|
Colombia: unions under attack, but fighting
back
By Meredith Aby
Minneapolis, MN, Sept. 8— Colombia is the most dangerous
place in the world to be a trade unionist. On average, right-wing paramilitary
death squads or the military murder three Colombian trade unionists
a week. Many more are threatened each day. At the same time the US has
given more than $3 billion in military aid, which funds both the military
and paramilitary wars on Colombian trade unionists, peasants and human
rights workers.
In July, the US Colombia Action Network (CAN) sent a solidarity delegation
of anti-war and student activists to meet with representatives from
the Colombia trade unions, including the CUT(Colombia’s largest
labor federation), USO (the oil workers’ union), the Bogota teachers’
union and the beverage workers’ union.
The goal of the delegation’s two-week visit was to stand in solidarity
with the people of Colombia and investigate the effects of the US military
aid package, Plan Colombia. The delegation saw the effects first hand.
Two unions had members killed the same day the delegation visited them.
Government repression
In addition to extralegal violence, the Colombian government is also
waging a war by “legal” means. The Colombian Congress passed
the new Democratic Security Act, similar to the USA PATRIOT Act. It
legalizes the indefinite detention of people the government labels “suspected
terrorists.” These people then lose their rights to formal accusations,
to bail and to being considered innocent until proven guilty.
Every trade union and social movement organization the delegation talked
to expressed concern about this new law. They explained while these
acts of repression were standard practice for the armed forces and police
in the past, at least when such activities were illegal, activists could
use the legal system to fight the unlawful detention and imprisonment
of their comrades.
Activists and trade unionists in Colombia specifically blamed the Bush
administration for these new repressive policies. They said that since
9/11, the Colombian government has been given clear direction from the
US to use whatever means necessary in order to fight against both leftists
and rebels.
Domingo Tovar, director of human rights for the CUT, laid out the political
situation for us on our first day in Bogota: “There’s 30,000
dead each year. Only 7 percent are killed in combat between the two
forces. One hundred and sixty kids die daily due to poor health and
nutrition and the rest of the deaths are the responsibility of the state.
The government is the primary violator of human rights.
“Colombia is the country with the most assassinations of union
members in the world. Under the administration of [Alvaro] Uribe, the
current president, there’s been more than 160 union deaths. This
year there’s been 29, including a companero this morning. Under
Uribe there’s been more than 700 illegal arrests. Under the new
anti-terrorism statute it gives judicial police the power to investigate,
capture and condemn. The CUT has more than 100 members in jail and more
than 500 are in exile.”
The US gives $3 million in military aid per day to Colombia because
the US wants Colombia to be a part of its free trade vision for the
hemisphere. The US wants its corporations to be able to sell their goods
cheaply in Colombia and for their products to be made cheaply there
as well.
Colombia’s strong labor movement and rebel armies are in deep opposition
to these policies. Additionally, Colombia lacks the infrastructure for
free trade. So US military aid is used to train the military in torture
and to wage warfare against the guerrillas. The US military aid is also
being used to guard Occidental Oil’s pipeline in Arauca and to
guard the highways being built for multi-national trade.
Control of oil
By law, the state-owned oil company, Ecopetrol, used to handle 50-70
percent of the nation’s oil production. Six years ago, under the
previous president, the law was changed to give 70 percent to foreign
corporations. This change decreased the amount of revenue the state
earns from oil production and it increased taxes for Colombians. It
also meant more profits for foreign oil companies like Occidental Oil
and BP Amoco.
In May, the oil workers’ union, USO, completed one of the most
important strikes in Colombia’s recent history. The government,
acting on behalf of multinational corporations and under World Bank
pressure, wanted to sell off its national industries, including Ecopetrol.
The government purposefully sabotaged the oil company’s economic
viability to justify selling it to foreign companies.
Had this plan for privatization succeeded, it would have robbed the
Colombian people of an important source of wealth, and it would have
placed one of Colombia’s most valuable resources, oil, in the hands
of foreign corporations. It would have killed the nation’s most
militant union.
The battle began this spring when the Colombian government instituted
layoffs that violated the union contract and directly targeted the leadership
of the oil workers’ union. USO responded with a 36-day strike to
fight against further layoffs, against the privatization of the oil
company, and for the right to have a union.
Sixty-five percent of the union’s members went out on strike. The
company offered bonuses, bribes and promotions to try to persuade workers
not to strike.
During the strike, the families of strikers received letters and phone
calls threatening death. Pressure was brought to bear on the family
members of union workers, who in a few cases caved in and encouraged
their loved ones to scab rather than risk job loss. The union remained
strong however, and in the end the government agreed to not privatize
the company and to keep it 100 percent Colombian.
