Employee Participation at Plant Level in Mexico: Features and Possibilities

  • Graciela Bensusán
  • Willebaldo Gómez Zuppa


The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the characteristics of the industrial relations system in Mexico with the intention to show potential tensions and limitations in reference to the workers’ participation at the workplace. One of the main questions to deal is whether the new forms of individual and direct workers’ participation at the plant level would be an alternative to promote democracy in the workplace and gradually remove the authoritarian and corporate legacies in the Mexican industrial relations system without losing governance. The first part briefly describes the features of the Mexican labor market to show its segmentation. The second part presents the dimensions and characteristics of the system of participation. And third, the typology of participation is illustrated by empirical evidence.


  1. Adler, R. (1988). The Labor Administration in the National Railways of Mexico. Mexican Journal of Sociology, 50(3), 97–124.Google Scholar
  2. Aeromexico-CCT-National. (2013). Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Aerovias de Mexico SA de CV (Aeromexico) and the Association of Flight Attendants of Mexico, SA de CV (2013–2015).Google Scholar
  3. Bensusán, G. (2000). The Mexican Model of Labor Regulation. Mexico: FES/Sage/FLACSO/UAM-X.Google Scholar
  4. Bensusán, G. (2005). The SME and the Restructuring LyFC: Opportunities and Constraints. Mexican Magazine of Sociology, 3, 543–591.Google Scholar
  5. Bensusán, G. (2007). Institutional Determinants of Protection Contracts. In A. Bouzas (Ed.), Protection Collective Bargaining in Mexico. Report to the Inter-American Regional Organization of Workers (pp. 11–48). Mexico: UNAM/ORIT.Google Scholar
  6. Bensusán, G., & Alcalde, A. (2013). The Labor Justice System in Mexico: Current Situation and Prospects. Analysis Series, 1. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Bensusán, G., & Tapia, A. (2013). The SNTE and Educational Quality. A Research Agenda. Mexican Journal of Sociology, 75(4), 557–587.Google Scholar
  8. Bensusán, G., & Middlebrook, K. (2013). Trade Unions and Politics in Mexico: Changes, Continuities and Contradictions. FLACSO-Mexico-Clacso UAM-Xochimilco.Google Scholar
  9. Contreras, O., & Diaz, M. (2014, September 25, 26). FORD. Paper Presented at the Seminar Paths Innovation and Jobs in Multinational Firms in Mexico, COLEF, Tijuana.Google Scholar
  10. CCT-Ford-Cuautitlan. (2011). Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Ford Motor Company, Ltd. and National Union of Workers in the Automotive Industry and Allied of Mexico (2011–2013), Edo.mex.Google Scholar
  11. CCT-Ford-Hermosillo. (2014). Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Ford Motor Company, Ltd. and Progressive National Union of Workers of Ford Motor Company and the Automotive Industry (2012–2014).Google Scholar
  12. CCT-LyFC-National. (2008). Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Luz y Fuerza del Centro and the Mexican Electricians Union (2008–2010).Google Scholar
  13. CCT-TELMEX. (2010). Collective Bargaining Agreement Between TELMEX and Telephone Workers Union of Mexico (2010–2012).Google Scholar
  14. CCT-VWM-Puebla. (2012). Collective Bargaining Agreement between Volkswagen de Mexico, SA de CV and the Independent Union of Workers in the Automotive Industry, Similar and Related ‘Volkswagen of Mexico’ (2012–2014), Puebla.Google Scholar
  15. Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH). (2006). Recommendation No. 26/2006 On the Case of Workers of Industrial Minera Mexico, SA de CV (Pasta de Conchos unit) to the Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare.Google Scholar
  16. Covarrubias, A. (2014). Explosión de la Industria Automotriz. De sus encadenamientos actuales a supotencial transformador, Análisis N 1, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, México. (Explosion of the Automotive Industry. From its current linkages to its transforming potential, Analysis N 1, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Mexico).Google Scholar
  17. Dachler, P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organizations: A Critical Evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Federal Labor Law. (1931). Diario Oficial de la Federación, 28 de agosto de 1931. (Official Gazette of Federation, August 28, 1931).Google Scholar
  19. Federal Labour Law. (2012). Diario Oficial de la Federación, 30 de noviembre de 2012. (Official Gazzete of Federation, Novembrer 30, 2012).Google Scholar
  20. Gomez, W. (2013, July 2–5). Impact of the Economic Crisis in the Mexican Automotive Industry: The Case Ford Motors Company. Paper Presented at VII Latin American Congress of Labour Studies. Work in the XXI Century. Change Impacts and Prospects, Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
  21. Institutio Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2014a). National Survey of Occupation and Employment 2014 (ENOE) – Indicators of labor informality. Available from Accessed 10 Sep 2016.
  22. Institutio Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2014b). Economic Census 2014. Available from Accessed 10 Sep 2016.
  23. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2012). Domestic Workers Across the World: Global and Regional Statistics and the Extent of Legal Protection (Ginebra). Available from Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
  24. Leal, J. F. (2014). Union Structures of Mexico Yesterday (and Today). Mexico: Juan Pablos Editor.Google Scholar
  25. López Pardo, G. (1997). La administración obrera en los ferrocarriles nacionales de México. Méxiko: Ediciones El Caballito/Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas.Google Scholar
  26. Quiterio, A. (2014). The Labor Legacy in Cooperatives: The Experience of the Former Employees of Euzkadi and Dynamics in TRADOC. Master’s Thesis in Government and Public Affairs, FLACSO Mexico.Google Scholar
  27. Solis, V. (2007). Good Cases of Collective Bargaining on Wages and Productivity. Cinterfor: ILO.Google Scholar
  28. Subiñas, M. (2015). Labor and Representation in the Context of the Dual Economic and Political Transition in Mexico (1994–2011): The Case of the Gender Agenda. Draft PhD Thesis in Political Science FCPyS-UNAM.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, E. O. (2000). Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 957–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graciela Bensusán
    • 1
  • Willebaldo Gómez Zuppa
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma MetropolitanaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations