TIE-Netherlands

 

To overcome this great weakness on the part of the Latin American labor movement, it is necessary to create strong democratic structures and strengthen them where workers have already succeeded in establishing them. This is only possible through a series of reforms and development of democratic practices surging from the rank-and-file, that allow the presence of representatives and activists that have legitimacy in the eyes of the workers, and who dispose of the capacity, knowledge, and experience in negotiations, based on the development of links and networks with workers of different companies and countries.

 

We can consider a few of the historical elements that characterize the majority of the countries:

 

1. The lack of constitutional spaces for the broad sectors of society and the union movement to express themselves politically.

 

2. Reforms to allow a broader participation were interrupted throughout the 20th century by coups d’état, and the installation of dictatorships that signified a retreat for democracy on the Latin American continent. The dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and Chile were the strongest blow of all the 20th century against the advent of democracy and social and economic justice in those countries, since in less than one decade historic conquests were replaced by authoritarian methods. In the case of Mexico, the existence of governments such as of the PRI or the PAN did not implement democracy, rather the opposite.

 

3. The economic changes that occurred during the dictatorial regimes imposed a neo-liberal model that was continued and in general deepened by the civil and “democratic” governments. Instead of the necessary redistribution of wealth, in the last few decades social inequities have been aggravated, as has the concentration of economic power on the continent.

 

The long-term objective of this programme is sustainable social and economic reforms that contribute to the fight against poverty and to the development of democracy in the countries of Latin America by strengthening the Latin American labor movement. The principal strategy followed to achieve this goal is the democratization of union structures and the growth of legitimate and democratic organizations of workers in the workplace, organizations that enjoy the representation and recognition of the working class.

 

Due to the reasons explained below, this capacity building project is directed towards rank-and-file workers and union members. Through empowering the collective of workers at the workplace, they can begin to make their voice heard at work, in their union, and in society to improve health and safety, working conditions, organization, wages, etc. The programme sees the democratization of union structures as a necessary precondition for obtaining concrete gains in the working and living conditions of the working class.

 

In all of the countries of Latin America there exists a conflict between legitimacy and legality, since the unions by industry (Argentina), by city or region (Brazil) or by company (Mexico) hold all of the legal titles and the monopoly of representation of the workers. In the majority of cases, union dues are deducted automatically from workers’ salaries following an agreement between the company and the “official” union. For both, this privileged relationship has great advantages: the union bureaucracy has its income guaranteed, independently of whether or not it defends the interests of the workers. Union bureaucrats are secure for all eternity. The company on its side knows that the union has a stronger interest in maintaining good relationships with management than with the workers themselves, since it is the company that controls the union dues and not the workers.

 

It is this simple but effective system that guarantees the “structure of injustice that maintains the precarious labor and economic conditions of the workers; and those that enjoy those privileges are not disposed to change the existing conditions that favor them and those they serve faithfully.” It is this system that also impedes the democratization and strengthening of the unions from the top down, since the union bureaucrats don’t have the slightest interest in changing this situation that provides them with such privileges at such a low cost.

 

This is why the group that is the principal focus of intervention in the PLA is the union or the union members at the workplace, the unions-in-fact (that function among the rank-and-file without official recognition). In the majority of these workplaces, these organizations (if they exist) are the only ones that truly defend the interests of the workers and that are seen by them as their legitimate representatives.

 

The relationship between TIE Netherlands and the local Latin American centers is that of being part of an international network of independent labor centers that started to be built prior to the implementation of the PLA, as a network to exchange experiences, information, and ideas. The relationships that have been developed are based on a common focus such as support to rank-and-file union activists, and support of a democratic unionism as a tool for the creation of a movement with the ability to negotiate, that authentically represents the interests of workers, and that aims to provide workers with the capacity to confront any new obstacles that present themselves.

 

Why has TIE decided to implement the capacity building through independent centers and not directly with the target groups?

