AUT: [Ciepac-i] English Chiapas al Dia 398 I

[CIEPAC <ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

?Chiapas Today? Bulletin No. 398
CIEPAC; CHIAPAS, MÉXICO
March 03,  2004

MEXICAN MIGRANT WORKERS IN CANADA:
THE ?UNFREE? WORKER PROGRAM WILL SOON
EXPAND IN THE UNITED STATES
(II/II)

Summary: This bulletin continues looking at a ?guest worker? program for
Mexican agricultural laborers in Canada, second of a two-part series.  It
posits that governments at all levels have protected the interests of farm
owners, and companies, to the detriment of workers, both historically (the
first ?Bracero Program? in the US) and presently (Canada?s present program,
and a similar program due to be expanded in the US).  In spite of their
?unfree? status and the possibility of reprisals, workers are organizing to
defend their interests and vindicate their important role in generating
wealth and contributing to the economic well being of the host nation and
their country of origin.


In my mind slavery has not disappeared.  And in this case we the Mexican
workers are the slaves.  I would like to say to all the bosses that we are
not machines, and I would like them to realize, if only a little bit, that
the money they have is thanks to the work of all the Mexican agricultural
workers that come to Canada to work.  (Manuel, Mexican worker in Canada) (1)


They have trekked from one government office to another for years.  They
are workers, the kind that have the least rights, they are agricultural
workers.  And they are migrants, in this case exmigrants, some of the two
million Mexicans who participated from 1942 to 1964 in the first Bracero
Program in the United States.

A short while ago a scandal broke in Mexico regarding the millions of
dollars that have been illegally denied to the Mexican braceros who worked
in the United States during decades, money garnished from their salary for
a savings fund that should have been returned to them once they returned to
Mexico.  But the scandal broke not because of the justice of their claim,
but because, fed up with governmental foot dragging, a group of exbraceros
took over land belonging to President Fox in his home state of Guanajuato.

It?s calculated that from 1942 to 1949 alone, some 60 million dollars were
discounted from some 400 thousand workers, funds that today, with
accumulated interest, could surpass a billion dollars.  Where is the
money?  Newspaper articles suggest that the money was transferred to the
Mexican government, but a judge in the United States has accepted to hear a
suit from the braceros against both governments, pointing out that the
United States is responsible since ?as a trustee it violated the trust
fund?s duties of protecting the savings of the braceros?. (2)

The story of the braceros illustrates a continuous history of collusion
between governments and companies, in support of the latter?s interests, to
the detriment of workers. The same collusion, and the same injustices,
continue today in programs similar to the Bracero Program.  In the first
part of this bulletin (no. 387), we documented how the governments of
Mexico and Canada (both federal and provincial), and the farm owners,
continue to deny Mexican agricultural workers (involved in the Mexican
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, or MSAWP) their human, civil and
labor rights.  The MSAWP is a program negotiated between the Mexican and
Canadian governments that supplies Mexican workers for agricultural jobs in
Canada.

The labor rights denied to Mexican workers include benefits, that
theoretically accrue to them, since they too, like Canadians, pay taxes.
Mexican workers pay taxes for the following: medical insurance, retirement
benefits, unemployment benefits and the value added tax charged on all
their purchases.  But they rarely see the benefits that these taxes
supposedly bring.

For example, Mexican workers rarely claim medical benefits, since farm
bosses pressure employees not to report medical matters to
authorities.  Research done on the matter documents how workers commonly
prefer to continue working, even while ill or injured, rather that risk the
boss? ire.

Retirement pensions too go uncollected, since neither the Canadian nor the
Mexican government provides sufficient information to help workers claim
benefits.  Mexican workers never see unemployment insurance, since in
Canada they are employed, but in Mexico, Canadian law doesn?t foresee that
workers might be unemployed.  At the end of their maximum eight-month
contract, the Mexicans in MSAWP cannot remain in Canada, seek residency nor
citizenship, no matter how long they?ve worked in the country.

Although the law so requires, pay for official holidays is never given, and
vacation pay, to which workers also have a right, is given at the whim of
the employer.(3)

As for the Canadian VAT, similar to the value added tax in Mexico, and as
opposed to Canadians, Mexican workers have a right to be reimbursed for
it.  But according to workers, since the procedure is handled by the
Mexican consulate, it never is refunded.

