ABSTRACT: Textiles, trade and Trauma. State and Entrepreneurs React to a Labor Crisis. Mexico 1906- 1912.

Carmen Ramos Escandon
Occidental College

Economic growth in the Mexican textile industry was based on cheap cotton fabric production in the newly installed factories. Hydro electronic machinery and complex technology lead to an economic boom in the industry between 1894 and 1901. Mexican textile factory owners were optimistic about their opportunities for export and aimed at the Latin American market. In 1902, El Economista Mexicano proudly declared that cotton cloth producers should look into the Central and South American market for cotton clo th. The manufacturers optimism was ill fated since it was based on the false notion that international markets would accept their product as readily as the national market, which in 1899 was importing 30% of their total consumption while as in 1911 import s amounted to only 3%. The contraction of the local market due to a severe economic crisis, specially after 1907 led to a labor/capital confrontation.
State policies in relation to import export tariffs further ignite the conflict of interests between cotton producers and cotton cloth manufacturers. Cotton producers wanted high tariffs for imported cotton, while manufacturers favored tariff free imports so that they could have access to cheap raw materials.
The interplay of diverse interests largely determined the criteria on which the tax system was based. The difference of interests between cotton importers and cotton cloth producers came to a head around 1907 when the Mexican economic crises deepened by t he change to the gold standard. The economic crisis in the textile industry had social and political consequences. A shrinking national market and excess production coupled with Mexico's new relation to international markets had a profound effect on the n ation's local political climate. Political mobilization between late 1907 and 1010 exacerbated instability and fueled insurrectional movements.
Textile workers were specially vulnerable to the 1907 economic crisis because the overall economic crisis came to the textile sector at a time when technical advancement in textile factories prevented massive labor force absorption. Labor demands increasi ngly revealed dissatisfaction with labor conditions and discipline regulations. Better salaries, shorter working hours and specially better treatment for workers were common demands. The major conflict at the time the 1907 lock out that led to the bloody confrontation in Rio Blanco in January 1907 is a clear example of mounting tensions between labor and capital. Furthermore, the careful analysis of the conflict reveals the increasing erosion of the government negotiation capacity and an exhaustion of the dialog channels between government and both workers and industrialists.
Government credibility eroded quickly for industrialists since the government could not stop workers growing organizations and belligerency. For the workers, government credibility also proved inefficient and they openly expressed their dissatisfaction wi th the regime's way of handling of the problem. The Diaz regime, on the other hand, ordered Rafael de Zayas Enriquez a study on " the labor problem ". The result of the Zayas study pointed out to the need of establishing a specific labor policy, to calm t he workers, prevent a deeper problem and above all to restore government credibility.
In spite of the initial apparent acceptance by both workers and industrialists of the Diaz's Laudo, dissident workers reluctantly accepted its provisions. Workers rebelliousness reveals a well established organizational network which provided them with re sources to sustain the strike as well as political leadership. Labor confidence in workers associations and inter-factories help helped sustain their demands.
In fact for the first time in Mexican labor history, workers prepared a Reglamento which blueprinted their desired labor conditions. The implications of the workers Reglamento were two fold it gave the workers the right to establish their own working cond itions thus claiming for self representation and a more outspoken voice in politics. One of the main demands by the workers in this Reglamento was the need to establish a uniformed salary for the same type of work nationwide.The bloody repression of the t extile workers in Rio Blanco in January 1907 prevented further discussion of this issue. Uniformed salaries were again brought to the discussion floor in 1912, under the newly established Department of Labor.
In January 1912 the Madero government called for the first encounter between workers, entrepreneurs under the auspices of the Department of Labor, to establish a uniform salaries tariff.
Workers urged the Madero government to force the industrialist to initiate negotiations. After much discussion in july 1912 a new tariff for textile work was approved. The specific tasks of he productive process were outlined there and while it was accept ed by both workers and entrepreneurs, its effectiveness was limited since factories could not be forced to implement it. The Labor's Department political visibility increased substantially as both workers and entrepreneurs asked for advise about how to im plement the tariff. Furthermore the Department of Labor clearly helped Madero's legitimacy and increased it base of support. However,the significance of setting up a Labor Department and its political role went well beyond the Madero government. The effec ts of the 1912 textile convention were paramount for the future of labor management relations. For the first time the face off between entrepreneurs and workers was carried out under the auspices of the government with the clear intent of establishing a s table arbitration policy on this issue. This interventionist role of the Maderista government was incorporated to the notion of the government as a regulator of social and political relations among the classes that is still prevalent today in Mexican gove rnment policy. The creation of the Department of labor abandoned a laissez faire tradition and consiously sousght greater governent participation in the conclicts between labor and capital. The significance of the Textile convention went well beyond the f ragile govenrenment that organized it.