ROBERTO GONZALEZ, APRIL 24, 1998

Q – I am grateful for your time because I know that this is a very busy time for you. There are a number of things I would like to ask you about the CST in particular, but I think given what has been happening we will inevitably begin with the Daniel Ortega thing. I am not interested, I have heard a lot, I am not interested in your personal views on the whole thing. I am interested in the political repercussions. Let me back up and say that some people have said that the party now will have more difficulty working with, representing the social movements including perhaps the unions, although no one has been specific.

In countries like ours, after a process of social changes with the revolution, they mark for international public opinion an event that really has a lot of impact. Nevertheless, I, our organization thinks that we are going through difficult moments, as a result of the current social and economic policy of the government. This has caused a lot of uncertainty, desperation in the population. And news of this sort, in the midst of a psychological crisis, and a real, economic crisis, obviously ends up causing more uncertainty. Nevertheless, within our institutions I can tell you in a very categorical manner, that the reaction from the grassroots of our union has been a clear support for Daniel Ortega. Without this implying a discriminatory attitude. On the contrary, we understand it clearly as a political event. For that reason the attitude of the grassroots of our union has been very important of understanding clearly the objective, the purpose behind this event.

I want to be honest. At first as an initial impact from this new story, it left a certain amount of confusion. But there was process of communication, discussion, consultation with the grassroots, of assemblies, meetings. And the response has been, as we say in union terms, to "close ranks". Now this is not our vision, but in the hypothetical case that the Frente should divide or be weakened, that we do not believe is the case now, nevertheless the experience of union struggle from the 90s on, demonstrated the capacity that the social organizations can unite, can lead a representative movement of social struggle, to have their own space, to be direct spokespersons, aimed at representing and defending the agenda of interests of the workers. That is to say, that we are prepared for that eventuality.

Q – Since I have not interviewed anyone from the CST since 1993, yes, I interviewed you in 92, I know a number of things have happened in the meantime so I would like to ask you about that. Stuff that is really internal to the CST. We don’t get a lot of news, especially about particular organizations, so I have had to piece together what little bit I know, so I apologize for misinformation or gaps in my information.

Now my understanding was that this last Congress in August of 97 there was a big change, and I would like you to tell me what your election signifies, how you account for the change in the leadership.

As we union people say that is a question "on your elbows", that is, it is an intense question. When you interviewed me I was the president of the Federation of Transportation Unions. I continue to be the president of the Federation of Transportation Workers, but in practice there is a new leader who has been like my executive replacement. If you have to preach a message of change, you have to begin with yourself, providing an example. That is precisely part of the change, a change in mentality, in vision, a need that the union movement needs in these times.

The CST during the stage that we met you, entered into a period of crisis. The crisis had one principal and simple reason: as a social movement this organization brought together different social sectors, took the forefront in the struggles of different social sectors, in the face of the structural adjustment measures of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Particularly our Federation. I believe that created in society respect and trust [for us]. Nevertheless the governments in power faced with strong union institutions, like our own, tried out different ways and methods of dividing us, under the slogan of divide and conquer.

After many attempts in 1995 I think unfortunately the conditions were presented for the interests that the government had in mind. There were there internal differences between the leadership of the CST, particularly between the former Secretary General Lucio Jimenez and the person who at that time was the Secretary of Organization, Mr. Rolando Membreño. That really caused a trauma not just within our grassroots, but in all of society.

That crisis showed us that there was a need for our leadership to be reviewed, that the institution, its content, its methods of struggle, its way of working and linking with the grassroots be reviewed. We underwent a process of union bureaucratization, of losing our connections and communication with the grassroots. So all of this problem, in addition to the difficulties in our communication in international relations, all of this problem made some of the unions and federations to begin to make a proposal. I led that proposal. Out of a critical and self-critical discussion, that we already had been in this many years, and there was a need to close a stage, that we needed a change in the identity of our organization, of moving from an internal perspective to broader connections with the larger society and the rest of the social sectors.