 

Since trade unions face diverse situations, diverse factors explain why this is the correct strategy for the implementation of a programme of this type and for furthering the work previously carried out. In some cases it is worth mentioning the limited capacity of the target groups to implement capacity building programmes, including limited organizational capacity. In other cases the sectarian tendencies of certain organizations impede broadening the scope of the work. Here we can cite a concrete example when there was a debate about the union reform project in Brazil and the representatives of different unions and political currents openly stated that they only participated in an activity because it was convened by TIE Brazil. In other situations, the union bureaucracy pressures rank-and-file organizations to shift resources to other activities that have not been planned and committed to in the programme, with the principal objective of avoiding debates on internal and external democracy. It is also worth mentioning that this strategy was developed jointly with the partner organizations over time and was evaluated three times by independent evaluators, thereby strengthening the claim that this is the correct strategy for the Latin American context.

 

The partner organizations are the only organizations that have a long-term vision of developing a capacity-building programme among the rank and file, together with providing advice and accompaniment, and organizing exchanges. The centers of the PLA not only provide capacity-building training, but they also seek to strengthen the self-esteem, the autonomy, and the empowerment of the workers themselves. And they have already achieved in distinct situations the creation of spaces so that new leaders from the rank-and-file and among the rank-and-file might emerge and assume their role as democratic leaders. As the last evaluation confirmed, the centers of the PLA are highly valued by the representatives of the target groups and this project strategy was found to be appropriate. Much evidence was found to demonstrate that the process of capacity building is multiplied within the target groups themselves and among new groups and sectors.

 

TIE Netherlands has developed capacity-building and union education programmes for more than 20 years, and is highly respected for the quality of its programmes, its focus on the empowerment of workers and rank-and-file activists, and support for union democracy. TIE and its partner organizations receive support from a variety of donors in Holland and other countries, counting as well with in-kind donations such as volunteer work and research carried out by the organizations and workers that participate in the projects.

 

The strategic elements of this programme (objectives, conceptual framework, Areas of Work) were consented by all of the organizations participating in the project during two multi-day meetings in Chile and Brazil. This proposal is also the fruit of a common labor among the different centers and TIE Netherlands. All of this was broadly discussed and reviewed by electronic mail prior to presentation to PSO.

 

In Latin America’s recent history, profound economic and social “reforms” have been imposed that have meant important losses for the whole of the working class and its organizations. These reforms have meant marginalization and impoverishment for the great majority, scandalously concentrating riches in just a few hands.

 

Workers’ organizations have been tremendously weakened in this process, seriously losing the capacity to intervene effectively in the redistribution of economic and political power. Adding to this are the anti-worker agreements between governments, business, and undemocratic business unions (bureaucratic unions in Argentina, “pelegos” in Brazil, “charros” in Mexico), anti-worker laws, and continuous and systematic repression, along with unions’ own internal weaknesses such as lack of democracy, corruption, and the absence of a union strategy. Nevertheless, workers’ organizations have survived and are little by little recovering lost ground and in the process facing great obstacles such as the formation of a new generations of leaders, the democratization of rank-and-file local and national organizations, and the independence and active participation of the union rank-and-file.

 

In the context of the Latin American labor movement we must consider the precarious nature of labor relationships that prevent the organization of workers in favor of their demands, and complicate the establishment of collective forms of bargaining and the possibility of participating in the elaboration of public policies.

 

We can consider a few of the historical elements that have not changed and that characterize the majority of the countries:

 

1. The absence of constitutional spaces where the broadest sectors of society and the labor movement are able to express themselves politically.

2. The fact that the movement towards reforms that permitted broader participation was interrupted throughout the 20th century by coups d’etat and the establishment of dictatorships has meant significant setbacks to the process of democracy on the Latin American continent. The dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile were the strongest blow of the entire 20th century to the advance of democracy, and social and economic justice in these countries, since in less than a decade historic conquests were replaced by authoritarian measures. In the case of Mexico, the existence of governments such as those of the PRI or the PAN, that did not implement democracy, rather the opposite.

3. The economic changes that imposed a neoliberal model under the dictatorial regimes were continued and in some cases sped-up by the civil and “democratic” governments. Instead of a needed redistribution of wealth, social inequalities and the concentration of wealth have increased across the continent in the last few decades.

 

To understand the context unions inhabit in Latin America, one must consider how recent history has impacted existing conditions. Workers suffer precarious labor and economic conditions because there of the reigning structure of injustice that sustains these conditions and those that enjoy the system’s privileges are not predisposed to change this situation that is so favorable to them.

