Response
The more and more I delve into this idea of unionizing and worker rights, the more I see how similar it is to our own unionizing efforts of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Back in the day, the United States had these same problems — factories forcing their workers to work in terrible conditions, going as far as to lock them in, and very poor pay. Grassroots were as key to our unionizing as it is the that of the maquiladora industry. In Mexico “FAT, which encompassed a number of grass-roots organizations representing workers, peasants, and cooperatives, offered experience and broad connections not only throughout Mexico, but also in the United States, Canada, and Europe.” This is transnational communication at its best.
“The fact that the mass media in the United States and Mexico focused on the issues of worker autonomy and union democracy rather than simply sweatshop conditions or worker poverty indicates, first, a significant maturation of cross-border networks.” Keeping the lines of communication open between Mexico and the U.S. has allowed for maturation and a shift in the issues focus. I think it is great that we can now have a conversation focused no labor and political issues rather than those more conditional. It shows great growth, growth grounded in grassroots activism.
Another very interesting point made in this article is that it is men, in this case affected, as well as women. With all the talk of maquiladora’s and sweatshops we sometimes forget that there are men involved in these jobs just as much so as women. However, because men are stronger and less easily bullied, in my opinion, we tend to rally much more closely around women’s issues rather than men’s even though both parties are just as affected. Your thoughts?
