The First Attempt of Labor Regulation in Argentina: the “Ley Nacional Del Trabajo” of 1904 and the Reaction of Working-Class Organizations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The 36th International Labour Process Conference 2018 ‘CLASS AND THE LABOUR PROCESS’ Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, 21-23 March 2018 The first attempt of labor regulation in Argentina: The “Ley Nacional del Trabajo” of 1904 and the reaction of working-class organizations Lucas Poy Instituto de Historia Argentina y Americana “Dr. Emilio Ravignani” Universidad de Buenos Aires – CONICET Abstract In the first months of 1904, in a context of intense labor unrest, the executive branch presented to Congress a bill that became known as the “National Labor Law” (“Ley Nacional del Trabajo”). The bill included a long report, signed by the minister Joaquín V. González and the president Julio A. Roca, and a very extensive set of rules designed to regulate the labor market, the labor process and —last but not least— also the workers’ organizations. By that time, Argentina had a growing capitalist economy, a young and radical labor movement, and no labor regulations whatsoever—in this context, the bill was the first attempt of regulating the relations between capital and labor and, not surprisingly, it sparked an important debate not only in the chamber itself but also among the ranks of workers and capitalists alike. Although it never became a law, as it was rejected in Parliament, the bill became an iconic reference in the history of labor regulations in Argentina. In this presentation, I will briefly introduce the main characteristics of the proposed bill and I will focus on the reactions that working class organizations developed towards it. While anarchist- oriented groups and unions made clear its complete rejection towards an initiative that was seen another intervention of an authoritarian state, the Socialist Party found itself in a much more complicated position. Some of its intellectual and middle-class cadres had actually participated in the making of the bill, but most of its working-class rank-and-file showed a big concern towards a bill that, while giving some concessions in the field of labor demands, established a heavy control on union activities. This paper will address these debates and tensions in order to better understand the reactions of working class organizations with regards to the first attempt of labor regulation made by the Argentine state. This presentation falls into the theme “Regulation, institutions and labor process”, although it also deals with working class resistances and union strategies. Please do not cite or circulate without author’s permission Almost twenty years ago, in their introduction to a collective volume, Marcel van der Linden and Richard Price highlighted the importance of studying labor law with a historical and transnational perspective. They argued that, although labor regulations had a strong influence in the “daily, productive and organizational lives of all workers”, labor historians usually show a deficit in this area of knowledge.1 In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have devoted their attention to this topic, thus contributing to a better understanding of the way in which both state intervention and workers’ action shaped the development of labor legislation. In Argentina, the development of governmental responses to the ‘social question’, posed by the emergence of the labor movement, received scholarly attention since the 1980s.2 In the last fifteen years, the literature has been enriched by new studies, focused on the development of different aspects of labor legislation.3 This paper intends to contribute to this field of study by assessing one of the earliest cases, the Ley Nacional del Trabajo bill of 1904, and especially the reactions that working-class and leftist organizations developed towards it.4 In the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina was going through a process of accelerated social and economic changes. Closely integrated into the international market as one of the main exporters of agricultural products, the country became an important destination for foreign capital—mainly British—and underwent a rapid process of demographic growth, spurred by European immigration. The social transformations that followed were apparent in the whole country, but especially in its main cities, such as Buenos Aires and Rosario, which experienced the emergence of a concentrated 1 Marcel van der Linden and Richard Price (eds.), The Rise and Development of Collective Labour Law, Bern, Peter Lang, 2000, p. 7. 2 See, among others, José Panettieri, Las primeras leyes obreras, Buenos Aires, CEAL, 1984; Ernesto A. Isuani, Los orígenes conflictivos de la seguridad social argentina, Buenos Aires, CEAL, 1985; Juan Suriano, “El Estado argentino frente a los trabajadores urbanos: política social y represión, 1880-1916”, Anuario, Escuela de Historia, Rosario, n. 14, 1991, pp. 109-136; Eduardo Zimmerman, Los liberales reformistas. La cuestión social en la Argentina, Buenos Aires, Sudamericana, 1995. 