Frundt, Four Models of Cross-Border Organizing

FOUR MODELS OF CROSS-BORDER MAQUILA ORGANIZING

HENRY J. FRUNDT

As corporate globalization has prbgressed in the past decade, U.S. unions have stepped up cross-border organizing. They have tesrerl a varíëïfof T¡esË-meth''cllãiîA öodêil, mõst ñôìably in Cenriai America, MeÍEö;

and thè- CàiibTiéän. Altêï' so-nie hi s toric al and defrnitional comments, this esÈáy vlill êïp1õie the benefits and drawbacks of four models oï-l "North-South" c¡oss-borcler (l otganizing in the maquila industry: ) coa- | litional grganizing; (2) fcderalion- to-federation organizing; (3) itfüq'ã-- | fi-onäÍ åmtãìgn organizìng; and (4) clabdcstiäê iârgèiiñg. lt will rhen _l diSöùSï ðèilâïä'ehâllëägèS tliãf itiodéllljf öiöi s-bóidéT áþþiöaches com- monly encounter; including how to expand the leadership ofwomen and detemine the responsibilities of outside monitors. It will examine how elemehts of the foui models have been combined in two recent cross- border successes; and it will conclude by suggesting how the four models might operate bidirectionally in the maquila and other sectors.

Hisúorical and Defi nitional Cornments

Cross-border organizing expands beyond cross-border communication aíd solidarity io involVe Very speciñC labor rctiöä.-Fói âbtivísÏS'and ¿-- séhólars whó üièrù ðöþóÍãfe glòbálizáiion' in cìâsî-Grms, organizing across borde¡lä-ãìèi1äìrèrñé1äfôi ih;e èTféèävð þiótãðiìôl of workìñg peo-ple everywhere. t,q¡¡sná_!!o'1r3l-,"gqpiry9.,4[4. lqpqi¡qllqlçJêtqs _- éi-:pãnd, Marxist and õönflið-anäl¡jiG na"Ëitrélié¿ itreîmpõ.tance of " p-9r-sp_S9!i:e (e.s., stlh$T_{ils_ 1t-1li,oltq¡,i0le_reqls lq.e, yg,1ld- Boswell 45 4ó HENRY J, FRUNDT FOUR MODELS OF CROS$BORDER MASUILA ORGANIZING 47 and Stevis 1997; Howard 1995). As international social forces become Spalding 1988a, 1988b, 1993). All in all, officiql .U-$,.lab-p-r- çf-[-o.rts '] pronounced, even Durkheimian and functional approaches adopt world- primarily have been correctly dismissed as .se.rvilg- lgtio,.rll igJgie: L.' applicable conccpts for union replication and maintenance (Sturmthal policy, riol uÍteÌjialiõliämñiõij'iätéiëStdl In the 1990¡;wñen U.S. unions 1973). Specific writers about the sociology of work urge unions to aùokii i

utilizing these tactics.3 Another ingredient for success across borders is Four Models of Organizing significant involvement of participants in both countries. Coñsideriñþ thèió fãótois, wä come io a ¡ouþh lefinition of wbat C o alítio nøI O r ganizing ue. 9.9,:hg,"j::q3j?ilg. 9-1qh!_r9lry9r al rãäñ ã *;iì'iîäi iever : In the United States, the first model ofcross-border organizing to emerge l. Organizers from # one country become actively engaged in a on â broad scale involved â variety of organizations in addition to.- ' union's struggle for recognition and contrâct rights in another unions-in what we call coalitional organiTing.ln this approach. rhe I country. construction of alliances on ìhê 6áiis ó't preexisting networks is cspc- ] /' 2, In approaching the struggle, they build on preexisting networks T-he best examplèõf ò-oalifiónäI órg-àTiZüf is associ-'i- and stress membership organizing. "ñiitì;;;;"d-the Coalition for Justice in-.4.1e- lvtegqiLel which was ated with -(çJYI I 3. As well as direct material assistance, active engagement involves formed in rh" i9qq! åffiñnity g_rolp-s, þg {."ìieiôüÀ,'iá¡oi,ãñà i sustained leadership training for worker_related mobilization. iñõlùillñg-tI-e ÃFtrÖTÕl-whñhãûÞiõã-llt-õÏËred-finañò1il"õuþþort / 4. Oryanízing also includes a legal component and the generation Mòôdy11997) fóùrüI iïìeäéitring ttrat the AFL-Clo even worked with of local I support. (There is a fine line in distinguishing cenain religious and community-based âlliances that included non-AFL unions n forms of organizing and certain forms of support assistance that (the-United Electrical Workcrs IUE.lÆrente Auténtico de Trabajadores I hope to clarify). IFAII; and the Canadian Labour Congress [CLC]) The CJM faced a Organizing 5. across borders cultivates intemational support via a formidable task in Mexico since the powerful stâte-affiliated union fed- transnational activist network. erâtion, ihé Còifèderaðión de Tiabajadores Mexicanos (CTM). had of- True cross-border 6. organizing is bidirectional at least to some ten made anangemènts with localcompanies to establish "white" unions degree. that would keep lâD'ol peace but otheiwise prevent an independent worker 7. To the extent that it is successful, organizing achieves not only voice in union and contract âctivities (see Lr Botz 1995.¡. While the core labor rights, but also a sustained union structure. CJM originally emphasized corporate codes, its primary organizirfil i-m!ãG became the convening of border meetingiõ-õllti-inìiruciìon \ ø/ all, cross-border orqllitlng is ,,=" 3.vqry spgçi!.ç. typ-e- of ìntemarional regañ"illiõgal-fr gfiGãnd to àið tñÞElqratión olprotectìveãssocnfiõns \ t/ tnion collaboration that involves di¡ect action to fo¡m unions and win .ii * i ñiñ ìTã r- J collective bargaining -"q,lr{Jlúr !it@" - 7, ionrracrs. and Hoffman, eds. 1999). ' In the past decade, scholars and union pârticipants have begun to The CJM coalition has allowed a diversity of organizing approaches. describe clgss-bo-rdel -oEgni?¡ru 9Ilg1S,.qr-r{ gloups tike the Campaign In the mid-1980s, one (to be) CJM affiliate, the Comité Fronterizo de for LaborRìghtsldlnl navi: arisên-tó pubiicli" tiiém. u.s. un¿ Meii_ Obreras (CFO) of women maquila workers formed a special alliánce can trade unions have leamed thât frontier organizing with counterpart witä the Ãñüìõãn Friends Service Committee's (AFSC'dl MaqüiÏãctõra labor coalitions and fcderations brings success (Alexander and Gilmore P-rtrject iFât óòbãsionáIly-even operä-teõ wìtË-inìrgãñEãEonlâffüì¡ed 1994, 1999; Babson -CTM. in this volumè; Hathaway 2000b; Kamel and -w-im ille The CFO would hold weekly meetings, design educa- Hoffman, eds. 1999). For CentralAmerica and the Caribbean, some rela_ tional training, and recruit action volunteers to work inside plants. The tively precise accounts describe how specific cross_border efforts were volunteers would instruct coworkers on the protections of Mexican law employed in the apparel sector lsee Anner lggglArmbruster t995, 1999; regarding base and overtime pay, eight-hour dâys, maternity leave, and Brooks and Tate 1999; Coats lggt,lgg3,1996; Frundt 1999; Reed and retirement (among other things). Their method was to develop a self- Brandow 1996). In the Latin American maquila sector overall, at least defense position that operated in a gradual. nonthreatening but consis- four approaches \xe to what define as cross-border organizing have tent wây. Working with the CJM, they promoted compâny publication emerged, and we discuss them below, of their standa¡ds of conduct, which incliäèdëlviiòimenìãi frõ-tectìons 50 HENRV J. FRUNDT FOUR MODELS OF CROSS-BORDER MAOUILA ORGANIZING 5I

