Puerto Rico has had its share of labor unrest throughout its history. Have these strikes produced the results desired by the unions and community leaders who initiated them?
Given that many strikes have been used to protest the current administration’s policies regarding how to balance the budget, we believe that a historical perspective is important to understand if these initiatives do, in fact, achieve their desired result. Here we analyze the strike which occurred at the Puerto Rico Glass Corporation in 1942, and which we believe has some relevance to today’s labor unrest.
On May 12, 1943, construction began on Puerto Rico Glass, a state sponsored venture. This factory was located in the Amelia neighborhood of Guaynabo. The enthusiasm displayed by Teodoro Moscoso, president of the Development Company and board of directors member of the glass company, was not shared by the unionized employees working on the construction. On December 12, 1944, workers affiliated with the Union of Construction Workers and the Union of Manufacturers of Steel and General Mechanics, both members of the General Confederation of Workers, went on strike because of “a conflict between the two labor organizations.” The strike ended the following month.
However, in February, 1945, there was another strike.
While the negotiations were prolonged and the tension rose, experts from Texas arrived at Isla Grande Airport and were taken to live at the Hotel Normandie in order to operate the factory while the workers were on strike. This news spread rapidly through the island. As a result, the workers let the molten glass cool and harden in the ovens, causing the plant to shut down.
During the negotiations of the collective agreement the union leaders reminded Moscoso that he had delivered a speech in Ponce during the 1940 political campaign, in which he said that any industrial company in Puerto Rico which did not want to or could not pay at least $1 per hour to its employees did not deserve to survive. Moscoso explained that he had said that in the intense heat of the campaign, and that it was not possible for the glass company to pay these wages and survive. This argument did not convince the labor leaders.
As if these problems were not enough, the Puerto Rican Cement union was requesting they be allowed to incorporate with the workers of the glass factory, thereby forming “one big union.” Moscoso did not accede to this request, preferring to have a separate union for each state-owned enterprise, as each had variations in their working conditions. In May 1945, the strike was settled. It took about six weeks to get the 20 tons of solidified glass out of the ovens to commence factory operations.
As a result of this strike, rum distillers — who had placed orders with this company for 65,000 cases of glass bottles — canceled their orders and bought them from U.S. suppliers. The glass company missed the boom in rum sales that resulted from the liquor scarcity caused by World War II. Ironically, this was one of the main reasons why the state invested in this venture.
Moreover, difficulties in obtaining the proper equipment during the war proved that the types and sizes of bottles required by the local market were too numerous to produce efficiently. All this would be detrimental to the infant company, which could finally start its operations on June 25, 1945, a month after the war ended in Europe.
The factory was sold to Ferré Enterprises in 1950, and shortly thereafter was closed. Would things have turned out differently if, instead of this confrontational approach, the unions would have acted as partners of this factory? This is something today’s leaders should consider, as confrontational approaches rarely work.