Far from protecting Mexicans, the Mexican counselor services protect
Canadian bosses.  One migrant said,
?If we want to talk to [consular officials] on the phone, they say, ?I
don?t have time to see you, behave yourselves,? and that?s it [...the
consulate] comes and asks us, ?How are you??  And we say, ?Well,? because
we know that they take the side of the patrón...I tell you that the minute
one complains, the patrón does not ask for you.  And then [the consulate]
comes here, ?And why doesn?t your patrón want you any more?  Perhaps, you
didn?t work well.?  And when we explain to them why, they don?t believe
you.  It?s better to put up with it.? (4)

Canadian trade-union official Stan Roper of the UFCW (United Food and
Commercial Workers) backs workers? allegations.  Referring to Mexican
workers, he says,

?When they make complaints about their housing, working conditions, an
abusive employer they only have couple of options: one is to go to the
employer who?s causing the problem to begin with, the second is the Mexican
consulate, and what we?ve found is that the consulate is there to protect
the contract with the grower, and provides very little service to the
individual worker.  If there is a problem, they?re usually on the next
plane back.?(5)

The UFCW recently denounced the case of the firing of a licensed applicator
of pesticides, when he refused to spray toxic chemicals in a greenhouse in
the town of Chatham, Ontario province, where there were workers laboring at
the time.  The applicator, Roger Goetheyn, explained to greenhouse owners
that the substances that they had asked him to apply included the dangerous
chemical Thiodan.  Workers can experience convulsions and other serious
symptoms if exposed to Thiodan.  When Goetheyn saw workers in the
greenhouse he refused to spray unless all workers were first cleared from
the premises.  He was fired on the spot by the Platinum Produce greenhouse
owners.

Ontario laws protect people who refuse to do work that is dangerous to them
or their fellow workers.  But as in other similar circumstances, laws don?t
apply to agricultural workers and therefore Goetheyn was ?legally? fired
for having refused to poison other human beings. (6)

Spread out over dozens of farms in six provinces of Canada (7), with
spineless consular services, Mexican workers know they have everything to
lose if they raise their voice against abuses.  Since it?s the Canadian
boss who decides who, among his employees will be hired next season,
workers know that complaints put their presence in the Program at risk.

Mexican workers in Canada have been classified as ?unfree? by several
researchers, since, once contracted to a particular farm or enterprise,
they are, by law, unable to seek alternative options in the wider labor
market.  As we have seen, their only option is to return home.  Numerous
factors, principally economic and social, keep workers from exercising
their rights and risking being sent home by farm owners or, worse, being
expelled from the Program.(8)

Fortunately, the situation is changing.  In spite of probable reprisals
workers have begun to organize and denounce the unjust, unhealthy and
dangerous conditions they face, supported by organizations from Canadian
civil society.  Many workers have resolved to struggle on for improvements
in their conditions and for greater dignity, not only for themselves, but
also for those who will follow them.

Some Mexican workers have taken innovative steps to denounce their working
conditions, by raising the profile of their struggle and going public. (See
the denouncement below).  For example, the Mexicans with the MSWAP in one
town, Saint Thomas de Joliette, Quebec province, have elected fellow
workers as spokespersons, and named permanent representatives in Montreal,
who will promote their interests, even when workers are back in Mexico
during the months of the Canadian winter. But they also resolved to carry
their struggle for better conditions and greater dignity to the confines
where the rules and guidelines for the Program are established.

Saint Thomas workers presented a formal request in September 2003 to the
Mexican Embassy in Ottawa to be able to participate in the annual meeting
between the Mexican and Canadian governments where the inner workings of
the Program are reviewed.  To no one?s surprise, the Mexican Embassy?s
General Counsel Manuel Cosío, answered that ?it is not possible to grant
this request to participate...due to the administrative character of the
meeting?.  Yet Cosío confirmed in his letter that the meeting is not just
between governments.(9)  In fact, farm bosses? associations do participate,
demonstrating once again the willingness of governments to hear arguments
of capital, and exclude those of labor.