 

With the rise of neoliberalism, transnational capital enjoys a privileged status thanks to the institutions that have arisen to guarantee capital’s advantage at the expense of the rights of the majority represented by workers and their families.

 

The classes that dominate the region, along with developing their own structures and organization, go on the offensive to implement ideological plans that lead to the consolidation of their privileges, and attempt to convince the workers that they are doing them a favor in offering them employment since it is so hard to come by nowadays; also with the argument that all of the struggles that workers have undertaken are and will be “a failure.”

 

Without exception, the region’s governments change and accommodate their policies to attract international capital, and one of the major attractions is the existence of a very weak and atomized union presence, in many cases one that is an accomplice of governments and management.

 

Of course, labor organizations are not consulted by the governments nor by the industrial and political sectors that make the decision to carry out this political, economic, and social offensive. So bilateral and regional free-trade agreements are signed between underdeveloped countries and large conglomerates of developed countries, as for example the trade agreements with the European Union, without taking into consideration local labor market conditions and regulations. The efforts of civil society to oppose these agreements demonstrate the weakness of the democratic labor organizations, in particular. The implementation of these Free-Trade Agreements with favorable conditions for transnational capital demonstrates the lack of democracy in the decision-making process, and the lack of unity and cohesion among the labor organizations of the region, highlighting the need to find mechanisms for greater participation and elaboration of strategies that would strengthen and develop the Latin American labor movement’s ability to defend its interests.

 

Latin American workers face many problems related to their union structures. Many of these unions were established, created, or regulated over 60 years ago and/or during dictatorial periods and to this day maintain authoritarian structures and practices. In this situation the principal weakness of the Latin American unions is clearly that they are not considered legitimate by workers since the vast majority of these organizations remain mired in bureaucracy and refuse to recognize legitimate and representative organization at the workplace, nor internal structures allowing democratic debate and decision-making.

 

To overcome this great weakness of the Latin American labor movement, it is necessary to create strong democratic structures and strengthen them where workers have succeeded in establishing them. This is only possible through reforms and the development of democratic processes from the rank-and-file, allowing for representatives and activists that are considered legitimate by worker and who have skills, knowledge, and bargaining experience, and through the building of networks and links among workers from different companies and countries.

 

In Latin America civil governments exist with democracies inherited from the military dictatorships, but the necessary democratic transformations have not taken place. This is because it is the same national and international elites that remain in control, and the labor movement is not beyond that control.

Part of that control, beyond the limited labor laws, is the constant business offensive against labor organizations attempting to corrupt them and force them to collaborate with management and with the government through anti-union practices of cooptation and the use of of personal or political privileges.

The challenge is building labor organizations with democratic and independent structures rooted in the rank-and-file, as has been done in the framework of the PLA for the last four years.

 

In Latin America union democracy exists only on paper, since the necessary spaces for real participation by civil society do not exist, and small groups of governing elites hold almost all of the power in their hands and continue to control and exercise all political and economic power. This remains the case in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay, and the labor movement has not been immune to this control.

 

As the evaluation of the PLA confirms, “Along with the practices derived from privatization, workplace restructuring, and openly neoliberal models, the organized work force confronts corruption among its own ranks, as unions still exist – or a portion of the union leadership – that collaborate with business and government. The cooptation of union leadership by management and government is as grave as the practice of many union leaders of taking advantage of the capacity of mobilization of the workers for their own personal, particular, or political goals. Such attitudes demonstrate that the challenge is to actively work for the construction of democratic and participatory structures within labor organizations to guarantee that they truly represent the working class.”

This is why the challenge consists precisely in strengthening organizations based in the rank and file, since what crosses all of the particular realities of each country is the urgent need of workers to improve their wage, working, and living conditions. Workers’ own initiatives in these times are timid because each time that they attempt to organize (and as a result of limited experience and skills) they are repressed by management, by undemocratic unions themselves, and by the government. It is necessary to point out that in some cases distinct spheres of government (local, regional, state, federal, or central) react in different ways to the demands of workers, causing greater confusion among workers with little experience in the organization of autonomous and independent unions.

