James Fox

Our struggling economy is the source of much finger pointing and blame games throughout the nation, and I’m sure will become a major tool used to bring about governmental changes in the 2004 elections. My personal opinion is that the North American Free Trade Alliance (NAFTA) is a prime contributor to our present situation.

Even before NAFTA, our manufacturing industries were fleeing The United States by the droves. In a desperate attempt to escape over-regulation and over-taxation, they moved to other countries where the regulations were lax and the labor was cheap.

In signing the NAFTA treaty, Bill Clinton gave our government’s blessing on the practice and made it easier for the abuse of millions of the poverty stricken in many third world countries.

In many of my columns, I advocate the use of enticements to bring manufacturing jobs and capabilities back home. Mainly because in the absence of skilled jobs, our economy has changed from being an industrial giant to being a service industry supplying low paid jobs to the displaced workers abandoned by US companies; and secondly because of national defense – if we are dependent upon goods and supplies from foreign countries, we will be easy prey in a national emergency. In a real war we need ore, steel smelters, steel mills and the manufacturing capability to produce weapons and the other tools we need to survive.

I know that these incentives will not work, but possibly disincentives would, mainly because most or possibly all of our industries doing business abroad are violating the labor laws of the countries in which they are doing business.

Ciudad Juárez is an economic powerhouse, the seventh-largest city in Mexico with one of the strongest local economies. There are nearly 300 maquiladoras there. Mayor Elizondo notes that last year an average of two new plants opened each month, generating 40,000 new jobs. The term maquiladora comes from the Mexican colonial term “maquila,” which was the fee millers charged to grind corn into meal. The modern version allows manufacturers to import raw materials duty-free, process them into fully or partially assembled goods, and ship them back to the United States.

Philips Electronics recently opened a new plant in the border town of Ciudad Juárez to manufacture television components. The $3 million plant will generate some 1,000 jobs in the production of printed circuit board assemblies. In a statement, company officials cite the “skilled labor” and “closeness to the United States” as reasons for opening the new plant. Currently, Philips has 13 plants and about 12,000 employees in Mexico.

The above is just one example of thousands of companies that are operating in Mexico. And here is where I think the disincentives could apply. In the World Court we could bring charges of violation of Mexico’s Labor Laws. Mexico won’t file charges because the departure of all the companies indicted would destroy the Mexican economy.

The following is how these companies are operating now:

In the United States, maquiladoras would most likely be called sweatshops. There are close to a million maquiladora workers in Mexico. Many of them are girls and young women from 14 to 20 years old. They work six days a week in grueling 10 hour shifts with few breaks. Working conditions are often hazardous, and industrial accidents and toxic exposures are common. On average, the workers earn between $0.80 and $1.25 an hour, and they often are unaware of their rights under Mexico’s labor code.

More than 4,000 maquilas in Mexico produce everything from garments to automobiles, mainly for the U.S. market. Most of the plants are owned by U.S. companies. These transnational corporations set up in Mexico primarily for “cheap labor,” and it shows in the lives of the more than 1 million maquila workers, whose meager wages leave them far below the Mexican poverty level. Many companies also come for lax environmental enforcement, and that shows, too, in the widespread industrial pollution plaguing many border cities.

Here is what we can use in court to force these industries back home, and to find methods to compete other than by using slave labor and polluting neighboring countries.

Mexico’s labor laws are tougher than those in the US are. For instance, women have the equivalent of three months of paid leave of absence during pregnancy and after giving birth.

Workers are entitled to ninety day compensation, plus twenty days for each year worked in the event of a lay off, and from first day of employment workers and immediate families have medical insurance benefits, and bonuses along with fixed percentage distribution of profits must be paid.

Labor relations in maquiladora operations are regulated by the Mexican Federal Labor Law (Ley Federal de Trabajo) (hereinafter the Labor Statute). Under the Labor Statute, a maquiladora must at least pay to its employees the minimum wage determined by the Minimum Wage Commission. As discussed below, they must also register their employees with and pay required contributions to the Social Security and Housing Institutes.

The maximum work week is 48 hours. A 40-44 hour week is common practice, particularly in office positions. Work days in excess of eight hours are also common.

Double time must be paid for the first nine hours of overtime each work-week and triple pay if unusual circumstances require more than nine extra hours in any work-week. Triple pay is also provided for work on the seven legal holidays. If a worker is required to work on Sunday, he is entitled to a 25% bonus based on his regular salary. This applies even if the worker is given a day off during the work-week. In addition to the above requirements, a Christmas bonus equivalent to fifteen days wages must be paid before December 20th every year.