These efforts by Mexican workers are a first step in a long struggle for
full recognition of the presence and involvement of Mexicans and other
foreigners in Canada?s economy.  What is happening in Canada will have
repercussions in the United States as well, since an expansion of a
bracero-style program is on the docket for the near future.  In early
January 2004 President Bush announced reforms to immigration programs and
laws in the US.

Yet substantive changes will not be coming in 2004.  Migration is a
sensitive issue in the US, provoking emotional and even racist
responses.  No congressperson will touch it before the November elections,
much less the presidential candidates.  Being an election year, however,
Bush was unable to postpone at least a sketch of reforms to current
migratory laws, given Bush?s need to obtain an important percentage of
Latinos? vote, now the largest minority in the US.  For this reason Bush?s
immigration proposal is presently scarce in detail.  But it foresees a
future expansion in the US of a temporary workers program, similar to Canada?s.

Important aspects of the Canadian program are also present in the Bush
proposal.  For example it explicitly recognizes that there are jobs in the
US for which there are no takers among Americans.  As is the case in the
Canadian program, the Bush proposal will help assure US firms obtain a
constant and legal flow of ?hands? for poorly-paid, dangerous and
denigrating jobs, that no US citizen wants.

The cheap and ?unfree? labor dilemma for American companies was revealed on
October 23, 2003, when US Immigration agents raided 60 Wal-Mart stores in
21 states and detained 250 foreigners who were working without proper
papers in janitorial duties (mainly cleaning, waxing and polishing floors,
and similar duties, during the night).  According to workers? declarations
after their detention, Wal-Mart had never given them a day off, nor pay for
overtime.  Wal-Mart had also evaded taxes by failing to pay income, social
security and unemployment-compensation taxes.  By breaking the law,
Wal-Mart was saving 40% on labor costs. (10)

Yet the raids on the Wal-Marts took place because of workers? ?illegal?
immigration status, not because of labor or tax violations of their
employer.  Thus the Bush proposal can be seen for what it is, a way of
facilitating legal access to a cheap reserve of labor that US companies,
such as Wal-Mart, need.  Bush?s claim that his proposal shows ?compassion?
for migrant workers is laughable.

Bush will insist, for internal consumption, that no employment will be
given to foreigners, unless it can be first shown that Americans can?t be
found to fill vacancies, but the fact is that today many industries have
difficulties filling jobs.  The need to feed these industries with an
abundant (and cheap) labor force is what?s behind the package of ?reforms?
in the US immigration laws.

Obviously, then, there is no intention to help foreign workers remain in
the US, and much less to facilitate residency.  The intention is to
?encourage? workers to return to their home countries, after a maximum stay
of six years,(11) thus damaging workers? interests built up over that
period.  In today?s pro-corporate-globalization and anti-labor environment,
companies have declared an all-out war on anything remotely related to
rights or benefits accrued due to accrued, so Bush?s proposal will help
assure that the labor force is ?renewed? by law.

Campaigns have already begun against the most harmful aspects to workers of
these proposals.  For example, the Tepeyac Association of Mexicans in New
York has stated it will launch a campaign in the US for a ?gradual boycott?
of Mexican products ?unless the government of Mexico stops its public or
secret lobbying for temporary residency only, and declares its support of
permanent residence for immigrants who already live in the United States?.

[See photos of Mexican workers in Canada, after arriving for the 2004 work
season, at a welcoming mass and at the opening of a migrant support center
in Leamington, Ontario:
http://www.ciepac.org/otras%20temas/eventofoto/evento2004/migrante/index.html]


What follows is a denouncement of a group of Mexican workers in Quebec,
Canada, against the injustices of the Mexican Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Program:

MANIFESTO
ARISING FROM THE MEETING HELD
BY MIGRANT AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
ON THE OCCASION OF THE CONMEMORATION
OF THE 193RD ANNIVERSARY OF
THE INDEPENDENCE OF MEXICO

ADDRESSED TO

LE TRÈS HONORABLE
MONSIEUR JEAN CHRÉTIEN
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

ET/AND

MR. VICENTE FOX
PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED MEXICAN STATES

ON SEPTEMBER FOURTEENTH
TWO-THOUSAND THREE
IN THE TOWN OF SAINT-THOMAS DE JOLIETTE,
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA

BACKGROUND

We understand that:
As conceived the Foreign Temporary Agricultural Workers Program
(Commonwealth Caribbean and Mexican Season Workers ProgramCCMSAWP) should
guarantee the planting, care and harvesting of agricultural products of
Canada, United States and Mexico.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) lays out that one of its
principal objectives is the gradual integration of agricultural products in
the North American market.