and basic labor rights, to which workers could appeal (Kamel and ânti-union, or white-union envj¡-onment. In examining "outcomes" of Hoffman, eds. 1999). 'thirty CJM òampaigns, Williams ì899 demonsrrared that high levels of The CFO was also bidirectional. In the early 1990s, it exchanged collabo¡ation among çgql!1i,9n 1q91nþerq.h4v9 won high resulrs, such-as visits with the Tennessêe Reñéwal Network. The exchange informed better wages and working conditions. These are significant accomplish- disgruntled Tennesséé workers and enabled Iaid-off women in Matamoròò mCnts. Nevelheiess, wh;ie òóâiition organizing improves conditions for to win indemnity and file a ôourt claim when they were unjustly fìred. workers, it dòes riofìn ânä oï iisèli ñècôisariiy iesùli iri â súsiàiriãlle CFO counselors advised against early settlements and strategized on únìon. Such a union ðàn foim under rhese condirions. but to survive, ir work stoppages to publicize health violations. In addition ro solidifying often requires the backing of a militant labor federation. understanding and moral support, their efforts gained plant cleânups (Tong pressure 1993). The CFO also helped the local CTM's Sindicato Fe d e ral i o n 4 o- Fe d e rat i o n O r ga n izin g de Joumaleros y Obreros Industriales (SJOI) to gain higher wages for the Matamoros area,¿ In the second organizing model, coalitional relationships continue, blt In another CJM-¡elated action examined by Hathaway (2000a, 8fÐ, the primary organizing impetus cómés ãùèCdy fiom üñió,nC. ltiowever, V-qlq-pIql Yòt_ru1g Clqgq You!þ.(PJO) encountered severe health prob- niote lñãn-!jmït-ç-9.*opêratäig aaoss ã5order, unions õn Foth*fiontîërs lems and anencephalic (òee children traceable to an autotrim plant alsô formalize their association in ordèi to address legal formations ancl bãr- CJM 1999), Thè PiO'i CJMèoniacts leil it ro ai Onrario, Cãnàdä, steel- griiäing üSúês. T[èir àppióàðh i¡-io Aôveioþ a trust ràlátionihç *rãfio- l workers' local confronting a phaseout groups ofits own. The two formed lidifies mèmBiiÊ acröss'thê diVidè. The räodel âlso 6âses iti ielatiòiñ on that an alliance in turn demanded health and safety changes in the offi- preeiiiting riéìwórks [häl haùe originally been "exploited" by each union cial Custom Trim 1997 contract. When the company refused to negoti- federation indepêndently. This leads to rhe formulation ofjoint strategies wólkéïS ate, the PJO Walkèd. TIowever, the plant's corrupt CTM union for organizing ireù unions and contracts that benefit both interests. l" the new signed contract anyway, enabling the company to fire twenty- The first federation-to-federation effort began in agricultúre with the eight PJO and physically activists threaten their families. Just as the Farm Labor Organizing Commiue-e (FL_O.ÇJ jn the l-980F¿rnã was re- PJO/steelworker alliance won labor board ruling on reinstatement, Cus- peated by the Communications Workers of Amerjca ICWA.¡.6 In the tom Trim was sold. Howeve¡ workers filed a successful complaint on ryql¡ili.t-"91-oå1¡lUe*Æ4k.oþúòiátiònbecametnômôsiwäiir¡own health issues with the NAFTA supervising bôard thar required U.S.- and engaging example, as Alexander and Gilmore (1999) and IÌarhaway Mexican ministerial consultations. (2000b) have described. These two federarions were not affiliated with Cross-border coalition organizing also exploits transnational âctivist the major national union confederations, leaving rhem freci of naiional- netwõiks IñT99-7, iõIlõwìñ g Tùõ weeks ofõGâ-nizdd riõiliätõppages"âr istic and bureaucratic constnirìts. They also shared a goal ofsocial movc- á Glvf'þlant, a CJM participant, the Interfaith Center f-or Corporate Re- ment unionism.T (ICCR) and the sponsibility AFSC'blöughl worÈËi-iàpt".êntâtivei to T:-!È/Fnf ..llaborarion began in joint efforts to prevent the pas- cM'ò-ãiñùâl Íieélingto'urge-di6äìöiäön of profitsharing payments. sage õT NAFTA in the early 1 990s. The two federariôns decided to cò- Previously, ICCR advocacy had forcêd GM to set up a housing program operaiivëly aildrëss Mexican companies thar rhe UE had organized in also pressed (Kamel for workers. It for a livin-g wage idÍLAl¡Je and the Unite-d Stales: nolably General Elecrric (cE). Wirh UE guidance, Hoffman, eds, 1999). FAT. w.gq local representationaì elections at GE's Juárez plant. How- Coalition organizing retains advantages. broadens the ¡ certåìn It eveç the alliance faced a counterforce that would be less evident in post_ en-.ì;õrnlåìunîy^ndenvironmental ls¡rilgléörw-oiReirstolnõl[de;fu AiFLD Central America: not only did the state iuhibir the recognition of /,r issuesi aìso mobiiíies fiórñ-ä lárgei-ðoäsiitüéöôy ãäiT it luþþort ãlAs independènt unions, but also the state-affiliated CTM intervened with ordinary peopìe in connecling their concerns a , to class-based move- trumped up raíionaléi tóhave the Mexican labor board disqualify worker At the same time, it operates with particular elfectiveness an þment. in elections that the alliance had wonls 52 HENIIY J. FRUNDT FOUR N,4ODELS OF CROS$BORDER MAAUIL-A ORGANIZING 53

,,gained In the face of such challenges, UE/FAT's GE collaboration violations of Mexico's labor law. It wâs the second time that IIE/FAT some important border organizing experience and dóvelb¡Èd aiiíong hail employed tftii áppiôaËn, tne frrst having ended in dismal failure. relationship" based on mutual respect. It achieved the first secret ballot This time, the alliance mobilized eleven unions which exchanged infor- election in Mexican labor history (Hathaway 2000a, 3). Despite the many mation about problems with Echlin asbestos. They filed a complaint worker firings and failure to reach union status, the,,r"** alliance's social with the NAFTA supervising board in all three countries. movement orientation caused tIE/ FAT membcrs to oü d"Ji;;- TheUE/FAT'sf ederatio¡-to-f.ede$ll,o_l3ppl9.q9hwg-sq!,s,og¡lq¡¡.ely tion loward the struggle." The alljance established the Workers'Center bid irá¿ ii òñî. th; ttnraAräpñióäivo't"i:iJ * oiüói"iðt'ãì e"d"to cifJuárez to cultivate union organizing and leadership. Wcirlers migiated dèepêñ-üiÍilè1éiañdìñE âäd-ùnaéiðüstèìéóiyþôi. .'. ."nán[ liq ¡11q ¡piè ¿ to Juáiez with little knowlédge of economic opportunities, so education toured þlàni.s... wälliêd þicket lines, assistcd organizing drives in workers' rights, organizing, attomey support, and community pro_ (Alcxanàer 1999. l4l ). Visitations by FAT organizers and artisis to ÚE grams on health proved essential. The center also provided a place for election sites in the Midwest helped stimulate local workers to vote. In culture, where workers shared information, mutual support, and ways to 1995, FAl'organizer Robert Valerio, who had been hred from GE Juárez, improve their lives (Hathaway and Robles 1996, llff.). arrived in Milwaukee to assist an fIE organizing drive among Mexican 11 1995, itq energies roward !lQ!{f !r!|lgd -o¡gq¡!zltg rhe less union_ workers at Ace/Co foundry. Valerio calmed workers and responded to resistanr envi¡onment of Mexico City. It inauguiäiäd a aèììãl õüôi-e_ management's anti-union propaganda (Hathaway 2000a, 7).'0 vióiihy efforti in the meial industry. At óñe infamous plant, rhe Echlin Given the lack of bona fide unions in Mexican maquilas, certainly foundry at Itapsa, asbestos; dangerous solvents; faulty machinery; and a the tldÆnT's appióach to building a trust relationship for the Ioñger protective lack of equipment, labeling, and ttaining caused the workers teim makes sense. True, the federation alliance has not demonstrated to demand the right to organize. LÌEIFAT engaged a coalition of seven major success at any specific plant. Despite solid organizing, it has unions that pledged "to organize the thousands of unorganized Echlin faced criticism that it champions unwinable causes or is late in selecr justice workers . . . to bring to their worþlaces and increase our collec_ ing targers.rt However, in constructing ilseifthroug_h preexisring llbör I tive strength" (official statemenr; cited in Hathaway 2000a, 3_4). Ar the and community networks, tlìe alliance has formed a sustainable orga- ] Itapsa plant, the alliance suppofed a drive by three young organizers riìzáticiñâl"bà-se ThãT ìs-Èõisðdiö i:à-ke ãavi¡gf{ 9f.¡a-Jxicô'ipòtentlut f that culminated in a large demonstration on election day. Immediately, oþèänê6S to lfdeþeridenl iâbòi iêdèrations under the Fox government, I the CTM engineered an postponement election and convinced Echlin to wliòT dêIèaiðä-ihe CTM-Iinked päiiidri Reîôluðitináiö lldiilutiohã I frre fifty unionists. Many âccepted severance. yet d the alliance offered (PRl). Alló, ihe IJEIFAT ilitl Þóm¡ine orgãni¿ins rtiih iis üó of ùe strike pay for those resisting. On the new election day, an armed goon NAFTA side agreement to file cases documenting the grossest inequi- 1 guaranteed squad a vote overwhelmingly favorable to the CTM, and the tiês. After its lost election at Echlin, the alliance was much more so- i company threâtened and fired remnant workers. One organizer whom phisticated in mobilizing outside support for its second NAFTA appeal the labor board reinstated was fired a second time because ofCTM in_ and achieved some beneflrcial rulings tAlexander 1999). Kay (2000, (Alexander tervention 1999, 152). 5¡ fourid a silver lining in NAFTA s facilitation of cross-border union 1. The UEÆAT alliance then invoked an intemational campaign, but it alliances. IIE international affairs director Robin Alexander believed in conjunction with a legal straregy ro tesr rhe NAFTA labor side it ironic that NAFTA s only positive contribution our relationship / )-did "o "is J a mukilateral remedy unavailáble ro unions in Central America.e with FAT . . . the UE-FAT Strategic Organizing Ailiancé, an effon to "ìAs-accords, many liavdf6inteð oriilñë-Ni{lrÏA remediès áiô wéakl móìiieci- build a new kind of international relationship focused on organizing ,. sions are advisory. excepr for tftiè âffeCtìng-heaith áncl ôhjld labor (see and also on rank and file solidarity . . a binational partnership ' Albxandei 1999; Alexander r, an¿ Gìimorã tÞS¿; Côok lSqg; Sillèrman (1999,141). The tw,o federatiaqs.l:cooptedll an existing network in a 2000). Even the latter resulted only in ministerial consultation. Howeve¡ way that sustained both federation partners in preparation for the "new" the alliance's hope was gajn to. -trtaliSlB!-caÞqllqjl-9lljver Jbg gross Mexico (see Compa 1999). HENRY FRUNDI 54 J, FOUR MODËLS OF CROSS-BORDER MAOUILA ORGANIZING 55

