll guarantee you no taxes, federal or local.”
For over 25 years, US corporations have responded willingly to such appeals. They’ve been drawn by generous tax exemptions, low wages, and the local government’s willingness to co-opt, or if necessary to crush, the labor movement. Then, as the exemptions ran out, and the labor movement grew despite repression, the labor-intensive industries ran off to the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, Central America, and South Korea. Now the large petrochemical and pharmaceutical plants are moving in, attracted by almost nonexistent environmental protection laws and few restrictions on polluting. What was a predominantly agricultural country in 1930 must now import 85% of its food.
What is the labor movement’s response to these grim facts? In order to understand the Puerto Rican labor movement, we must recognize that its development is directly tied to the status of Puerto Rico as a colony of the U.S. The status question is important not only because it explains the domination of U. S. corporations in the economic life of the country, but also because it explains the state of organization of the working class.
This can be summarized by two points:
1) the Puerto Rican labor movement has been colonized by U.S. trade unions and
2) the section of the movement which is independent of the U.S. unions is fragmented by political differences over the status question. These two facts go a long way towards explaining the inability of the working class to defend itself successfully against the intense exploitation of U. S. corporations, and we will examine each of them.
About 40 to 50% of unionized workers in Puerto Rico are presently in US-based International unions, down from 75% 1964. These unions have been increasingly discredited in the eyes of the workers, however, and many are being forced to pack their bags and go home as workers disaffiliate from them and vote in their own independent unions.
As Pedro Grant, head of the Boilermakers Union (AFL-CIO) in Puerto Rico explains, “The Internationals have strength and money but they won’t use it. They are not fighting. The ILGWU, for example, has very bad contracts, while many independent unions are winning very strong ones. At the huge CORCO plant, they used to have the OCAW and were very unhappy. Now (with the independent union) they have a strong contract. If a strike takes more than a few weeks, many US unions like the IAM or the ILGWU say it wasn’t authorized by the International and they take away the benefits.”
This happened in a very recent UAW strike, he went on to explain. The Detroit leadership ordered an end to the strike after 13 weeks without winning anything because they decided it was costing too much money. They told the workers to rely on the NLRB. Shortly after this, the workers voted to disaffiliate themselves from the UAW because they had never been consulted by the Detroit leadership about ending their strike.
The US based internationals did not show a serious interest in organizing in Puerto Rico until the 1940’s, when the impact of runaway shops began to be felt. U. S. labor leaders realized that the job drain would be stopped only when Puerto Rican wages were too high to be attractive to US capital, and so they demanded an increase in the Puerto Rican minimum wage and sent organizers to the island.
This activity coincided with the move on the part of the Puerto Rican colonial government in the late ’40’s to destroy the General Confederation of Labor, the central labor body in Puerto Rico which represented a stumbling block to the full exploitation of the workforce through Operation Bootstrap. The CGT had to be destroyed in order to guarantee a cheap and docile labor force.
If the US unions were going to Puerto Rico to fight runaway shops by raising wages, why were they acceptable to the Commonwealth, which was destroying the already existing labor organization? The answer to this question brings us right back to the colonial status of Puerto Rico.
First, while Puerto Rican unions from the beginning included the struggle for independence as part of their program, the collaborationist US unions not only accepted but supported the colonial status of Puerto Rico. Their national chauvinism and loyalty to the capitalist system had after all, been amply shown over the years on the mainland.
Secondly, the US leaders were easily convinced to drop their demand for wage parity in exchange for help in their organizing efforts. The US unions demanded only that the gap between Puerto Rican and US wages not be allowed to widen. The gap itself, however, was accepted as “only fair” to US capitalism.
Thirdly, US corporations were far more open to working with the sold-out “responsible” US-based unions than with their militant Puerto Rican counterparts. Often contracts were brought straight from the mainland, and the workers had the choice of accepting them or getting jobs elsewhere.
In the past ten years, however, there has been a rebirth of independent and militant trade unionism in Puerto Rico. The new workers’ movement has been characterized by a revolt against the sell-out leadership which was in control, a move toward the formation of new independent Puerto Rican unions and autonomous AFL locals, and growing links between the labor movement and the independence movement.
The unions have often been organized as independent one-shop unions through a disaffiliation vote against a US International. While in 1963 independent unions won less than half the elections against the Internationals, in 1974 they won 23 out of 30 contests.
In other cases, the rank and file was able to gain control of their local within the international structure, such as Pedro Grant’s Boilermakers’ local, the American Federation of Teachers, and some Teamster locals. In these cases, locals have remained with the International unions order to receive economic and technical assistance.
The net result of this situation is that on is small island of three million people, only 14% of whom are organized, there are about 500 unions operating. While the largest bulk of these unions are affiliated to US Internationals, the remaining unions, and in most cases the most active and important unions, have been organized and led by one or another of the political parties seeking the independence of Puerto Rico – the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP), the Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP), and the Popular Socialist Movement (MSP). While numerous attempts have been made over the past decade to unite these unions into one confederation, none has been successful. In fact, twelve different federations exist at this point.
One of the most important factors preventing the necessary unity has been the deadly force of anti-communism. Many of the new, dynamic union leaders are open advocates of socialism as the only solution to Puerto Rico’s problems. The government and media have carried on a vicious red-baiting campaign, building a wedge between the socialist and the “responsible” unions.
A second factor preventing the development of a single, powerful confederation of labor has been the open hostilities and sectarianism among the independence forces themselves. Differences over political approach to the independence question have been carried over into an unwillingness to cooperate on the labor front.
Again, the primary aspect here is anti-communism. For a number of years, the PIP unions and leaders have refused to work with communist leaders from the PSP or MSP, and in fact have attempted to undermine these unions and leaders through red-baiting.
Secondarily, the communist leadership accepts some responsibility for its sectarian behavior. Trade union leader and PSP Central Committee member Pedro Grant points out that in the past, they fought all Internationals and attempted to control coalition attempts, viewing other political forces practically as enemies, even in the trade union sphere.
In re-evaluating its work Grant says the PSP has determined to “back any movement directed to achieve unity or stronger unions. We are not going to intervene. We will back but not dictate. Work must be done by all sectors, so we must work with other political forces.”
Clearly the future of the trade union movement depends on the ability of the leaders to put their differences aside temporarily in the interests of forming a united front against the capitalists. The basis of unity certainly exists; fight for cost of living clauses, the right to organize and strike in the public sector, for repeal of the Taft-Hartley law, for an end to police repression, and for abolition of anti-labor legislation, and so on.
Even a number of locals affiliated to US Internationals have shown their willingness to participate actively in the struggle. Peter Huegels of the Meatcutters for example has played an important role in the United Workers Movement (MOU).
There are a number of hopeful signs for the development of such unity. Recently the PIP-fed federation of public workers (CUTE) including about ten labor organizations in the public sector has been revived. There appears to be a new openness to the participation of PSP leaders and unions, particularly the powerful UTIER, an independent union of over 5000 members presently led by an active member of the PSP. If the PIP leadership of the CUTE do in fact abandon their anti-communist and sectarian approach to organization, the confederation could begin to indeed be a powerful block to the Commonwealth’s offensive against public workers.
Discussions are underway to forge a similar coalition in the private sector. As the statement of the unions quoted in the beginning of the article makes clear, the urgency of united action is being felt in many quarters of the Puerto Rican labor movement.