 

In almost all of the countries of the Programme so-called “progressive” governments have arisen in recent years, except in Mexico, which has suffered a new electoral fraud. In Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay govern center-left parties or electoral alliances that are the result of resistance struggles against the neo-liberal model and the population’s rejection of the nefarious social and economic consequences of the previous decade. But this political change has still not meant important changes in the situation faced by popular sectors, workers, and their organizations. The new governments can exhibit an improvement in economic indicators and a public discourse that reaffirms human rights, but they have not improved wages nor the distribution of wealth, they have not diminished precarious or restructured labor conditions, they have not reduced poverty or social inequality, nor have they led to a growth of union democracy. And where some socio-economic advances for the poorest populations have been seen, this has been hand-in-hand with strong gains for the financial sectors and the profits of the banking sector.

 

One can take note that the “progressive” governments have achieved budget surpluses unprecedented in the history of Latin American countries, but all economic gains have been sent abroad under pretext of paying off the external debt. Millions upon millions of dollars/euro that could finance improvements in the living conditions of the Latin American populations and in the wealth-generating capacity of our countries end up in the coffers of banks and foreign governments in the so-called first world. This is to say that the progressive governments elected to change the socio-economic conditions of their peoples, better paid off the debts and international commitments than the right-wing governments that preceded them.

 

The productivity and profitability of the business sector has increased significantly, but employment and income of workers and pensioners are far from recovering their historic values. The new political climate has nonetheless stimulated the desire of the popular sectors to reclaim what has been lost and improve their working and living conditions. This is reflected in an upsurge of activism and social and labor participation. Countless youth are interested and begin to organize and become active in their workplaces and to participate in the life of their unions. The conditions for participation are better, but the lack of knowledge and experience, lack of honest leaders with experience (eliminated by the dictatorships or unemployment), persecution by management and continuing state repression, bureaucratic and corrupt unions, among other weaknesses and threats, make all the more necessary and urgent the trainings, skill-building, advice, coaching, and the possibilities of exchanges and formation of networks that the PLA and the centers that form it can now contribute to better than before.

 

The union in Latin America is in the majority of cases an organization that forms part of the historic tradition of the workers. This culture of organization came from Europe carried by union activists and penetrated the societies of the Southern Cone during the processes of industrialization at the beginning and middle of the 20th century.

Founded on the free association of workers in their workplace and neighborhoods of those times, the Latin American labor unions grew in a tradition of democracy and struggle. This union “tradition” caused great discomfort to local elites that did not accept losing their privileges. Over time local elites sought out ways to contain the labor movement and eliminate this democratic tradition of struggle, corrupting the leadership and legalizing or making official anti-democratic union structures. In many cases the source of inspiration of the local elites were the authoritarian, corporativist, and vertical models implemented in Europe during the 1930s, more precisely in fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Franco’s Spain.

 

Workers in their own way and in accord with their skills at any given time have always attempted to maintain rank-and-file democracy and organization, at the same time that they have suffered historic defeats during the 20th century. This is why this still is the natural organization that workers form in an effort to obtain improvements or present demands. Therefore, the main area of intervention by the PLA centers is the labor organizations within the workplace or the members of these organizations; the unions that in fact function from the rank-and-file, official unions notwithstanding. In the majority of companies, these organizations (if they exist) are the only ones that truly defend the interests of the workers and that are seen as the legitimate representatives. Still, in all of the countries exists a strong conflict between legitimacy and legality, since it is the unions by sector (Argentina), by city or region (Brazil), or by company (Mexico) that hold all of the legal titles and the monopoly of workers’ representation.

 

In the majority of cases, union dues are automatically deducted from workers’ salaries following an agreement between the company and the “official” union. For both, this privileged relationship has great advantages: the union bureaucracy has guaranteed income, independently of whether or not they defend the interests of the workers. Their position is secure for eternity. The company on its side knows that the union has a greater interest in maintaining good relationships with management than with the workers themselves, since it is the former that controls the union dues and not the workers.

 

It is this simple but effective system that guarantees the “structure of injustice that sustains the precarious working and economic conditions of the workers” and that “those that enjoy those privileges are not prepared to change this situation that favors them and those they serve faithfully.” It is this system that also impedes the democratization and strengthening of the unions from the top, since the bureaucracies do not have the least interest in changing this situation that gives them such privileges at such low cost.