Unionism could no longer confront alone the economic policies. We had been very badly beaten up. Our organization used to represent some 200,000 members, the largest in the country. And we have lost approximately 120,000 members, by unemployment, privatizations, and some of our mistakes and the way we dealt with problems. So we took up again the proposal for unity, for tolerance, for the recognition that there are different ways of thinking within the organization, and that this strengthens union democracy, the diversity in thought. But that there were also vital aspects for the lives of the workers, the defense of their job, their salary, the defense of the new Labor Code, protection of social security, working conditions and safety at work, that is to say, what really makes one have and is the reason for the existence of unions in the eyes of the workers.

Really the previous leadership had gotten pretty far away from this agenda. So that this process of discussion that we promoted at the grassroots level, took us two years. And it concluded with this Congress that took place last year, and well, I think that the change was needed, and that for now the transitional leader that could in some fashion redress the situation and make the CST raise itself up little by little would be us.

Q – I have a note here from my 92 notebook that says you said there needs to be better communication with the base. Now I would like to ask you about the APT, but specifically I read in ENVIO that there had been a change in the way the businesses were organized, and that one could not be a union leader and a business leader at the same time. I want you to tell me the significance of those changes. I heard a little bit about it from my friend, who I have not seen in a long time, John Pinhiero, who was in charge of the education of the workers in the APT from the Swedish, Olaf Palme, from Sweden, well they were funding it. And he was staying in my hotel and we used to talk about it. But I have forgotten a lot, so I would like you to tell me the significance of this change from "the two hats" in ENVIO.

Before responding to this very interesting and important question, I would not be responsible with the information for the first questions without finishing it, and so I beg your pardon, but one of my proposals also in that process of change within the CST is the right earned by the women union leaders to have their own spaces, their own representation. Now in our National Directorate, out of 16 national leaders throughout the country, we have 5 women national leaders, who are secretary generals of federations and important unions throughout the country.

About the APT. In the previous interview, if I recall correctly, I was telling you that our struggle was first of all to oppose the privatization process. But the violent measures of the government in returning properties to the Somocistas forced us to change our position, and to fight so that businesses or percentages of the shares of those businesses would be granted to the workers. But not because we were creating a new elite within the working class to enrich themselves, but because our banner was to defend jobs and the social and economic demands, achieved in the collective bargaining agreements, and the right to preserve the unions. This was our real vision as to why fight for the privatization of the businesses.

An attempt was made to design basically what was called an alternative model to the classical private sector model. An emerging, new sector of the economy that would show that the workers can develop the businesses, sustain them, administer them. But there three factors developed that we were only able to recognize over time. One thing was to think about this idealistically, and another thing was given the political change and the government, that emergent model was not going to be allowed to be raised up as a model. Because we would be a bad example for the interests of other economic groups, and therefore our businesses could not be financing. Those businesses had to be shut out so that they would fail.

And in large measure a good part of that situation is what happened. Businesses who were not able to hold out, they had to lay off staff, that was very painful. If we had gone to fight for jobs, two or three years later we were seeing that those same workers who fought for this had to be laid off. The social benefits were reduced, and were practically speaking suspended. The businesses were under survival conditions. The lack of legality, of the government not giving them their titles, did not allow them to have access to credit. The technological backwardness, the globalization of the economy now – these businesses are not going to be able to be competitive.

So these workers are not bad administrators because that is how things are, rather because of all of that economic policy and aggression. But I also think that the other two internal factors had a big impact. I think that workers were not prepared for that leap. They needed more skills and training. Even though there was a lot of effort on our part, it was really little relatively speaking in comparison to the responsibility that they were going to assume. To have business administrators, economists - that takes time. That is an investment that requires more time.

