Capital may seek to buttress suppport for protectionism with appeals to chauvinism, since it gets the added benefit of divisions among workers. Labor need not, and has good reasons to reject such devices. This is particularly true in the U.S., with a relatively diverse workforce, and with leading sections of the trade union movement featuring strong participation by immigrants and their first-generation predecessors.
The Repugs sought to make hay out of this in California and have probably dealt themselves out of state politics for a decade or two. Also makes Cal a relatively safe bet in national presidential elections. Witness the lurch in the other direction to Junior Bush and his Hispanic wife.
I can't speak on other countries, but in the U.S. in my view chauvinism is not an important factor in the labor campaign re: trade. This is not to say racism is banished in the labor movement; far from it. But my reading is that chauvinism is recognized as something to be avoided, for a complex of practical as well as ethical reasons.
The Japanese car and radio bashing of bygone days may have reflected no more than the primitive stage of U.S. labor's rousing itself against globalization. There's hasn't been much of that lately, far as I can remember.
Another factor mitigating against chauvinism is the need for the movement to move from defense (which is associated with alliances with elements of the right) to offense. Offense requires positive trade agreements, of which the right will have no part.
mbs