HANSON’S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Number 1854 - Policy Inconsistencies in Chile, Labor Compromised?

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Miles

Letter addressed to “Dear Sir” dated 27 September 1980, Number 1854, analyzing policy inconsistencies in Chile under the Pinochet regime. It discusses rising real wages, changing unemployment figures, and investment trends, while contrasting AFL-CIO interventions and alleged compromises of Chilean labor leaders through external assistance. The text questions U.S. government and State Department positions, including claims about torture history, election approval, and domestic inconsistencies in handling democratic processes and governance in Chile.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

LABOR LEADERS

COMPROMISED IN CHILE?

STATE DEPARTMENT INTERVENTION

Dear Sir: POLICY POLICY INCONSISTENCIES INCONSISTENCIES PRIVATE PRIVATE POLICY POLICY IN CHILE IN CHILE HANSON’S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER WASHINGTON27 September 1980Number 1854 "We are giving assistance to the tradeunions in Chile." ..Lane Kirkland,President,AFL-C10. "We consider the government something thatthe people of Chile determine for themselvesand we do not,never have,and never willtry to enter into and influence their decisions.".C.C.Garvin,Chairman,Exxon. Under the Pinochet regime,real(repeat real)wages in Chile have risen by 45%in threeyears,there was drop of 13%in the numberof unemployed workers from January 1976 toJanuary 1980,and the rate of fixed capitalinvestment for economic growth is rising....Inter-American Development Bank. There is no shortage of policy inconsistencies,whether it be labor,or banking or foreign policy.Some are very short-sighted.Let usexamine some situations: At the 1980 annual meeting of shareholders oi Exxon,Father MichaelCrosby asked: "Are the workers in our Chilean Company organized inunions?" Chairman Garvin replied:"Yes.In fact,the Chilean government hasauthorized the conduct of labor negotiations." Father Crosby:"Has the company taken any steps,either by itself orin union with the U.S.Government,to try to influence the governmentof Chile in light of Exxon's investments there?" Chairman Garvin:"No.We consider the government something that thepeople of Chile determine for themselves,and we do not,never haveand never will try to enter into and influence their decisions." In contrast,the head of the AFL-CIO on September 6,boasted that theCHILEAN LABORAFL-CIO is "openly and above board"intervening in Chile co helpON AFL-CIOfinance the labor unions. The intervention comes at a time whenDONATIONChilean labor is making economic gains under the Pinochet regimeLISTfar in excess of what the American unions are able to effect for U.S.workers in our own country. The data provided by the Inter-American Development Bank might wellprompt a question of the desirability of studying what the Chilean government isdoing,in contrast with the situation which AFL-CIO efforts are achieving in theUnited States.Are U.S.workers getting that 45%increase in real wages(repeat real)in the United States?Is the number of unemployed falling by 13%?Are we gettingthe boost in investment needed to arrest the decline in U.S.productivity whichinevitably controls how U.S.labor will fare? A weekly leme for busiwessmen pmbMisbnd privsely in Wasbington,D.C. Even more importantly,perhaps,how badly are Chilean labor leadersbeing compromised by the revelation that the unions are on theAFL-CIO donation list?Can such external intervention in the internalaffairs of Chile be considered promising for Chilean labor?Is itnot inevitable that there will be political consequences that mightdefeat the intentions? # LABOR LEADERS # COMPROMISED IN CHILE? In Poland,the State Department opposed AFL-CIO subsidies to PolishSTATE DEPT.labor,but where government is anti-communist such as Chile,the StateAPPROVALDepartment does not protest the continuing assistance to the Chileanlabor unions,apparently because it conforms with the worldwidecommunist effort to overthrow the Chilean regime. Nor has the State Department distinguished itself in its noisyresponse to the Chilean plebiscite.This is particularly importantnow because it may signify State Department intentions re the battlefor Mexico and the use that the Department may be intending to makeregarding such things as the New York Times labeling of "phantomelections in Mexico." # STATE DEPARTMENT INTERVENTION There is no consistency within the Administration.When Jack Vaughn,TESTIMONYMr.Carter's nominee to head the Latin American work of Agency forInternational Development was up before the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee,he reminded the Committee that "one of my best friends in Chile was tortured over a long period of time by th

FAQs

What main claim does the letter make about policy inconsistencies in Chile-related U.S. positions?

The letter states there is no consistency within the Administration and highlights conflicting approaches toward Chile, labor unions, and government sovereignty.

How does the letter portray AFL-CIO involvement with Chilean labor unions?

It describes AFL-CIO efforts as external intervention tied to a donation list, and asks whether this compromises Chilean labor leaders and creates political consequences.

What questions does the letter raise about State Department actions regarding Chilean elections and sovereignty?

It argues the State Department intervenes to deny a sovereign nation’s right to hold elections without U.S. clearance, and it questions the intent behind such interference.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Miles