After the strike, two USO members were framed for a crime they didn’t
commit, under the new “terrorism” laws. One member has been
charged with planting a bomb and running from the scene of the crime,
even though he had a broken leg at the time.
Killer coke
In Barrancabermeja, the CAN delegation met with William Mendoza, the
vice-president of the beverage workers’ union, SINALTRAINAL. He
explained the context of the struggle at Coca-Cola plants throughout
Colombia: “Since 1990 the Coca-Cola company has had the goal of
union-free plants in Colombia. Twelve years ago, 96 percent of the Coke
work force was unionized, and 96 percent of the jobs with Coke were
full-time permanent positions. Now, only 4 percent of the jobs with
Coke are permanent full-time jobs. The rest are now temporary jobs.
“In 1993, 1808 workers were members of SINALTRAINAL, but now only
300 workers are with the union. The company’s campaign of firing,
pressuring and threatening union members and leaders has severely hurt
the union. Nine companeros have been assassinated, 45 displaced and
75 threatened.”
Recently Coca-Cola has applied to the Colombian government to dismiss
63 workers, including 31 leaders of the union. This is in violation
of their contract.
Mendoza continued: “Another tactic Coke is taking is to close the
plants. They have closed 12 in total. The union believes the plants
will be reopened but without a union. However, the union offers a better
way of life for the workers.
“At Coca-Cola’s plants a union worker will earn $260 per month
and work an 8-hour day, whereas a non-union worker will earn $110 per
month, the legal minimum, and work 14-16 hours per day. Coca-Cola is
trying to eliminate the contract by closing all the plants where union
members work.
“However, Coke isn’t just trying to destroy the union through
plant closings. Several union members in Barrancabermeja, including
the vice-president, reported that their families had been threatened
and that paramilitaries had tried to abduct their children.”
SINALTRAINAL members in Barranca-bermeja stated that the company and
the paramilitaries were working together to destroy the union. They
gave the CAN delegation several examples and personal testimony of cases
when known paramilitaries were allowed into the plant to meet with Coca-Cola
executives, even after the workers reported these in-plant meetings
to Coca-Cola in Bogota. They even gave the example of Coca-Cola donating
free soda pop to paramilitaries so they are refreshed while staffing
the check-points that intimidate and terrorize people in the Barrancabermeja
area.
In an email communication to the CAN, Mendoza wrote: “If we lose
the fight against Coca-Cola, we will first lose our union, next our
jobs and then our lives.”
The truth of that statement may be imminent. Mendoza also said that
if the firings take place and the union is broken, “It makes things
very complicated for me — in terms of my security. This decision
removes any political cost to the paramilitaries who would assassinate
me.”
Since 2002, the CAN has been organizing in solidarity with SINALTRAINAL.
Mendoza informed the delegation that the movement in the US has helped:
“We’ve felt international solidarity and pressure has decreased
the threats to us. The company has had to give some means of security
to us because of international pressure. It’s because of this international
pressure that we can continue our struggle.”
Source: Green Left Weekly
Bogota admits army killed union chiefs
By Juan Forero
Bogota, Colombia, Sept. 7— The attorney general’s
office said late Sept. 6 that Colombian soldiers assassinated three
union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the
army’s earlier contention that the three men were Marxist rebels
killed in a firefight.
The attorney general’s human rights unit on Sept. 6 ordered the
arrest of an army officer, two soldiers and a civilian who took part
in the killings of Jorge Eduardo Prieto, Leonel Goyeneche and Héctor
Alirio Martínez on Aug. 5 in Saravena. Since 2002, US military
trainers have been instructing Colombian soldiers there in counterguerrilla
techniques, though it is unclear if the US trained the unit accused
of killing the union leaders.
“The evidence shows that a homicide was committed,” Luis Alberto
Santana, the deputy attorney general, said at a news conference on Sept.
6. “We have ruled out that there was combat.”
The attorney general’s announcement vindicated union leaders in
Colombia and Europe who said the army had killed three defenseless union
activists and then tried to cover the matter up.
“It’s clear that we were never wrong, saying that they were
assassinated by members of the Colombian Army,” said Domingo Tovar,
who coordinates human rights activities for the Central Workers Union,
largest Colombian labor confederation.
The attorney general’s announcement came days after Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell warned the Colombian government that it must curtail
rights abuses or risk losing aid. On Sept. 7, Vice President Francisco
Santos acknowledged that the government had erred in its initial characterization
of the killings, saying, “Yes, we were wrong.”