And the other thing was the famous topic about the two hats. At that time politically speaking a need was seen, and it was logical because the union leaders were a part of the negotiation process, and very naturally because of their authority and support from the grassroots as leaders, they functioned as union leaders and as the leaders representing the interests of these worker enterprises. But as time went on it was seen that there was certain access to certain conditions, in the negotiations, in their condition as business leaders, that led to some abuses. It resulted in some abuses. And some leaders taking advantage of their position of responsibility, poorly managed resources, and this began to create a lack of trust and credibility in them. This criticism was not able to be contained internally, and was made public, it came out in the media.

This was one of the principal problems that I confronted in my position that we needed to correct this problem. And I was one of the harshest leaders on this matter of the two hats, that it was taking our organization down with it. And we needed to resolve this situation. Therefore our Congress in the statutes left clearly established that the members of the National Directorate of the CST cannot hold posts of business leadership, in order to be able to clear up that natural contradiction between the role of the union leader and the role of the person administering the economy.

So it was decided that those who had assumed a business leader role and had been functioning as union leaders, should assume once and for all their entrepreneurial responsibilities. That those who were wearing two hats, we decided that those who were going to remain as business representatives that they should take that on completely, and the union responsibilities, we proceeded to replace them with other people. So that also served us in our process of union renovation at the same time. So we solved two things: the contradiction of the two hats, and the renovation process for the union. Because there was a high concentration of union power in that leader, in being both a union leader and a business leader.

And a lot of the unhappiness, or difficulties or concerns of the grassroots were not able to be communicated or be heard, or on the contrary they looked for ways to prevent them from getting in. And if there were demands, they were seen as a threat. In some cases people were fired for criticizing or protesting. That is why we decided that this situation had to be resolved. It was not easy. It was not easy.

Q – I remember when I was staying in Las Cabañas in 1993, which was part of the APT, which is part of the APT, under the CST. They now tell me that they are part of the ATC. I didn’t bother to ask them why. In any case, one of their concerns, and it was not just their concern, but the concern of the workers in the businesses, was their worry that they would have no say, or not sufficient say in the running of the business, and that the union leaders thought that there was a need for professional managers. Do you remember this conflict? What has been the outcome of that, if anything?

We had a problem there too. Because with all that crisis what it generated was distrust, and the workers were looking desperately for another option. And very naturally they thought that it might be preferable to have professionals. But a good number of those professionals, believing in the ignorance of the workers, took advantage to some measure as well. And they got some economic advantages again. So the workers had to once again close ranks in that sense, and name their own representatives, even though that meant necessarily to look for a way to provide skills to those workers.

Some of them have gotten trained in business administration, principally in business administration. We had the possibility of training a good number of people, some 30 to 40 people. Others as lawyers, others as economists, and that allowed the management in the businesses to overcome the crisis, even though it is not the best yet.

Q – Sticking to the APT for a moment, how is it doing in terms of the survival of the enterprises, and in terms of how well they are doing economically, like is there any foreign investment? I remember there was talk about the need for foreign investment.

We made all that effort to look for investment, but the internal crisis itself scared it off. It has been difficult to recover that relationship again. Something has been achieved, but it has been minimal. There has been a little bit more of an advantage in the agricultural sector. In the industrial sector it has been more difficult. Because the capital to be invested in the industrial sector has to do with all the technological conversion. That demands much more resources. And everyone who can or does approach the workers, tells them we will invest but we will have the majority of the shares, we will have control over the enterprise. This makes the workers very afraid still.

Right now we have been making an effort and having a discussion and little by little because of the very economic reality that we are experiencing, people are beginning to look for foreign investment to co-invest in the enterprises, even though that might mean that they [the workers] are left with the minority [of the shares]. I want to be honest in telling you that there are other workers’ collectives, that throughout the whole period of struggle that has gone on, and without finding a solution to the problem, would prefer that the State would compensate them.

Q – Buy them out?