 

Building and strengthening the organizations controlled by the rank-and-file (in many companies such organizations do not exist) is the only way that the workers can reclaim their unions and transform them in democratic and effective organizations. This is why the PLA concentrates on capacity building among rank-and-file organizations.

 

Today these organizations grow in a very complicated environment, characterized by the strong process of precarization of work in accord with models of neoliberal inspiration. This process has been common for all of our Latin America and is one of the by-products of the dictates of the great powers and the international credit agencies following the so-called “lost decade” of the 80s. It is in this frame and as a result of these policies that the trade union lost great part of its ability to intervene and pressure. We find the causes of this on the one hand in the effects of military dictatorships, and on the other that the organizations have not modernized their methods of operation and struggle, which are almost identical to when the process of industrialization began in our countries.

 

Among the common weaknesses of the trade unions in our countries we can mention the lack of democracy, the limited participation of the rank-and-file in making decisions, the lack of political and operative capacity, the repression by management and by company unions, and the cooptation by the government and certain political parties, among other reasons. These weaknesses lead to unions failing to defend workers, not representing their interests in the area of wages, employment, health, and intimidation and exploitation by management, among others.

 

For the implementation of the programme it is necessary to count on an organization that makes implementation viable, and for this reason we will explain the characteristics of the PLA network from the point of view of its objectives and what this means for this new stage of implementation and intervention.

The relationship that has been established between TIE Netherlands and the local partners is that both are part of a network of labor centers that was first built prior to the implementation of the PLA, starting as a relationship of exchange of experiences, information, and ideas. This relationship began generating experiences of solidarity, first among the centers and later among the diverse activities of the rank-and-file organizations. The relationship that was established is based on a focus of mutual respect for the analysis and the work of each organization, sharing in common the support for rank-and-file union activists, fomenting union democracy as a tool for the resurgence of a movement with the capacity to negotiate and that authentically represents the interests of workers, promoting the growth of democratic unions, fomenting union autonomy to avoid external manipulation, and providing workers with the tools to confront these challenges.

 

Table 1: Union structure and relationship between partner organizations and labor movement

 

TIE Netherlands was historically a labor center where exchanges were organized and union education was carried out, encouraging the building of networks of union activists by sector and by multinational company. The TIE network exists since the 80s, but it was strengthened and grew in a gradual manner throughout the nineties, as trust and agreements increased.

 

The partner organizations were selected based on relationships of trust and common vision established over the years. In all of the cases these relationships were developed based on exchanges, activities, and common projects that established a deep and mutual understanding and trust. No partner was introduced to the network without this relationship and foundation of trust already developed, since if the contrary would be true, this would make difficult the implementation of a common project.

 

Regarding the development and implementation of a common strategy, one can note that the network is built by independent centers (partners) and not directly with the beneficiary target groups. Since union reality is diverse, there are multiple reasons to explain why this is the correct strategy both for the implementation of a programme of this type and to further the work done in the past. In some cases, the limited capacity of the target groups to implement capacity-building programmes and their low management capacity needs to be mentioned, in other cases the sectarian nature of some organizations in relation to others which impedes broadening the work. Here we can cite the concrete example of TIE Brazil, which organized a debate about union reform projects in Brazil. The representatives of different unions and political currents stated that they participated in the activity only because it was convened by TIE Brazil. In other situations, the union bureaucracy pressures the local organizations to direct resources to other activities that are not the programmed activities committed to in the programme, principally with the objective of avoiding debates on internal and external democracy. It is worth mentioning that the strategy was developed over time by all of the partner organizations and was evaluated three times by independent evaluators, proving that this is the correct strategy for the Latin American context.

 

Table 2: Flow of relationship between the centers of the PLA Network and the target groups

 

In the majority of the Latin American countries there is little experience in the area of capacity-building among rank-and-file labor groups or among the workers themselves. The preparatory evaluation and mid-term evaluation of the PLA by the expert Gisela Dütting that investigated the situation in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil, and the recent Final Evaluation, confirm this analysis.