International CampaiC r, OrCan:1i:C concerned about campus purchasing (see below), to visit DoAll workers. True to form, management abruptly fired about fifleen workers sim- The third U.S. approach to maquila organizing is the internarional cam- ply for speaking to'ihe ôiuilðnis (USAS/NLC 1999). Consulting with paign. This approach has been characreristically adopted by rheNariolral CENTRA, â Salvádoran labor research institute, the Central de Labor Co¡rrnirree (NLC).rlhich esiàbti;hôd â vãlia;; ièio.ã of ò"nirui Trabajadores Salvadorenos (Salvadoran Workers Central) (CTS) labor American union support work during the 1980s. In the 1990s, the NLC federation, and the Independent Monitoring Group ofEl Salvador Grupo made astute use ofrhe technique elucidated by Keck and Sikkink's ( l99g) Monetor Independiente de El Salvador (GMIES), USAS/NLC gathered ,.b9,,o.qre¡3¡1g_l model of transnarional activist solidarity known as thg and forwarded worker testimonies to Liz Claiborne. In October, it ar- I effect. Blocked f¡om reasonable redress by their own gdüèìimäif o: ranged for severàì DoAll workers to tour U.S. campuses. In Nover¡ber, I cal grievãñtÀ òàl iôss à boômeìang by còntacting âóiiviits abroad who thirty-eight workers clandestinely agreed to a union and submitted docu- eiripìô¡l tãriou¡ ç ìóÀòiÈéb to þiéssürê ihe sàmó govémmè;is'(oi tocãi mentation tô the Labor Ministry. Over the subsequent ten days, DoAII co4!,orate af{i!iaæ¡) The àuihors expÌoie how iiansnátional àðúivists terminated all workers it suspected had some involvement. Inìmediately, employ a range ¡ of responses that take advantage of the structural vul- USAS/NLC inauguiated a massive campaign that inspired student fasts nerability ofname brand recognition to benefit local constituencies (see and'ait-iiô âðiõdd..thðUñitêìi Stâtes and Canadã. iii Cliibornã publicly also Anner 1998). Acting on the basis of a local workers' struggle over cornmitted itSêlfto fêSpect lieedom olassociation and to so norify DoAIl. firings or barriers to union formation, the NLC tapped several of these Student ociuÞàtioirS, siìCh as ai the University of Pennsylvania adninis- methods when it mobilized U.S. students, consume¡s, and trade union- tration building, "meânt a lot" to the workers. "They went into negotia- ists to boomerang the parent company ofprotesting workers (see Barlow tions feeling stronger" (USAS/NLC 1999,2). By the second week of and Clark 2001; Ching Yoon Louie 2001; Klein 2000; Ross, ed. 1997). December, NLC called off further escalation and a planned delegatiou. The results have stopped firings and brought union recognition, for ex- In February 2000 the local union won reinstatement of thirty-one work- ample, in El Salvador at Mandarin, a GAP contractor, and DoAll, a pro- ers with 100 percent back pay, no reprisals, and independent monitoring ducer for Liz Claibome. by GMIES. Yet in such a large factory, the campaign for union recogni- .' It was the embârÌassment caused by NLC-led demonstrâtions in front tion may have been prematuie, thereby prevenling formation of an o¡- I of the GAP stores in 1995 thar forced-t-hä óõmpalnt ¡ó.liveîti_o_-i!,s.pode ganization with sufficient clout to negotiate a contract. 'I ofconàuôiãrìd ägiee-tãìnãepenaenr mônitòring iéSð). r¡" uic, vtory 1Þati"e The internatiônal câmpaign model meéts our dôfinition of c¡oss-bor- also bròught a commitment tó gradually iehire fireã workers who der organizin!. Ä loòàI'!ioùþ"of workers ihat dncounters difficulties had gone out on strike. However, the workers were not fully informed obtâining union ièCò'gnitiol requests aid frorir a union-connected about the settlement until after it occurred, and a number of activísts trânsnationâl actor to pressure international companies. In turn, these accepted severance. The action gained recognition for the workers and companie s force local contractors to respect labor laws. W-þilg tþi*p- protected their jobs, ân important accomplishment; but it did not leave proach.is. weak.ojr..1ggql9¡¡:gtqqn"(.leadership development, it does in- ttlg¡,q..,rltgqe...qliot¡-Indeed, Mandarin even set up an'äiièinalä wËite volve worker networks. The campaign model extends beyônd union that remains in place (Anner 1998; Brooks and Tare 1999). intematiónãl soiidarity assistance to offer advice about local strategies In the DoAII case, the NLC conducted its boomerang campaign more and legal approaches. To ân extent, the campaign i¡þj_Qireçlgaqf , as attentively. Since 1992, when the 2,000-strong Korean-owned DoAll wo¡kers from the local area ofconflict tour the United Siätes füIìiFak had begun producing for Liz Claibóme, woikers had engaged in fivê at loöal union rallies. However, the emphasis is on the international net- únóuiãèiifùl àtiempts iô oigânìzô I uìiòn in order ro counier abusive work, not on fonifying local structures. Organizing impetus Iargeiy de- practices.r2 Despite Liz Claibome's promises, each time DoAll would pends on the pressure exerted by transnational actors, more than on what quickly fire potential union leaders.r3 During 1999, the NLC allied wirh occurs on the ground. The campaign's focus is to cultivate international , ¡6e United Students AÊainst Sweatshops (USAS_t,å then emerging group v .. ...Y...... l\nkages de nuevo that are di-rected toward crisis response, When this 5ó HENRY J. FRUNDT IOUR ¡/ODELS OF CROSgBORDER MAAUILA ORGAN¡ZING 57