The North American Labor Cooperation Agreement (NALCA) is concerned with
the protection of workers, especially the protection of migratory workers.

Nonetheless in spite of our compliance, consisting of rendering of our
labor force for the completion of trade objectives, the guarantees within
the contract signed with us, the Mexican Temporary Agricultural Workers of
Canada, have NOT been respected.

CONSIDERING THAT:

1 We were not given work immediately, and thus no salary either, at our
arrival at the farm we were assigned to.
2 El employer (farmer) did not fulfill the minimum work schedule of 40
hours per week, sending us as ?loans? to other farms, in order to carry out
tasks different from those agreed to in the contract, and without carrying
out the official transfer paperwork.
3 We were assigned work different from the activities for which we were
hired, without paying us the salary difference.
4 The safety and health guidelines were not respected at work, insofar as
we were not given adequate clothes or equipment, nor were safety measures
followed in the use of pesticides, which are dispersed over us while we are
working.
5.We were not given immediate access to medical treatment, nor medical
leave when the circumstances so warranted, nor was payment given for
accidents or illness, either for work or natural causes, nor was
reimbursement given for medical expenses (medicines) when needed.  Even
though in these cases the employer is required to pay for the first 10
(ten) days.  And [even though] we pay for an insurance policy.
6 We were not given information on work guidelines, nor on deductions or
benefits that affect our salary nor [benefits related to] our geographical
location.
7 The employer (farmer) retained our migratory documents, work contract and
even our passport and airline ticket.
8 The employer (farmer) did not provide us with a social security card
(N.A.S.); nor a Ministry of Health Card (Carte Soleil); nor Quebec
Acceptance Certification; nor the life insurance policy; nor the
reimbursement forms for medical expenses covered under said policy.
9 We were not provided with transportation, whether it be land
transportation for the purchase of groceries; nor air transportation due to
the fact that the cost of these services are deducted from our salary by
the employer.
10 We were not given decent housing.
11 We were not provided with drinking water nor hot water for personal hygiene.
12. Unjust practices exist such as: intimidation, coercion, harassment and
interference, given that our employer and foreman prohibit us from talking
during work hours, from getting in contact with the Mexican Consulate in
case of doubts or complaints.  In our free time we are also prohibited from
receiving visitors on the farm, to talk or establish communication with
people native to the place.  When our employer provides transportation, we
are only allowed to remain 2 (two) hours in purchasing our groceries in the
closest city, even though we are on our free time.

Given the aforementioned, and fully aware of the fact that in being
isolated we are running a high risk of vulnerability with respect to human
rights and labor rights,

WE [THEREFORE] DEMAND:

I That the governments of Canada and Mexico intervene urgently so that
migratory workers be provided with the same legal protection as nationals,
in the territory of whichever of the countries, in accordance to the Laws
and Statutes on Health and Security at Work.
II      That the government of Canada instruct all employers (farmers) to
respect our human rights in accordance to:
         a The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man of the United
Nations.
         b The Charter of Rights and Liberties of Canada
         c The Quebec Charter of the Rights and Liberties of People
III     That the government of Canada
         a Grant us the right and full access to [un]employment insurance
and retirement benefits or
         b These be eliminated (cancelled) from the deductions that are now
being made from our salary as contributions to [un]employment insurance and
retirement benefits.
IV      That the governments of Canada and Quebec
         a Exempt all migratory workers from payment of the Work Permit
(Federal Visa) and payment of the Quebec Acceptance Certificate or
         b Issue and charge for Worker Permit and Quebec Acceptance
Certificate for the first and only occasion, to be valid on subsequent years.
V       That the governments of Canada and Mexico guarantee the autonomy of
the body or commission to be created, and that this body or commission
participate as representative for workers in revisions and negotiations
concerning the workers? contract.