 

The principal problem is that the process of capacity-building of the rank-and-file cannot function if there is no solidarity or trust, as stated by the evaluators Abby Nájera and George Patrão. Gisela Dütting investigated all of the programmes and organizations in the area of union training and capacity-building in Chile, and her conclusion was that only the Catholic Church had an education programme for rank-and-file workers, but without the combination of advisory services and coaching as is done by TIE Chile. There were NGOs that provided some training or leadership development, but only for a limited period, and without commitment or continuity. What is needed for this work is not only “technical” skills, but a long term commitment; individuals that not only provide courses, but that provide support, advisory services, coaching, and this consistently and for a period of many years; individuals that seek self-esteem, autonomy, and the empowerment of the workers themselves, and are able to develop new leaders from and among the rank-and-file.

 

So the formula that the different centers of the PLA have developed is that the collaborators of the centers function as the principal experts, not only giving courses and seminars, organizing and accompanying exchanges, but also offering advice and daily coaching to the target groups. For technical problems, other local experts are invited that have a special skill in a specific area.

 

As stated in the Final Evaluation of the Project 2002-2005, “it is important to note that the strengthening of the partner organizations begins with the development of their natural resources. So, in practice and due to the character of the Latin American region itself, the staff of the centers is capable of multidisciplinary handling and executing of tasks, making a better use of financial resources. All of them work with a horizontal hierarchy, are multidisciplinary, without a strong division of labor, although each member’s responsibilities are clear. The facts show that this characteristic is one of the strengths of the centers, since it allows everyone to share in the process and responsibilities.”

 

Regarding the internal organization, the Final Evaluation finds that: “the partner organizations and target groups demonstrate the full exercise of democracy, as such there is a common obligation that binds them and that each of them fulfils completely. Within the Latin American centers, one can observe that the implementing centers share the concern that it is difficult to comply with the presentation of reports, since the work in the field with the target organizations is privileged. If it is true that the offices comply with the established deadlines, they do so extending their workday. In no way does this constitute a complaint; rather it is the reality in which they develop the union work in the region.”

 

The important contribution of the individuals involved can also be a risk, for example in the case of an accident or illness on the part of one individual, as happened recently in the case of TIE Brazil. The partner organizations do not have the human resources to easily substitute an individual that is incapacitated, since this work not only requires technical capacity, but also, and more importantly, a commitment and the trust of the proper activists and workers, something that is not easily found or even developed. In a case such as this it is easy for the presentation of reports to fall behind schedule, since the priority is always given to the needs of and commitment to the target group. But it is clear that this risk will not be eliminated by a “professionalization” of the partner organizations, since without the human factors of commitment, solidarity, and trust, it would be impossible to obtain the results that the centers have obtained so far. Also, a “professional” organization would never be able to make such an efficient use of financial resources.

 

On the topic of “professionalization” of the partner organizations, the Evaluation finds that: “Sustaining learning “in network” to take advantage of the lessons and experiences of other programmes in Latin America helps to guarantee continual learning and allows for the selection and adaptation to local contexts that translates learning into practice, permitting professionalization over the long-term.”

Here the evaluators make an important point. The implementing centers do not work with the concept of a “professional” organization as understood by common European criteria, with a group of salaried staff, organized hierarchically as a classic organization (traditional NGO, governments, companies, foundations, etc.) The collaborators are for the most part volunteers (full or part-time), but this does not mean that they are not “professionals;” they all have a high level of academic and union education. And along with this education and experience, within the centers, the collaborators have organized a “permanent learning,” adapting their knowledge and methodologies to the local contexts in a constant exchange with the beneficiary target groups on the one hand, and with the centers and organizations from other countries, on the other hand. The professionalism here is understood as the capacity that activists of the centers have to guarantee a space so that workers can have the necessary debates in order to democratize their organizations and translate theory into practice, and this theory is then shared with all of the beneficiaries of the project.

 

Once again citing the Evaluation: “One effect that demonstrates this is that the partners and target groups have shown an ability to turn learned knowledge into action, through multiplication. In all of the projects it was established that the process of learning was effectively turned into practice. According to the testimony given during the interviews in Brazil and Argentina, the knowledge obtained is shared with members of the organization or with unorganized workers at the workplace.”

 

How is it that the individual partner organizations learn within their organization based on their own practice? How can this continue to be reinforced?