network is mobilized too quickly-in what has been characterized as culture) to begin an all-out organizing effon in the maquila sector. In the North American "cowboy" approachra-it may actually undermine addition, the organizing approach to which the confederation had be- long-tcrm Iocal membership organizing. come accustôméd wa¡-a "blit¿' of noisy démonstrations designed to Labor groups are hardly the only ones to adopt the campaign ap- coúä publiô opinion and þrevent repression in times of exceeding dan- proach. and (1998) Keck Sikkink analyze a number of other efforts.r5 gei. ITS organizers, who had received their training at the AFL-CIO OI, Yet as Armbruster (2000) points out, none of the pressure methods out- advpcated a more subtle They coached leaders to uno6trù: lined by the 1pp¡9a9h. authors involve on-ground organizing. This is because or- sively move from house to house to identify and contact potential mem- ganizing, if it is to be successful, must take primary impetus from the bers and to gradually increase membership numbers to appropriate local situation, that is, in this case, the in-plant and community experi- strength for negotìations (see Armbruster 1999; Johns 1998 on PVH). ences of workers. When it is nor used in combination with other models, ITS târgeting also employed international pressure that US/LEAP intemational campaign organizing can lead to mìsunderstandings and a coordinated with on-ground action. Corporate and government intransi- weakly organized -fronl local union. gence motivated local union membé¡S tõ Sèêk aSSìätãäòë this trânsnationàl netwôrk -:-for exãmple, whèn the Guàtenialàä lâbôi-min- -ìsiCi C lan d e s tí: ra r s i s_ : ! | ! iéifùÁed lô iuiè on a union petition at PVlVCamisas Modernas. Leafletters fanned out across the United States to educate consumers of The fourth approach . to cross-border organizing places much more weight the Guatemalan and PVH double standard. But the target strategy sub- I on local mobilization. The vision of those seleciing ttìè fârger iitä iist ordinated the intemational campaign to the actjvitjes on the groundì irrÉánìzäôä lË;t ãì a modet aird ihen expand iñât to otn", Thé ðländêSfinê-aäiÈéiing-ãÈÈiôäèh àlao brought some success in the ; faòiories in.rhe sèèrioi:,ú'Thìs áÞÞrdaöh ofren bëBih.i "*árí¡iè bt i4i{n¿¡pg-Ègì a Dominicrn lìepublic and Honduras. f n the Dominican Republic, effCc- toCirt fêaeiation; 7 ii lhãn devotes more attention than the international tive tar!êt stratèþies by thëFedëräôìóì Nacional de Trabajadores de Zonas cãrirpaign appioacli ] ió õieäting ìeäms thar engage in clandeiine on- (PN4IB4Z.8NAS) the Union of Needletrades' IndustriâI, and Tex- gròuñd teâdcrship I deüêtòþmênt anci the qüidi föitifitärion of a wôrkerì' tiie Employees (UNITE), and the ITCL'WF in the Dominican Republic I rhe l99a!. siràtegy'ß to-dËn-etõp'â ìãdie ó-f iùffìðiónì;Ë ;i órit-i; during the 1990i ëðtáblishèd a basis for sector organizing (Frundt 1998, Íóim a union, usually not a high numerical threshold, but also to suc- 1999). In 2000, four factory unions in the Bonao free zone combined cessfully demând contiãct negotiations, a much higher threshold. Al- forces to win the first zonewide bargaining agreement. Aided by ACILS, thõrìgh äijt íris álùays stiàiôgicaily idenrified, the targei ãpþroach does FENATRAZONAS trained its entire leadership and hired seven full- depend on preexisting sociâl networks among workers, w¡o inémiälves time organizers to pursue similar agreements in other free trade zones. tap irìto cômmunìty and Èloocl rélaiions tò expána irreiiiiuii-based as- Followíng unionization at Kimi in Honduras, Yoo Yang became the sociations.rT An ITS, the International Textile, Garment, and Leather next textile union to win rccognition in the antilabor Continentàl Park Workers Federation (ITGLIVF,*or its Latin arm, FITTIV), has recently Trade 7one. Organizers approached Yoo Yan! utilizing similar clandes- adopted this approach, often assistance with from the U.S. Labor Educa- tine techniques as they had at Kimi, quietly cultivating well-trained lead- (US,{-EAP.¡. tion in the Americas Project So has the AFL-CIO-sponsored ers and a supportive cadre. Howeve¡ after union elections in August center thât ieÞlacedAIFLD afrer rhe federation's teáãêñËipÌÌiäÈà-rif in 1999, management fired the executive committee. Workers then refused I e9'sr:iñlðÀm#can .Ëñ"' ro. rnt"fqej5,_llql!qqoj!9Lù.rtl(Aç&!) to wo"rk, demanding that the leade¡s be rehired. Finally, after another The ñôia-tile first ¿ases-óT ta;get orãa-nizi!ß were at PhilJþìSn strike, the compâny relented. In March 2000, Yoo Yang recognized the Heusen (PVH) in Guatemala, Bönang/Bonahan in the Dóminican Re- union and made a commitment to negotiate. public, and in Kimi Honduras, as I have illusrrâted elsewhere (Frundt The ITS organizing effort went a step further, demanding that Yoo 1999): All three textile plants had some contâct with a major national vnqeyg!_":Lþ_g{9_t14lft1algl-199!gllnlgl"rheHonduran confede¡ation, but that confederation did not have the resources (or sub- Labor Ministry denied this request. When workers applied for protec- 58 HÊNRY J. FRUNDI FOUR MODELS OF CROSgBORDER MASUILA ORGANIZING 59

tive factory union stâtus, members of the union executive conìmittee advantage of preexisting, broader networks that give it a staying power were reportedly bribed to resign. The resilient workers chose new lead_ even when'officìal union Struètùies cannot furiction, but it does not al- ership and negotiated a sequel agreement wirh management. lt took fur_ ways have the legal clout to accomplish organizational objectives. Fed- ther intemational pressure to assure govemment recognition (US/LEAp eration collaboration better achieves such objectives but may lack the 2000c), and negoriations moved forward in spring 2001. breadth of community supþort. It can sustain setbacks in individual Thr.l ( l!: gi1l9:rtine largeting apprgach has achieved suc_cessJn each struggles and is the most bidirectional of all the models but so far has case, workers \ gained i.rnion reioþnition and also won a iontract. How_ not yet won many contracts. The international campaign is most effec- cver, ITS organizers a \ did encounter ä majór snag ii thè rarger model: afrer tive at prÈssuring name brand companies and thereby providing work- about ,þ] eiehteen monrhs, larger ðorporaté maneuvers ofiên ábrupilylahed ers with some remedy, but it does not necessarily strengthen local ' key victories. In ' Guaremalà ând Honduras, the pàrent compänies termi_ structures. The target approach has a much more developed strategy for orderi ànd subconrracred theii I þted work elsewhere. Amibrustei t )000¡ leadership development and cadre maintenance, but it is more vulner- part pVÈ lãtrributes ofthe failure at to insumðiåniunion leadership devel_ able to the maneuverings of corporate power. and the lack ..ropment ofongoing organizing within the local. However, the Ofcourse, as I have implied elsewhere (Frundt 1999), the most effec- power of corporations to underminc union structures at a single plant re_ tive cross-border organizing requires a combinatìon of these aspects r. mains the primary p\¡LVòamisas / factor Evidence suggests rhat in the gut befòrè we cónsider how they cari effectively interáct, we need iõl case, the shift of production L to nonunionized plants nearby had been pre- consider tw_o._dilemm$_ appropriate use of lþg! 3Il- i-9!I-!Lo!9b-face: I conceived by PVH and the Guatemalan maquila sector leadership isee independent nön-itori"ng and sensitivity to consifgratlgng of gender. .-l also US/LEAP 2000b). In the Kimi case, following several widely publi_ cized local disputes, the Korean management decided to close and shift Common Challenges and Examples of Model Integration production to a nonunion Guatemalan plant even though J.C. penney had agreed to maintain orders in Honduras (US/LEAp 2000a). Thirteen U.S. In addition to their strengths ând weaknesses, organizing models all share and Canadian unions and nonprofit organizations conrmitted themselves here, the of certain challenges. Of those considcred Jqle -o¡1¡id9 ry¡gA- to "follo.,'/ to Kimi Guâtémala" and to,,work vigorously to persuade Kimi tors.ha-s received increasing attention due to the exiiting revival of stu- to re-open irs unionized factory ín Honduras" (US/LEAP )000b). How_ dent interest in labor issues. Maquila hiring pattems hâve also forced ever, Kimi changed its name to Duke Company, Inc., and the pursuit of its trade unionists to become more attentive to the role of women in the university appârel conrracts proved illusive (see US/LEAP 2001). organizing process. The ITS target model has achieved greater success. in.creating.a solid Iocal union than has the intemational campaign model. In Guatemala, I n d epe nde nl Mo nitoring the Dominican Republic, and Honduras, wàrk-ers experienced the real- ity of thcir power, a perhaps memory that does not lightly disappear for As indicated above, the concept of-outside.91.!!-d,9pqnC.pl,!. mo¡.!¡-oling that reason, however, the model is mo¡e vulnerable in.the shor.t term to first gained prominence in-conjunction \¡vith the NLC-GAP qccgrd 9¡ companies canceling their production contracts tã prevent the model,s Mán¿â¡n jri isós. 'lñ1ìê Ñtöìñsisted that company ôompliance with its eiÞansion. Thè aþproach may pay off, aS in rhe Dóininiian Republic, .where dwñ ðmplõtèe ¿òde re{uìred the transparency of independent monitor- its iráinéd órganizers move among other maquilas and select more ing. Typically, an independent monitoring group would be constituted targets. Nevertheless, the target app_rq$!ì $i!9s--q¡¡-q.s-tlo_11g.{_o-t t}q,.s__e_lryho by liuman rights representatives, university officials, religious and com- seek to prglegt. jobs. gmplötðe I! leaves begging certãin-'ãnswers fo. munity leaders, and so forth. When GAP agreed to this, NLC director ryþt else is required for organizing success. Charles Kemighan proclaimed a "sea change" in company-maquila re- - Each of the fou¡ models of cross-border organizing we have consid_ lations. In El Salvador, the GAP agreement led to the creation of the strengths and *, weaknesses. The coalitional approach takes best oùtside monitoring group GEMHL FoT the Kimi plant in Houndrâs, a --:*O óO HENRY J, FRUNDT FOUR MODETS OF CROSS-BORDER MAQUILA ORGANIZING óì

