Rebellion in Patagonia. Osvaldo Bayer
and Italians who wished to swap the nation’s symbols for the “red rag.”
This argument about “foreign ideas,” used to combat socialist and libertarian ideas, was an undeniable success. It has taken root in the Argentine working class. It hasn’t just been repeated by every government from 1930 onwards, without exception—no matter if they derived their legitimacy from military coups or from elections—but also within the General Confederation of Labor (CGT) itself, from the mouths of Peronist labor leaders such as José Espejo, Augusto Vandor, José Alonso, José Rucci, Lorenzo Miguel, etc.
All of the philosophical, social, and political ideas that belong to no country in particular, but are instead the heritage of the entire human race, could be silenced with a single word: Argentina!
This argument would nevertheless cast its spell over the entire country and has continued to prove lucrative for the Argentine bourgeoisie up to the present day.
But what’s even odder is that, in the Río Gallegos of 1921, every single member of the Argentine Patriotic League—without exception—was a foreigner. The nonsense printed above was written by Rodríguez Algarra, the editor of La Unión, a purebred Spaniard with close ties to the Braun and Menéndez Behety interests.
But the secretary of the Workers’ Society cared little for these patriotic arguments. Instead, he was preparing a new blow against the frightened supporters of capitalism: a strike at the Swift meatpacking plant in Río Gallegos.
If there was one place in Patagonia that deserved a strike, this was it. Perhaps not because of its wages or working conditions—which were comparable to the rest of the country—but because of the medievalism of its employment contracts. We have in our hands an example of one of these contracts.4 It speaks for itself. This contract, which workers were required to sign before shipping out from Buenos Aires to Río Gallegos, is pompously titled Service Leasing Contract and reads as follows:
Swift & Company of La Plata, Río Gallegos, and San Julián (hereinafter referred to as “The Company”), through its agent in this city, Swift & Company of La Plata, Ltd, with its address at Calle 25 de Mayo 195, and Manuel Pérez (hereinafter referred to as “The Contractor”), have agreed to the following:
The Contractor will provide his services as a manual laborer for the aforementioned Company at its plants in either Río Gallegos or San Julián, for which he will receive an hourly wage of 0.65 pesos, plus an extra 50 pesos per month for room and board. The Contractor commits to do all work required of him.
The Company will advance the Contractor the price of a third-class ticket from Buenos Aires to either Río Gallegos or San Julián, which will be deducted from his first month’s wages. The Company commits to pay the Contractor the equivalent of the wages for four hours of work for each day during the period between his departure from Buenos Aires until the first day of the slaughter, as well as during the period from the last day of the slaughter until his arrival in Buenos Aires in his return trip, with the exception of Sundays, holidays, and delays beyond the control of the Company.
Should the Contractor remain employed until the end of the season’s labors, or so long as the Company requires their services in any capacity, he will be reimbursed for his travel expenses between Buenos Aires and either Río Gallegos or San Julián. If the Contractor resigns or is dismissed prior to the end of the season for poor performance or incompetence, at the discretion of the Company’s administrators in Río Gallegos and San Julián, he will not be reimbursed for his travel expenses, neither from Buenos Aires to either Río Gallegos or San Julián nor in his return trip. To guarantee compliance with this contract, the Company will withhold 30 pesos per month from the Contractor’s wages, which will be returned to him upon completion of his contractual obligations. If the Contractor does not strictly fulfill his contractual obligations, or if he directly or indirectly contributes to labor disturbances or otherwise interferes with the Company’s business interests, he will forfeit his right to the amount withheld. The Contractor commits to work for the wage established above for the amount of hours required by the Company. If required to work a half day on Sundays, he will do so. The Company commits to provide the Contractor with a minimum of eight hours of work each day for the duration of the slaughter. If the steamship bringing workers from Buenos Aires to either Río Gallegos or San Julián is delayed or unable to depart for reasons beyond the control of the Company, such as strikes, fires, or cases of force majeure, this contract may be suspended or canceled at the Company’s discretion.
Any claims made against the Company prior to the Contractor’s return to Buenos Aires must be presented to the Company’s superintendent in Río Gallegos or they will be considered as null and void.
In accordance with the above, the parties have duly signed this contract in Buenos Aires on January 9th, 1921 on the understanding that, in the event of any disagreements between the parties regarding the above clauses, the Contractor agrees to accept the jurisdiction of the competent authorities in Buenos Aires and commits to accept their resolutions.
This, then, was the “contract.” If we analyze this condemnation to slavery on the part of a North American company, we can see that a worker who behaved himself—according to the company’s criteria—could earn a few pesos—very few, to be sure—while in the process destroying his health in the hellish meatpacking plants of those days. But the worker who protested or “directly or indirectly contribute(d) to labor disturbances or otherwise interfere(d) with the Company’s business” would forfeit everything he had earned.
Borrero was not exaggerating when he wrote in Tragic Patagonia that a Swift meatpacker, working shifts of up to fifteen and a half hours (in the most unhygienic conditions imaginable, of course), would receive only 28.50 pesos for an entire month of work—332 hours. And that is to say nothing of the worker who dared to speak up: he would be fired and abandoned there in Río Gallegos or San Julián, with no grounds for complaint. He had signed the contract.
But there was one person in Río Gallegos who was not afraid of Swift: Antonio Soto, secretary general of the Workers’ Society.
After two or three workers at the plant get the nerve to meet with him and explain their situation, Soto gets things moving. Something happens on March 25th, 1921 that takes the directors of the powerful North American company by surprise: a strike at their meatpacking plant in Río Gallegos.
It’s the only thing that was missing: the Swift strike comes hot on the heels of the rural strike and right at the height of the slaughter.
But the men of the Rural Society and Swift & Company aren’t going to take it lying down. They call for a hardline approach in the pages of La Unión, blaming Soto and the men of the Workers’ Society instead of the plant’s wretched working conditions. According to La Unión, the workers, “by presenting a list of demands contrary to the spirit of the contract, and by refusing to load ships and undertaking other actions that amount to preemptive retaliations, such as demanding to be paid for days squandered in working out a settlement, have shown that outside agitators have intervened in this dispute, distorting the intentions of the true workers.”
This time, the employers have the upper hand. The Workers’ Society will be defeated. After a week, the meatpackers will meekly return to work. This time, Governor Yza allows the police chief, Captain Schweizer, to settle the conflict however he sees fit. Led by Ibón Noya, the Rural Society meets with Schweizer and tells him that the problem will be easy to resolve if only Soto and company are removed from the picture. The captain gathers the strikers together and tells them that everything can be straightened out if only they distance themselves from the Workers’ Society and elect their own strike committee. He also offers to have the Rural Society intervene on their behalf.
The workers, brought in from Buenos Aires, are easily tamed. Penniless and homeless—despite Soto’s best efforts—they know they can find no other jobs in town, nor can they return to Buenos Aires. They accept, almost without a second thought. And so a solution is found. La Unión is euphoric: “The workers have decided to return to work on the same terms as when they left, with no modifications to their employment contracts one way or another… Those who prepared the demands driving the strike have failed.”
Rural