When the Teamsters announced its support for tariffs on Mexican beer in March, I couldn’t help but think of the old joke about a drunkard searching for his keys under a streetlight, despite having lost them on the other side of the street, because, in his words, “it’s easier to see near the light.”
The labor union has said that the move will “help U.S. workers in the beer industry restore economic balance and fairness in our trading relationship with Mexico.” But should the tariffs have their intended effect in reducing imports to the United States, they will likely also reduce employment for the unionized Mexican workforces that produce Modelo and Corona, both of which are represented by Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de Bebidas Envasadas, Enlatadas y Embotelladas y su Distribución (National Union of Workers in the Packaged, Canned, and Bottled Beverage Industry and Distribution).
In a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Sean O’Brien—who has drawn criticism within the labor movement for his seemingly warm relationship with President Donald Trump—warned that “foreign beer imports stand to grow to nearly 40 percent of total U.S. consumption,” and thereby threaten Teamster jobs. United Auto Workers (UAW) president Shawn Fain has also indicated support for Trump’s tariffs, albeit more cautiously. In a recent editorial for The Detroit News, Fain noted with pride that UAW’s “long history of supporting the use of auto tariffs well before Trump ever stepped foot in the White House.” Though he has criticized Trump’s use of tariffs—in an April address to UAW, he called Trump’s blanket tariffs “reckless”—he also maintains they can be “an effective tool if implemented in a way that actually benefits working people.”
While O’Brien appears steadfast in his embrace of tariffs, rank-and-file Teamsters appear to be less enthusiastic. Edgar Esquivel, a twenty-seven-year member of IBT 952 in Orange County, California, and longtime O’Brien critic, argues that tariffs on Mexican beer will be job killers rather than job savers. “With tariffs disrupting commerce, this will also have an effect on cargo reduction and possible layoffs of unionized transport workers and the Teamsters bottling division,” Esquivel says. “In California, the majority of Mexican beer brands are loaded, unloaded, and delivered by Teamster workers.” In order to better protect Teamsters in the beer industry, Esquivel suggests that the union could instead add “language that prohibits the closure of plants.”
Union leadership’s promotion of protectionism has a long history in the United States, and it’s far from a proud one. During the decline of the “Big Three” motor vehicle manufacturers beginning in the early 1980s, union leaders engaged in regular “Japan-bashing,” blaming the industry’s woes on Japanese imports. Then-Chrysler CEO Lee Iaccoca warned of “predatory trade” and “insidious Japanese economic and political power within the United States,” while signs at union halls and plant parking bore messages like “300,000 laid-off UAW members don’t like your import. Please park it in Tokyo.” There was even a bumper sticker that read “Datsun · Toyota · Nissan / REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR!”
Democratic politicians also engaged in Japan-bashing during this time. In 1982, a Chinese-American man named Vincent Chin was beaten to death outside of Detroit by Ronald Ebens, a Chrysler supervisor, and his stepson Michael Netz, a laid-off autoworker. Before the beating, Ebens reportedly told Chin that “It’s because of you little motherfuckers that we’re out of work.” That year, then-U.S. Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, complained that regarding trade, “we are being shot at, and shot up, by the Japanese,” while U.S. Representative John Dingell Jr., also a Michigan Democrat, blamed the auto industry’s woes on “the little yellow people.”
But the auto unions’ strategy of convincing consumers to buy domestic cars ultimately backfired: Money they could have spent organizing non-union part suppliers or foreign car companies’ plants in the South was instead used on “Buy American” campaigns that ultimately failed to stop the industry’s decline. Meanwhile, Japan-bashing only helped auto executives. By blaming the Japanese for the industry’s troubles, executives were able to align autoworkers with their own interests against a common enemy, allowing them to ask workers for concessions in order to remain “viable competitors” on the international market. At the same time General Motors executives asked their workers to sacrifice scheduled raises and paid holidays, the executives made five times the salary of an average Toyota executive.
But more recent union leadership appears not to have learned from the earlier generation’s mistakes. During the first Trump Administration, Shawn Fain’s predecessor, Dennis Williams, embraced a similar “Buy American” campaign strategy at UAW, which ultimately sputtered to a halt before he was eventually given a twenty-one month prison sentence for embezzling union funds. Fain’s continuation of a protectionist strategy, alongside O’Brien’s, signals the potential for a repeat of the Japan-bashing era, aimed this time at Mexico. As with the scapegoating of the Japanese, there are racial implications to union leadership’s focus on Mexico as a competitive threat. After all, if imported beer means fewer Teamster jobs, why is O’Brien not also calling for tariffs on other prominent beer producers like Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland?
The history here offers a clear lesson: Protectionism and scapegoating of foreign competitors ultimately hurts the union rank and file. If the Teamsters are serious about representing brewery workers, they should focus on the nearly 200,000 workers in the craft brewing industry—the vast majority of whom have no union representation—rather than bashing unionized workers across the border.
The Teamsters declined to provide additional comment for this story.