group simtlar was formed out of the Commission for Human Rights role in each of the four models of organizing considered abovj (see (CODEH). COVERCO "u.- monitored Liz Claiborne plants in Guatemala. BõnacËFet al.;eds f994-;D-ü-nn i996i Needleman 1998; Safa 1995). In Mexico outside monitoring was often done informally by community First, consider that in maquilas, women constitute the majority of the groups such as the cFo. wijrkfóiöo;-Thìs-i'nêãñT. ihál ôigàniZéll rärìÁï ¿rjvriié-mòiò áti"ntlon iò After the emergence of the white House=!4i1!¡red Fa!¡ L_ 4þo¡ As_s-q__. ifóiñèi'l ðõñèèms. In iliè'þast, women-còúld gain oniy iempôiary work ciatiòn (FLA) 1n i997,.¡llauiry officials quìckly set up theiiown out- status duè io fanüiy ólligations, making them less likely to form unions. Siile price monitoring systems, employing for-profit firms like They also received less education about their rights and capabilities. How- Waterhouse (Cneenhouse 2000). In addition to their particular biases ever, this is changing, as ITS, ACILS, and local organizers have recog- and se'Ciecy, ih_"-q-".e99-q-'u_qtingl_r,¡¡¡ ¡-qpq9-se,¡¡!4¡j.vp-q.^o-t-e-n--bad,littlçjdea nized. Clandestine models of organizing are often more women-friendly about whât constituted worker rights, much less how to meâsure them, and build on wonien-molded netwoikS. Co?rlitióri órgairi2efS also uddÞr- arid.iòùfiäêly^itelivêièô lòõãf ijÈil6 ä ¿lèän'bilf óf hêài¡h. Hówever, be- stand thê ádvantàged Òf gender-grounded collaborations, such as along gihniÌig in 1998, òollðgê studèlts became increâsingiy i;réresred in veri- the Rio Grande, that clo not résult in immediate union form¿rtions. In ad- fying that universityìicensed products were "sweatshop free."As college vocating fe.mìniit-baséd organizing, Kamel t 1990) exploredhow kr Mujer delegations discovered gross discrepancies between company codes and Obrèra (it t:ordéi oiganization for working women) was instrumental in contractor compliance, the mushrooming USAS protested on many cam- training women to demand that local companies post personnel policies puses against ind_u¡1ry,coqtrol!9{ FLA m9nl1,gring. It urged adoption of to which they could thgl appeal, even though they feared organizing a móie ägóiôus môüiiòiing piôóeáureJ ãna ôieated the Workers nights di¡ect union. Kamel and Hoffman's 1999 volume and the AFSC efforts (WRC) Consortium to achieve this. The student-led WRÖ fo-iõëä ìõã- offer more examples. Hill (1997) describes how the Support Team Inter- paiìéf iéfl-iqg lõ-iÍió cotlegiate market ro disclose the location of their national forTextilers (STITCH) created a maquila support network among suppliers. In tum, this enabled organizers to quickly contact local worker Guaternalan women. In the models above, federation and target organiz- networks facing incipient struggles. ing became notably sensitive to gender considerations. Community-based independent monitors can certainly play a positive role because they offer a more objective appraisaì of actual working Model Combinations conditions, as well as pertinent legal issues. Nevertheless, whether they are community- or corporate-based, independent monitors leave certain Keeping in mind the nuances of independent monitoring and gender- theoretical practical and problems unresolved. If independêniñònitors related organizing approaches, let us now consider how the four orga- replàcé whãf uriïdns ä¡è ôöriöèÞiüãllt cidaidêdi be-workers negori- nizing models might be effectively combined. Here, wë have'leiîöùîio ating their terms and conditions-what does that impìy for the collec- l5tm ãs revea-vea,léd 5y'Ño iliuiliaiive èiamþies. The first is that of the tive process? bargaining On the one häñä, âi the modèl of coàliiional Nicaraguan Confederation of Textile Workers (CTC), an ITGLIVF af- ¿/ oiEàäiziriB dèinôridtràtôs, ôihèr organizarional forms can arise to medi- fi ïitaó-lhatãõoptddïõ;IiTlonãI-tlp¡óáCtiìJo-rgãnìãngbutincluded ate worker--employer relations. But on the other hand, as a practical elements from. targeting and the intemational campaign. The second is matter, independent monitors must specify who will be the final deter- that of the Sindicato de Trabajadores de Empresa Mexmode Intemacional minant of certain local conditions. If ILO conventions are to be hon- de Mé.r_i_co_(S_ITE\{I\!). a,union from Atlixco, Puebla, that combined ored, this must be the local union. on-g"round action with USAS support. Women as Unìonicls erc\ ) --Í)et¿ils A Àéiónd issue revolves around appropriate adaptâtions for gender in ofthe CTC struggle illustrate the tensions of cross-bo¡{g¡4gCel the design of cross-bo¡der organizing. Gender relationi. Èl¿tj_lii(d_9lr elements overcoming ãMutut" anci siuió óuii".rer, fft" CfC "orpo.âte ó2 HËNRY J, FRUNDT FOUR MODELS OF CROSgBORDER MAOUILA ORGANIZING ó3

origìnated under Sandinista rule, which promoted trade unionism, and of the student-created WRC. By September 2000, the U.S. owner of Mil the confôdeiaiíön wäs'Cioièìy ãttied to rhe stare. Afrer rhe Sandinista Colores was ready to recognize the union and engage in good faith ne- deféat in 1990, Sandinisia-related unions experienced external and in- gotiations despite contrary pressure from Las Me¡cedes zone owners. temal turmoil as they sirúght ân iiúdependêiìt role (soe O'Kane 1994; Howeve¡ Chentex proved intractable. Stahler-Sholk 1995), Following trade union divisions in 1996, Pedro In an unusiiáliy coordinated response, the CLR, the ITGL\{F, Nica- Ortega remained a g.ltglg Sqlq.ilille te¡!¡l-g lllol l91der. Ortega's lead- ragua Network, Witness for Peace, NLC, Resouice Center for the Ameri- erÈhip offers insight on how specific plant organizing depends on both a cas, USAS, and US/LEAP inaugurared an action plan and supporrive strong federation and international action, Ortega maintained a clear leaflet carnpaign. The NLC did presswork; CLR and USAS mobilized position about independent clândestine organizing, which helpód the 1ó pickets; various unions helped with resources; US/LEAP facilitated strat- de aþòsìo uiìi

By January 2001, the CTC had reached an agreement with Nien Hsing allowing publicity to trump organizing, the campaign representative Lucas Huana to reinstate two fired union leaders (out of did not clearly delineate responsibilities for research ànd legal actiJn. nine), distribute severance to the others, and rehire about eighty of the The example,s last phase overly relied on the intemationaicampaign fired workers over a two-month period. Howeve¡ the eighty union-se- model, yet its organizing base persisted. Despite many obstacles jthe-mo

he also recognizes that such partnerships are "extremely difficult to de- and in any case did not involve direct cross-border work (see Levinson l9?2). velop and maintain." He cites among the obstacles the language, cul- 2. These include formation of a represenrative committee (and percentage of ture, trust, weak communicâtion structùre, differing priorities, and workers on the comnittee), percentage receiving house calls (and whether¡ank and frle did them), number of small-group meetings, percentage surveyed one-on-one, intemal divisions (in north and south). "The apparel sector, with its highly establishment of a ba¡gaining commiuee bcfo¡e election, solidarity days, rallies,job mobile capital" is also "notoriously difhcult to organize." This will be actions, community coalitions, and rnedia. achieved only by a sustained bidirectional commitment over the long 3. Despite legitimare c ticisms of OI approaches (see Early 1998), insritute term that brings together the many groups involved. gaduates did leam the principles of membership-based organizing as summarized by Nissen (1998), In addition to bidirectionality, other aspects of the four models can 4, Crav?y (1998, 48) demonstrates the borde¡'s large historical differences in certainly be applied to auto manufacturing, food processing, metalwork- unionization rates and wages, with Matamoros and Reynosa doing the best. ing, and telecommunications (among other areas). In the twenty-first 5. In 1986, when the FLOC was negoriaring with Campbell's Soup, rhe com- century, the United Food and Commercial Workers has stepped up its pany wamed it \ryould shift growing operations to Mexico. FLOC leader Baldemar Velasquez contacted the Mexican union representing Campbell's workers and cross-border contacts in Lâtin America, just as the United Auto Workers fomed a bargaining alliance that at minimum led to aphase-in wage parity agreement (UAW), CWA, the and United Mineworkers, and FLOC have done. Each an imrnigratìon sponsorship program (Alexander and Gìlmore 1994). sector will also confront tensions about when to build on the intema- ó, The C'ffA was actually inspired to begin c¡oss-border fede¡ation organizing tional campaign and when to wait for clandestine târget organizing to by its Canadian counte¡paf in the CLC concem€d aboutAir Canada,s threat to shift its ticket ¡eseryation phone tâke hold to assure â contract. Each sector must also explore relations system to New Jersey. A few years later, U.S. airlines sought to send U.S. reservation acfiviries to Canada, The CWA, Teamsters, and with community groups, especially as they involve environmental and Transport and General Workers Union-UK (TGWU) in Britairl establislìed a v/o¡k- women's issues. Some may daringly ventùre to formalize a federation- sharing agreement: rese¡vations made in each country were considered the work of to-federation organizing alliance, taking lessons from LIE/FAL In all the unionized workers in thatcoun[y, Membe¡s would ¡efuse calls f¡om each other's countries in sectors, workers must be trained on how to understand and use corpo- case of rerouting. ln 1989, the CWA ând CLC also formed a broad internarional coalition thatincluded theMexican Telecommunicatìons Union. CWA râte codes. One new cross-bo¡der strategy that emerged from the com- set up a cross-border organizing school. Bur when U.S. Sprint's Spanish-languagc bination of models in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala is a common workers attempted to join CWA, the company shur down its Spanish servicc. The effort to convince NorthAmerican jobber clients to produce or put work Telecom wo¡ke¡s filed a complaint in Mexico under the NAFTA side accords that into unionized factories in Mexico and Central America. This could lead ultimately gained ministerial co¡rsultations. Telecom pressured to keep Sprìnt our of Mexico (Cohen and Early 1999; Moody to a worker-supervised global "union" label that would have profound 1997), 7. FAT, which began in 1960 under Catholic sponsorship, found its nerwork implications for intemational campaigns. among a wo¡king-class Cfuistian youth g¡oup in Leótr. The UE grew as a ¡adical We have examined four models of cross-border organizing and their CIO union in the 1930s. Besides sûessing the freedom to organize and self-manage combinations that are being tested in the Latin Ame¡ican maquila sec- (autogestión),botl\ groups are fiercely indcpendentfrom political parties and corporations. The two "federations" are also relatively tor. Each model has strengths and weaknesses that can be complemen- small and iconoclastic, wielding poweÌ and influence greater tha¡ì their numbers (Hathaway and Robles 1996). l het tary when grounded in on-ground worker struggle. are Ifunions to mount also exemplify "social movcment unionism," as Robinson explores irì this volume, a forceful response to unrestrâined corporate globalization, they must 8. The CTM has often worked against genuine union interests, such as signing further pursue these models in other sectors ând develop greater skill in management "protection cont¡acts" to prevgnt workor dissent (see La Botz 1995). handling independent monitoring, gender relations, and bidirectionality. One major example was the CTM's intervention to prevent recognition by Hyundai and theMexican labor boa¡d ofa rwice-elected FATafliliare (Alexande¡ and Gilmore r999). Notcs 9. The African/Carjbbean trade initiative does contaìn ce¡tain labor rights pro- visions, but they are still unilateral, in line with mechanisms in the Gcne¡al Sysfem L Eduardo Diaz of the U.S. Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone lTS, hopes to ofheferences (see Frundt 1998). "refocus secretariats away from meetings and resolutions" (cited in Alexande¡ and I0. Thc Teamsters asked FAT organizer Jorge Robles to mobilize the mainly Gilmore 1994, 47), In the 1970s, some food sector and metalworker unions formed Mexican f¡uit pickers and packers in Washington state. Robles foundTeamster straG joint councils for specihc companies (Unilever, Nesrle), but these were exceptions egy and vertical decision-making confusing, but he stuck with it (Hathaway 2O0Oa), 70 HENRY J, FRUNDI FOUR NIODELS OT CROSS-BORDER MAQUII-A ORGANIZING 7'I