3 Jeremy Adelman provided an overall account in Van der Linden and Price’s collective volume. Line Schjolden, Karina Ramacciotti, and Andrés Stagnaro, among others, have addressed the development of occupational accidents jurisprudence. A collective volume put together by Mirta Lobato and Juan Suriano has recently studied the history of labor institutions and their regulations since the creation of the National Department of Labor, in 1907, until the 1950s. Jeremy Adelman, “Labour Law in Twentieth Century Argentina”, in van der Linden and Price, op.cit., pp. 19- 42; Line Schjolden, “Sentencing the Social Question: Court-Made Labour Law in Cases of Occupational Accidents in Argentina, 1900-1915”, Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Feb., 2009), pp. 91-120; Karina Ramacciotti, “De la culpa al seguro. La Ley de Accidentes de Trabajo, Argentina (1915-1955)”, Mundos do Trabalho, vol. 3, n. 5, 2011, pp. 266-284; Andrés Stagnaro, “La Ley de Accidentes del Trabajo y los debates promovidos para la creación de un fuero laboral. Argentina (1904-1946)”, Estudios Sociales, Santa Fe, n. 50, 2016, pp. 111-143; Mirta Lobato and Juan Suriano (eds.), La sociedad del trabajo: las instituciones laborales en la Argentina, 1900-1955, Buenos Aires, Edhasa, 2014. 4 The Ley Nacional del Trabajo is mentioned in almost every historical account of the Argentine labor movement, and specially in those devoted to the building of social legislation, but specific investigations are more scarce. See, among others, José Panettieri, “El Proyecto de Ley Nacional del Trabajo (1904)”, Trabajos y Comunicaciones, n. 13, 1965; Eduardo Martiré, “El proyecto de ley nacional del trabajo a través de la prensa porteña”, Revista de Historia del Derecho, n. 3, 1973; Ricardo Falcón “La relación estado-sindicatos en la política laboral del primer gobierno de Hipólito Yrigoyen”, Estudios Sociales, vol. 10, n. 1, 1996, pp. 75-85; Sandro Olaza Pallero, “El proyecto de Ley Nacional del Trabajo de Joaquín V. González (1904). Un intento de respuesta a la cuestión social”, Aequitas Virtual, vol. 8, n. 22, 2014. There are no works in the existing literature about the reactions of labor organizations towards the bill. 2 Please do not cite or circulate without author’s permission and bellicose working class. Despite the segmentation between skilled and unskilled workers, and notwithstanding the gender, ethnic and cultural divisions of its motley population, different forms of collective organization and action—from mutual benefit societies to trade union federations, from recreational activities to general strikes—contributed to build bonds among all these workers and shaped the politics of the early labor movement.5 Starting in 1888-1889, when the first wave of strikes in Buenos Aires put labor unrest in the center of public attention, the last decade of the 19th century witnessed the development of trade unions and an increasing number of protests against labor conditions. The strikes brought to the fore demands over low wages, extended working days—up to 14 or 16 hours in certain trades—, the persistence of piecework, the employment of children, the unhealthy conditions of factories and workshops, the abundance of occupational accidents, etc. In spite of its important industrial development, by the turn of the century the country had no labor regulations whatsoever—the Civil Code, in force since 1871, lacked specific provisions for labor relations. One of the first specialists in labor legislation was to recall, a couple of years later, that “until 1904, the various violent strikes, most of which took place in the city of Buenos Aires, had not obtained from the Argentine government anything other than police measures”.6 When, in November 1902, the newly created Federación Obrera Argentina—first a common endeavor of socialists and anarchists, later abandoned by the former—called for the first general strike, the government reacted by sending to Congress a bill that authorized the executive branch to expel from the country, without prior judgment, any foreigner considered a danger to the “public order”. The bill was approved in less than 24 hours, becoming the ill-known Ley de Residencia. A year and a half later, in the first months of 1904, the executive branch sent a new bill to Congress. Unlike the Ley de Residencia—less than two pages long, including only five articles—the new project was a very extensive set of rules designed to regulate the labor market, the labor process and —last but not least— also the workers’ organizations. Not surprisingly, as the first attempt of regulating the relations between capital and labor, the bill sparked an important debate not only in the chamber itself but also among the ranks of workers and capitalists alike. Although it was never passed by Congress, the bill became an iconic reference in the history of labor regulations in Argentina. Drawing upon a variety of sources, including the bill itself, parliamentary speeches, contemporary assessments, commercial newspapers and working-class journals, this paper addresses these debates and tensions in order to better understand the reactions of working class organizations with regards to the first attempt of labor regulation made by the Argentine state.