In almost the whole world yesterday May 1st was commemorated International work day. Many confuse it as a celebration, a celebration for those who work, and this is a big mistake. Similar to March 8, International Women’s Daythis is not a day to congratulate as such, but to recognize the struggle of hundreds of thousands of workers who, with their lives, fought for their rights at the dawn of the last century.
This fight, against forced labor, seeking safety and health conditions, decent wages and rest, generates the bases on which the guarantor union fight in the world.
However, when we look at ourselves as a country in the mirror, we realize that although it is not a day to celebrate, it is not a day to commemorate much either: we are very far from where we should be.
Recent figures from Inegi (2022) speak of 93% of the economically active population as “working population” (which does not mean employee). On top of this, there is a gap in the employability of women that is 20% lower than that of men. On the other hand, only 42% of the employees indicate receiving legal benefits, and 16% indicate that all their compensation rights were paid at the time of dismissal without cause.
The covid-19 pandemic saw figures such as the “suspension of the employment relationship” or “temporary salary reduction agreements”. He also saw terminations of employment without cause but also without compensation.
The state policy of employment generation is precarious, urban in its conception compared to a country with great relevance of agribusiness. On the other hand, it is fragmented, dedicated to specific sectors or industries; we are far from a real policy to promote and protect employment”.
The mercantilist origin of the trade union movement –unlike the social and ideological origin seen in the rest of Latin America– translates into the rules and patches of a Federal Labor Law increasingly obsolete. The union movement itself shows eternal, almost immortal leaders, whose union activity is worryingly complemented by positions in the Legislature, both federal and local.
It should serve the commemoration of this Labor Day as a deep reflection, before the failed state, of the companies. “Living wage,” inclusion through affirmative action, safety and emotional well-being, and holistic development initiatives increasingly distinguish companies that exercise conscientious leadership from those that simply view employees as a resource.
We must also distinguish “employee” of the “employee”. Although the second is protected by legislation, the independent worker, the one in informal employment or underemployment has led to an exclusion of more than 40% of the economically active population from the benefits of social security and access to education and living place.
In short, we live in an exclusionary and classist world where, for example, domestic service workers They are subject to what their employer wants to give them, just like workers for work or labor in the agricultural sector.
What is worrying is not that the picture is bleak, rather that there is little or nothing we are doing about it. State programs are assistance and clientelism, driven by political interests and for selected populations. For their part, larger and more mature companies offer differentiated benefits that are sometimes more than 50 years old and that do not meet the perceived needs of the new generations.
The memorial of grievances is long, and the solutions are far short. This does not mean that there is not a call to action for both employers and workers.
To the former, so that they are fully aware of their surroundings, of the importance of focusing on humanism where the minimum that is required is the guarantee of the dignity and emotional security of the employee. It is very interesting to see how today there is an almost obsessive concern for the “customer experience” and little awareness that its dependence on the “employee experience”.
Regarding workers in general, including employees, action is required for the renewal of their leaders, assuming a progressive focus where it is understood that without the source of employment there is no work. The requirement of his minimum rights it is a mandate to which many sectors have resigned for decades.
The invitation in the background is that of a humanistic leadership, personally and institutionally, return to that fight for basic rights, which are not the same as those claimed in the last century. This will allow us a business and state model that is sustainable, developable and, in the end, focused on people.