Policy Brief of the Latin American Model

Introduction

The Latin American model comprises elements of the Latin Culture and globalization that combine cultural and concentric zones. The system has been practiced in several countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. For instance, this model has been used to show the relationship in the four nations’ employment status, hence presenting the similarities and differences in these countries. The structure has also played a key role in comparing the economic standing of the four states.

Executive Summary

The world has been changing in terms of employment issues and labor law, together with the relationship between employees and employers. Many countries have opted for the influx of foreign expatriates. However, workers from both overseas and within the country have remained a critical subject to immigration laws, restricting workers’ access to full social protection, occupational and geographic mobility, and benefits (Nolte & Weiffen, 2020). Regarding such a situation, Mexico has experienced poignancy compared to the functions of migrant Mexican workers in the U.S. during the era of Donald Trump (Nolte & Weiffen, 2020). Thus, it has since affected the enforcement of labor laws in this region.

Employment relations in Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil have been an area of controversy in many studies. The research outcomes have been used in various disciplines, including law, political science, history, and sociology. The analysis of this study has reflected the transformations of the socio-economic status and the advancements in the employment relations in various institutions. For instance, in Chile and Argentina, the populist regimes substituted industrialization and developments in 1930 (Atzeni et al., 2011). The administration provided the foundation for the classic relations of employment systems. It replaced the old commands of military dictatorship and the introduction of neoliberalism, which redefined the labor and capital relationship.

Labor relations in these countries have shown several differences, ranging from workplace challenges and workers’ struggles in many sectors. Moreover, unions have been formed, which have helped to improve the working relations. An example is the Classic Unionism of Chile (CUT), which started to crystallize following CUT’s creation, which was a major confederation unification (Anner & Veiga, 2021). However, this outfit was seen to be contentious regarding employers and only favored organizations at high levels.

These countries’ governments have set interventions to regulate the interference with groups, individuals, and organizations concerning social and economic matters. State involvement has played various roles in employment dealings. The administration can set the standards of the labor practice of the employer. It can also take control of wages and prices through its management of the economy or direct intervention. The country’s micro-economy policies affected the employment market demand, workforce utilization, and occupation in these nations.

Context and Importance of the Problem

Labor reforms in these republics have produced current and urgent problems which require imperative actions. There were market reforms in Chile before the transition of democracy. The restructuring of Neoliberal and the labor legislation revamp were mainly attributed to dictatorship, which could suppress most of the resistance. On the other hand, Argentina experienced the transition of democracy before the amalgamation of the market economic rearrangements (Nolte & Weiffen, 2020). Structural reforms consolidation in the ‘90s got its achievement through the labor-supported coalitions and political parties.

For instance, in Chile, CUT supported and took part in society’s concertation with the employers and the state, legitimizing and accepting the bulk of the neo-liberal model in exchange for labor reforms of meager. Contrary to Chile and Mexico’s model, the CGT of Argentina displayed an attitude that was ambivalent to Menem’s Peronist government. Thus, it gave support to reforms of individuals oriented to employment and flexibility in exchange for the protection of trade unions in the financial structures and traditional organizations. The policy implication of the problem improved the working relationship among many employers and employees in various organizations.

Critique of Policy Options

Several labor reforms eroded the job security giving uneven and fulfilled promises. The modifications are no longer the strong pillar for the general concession of politics. Brazil and Argentina strongly resisted flexible work contracts and relations (Anner & Veiga, 2021). The pro-government unions in Mexico inhibited the workers’ joint bartering privileges by conspiring with companies to uphold low wages. The new policies in Mexico comprised the President and the Mexican congress branches (Silva Rodriquez de San Miguel, 2020).

The regulation ensures that living standards are raised and criminal activities are reduced. Moreover, the new legislations were meant to discourage migration to the United States. The transformations of Argentina resulted in the decentralization of a previously centralized collective bargaining structure. The growth of informal employment lowered collective bargain coverage in the four countries. In addition, the labor court imposed limitations on subcontracting in Brazil (Helfen et al., 2018). Thus, these changes were a key player in changing the employment sector.

Policy Recommendations

Labor reforms that favor the employees need to be keenly and fully implemented. The practical steps to be taken should aim at raising the standards and relations of individuals in various organizations and institutions. Formulated employment modifications should clearly provide more work opportunities instead of eroding job security states (Al-Ghazali & Afsar, 2021). The unions formed should focus on improving employees’ productivity but not suppressing their collective rights of bargaining.

Conclusion

Latin American Model is evidently demonstrated in the named countries. Thus, the reforms are formulated in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Chile in terms of benefits and limitations. Guidelines have been set by the unions and state interventions to govern the relationship of labor. A number of differences exist in the employment relations of these countries. For instance, the aim of the new labor laws of Mexico was to discourage migration to the United States. The reforms of Argentina resulted in the decentralization of a previously centralized collective bargaining structure. The growth of informal employment lowered collective bargain coverage; in addition, the labor court imposed limitations on subcontracting in Brazil.

References

Al-Ghazali, B. M., & Afsar, B. (2021). Retracted: Green human resource management and employees’ green creativity: The roles of green behavioural intention and individual green values. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(1), 536−536. Web.

Anner, M. S, & Veiga, J. P.C. (2021). Brazil. Penn State. Web.

Atzeni, M., Duran-Palma, F., & Ghigliani, P. (2011). Employment relations in Chile and Argentina. In M. Barry & A. Wilkinson (Eds), Research handbook of comparative employment relations (pp. 129−152). Edward Elgar.

Silva Rodriquez de San Miguel, J. A. (2020). Labor relations in Mexico: Change and continuity. Labor, 41(10), 1−12. Web.

Helfen, M., Schüßler, E., & Sydow, J. (2018). How can employment relations in global value networks be managed towards social responsibility? Human Relations, 71(12), 1640−1665. Web.

Nolte, D., & Weiffen, B. (Eds.). (2020). Regionalism Under stress: Europe and Latin America in comparative perspective. Routledge.