I l. One case that deserves a full and careful analysis is the lost mid-2OOO elec- Alexander, Robin. 1999. "Experience and Reflecrions on the Use of the NAALC," tion at the Duro paperbag company privately-owned in Tarnaulipas, a U.S. firm that Memorias: Encuentro trinacional de laborãl¡stas dcmocráticos. Mexico,D.F.: produces for Hallmark and (see Neiman Ma¡cus CJMAlert, "Gangste¡ Union Wins Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Móxico. in Rio Bravo," March 6,2001). Alexander, Robin, and Peter Gilmore. 1994. "The Emergence ofCross-Bo¡der Soli- 12. After a 1996 documentary by rhe Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Fifth datity;' NAACU Report or the Americas 28, I (JaDuary-Febptary):4248. Estate, the company had pledged an end to abuses. 1999. "A Strategic Organizing Alliance Ac¡oss Borders," In Tillman and 13. Liz Claiborne is cochai¡ of the Fair Labor Association, which ostensibly Cummings, eds., pp .267 -27 5. recognizes the right to unionize. The company publicizes an employee code ofcon- Anner, Mark. 1998. "Transnational Campaigns to Defend Labor Rights in Export duct, but few Salvado¡an worke¡s have any knowledge -. of it (USAS/NLC 1999, 6). Processing Plants in El Salvado¡, Honduras, Guaternala and Haiti." Paper pre- 14, As discussed at the Clean Clothes Campaign confcrence, Barcelona, Spain, sented at the Latin American Studies Association Twenty-First International Ma¡ch 2001. Congress, Chicago, S eptembet 24-f,6. 15. Despite the autlìors' familiarity with un¡ons, they do not closely analyze local Armbruster, Ralph. 1995. "Cross-National Labor Organizing Sttatelies." Critical ùnion attempts to toss boomerangs at resistant state agencies ot corporate affiliates. Sociology 21,2:75-89. 16, There may be parallels here to "hot shop" organizing, criticiz€d by Lemer (1998) "Globalization and C¡oss-Border Labor Orgaùizing: The Gùarerl]a- as insufÍiciently broad; but in nonunionized repressive conditions, some organizers be- lan Maquiladora Indusûy and the Phillips-Van lleusen Wo¡kers' Movement." lieve that identifying a taryet is the best approach ro that goal (Fieldman 1999), Itttin Americarr Perspectives 26,21 lO8-I28. 17. In addition to membership-based ( -.1999, organizing, discussed by Early 1998) and 2000. "Globalization and Cross-Borde¡ Labor: Organizing in the Ameri- (1998), Nissen anth¡opologists have identified the significance of comrnunity ner- cas: The Phillips-Van Heusen Campaìgn, the Bartle in Seaule, and Beyond." works in other contexts, for example, Green (1999) in Guatemala. -. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Associarion Twenty-Second In- 18. Since it takes two unions to request industrial union status, the Kimi union ternational Congress, Miarni, March 1G18, created a separate to join the entity request. In March 2000 the Honduran labor Armstrong, Robert, HankFrundt, Flobart Spalding, and Sean Sweeney. 1987. "Work- minister ruled this st¡ategy illegal. The union appealed this decision, as it also pur- ing Against Us: AIFLD and the Irtematio¡ìal Policy of rhe AFL-CIO." New sued factory union status. York: NAACLA. 19. Between January and June 2000, Mil Colores fired 200; Chentex fired 9 Ba¡low, Maude, and Tony Clark. 2001. 6lobal Showdown,'loronto: Stoddart. union leaders in addition to 700 workers; Jem III fi¡ed 100; Chi Hsing fired 2 union Barry, Tom. 1996. "Labor Bosses on Foreign Turf." D etnctcracy Backgrotørder2, L leaders and canceled the union's registration. The local textile federation drew on a (February). ûansnational activist network thar encompassod the CLR, NLC, Nicaragua Net- Barry, Tom, and Deb P¡eusch. 1990. AIFLD in latin Ameüca: Agents as Organiz- work, Quixote Center/Quest for Peace, Tecnica, Upper West Side/Tipitâpa Sister ers. Albuquerque, NM: Resource Canter. City Project, US/LEAP, and others. Bonacicb, Edna et al., eds. 1994. Global Productio¡t: 'l'he Apparel Industry in the 20. Inspired by a New YorkTimes report, December 3, 2000 (see CLR 20Ola), Pacific Rim. Phlladelphia: Temple University Press. 21. On January 25 and 26,2001, USAS circulared University Wire press ac- Boswell, Teüy, and Dirniuis Stevis. 199?. "Globalization aDd lnternational Labor from the counts University of Washington, Georgetown, University of Wisconsin, Organizing: A World-System Perspective ." Work and Occupations 24,3. of Michigan, University University of Iowa, University of North CaroÌina, Brown Bronfenbrenne¡, Kate, et al., eds. 1998, Organizing to Win. lthaca, NYI Comell University, Oklahoma State, and the University of Caìifomia, Los Angeles, among Universìty Prçss, others. Bronfenbrenne¡, Kate, and'Iom Juravich. 1998. "It Takes More than House Calls: 22, The UEÆAT alliance teamed with CJM and the CLR ro demand recognition Organizing to Win with a Comprehensìve Union-Building Srraregy." In for the union at Congleadora del Rio, whìch ships to Smucker's. US/LEAP ananged Bronfenbre¡lner et al., eds., pp. l9-36. for Guatemalan unionists to poìlltry organize Central Amerjcan workers in the United Brooks, Ethel, and Vy'inifred Tate. 1999. "After the Wars: Cross-Border Organizing States under Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store lvorkers Union (RVr'DSU) in Central America." NAACLA Report on the Americas 32, 4 (January-Febru- and United Food and Comrnercial Worke¡s Union (IIFCW) auspices. aty):32-37. 23, Community-based organizirìg can also exhìbit bidirectionality such as Chìng Yoort Louie, Mäam.20OL Sweatshop Wat.riors. Bostor: South End P¡ess. I{athaway (2000a) demonstrated in the environmentâl outcomes su ounding the CJM (Coalition for Justice in the Maquilatloras). 1999. "'Someone Has to Stop lost st¡ike at Cananea coppe¡. This': Testimony of an Autotrin Worker in Matamoros." In Kamel and I Ioffman, eds., pp. 45-47. Referenccs CLR (Campaign for Labor Rights). 2001 a. RapidAction NetworkAIert. Feb aty9. .2Q0lb. Rapid Action Network Ale¡:r. March l. Alcalde Justiniani, A¡turo. 2001. "Opinion Regarding the Case of Kuk Dong Inter- ..--...... -.2001c, Iabor Alert. April6. national." January 30. Ltbor Alen. May ll. -.20rOld. HENRY J. FRUNDT 72 FOUR MODELS OF CROS$BORDER MAOUILA ORGANIZING 73

Coats, Stephen. 1991. "Phillips-Van Heùscn rworkers Organize.,' Reporl on Guate- Comparative Cases," Paper presented at the Latin AmericaD Studies Association mala 12,4 (V.linter). ¡¡Maquila Twenty-Second lntemational Congress, Miami, March l6-18. 1993. Workers Campaignl Success Raises Questions.,' lReport on AU¡es Across the Bord.er: Mexico's Authent¡c labor FD¡rl. Cam- Gualemala 14, 2 (Sununer). (Taking bridge, MA: South End P¡ess. 1996. on Phillips-Van -. Heusen: Maquila Workers Fight for a Con- Hathaway, Dale 4., and Jorge Robles. 1996. "The FAT and the Workers'Center of tract." Report on -,2OO0b. Guatemala 17, 4 (Winter). Juárez." PittsburBh: United Electrical Worke¡s. 1998. "Reflections on the Issue of Independent Monitoring,,' Washington, -. Hill, Jennifer, 199?, "Guatemaìa: Stitching Solida¡ity." OJT Our Backs27,3 (Much): DC: Campaign for Labor Rights. 10- I l. Forthcoming, "Centlal America Labo¡ -. Solidarity: Lessons for Activists?,, Howard, Andrew. 1995, "Global Capital and Labor Intemationalism in Compara- ln Orgaúz.ing Globali\ation, eÀ.Unlted a for for Fai¡ EcoDomy. live Historical Perspectiver A Marxist Analysis," ,Soclological Inquiry 64,3/41 -.Cohen, Larry, and Steve Early. 1999. "Defending Vr'orkers'Rights in the New Glo- 365-394. bal Economy: The CWA Experience," In Nissen, ed. ILRF. 2001, "Report to Universities Affilìated wìth FILA Regarding the Kuk Dong Compa, Lance. 1999. "The No¡th American Agreement on Labor Cooperation International Conflict in Axtlico, Puebla, Mexico." January 25. and International Labor Solidarity." Memorias: Encuentro trinac¡onal de Johns, R€beccaA. 1998. "Bridging the Gap Betweeû Class and Space: U.S. Worker laborqlistas democrdfico,r. Mexico, D.F.; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Solidarity with Guatenala," EconomÌc Geography74,3 (Juty): 252ff, México. Kamel, Rachael. 1990. The Global Factory. Philadelphia: American Friends Ser- Compa, Lance, and Stephen F Diamond, 1996. Humøn R¡ghts, Labor Ríghts and vice Committee. Iùternationq.l Trude. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, Kamel, Rachael, and Anya Hoffman, eds. 1999.The MaquíIadoru Reader: Cross- Cook, Ma¡ia "Trends Lorena. l999. in Research on Latin American Labor and In- Bord.er Organizing Since NAFTA. Philadelphia: American Friends Service dustrial Relations." l,¿r tin Americaù Research Revíew 34,1:237-255. Cornmittee. Cravey, Altha J. 1998. Women and Work in Mexíco's Maquiladoras,Lanham,lvD: Kay, Tamara. 2000. "A Conceptual Frarnework for Analyzìng 'Labor Relations' in a Rowman and Littlefield. PosTNAFIA Era." Paper preseDted at the Latin American Studies Associarion Davis, Terry. 1995. "Cross-Bo¡der Labor Organizing ComcsHome," Løbor Research Twenty-Second Intemational Congress, Miami, March 1G18, Review 23: 23-29 . Keck, Margaret, and Katlùyn Sikknk. 1998. Activísts Beyo¿d Bord¿rs. Irhaca, NY: De Erick, Diaz Xolo, Ivan Kuh Dong (Mexmode strike leader). 2001, Signed state- Cornell Urìversity Press. ment, reproduced byEdc Brackken, United Studen6Againsr Swearshops (USAS) Klein, Naomi. 2000. No Space, No ChoÌ.ce, No Jobs, No Logo. New Yo¡k: Picador. listserve. February 16. La Botz, Dan. 1995. Democracy ín Mexico; Peasant RebeLlion and PoliticclL Rc- Dunn, Leith L. 1996. "Women Organizing for Change in Caribbean F¡ee Zones." In þrai, Boston: South End P¡ess. Confronl¡ng State, CapitaL and Patriarchy, ed Amrita Chhachhi and Renee Pittin, Lemer, Steven. 1998. "Tâking the Offensive, Tumìng the Tide," In Mantsios, ed,, New York: St. Maftin's Press. pp, 69-81. Early, Steve. 1998. "Membership-Based Organizing," ID Mantsios, pp. ed., 82- l03. Levinson, Charles. L972. IntematiotalTrade Unionistn.Lor,don: Allen and Unwin. Fieldman, Bruce (organizer with ITGLWF). 1999. lnterview with author. Mantsios, Gregory, ed,. 1998, A New labor Movement the New Century. New Figueroa, Hector J. 1998. "Intemational for Labor Solidadty in an Era of Global Com- York: Monthly Review P¡ess. petition." In Mantsios, ed., pp,305-319. Moody, Kim. 1997.Workers h a Le¿¡¡ l,lzorld, I-ondon: Ve¡so. Freeman, Jo. 1983. Socìal Movements of the Sixtìes and Sevcnt¡es, New Yorki Needleman, Ruth, 1998. "Building Relationships for the Long llauì: Unions and Longman's. Community-Based Groups Working Together to Organìze Low-Wage Workers." Frundt, Henry J. 1996. "Trade and C¡oss-Borde¡ Labor Sharegies iû the Americas." In Bronfenb¡enner et al., eds., pp. 7l-86, Economìc and Industríal Democracy 17, 3 (August). Nissen, Brucc. 1998. "Utilizing the Mernbership to Organize the Unorganized." In Trade Conditions and Labor Rightsr U,S. Initíatíves, Dominìcan and Bronfenbrenner et al., pp, 135-149. Central Americon Rerpor¡s¿J. Gainesviller University Press of Florida, (Cross-Bo¡de¡ I999, Alliances io the Era of Globalizarion." In Tillman and 1999, "Cross Border Organizing -,1998, in Apparel: Lessons f¡om the Caribbean Cummings, eds., pp. 239-254. and Cent¡al America. L.1bot Studíes Journal 24, I (Spring): 89-106. ed. 1999. Which Direction for Orgønízed Labor? Deúoit'. Wayne Srate G¡een, Linda. 1999. Fear as a Way o/¿¡Ê. New York: -, -. Columbia University Press. Un'ìversity Prcss. G¡eenñeld, Ge¡ald, and Sheldon Maram, eð,s. 1987 , American latin l^zbor Organi- O'Kane, Trish. 1994. "New Autonomy, New Stuggle: Labor Unions in Nicara- za¡¿o¿s. Vy'esÞor! CT: G¡eenwood Press, -, EDa." lr The New PoLitics of Survival, ed. Morton Sinclair, pp. 183-208. New Greenhouse, Steven. 2000, "Nike's Chicf Cancels a Gift over Monitor of Swear- York: Monthly Review Press. shops." New york Tímer, April 25, p. A16. Panee, John. 1996. "'Gapatistas'Win a Victory," Labor Research Review 24: Hathaway, DaleA. 2000a. "Transnational Support of Labor Organizing in Mexico: '7't -85 . 74 HENRY J. FRUND'I TOUR MODETS OF CROS$BORDER MAOUILA ORGANIZING 75

