AFL-CIO is Spanish for union busting; how the U.S. and big labor fight communism by opposing popular unions and setting up unpopular ones

Washington Monthly, Sept, 1987 by Frank Smyth

Besides death threats and bribes, what have workers gotten from their new alternative unions? Well, for one, workers have been part of a unique experiment in labor-management cooperation: Some unions have thrown out existing contracts and allowed management to write new ones. At Confiteria Americana, the biannual renewal of the contract that had been negotiated in 1979 was circumvented, and management is writing a new contract for the new parallel union to approve. At the first formal assembly of the candy factory's parallel union last September, management officials were visibly in charge. I was evicted from the meeting after one company/union official entered the room and asked why I was there.

More important, though, than their positions on particular contracts is their record on broader reform issues. The land reform, initiated in 1980, has affected only 18 percent of peasant families. Duarte insists that the redistribution of coffee farms will eventually proceed, but privately, government officials concede the political strength of the landowners makes the plan unlikely. The minimum wage for agricultural laborers, who work only when coffee or other export crops are in season, is $1.60 a day. Only 10 percent of the urban workforce is unionized, and their average hourly wage is about 40 cents. This year's inflation rate is projected to hit 60 percent; real wages have fallen abysmally behind.

Yet these new unions have not seriously opposed Duarte's austerity measures, fought for higher wages, or pressured the government to redistribute land. For example, prior to UNOC's first demonstration, labor leaders obtained a personal promise from Duarte that the land reform for coffee farms would proceed. But one and a half years later, with no such reform in sight, the unions have not questioned the government's failure. As a result, the left-influenced National Union of Salvadoran Workers, which persistently clamors for the reforms, has been considered more responsive to workers' needs. If the pattern continues, the rebel involvement in the unions is likely to become even greater. As one CIA report noted, "As their battlefield prospects continue to wane, we expect to see rebel commanders, who earlier rejected the political struggle, putting more money and manpower into strengthening their support among labor.' U.S. policymakers are well aware of the dangers of leaving social needs unment. "Deteriorating economic conditions have hurt Duarte's standing with workers and peasants--his traditional constituents--who are the key element of the guerrillas' political strategy,' the CIA report said.

U.S. officials do not fear a military victory of the left; the guerrilla brigades are too weak and the right and the army are too strong. They are concerned, though, that an increasingly vocal and militant organized opposition will provoke another wave of violent right-wing repression of the kind that racked the country more than six years ago. By splitting the labor movement through the parallel unions, the U.S. hopes to weaken that opposition. A little anti-democratic union-busting now, the reasoning goes, will avoid great carnage later.