As stated in the Final Evaluation: “As was previously mentioned, the experience and results demonstrated by the partners and their beneficiaries reflect that it is precisely within the organizations where the acquired knowledge is put into practice for the first time. The learning is therefore a copy of what has been obtained through the programme activities of TIE. It is not an exact copy, rather adapted to the particular context of each rank-and-file organization, and each rank-and-file organization in turn adapts it to the reality of each workplace. This multiplying effect needs to be reinforced through constant training that includes new topics and tools to face the challenges of the working class caused by constant changes in economic, social, and political policies.”

 

To strengthen the process of common learning, the centers decided in their coordination meeting at the end of 2003 to organize an international workshop on gender issues. “After an extensive debate the common decision was reached to apply this theme as a universal topic, as proposed by the RMS (Network of Women Unionists), whose significant experience with the inclusion of the gender perspective of gender in their work has made possible a debate among the different centers on the most productive means of inclusion of this perspective in the work with the beneficiary population in each country. And the common debate has led to results; several women interviewed declared that they have reached leadership positions within their organizations, while others stated that they try to incorporate men into their organizations.” (Final Evaluation)

 

Another decision reached during the coordination meeting at the end of 2004 was to organize an international workshop on “production mapping,” a method developed by TIE Brazil for the workers themselves to produce knowledge. After the workshop that occurred in Juarez, Mexico, in May 2005, a series of international workshops have been organized in different countries to develop this methodology, adapting it to local contexts and always seeking to optimize it.

 

The Final Evaluation recaps this experience in the following manner: “Learning in network is the manner used by the partner organizations for their continual learning. The experiences of each one of them have allowed for a rich exchange that has allowed them to adapt and adopt similar methodologies under the premise that they are adjusted to their particular realities and contexts. In this sense, the exchange activities are a great help. Nonetheless, the partners would obtain more elements to apply in their countries if the exchanges would assume a more extensive modality over time, for example, implementing an exchange of staff for a period of one or two months, instead of limiting themselves to a workshop of two or three days.”

 

Nonetheless, this common learning process has its limitations: “one limiting factor for greater and more frequent coordination exchanges is the geographic location of the projects.”

We need to keep in mind that this mutual learning process will continue (the commitment among the different parties exists), but due to the size of the Latin American continent and the different contexts, the development of common methodologies and focus of activities will advance step by step. The suggestion of the evaluators of organizing an “extensive modality” deserves a deeper debate among the different labor centers.

 

According to the Final Project Evaluation 2002-2005: “In what way have the partner organizations been able to respond to the changing needs of the beneficiary group? The partner organizations have always attended to the emerging needs of the beneficiary groups. It is interesting to respond to the question, “How have they done it?” although perhaps difficult to punt into words. In previous chapters of this Report, mystique, trust, and self-esteem were mentioned as the key motors to generate change and are common elements in Latin American labor activism. So the response to “how have they done it?” is simple from the Latin American perspective: believe in the task carried out, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”

 

“How are strategic decisions made with regard to the beneficiary groups (greater marking out of the beneficiary group and network to be built, quantifying the beneficiary group, and explicit insistence in elaborating a gender perspective)? “The centers hold discussions about the context lived in their countries, identifying the independent groups that form or that are discovered promoting an independent labor movement, and that require support to acquire skills and the training to strengthen their position and take protagonist positions that represent the working class.”

 

How the topic of gender has been incorporated in the programme was described above. It is interesting to point out how the evaluators note that the centers identify the beneficiary groups not on the basis of industrial sectors or the unions they belong to (which would be a more traditional focus) but that they identify them based on their commitment to “promote an independent labor movement.” This means that the strategy of the centers is in fact very global, that they seek the construction of a democratic unionism throughout their country, and even throughout the continent, and their analysis is that in order to strengthen this process of change it is necessary to support to the greatest extent possible the initiatives and groups that present themselves. As TEL described them during the Evaluation: “we have seen the almost total destruction of an entire generation of labor activists, so that now when a group of workers seeking support to build a democratic union organization comes to us, we do not want to leave them without support and run the risk that they will be defeated by the bosses and the corrupt union leadership, and that they will not dare to organize themselves again for a long time.”

 

It is obvious that such a focus demands a strong and continuous commitment on the part of the partner organizations. On the other hand, the history and conditions of Latin America produce and demand this kind of commitment.