Perez, Martin. 2001. Testimony to Centro de Apoyo Traåø.7or Reported by USAS, 200r0b. No. 2 (Augusù. "Kuk Dong Update," May 16. 2000c. "Yoo Yang rüins Legal Recognition!" No. 3 (December), ¡'Honduran Pitkin, Daisy (national CLR coordinator).2001. "Background on Chentex Cam- -. Maquila Union Cont¡acts: One Step Forward, Two Baòk," paign;' CLR Rapid Action Network ALefi. February 9. -. No, I (May). Reed, Thomas, and Karen Brandow. 1996, The Sþ Never Changes: Testimonies -,2001.USTR. 2000. "Fact Sheet; Caribbean Trade Parmership Act." October 3. from the Guatemalan Labor Move¡nent.Ithaca, NY; Cornell Universjty Press. Waterman, Peter. 1998. Globalizstíon, Social Move¡nents, and the New Ross, Andrew, ed. 1997 . No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade and the Rights of Garnenl Inte rnationalisms. London: Mansell. lVo¡,t¿¡.ç, New Yo¡k: Ve¡so. Wein¡ub, Al, and William Bollinger. 1987. The AFL-AO in Central An¡erica: A Safa, Helen. 1995.The Myth ofthe MaIe Breadwinner: Wohen and ln¿ustrializa' Look at the Anerican Institute for Free lnbor Development. Oakland: Labor t¡on in the Caribbean. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Notwolk. Sims, Beth. 1992. Workers of the World Undermined: American labor's Role in Williams, Heatlìer. 1999. "Mobile Capital and T¡ansborde¡ Labor Rights Mobiliza- U.S. Foreign Policy.Bostot: South End Press. tion." PoL¡tics a d Society 2T, l: 139-166. SITEKIM. 200I. "Letter from the Independent Union of Workers at the Company Windmuller, John. 1954, Amerícan L.tbor and the International l4bor Movement, Kuk Dong Intemational of Mexico," Reproduced in CLR 2001b 1940-I953. hhaca, ñY: Comell University Press. Spalding, Hobart. 1988a. "U.S. Labor Intervention in Latin America: The Case of Witness for Peace. 1998. "Sewing Justice: U.S, Solidarity and the Workers' Struggle the American Institute for Free Labor Development." In Tr1¿e Unions 1nd the in Nicaragua's Maquilas." Washington, DC: \üitness for Peaca, Ne\e Industrialization of the ThirdWorld, ed. Roger Southhall. Pittsburgh: Uni- versity of Pittsburgh Press. 1988b, 'AIFLD and the Labor Movement," NAAcl"i{ R eport on the Amerí- cas, May-June. -, 1993, "The Two Latin American Foreign Policies of the U.S. Labor Move- mert." Science and Soci¿ty, Spring. -.Stahler-Sholk, Richard, 1995. "The Dog That Didn't Barki Labor Autonomy and Economic Adjustmentin Nicaragua under üìe Sandinista and Lr.l'{O Govemmenß " Comperative Polítìcs 28 (October). l996. "Structural Adjustlnent and Resistanceì The Political Economy of Nicaragua under Ch amono." l¡The Undermitùng of the Sandinistø Revolütion, -. eds. Gary Prevost and Harry Vanden, pp, 74-l13. Londotl: Macmìllan. Stalker, Peter. 2000. Workers Wilhout Frortfier.t. Boulder, COr Lynne Rienner' St. Loùis, Melinda. 2000, "Personal Account of Mìl Colores Worker Tour." In Cam- paign for Labor Rights, "Hondu¡as, Nicaragua Updatc," laåo r Alerl, June 3. Srillerman, Joel,2000. "Labor Intematio¡ralism and NAFTAT Theoretical, Histori- cal arìd Practical Dilemmas," Paper presentcd at the Lat¡n American Studies AssociatioD Twenty-Second Intemational Çongress, Miami, March 16-18. Sturmthal, Adolf F 1973. The InternationaL løbot Mo\)emenl in Transitíon. Vr- bana: University of Illinois P¡ess. Tillman, Ray M., and Michael S. Cummings,eds' 1999 The Trattsformation of U S. U¡ion¡. Boulde¡, CO: Lynne Rienner. Tong, Mary E, 1993, "Reaching Across the Rio." Beyond Borders, Spnng. Repub- lished in Kamel and Hoffman, eds,, pp,74-78 USAS/NLC. 1998. "Behind CÌosed Doors: The Worke¡s Who Make Our Clothes." New York: National Labor Committee. i'Fired 1999. fo¡ C(ying to the Gringos." New York: National Labol Com- mittee, -.Usenmez, Ozgur.2001. "Editorial." Mo¡? thly Review, April US/LEAP. 1999. "Phillips-Van Heusen: An Industry 'Leader' Unveiled " Chicago: US,{-EAP. 2000a. Press release, May 26.