NOTES

(1)Quote taken from the video ?El Contrato?, directed by Min Sook Lee,
produced by Karen King-Chigbo, sponsored by the National Film Board of
Canada.  After its debut in Canada in October 2003, the farm owners who
appear in the video threatened to bring a libel suit.  Until the matter is
decided, the video cannot be distributed in Canada, but a copy is available
in CIEPAC.
(2)Martínez, Sanjuana, ?Esto no va a parar?, Proceso, Mexico City, No.
1424, February 15, 2004, p.16-23.
(3)The problem of uncollected benefits has been documented by University of
Windsor researcher Dr. Tanya Basok.  See for example her book Tortillas and
Tomatoes: Transmigrant Mexican Harvesters in Canada, McGill-Queens
University Press, Montreal & Kingston, 2003.  See also ?Human Rights and
Citizenship: the Case of Mexican Migrants in Canada? Working Paper No. 72,
del Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California,
San Diego, 2003, p.10-11.
(4)Quoted in Basok, Tortillas and Tomatoes, p.112.
(5)Quote from the ?El Contrato? video, ibid.
(6)Press Bulletin, UFCW Canada, January 28, 2004.
(7)According to the Canadian government, the Mexicans are in the following
provinces: Ontario (71% of the total), Quebec (24.2%), Manitoba (2.6%),
Alberta (1.8%), New Brunswick (0.1%) and Prince Edward Island
(0.2%).  Information from October 3, 2003.
http://www.dfait.maeci.gc.ca/mexico-city/immigration/agricultural-en.asp
(8)See the previous CIEPAC bulletin on this topic (no. 387), and Basok,
Tortillas and Tomatoes p.107. See also Basok?s study ?Free to be Unfree:
Mexican Guest Workers in Canada?, published in Labour, Capital and Society,
Vol. 32 (2), 1999, p.192-221, that contains the following definition,
?Restrictions placed on the workers? right to dispose of their labour power
as a commodity in a host society have prompted researchers to brand them
?unfree??.(p.192).
(9)Copy of the letter in CIEPAC?s possession.
(10)Greenhouse, Steven, ?Illegally in U.S., and Never a Day Off at
Wal-Mart?, New York Times, November 5, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/national/05WALM.html?ex=1069064518&ei=1&en=13313db5b1170389
(11)Office of the Press Secretary, White House, ?Background Briefing by
Conference Call on Immigration Policy, January 6, 2004

(Translated by Miguel Pickard, for CIEPAC, A.C)

Miguel Pickard

  The Center for Economic and Political Investigations of Community
Action,  A.C. CIEPAC,
CIEPAC is a member of the Movement for Democracy and Life (MDV) of Chiapas,
the Mexican Network of Action Against Free Trade (RMALC) www.rmalc.org.mx,
Convergence of Movements of the Peoples of the Americas (COMPA )
www.sitiocompa.org, Network for Peace in Chiapas, Week for Biological and
Cultural Diversity www.laneta.apc.org/biodiversidad, the International
Forum "The People Before Globalization", Alternatives to the PPP
http://usuarios.tripod.es/xelaju/xela.htm, and of the Mexican Alliance for
Self-Determination (AMAP) that is the Mexican network against the Puebla
Panama Plan.  CIEPAC is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center
for Economic Justice http://www.econjustice.net and the Ecumenical Program
on Central America and the Caribbean (EPICA) http://www.epica.org.

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
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 the
e-mail address shown below.  Indicate whether you wish to receive the email
or the "attached file" (Word 7 for Windows 95) version.

Email:          ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web page:   http://www.ciepac.org/  (Visit us:  We have new maps on the
situation in Chiapas, and a chapter with more information on the PPP)
__________________________________________________________________________________________

CIEPAC, A.C.
Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Comunitaria
Calle de La Primavera # 6
Barrio de la Merced
29240 San Cristóbal, Chiapas, MEXICO
Tel/Fax: en México 01967 674-5168
Fuera de México    +52 967 674-5168

_______________________________________________
Ciepac-i mailing list
Ciepac-i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.laneta.org/mailman/listinfo/ciepac-i


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
  multipart/alternative
    text/plain (text body -- kept)
    text/html
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---