Yes, and that is also a problem because not only would the enterprises be lost as an economic model, but the grassroots of the union as well. Last year as a result of a strong social struggle the final property law was approved, where the legality of the workers’ enterprises was not going to be recognized of the APT. But we were able to get ourselves into the law. There are still problems with the implementation of the law, because there are claims from previous owners. The old Somocistas have come and have tried to take them over. There are still conflicts, but the important thing is that we did achieve a small first step, and that is that there now is a law of the republic that recognizes legally the APT.

Now the problem is implementation of the law.

Q – It isn’t a disaster then, there hasn’t been a high failure rate?

Of course, there is a pretty high rate. You have to understand that the Nicaraguan economy is in a grave economic crisis. And particularly our sector is even harder hit by that factor.

Q – I need to go back to the changes that were brought about in the Congress with the new leadership. And again I am just lifting things out of ENVIO which was just one sentence in a paragraph about the rejuvenation of the CST, and that was their determination to unify the Sandinista unions, some of which – I don’t understand – some of which had gone off ?

With the internal crisis that happened, that I told you about in the leadership between Mr. Rolando Membreño and Mr. Lucio Jimenez, we even within the framework of our position of criticism, we always wanted to exhaust and we exhausted every effort to maintain unity in the CST, of all of its leaders and all of its organizations. But really it was very difficult. So 4 or 5 federations of the 32 federations pulled out, they did not cease their memberships, they only pulled out.

Q – Just explain something to me, confederations are groupings of unions in a certain area?

Confederations are an organization composed of lower level organizations known as federations, and the federations are made up of the unions of the different businesses. So there are three levels: unions in the businesses, federations, and confederations. So from our confederation, which is made up of 32 federations on a national level. Currently that means 50,000 members. Of those 5 federations because of the conflict decided to pull back temporarily. They did not quit. Among them is Mr. Rolando Membreño.

But we continue with our unitarian efforts, at least unity in action. We are always fighting together against the privatization of the energy company, which is the federation that he represents. This is going to result in more unemployment. Against the privatization of the telecommunications company, which will produce more unemployment, and that is another of the federations that also pulled back. The others are smaller ones.

We maintain a level of communications. Well, I try to make that effort, independently of the differences that could have existed. That is why we talked, then, of the process of renovation of thought, of attitudes, of organizations and of leadership. And for that reason we talk about the fact that all of our proposals the one that comes first is the need to achieve unity. And I cannot feel happy about the fact that this organization that had 32 federations has 5 that pulled back. Nor is it my custom to let decisions be made by having the majority defeat the minority. I try to make an effort to achieve consensus. That is not easy.

Q – There was also mention made of their effort, or their proposal to organize unorganized people, workers? Can you say something about that?

In our country unfortunately of every 10 Nicaraguans who are working there are 7 that are unemployed. That is terrible. The union world is very small. And each day, because of globalization, it is beaten down more, and there is more unemployment. We have discussed this with international organizations like the OIT (International Labor Organization) and the International Confederation of Unions. The topic that, faced with these realities, the unions have to open up their organizations, their structures to other social sectors. Because of the high rate of unemployment. So we talked about a very important sector is the informal sector.

Now we are in the process of discussion and reorganization of the informal sector. It is very complex, because their demands are of another type. They are not strictly labor demands, but they do fall within an institutional effort. Concerning taxes, access to credit, and we organize them in an associative fashion, not as unions.

Q – For example, associations of what? Shoemakers?

Yes.

Q- - I confess that I know very little about union organizing, although I did have a very interesting interview with Pedro Ortega last year about the Free Trade Zone, but isn’t it difficult to organize the unorganized? Because they are scattered and they are not in one place, that was my understanding?

It is difficult but we need one another. They need an organizational form to fight for their demands, and we think they are an important force to organize, and that is why there is a mutual coming together.

