With Henry Lindholm, Eila Kämäräinen, and Liisa Mery

The time is right

for coordinating actions

   
Participants at the Second Conference of Mercosur Meat Industry Workers came from as far as Finland. Sirel interviewed Liisa Mery, of the Finnish Labor Solidarity Center (SASK), Henry Lindholm, vice president of Finland’s Food Industry Workers Union (SEL), and Eila Kämäräinen, also of SEL, to gather their impressions on the process of regional organization.

-You were in Brazil in 2008 and 2009 in previous meat industry meetings. In your opinion, what are the most important developments in this year’s event?

Henry- This is our first time in Argentina, but we were able to observe that a great deal of progress has been made in terms of cooperation among Mercosur countries, which is both a new and positive thing.

Liisa- We can see that the Cooperation Project we have in Brazil with fellow meat industry workers has enabled them to make a meaningful contribution towards these cooperation efforts in the Mercosur region, which has brought very good results, but there are still many challenges ahead.

Henry- Significant groundwork has been achieved between the three countries, enough to give continuity to the efforts of the new coordinating body. It’s obvious that there’s a lot of will and encouragement to work together. It’s still too early to say how much progress will be made, but it’s starting out with a very solid base.

One thing we’ve learned here is that Brazilian transnational corporations are growing enormously and are playing a significant role in the region, so much so that in the future they may monopolize the Argentinean and Uruguayan markets, in both the beef and poultry sector.

Eila- The report prepared by the Inter-Union Department of Statistics and Socio-Economic Studies (DIESSE), presented by Carlos Roesler at the conference, shows that Brazilian corporations are not only controlling the Latin American market, they’re also expanding their share in the European and United States markets.

Liisa- Although it may seem obvious, I want to highlight that the IUF is playing an increasingly significant role in the region, and it’s guaranteeing that the sector is effectively represented through a broad presence at the rank-and-file level.

They’ve added new and important affiliates in Argentina and Uruguay, thus strengthening the organization, which has also garnered greater respect in the region. This is key for the process of labor integration and for the political work that must be addressed with the each country’s government.

The IUF is gaining more and more influence in regional spheres, and that furthers the processes of coordination and struggle.

-Did you expect to find such a serious situation in the beef cattle sector in Argentina and Uruguay?

Henry- No, it’s news to us, and we’re surprised at how far things have gotten in both countries.

Eila- During the three strikes we staged last year, there was no Finnish meat found in the domestic market, but there was always Argentinean and Uruguayan meat, so for us it was unimaginable that there could ever be a shortage of cattle here.

Liisa- Based on the information that we’re receiving here, it would seem that this is not just the result of a corporate strategy, but also stems from the economic model and how it’s influencing each country, and the strategic policy lines that are leading to these raw material shortages. It’s possible that behind all of this there are interests that go beyond the interests of specific companies, interests that are much larger.

From what we heard here at the conference, the Brazilian government is contributing to the expansion of these large companies through the use of public funds, and that’s a political decision.

-In your opinion, what are the opportunities and risks ahead of regional coordination?

Henry- With respect to opportunities, the time is right for building a network or a coordinating body of workers, precisely because these companies are undergoing a growth phase; during crises things become much more complicated.

This coordinating body can bring stability and greater visibility to the sector’s labor movement, to enable it to achieve recognition and acceptance among employers, and also within plants, in terms of labor rights and unionization.

As each country has its own specific reality and it’s natural for organizations from different countries to have different interests, we need to be careful not to let those differences get in the way of our cooperation; we can’t allow them to become obstacles that stop us from moving forward in our goal of working together.

Liisa- If we bear in mind that the economic situation of the sector in the three countries of the region is quite similar, it’s easier to coordinate strategies and plan actions together. In that way, the movements in all three countries can have a combined effect. The potential risk is that will and effort will not be enough to fill this coordinating body with the content it needs to turn it into a truly operational body, and if that happens, the initiative will fail. But fortunately that’s doesn’t seem likely.

-Are there any similar experiences in coordination efforts in Europe?

Henry- The IUF has a network called the Meat Network, which operates through the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), but it doesn’t have an employer counterpart; there’s no one to negotiate with, and that makes work very difficult. There’s a Europe-wide employers’ association, which has signed conceptual documents where they define the principles on which to base a dialogue in the sector, but agreements are not honored and there isn’t any real exchange. 

From Europe’s experience, this is an area where progress is slow. So far, we’re not getting satisfactory results.

At the European Union level, there’s a social dialogue underway in the meat industry, but we find the same problem there too: there’s no counterpart.

Also, corporate concentration is not as advanced in Europe as it is in Latin America, although we’re seeing the same trend emerging there. But we still have greater company diversity, while in this region companies have a virtual monopoly. This could be an advantage when it comes to negotiating on a regional level.

-Have you seen anything here that can help you anticipate and be alert to certain developments in Finland?

Henry- We know that Europe is moving towards this same process of concentration. But there are many more differences among countries and regions over there. For example, wages vary enormously from one country to another, and that weighs much more in the type of decisions that companies adopt.

From what I’m seeing here, wages are pretty much the same across the region, and that creates conditions that make it easier for companies to concentrate their operations.

Eila- In Poland, for example, workers and the labor movement are not looking to establish a social dialogue just yet, because they’re more interested in having a job, receiving a salary, and attracting investments. Their needs are closer to basic survival.

Henry- There are certain Finnish companies that treat workers very poorly when they open units outside of Finland, in Poland or the Baltic countries, for example, and they don’t respect labor laws or even the most basic ethical standards.

This weakens us, because companies are always threatening to relocate, and sometimes they go through with their threat. I don’t think such huge regional differences exist here. The organizations from these three countries show a lot of will to struggle together, and that’s very positive.

Liisa- The challenge you have here now is finding concrete ways for the three countries to cooperate, and coming up with ideas on how to influence these companies.

Once coordination is fully underway and you’ve made a diagnosis of the region, with input from everyone involved, the next phase will be to decide on a specific working plan for the network, which I’m sure you’ll be able to do in no time.