Q – Are some of the workers in the informal sector being conscienticized, having their consciousness raised? Because I remember talking to somebody while I was in the States about people in the informal sector and their social needs and so on, and why they did not necessarily support the FSLN. And he told me, "hey, hey you have to understand that these people do not like being organized. Their mentality is that they identify with the leader, the caudillo, the gang leader or whatever.

Both things happen There are some who see their alternative in the political conflicts over power, let’s say the mayors of certain parties, that respond in a political fashion benefiting one group and discriminating against another group. So that other group has to look for an alternative in organizing.

Q – Do you have anything to say about how you see the future of the economy here? Any hopes?

For now, no. Because the structural adjustment plans are working more harshly now with the offensive of globalization and integration. It is no longer a national problem, but a regional one. The union movement has a series of concerns about the theme of employment, about the type of employment, about the need for professional training for the labor force to have job possibilities in the new conditions of the globalized economy, which is going to be more demanding, to be more competitive. Professional training for us is a central problem now. Professional labor training.

The union movement has made a proposal, the CST, to the current government to create a type of economic and social concerted agreement. Given the fact that we are convinced that it is the only way to reach a national agreement so that there might be stability and governability. Without excluding any sector. We cannot continue with a party that comes to power then excludes the other part of society. So recognizing one another, respecting one another, we should make an effort for the nation. And that is our proposal. I want to give you this proposal that we gave the government. I want to give you the document of our organization on ESAF and the Free Trade Agreement. And this is a communication from the Free Trade Zone, on the problem of the Free Trade Zone.

Now concerning the theme of the Free Trade Zone right now it is a very difficult situation because we have found that it is a problem that is particularly affecting the Central America region. In terms of employment, the government talks about its principal direction will be to increase the Free Trade Zone. We agree with foreign investment. We need the jobs. But they should respect the national labor laws and the international agreements of the OIT. The investors what they want is to take away our labor rights. They do not respect our labor code. The government allows this. This is a delicate situation.

And now they are demanding the reform of the labor code. To take away from us the right to freely choose our unions and our labor rights. On the other hand they say that the code is an obstacle to the confidence foreign investment needs to come in. That is blackmail. We categorically reject that. And we have proposed instead a tripartite effort – government, business, unions – to find an agreement. We have not found receptivity on the part of the government which has the responsibility to promote this. And now in the International Conference of the OIT we are going to participate, and we are going to present this denouncement.

Finally I want to say to you, that there is a question that is always asked. What is the relationship between the CST and the Sandinista Front? I want to tell you that that was part of the discussion that I proposed. I am a militant of the Sandinista Front, but above that I have a responsibility with the workers, independently of their political or religious thinking. The CST accepts as members Sandinistas, Liberals, Conservatives, Christians, all, and they organize them as workers. And we respect their political ideas. And this topic we discussed with the FSLN. It was not easy. That looked at me in a strange way. Nevertheless it was understood. That it was necessary for us to have our own identity, our own autonomy, that we needed to be our own spokersperson. By this I do not mean that there was a position of rupture with the FSLN. We coincide in social proposals and political proposals as well. We respect one another. But we are no longer an organization that is a dependent of the FSLN. We are an autonomous organization, with a horizontal relationship. Previously we were in a vertical relationship. That was not easy. And we continue to work on this.

Q – In 1992 I remember I was writing on that theme then, and there was a lot of emphasis on autonomy. And some people have said that recently there has been more of an effort to coordinate with the party. Would you agree or how would you see that?

Well, the situation that we went through obliged us to all unite. Now there are sectors that have shown up that never had joined us. That we were not even able to sit down at the same table together. That used to say we will never sit down with you. And now we are sitting at the same table. We need one another. That is why we do not have a position that excludes other. This is a position for a social alliance, with the different social forces and with those political forces that back our position, but they do not take our place nor do they use us. If they back our proposal, we will coordinate with them. If not, then we say, thanks a lot.

Q – Could you give me an example of a sector that you now work with? Are you talking about UNAG?

Yes, with farmers, transport workers, and with resentful Liberals as well.