Colombia is by far the world’s most dangerous country for union
members, with 94 killed last year and 47 slain by Aug. 25 this year,
according to the National Union School, a research and educational center
in Medellín. Most of those killings were by right-wing paramilitary
leaders linked to rogue army units. Worldwide, 123 union members were
slain last year, according to the International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions, a Brussels-based group.
The number of killings of union members has dropped in Colombia, from
a high of 222 in 1996. But union leaders, foreign diplomats and political
analysts say the government has done little to improve safety -- underscored
by the fact that the union leaders killed in Saravena had asked the
government for better security.
Paramilitary organizations, which use death squads to erode support
for rebel groups, have accused unions of working with guerrillas. Rebel
groups have, in fact, drawn some members from unions.
But union leaders have also made enemies of powerful forces in Colombia’s
highly stratified society, both for their leftist declarations and their
harsh criticism of fiscally conservative governments bent on privatizing
industries and holding down labor costs.
Source: New York Times
Modified, a union bill still gives
cause for concern
By Sam Olukoya
Lagos, Nigeria, Sept. 11 (IPS)— Controversy over a bill
to amend Nigeria’s trade union laws surfaced again this week
when a modified version of the measure was passed by the country’s
senate. The House of Representatives has yet to vote on the bill,
which may also be vetoed by President Olusegun Obasanjo.
While presenting a position paper on the measure to senate a fortnight
ago, the minister of employment, labor and productivity, Hassan Muhammed
Lawal, said it was meant “to promote the democratization of labor,
and to further strengthen it.”
But this claim was greeted with scorn by the Nigerian Labor Congress
(NLC), the country’s only union federation, established in 1978.
The congress sees the measure as a thinly-veiled attempt to silence
it, following the NLC’s vociferous opposition to government over
matters such as the increase in fuel prices. Some see the congress
as having taken over from an enfeebled opposition since Nigeria returned
to civilian rule in 1999.
This point was acknowledged by Lawal: “The NLC has ventured into
the arena of politics and has installed itself as the unofficial opposition
party in the democratic process. It never sees any good thing in well-intentioned
decisions of the government.”
Of particular concern to the congress is the fact that under the bill,
it will cease to be the sole union federation.
NLC official Ismail Bello told IPS that a provision of the bill which
makes it difficult for unions to collect dues will also starve the
groups of funds.
“When you have your own resources you will be able to assert
your own independence as an organization,” he notes, adding,
“The government wants ... weak trade unions that will not be
able to rise up and mobilize the populace when there are policies
that [may be considered] anti-people.”
In addition, the original draft of the bill sought to outlaw strikes.
The senate has apparently limited this ban to those Nigerians who
work in essential services, however. The NLC has staged three strikes
over the past year to protest against increases in the fuel price
caused by the removal of subsidies.
“If not for the Nigerian Labor Congress, I want to assure you
that the fuel price would have been higher than what it is now,”
Micheal Olukoya, chairman of the Lagos state chapter of the NLC, told
the IPS.
He added that if the bill was passed by the House of Representatives,
“People will just wake up and make laws because the fear of being
opposed is no longer there. We shall become a conquered people in
our country and it will mean those that died fighting for democracy
would have died in vain.”
Labor specialist Bunmi Malomo told IPS that a ban on picketing contained
in the new bill was also to the disadvantage of workers.
Under the measure, those who do so will now be liable for six months
imprisonment. In recent years, workers have been fighting against
a growing trend by companies to employ casual labor, by picketing
firms which are found to be doing so.
“The consequence of banning workers from picketing is that workers
will further lose their rights in the hands of employers that want
to exploit them,” said Malomo.
In fact, it appears that only senior managers and the like have cause
to smile about the union bill.
Before now, these employees were banned from forming a federation
that would include all unions which defended their rights.
“It has been affecting our rights,” Lumuba Okugbawa of the
Senior Staff Association of Petroleum Workers told IPS, adding, “And
we feel we should be given that freedom to associate at that umbrella
level.”
However, senior workers are now free to form an umbrella union.
The bill has made steady progress in the House of Representatives,
and is expected to be passed in the coming days. After that, it will
be sent to the president to be signed into law.
There are doubts as to whether the amended measure will meet with
the head of state’s approval, however, as the bill which he originally
submitted to the senate contained harsher provisions than the version
passed. The senate’s vote on the law took place Thursday, Sep.
9.
Ismail believes that if the government truly had the interests of
workers at heart, it would consider reviewing other aspects of Nigeria’s
labor laws which have a more immediate effect on employees.
“The labor reform bill just touched on the Trade Unions Act,
which has to do with how unions organize,” he notes. “Why
is it not interested in the rights and safety of workers? Why is it
not interested in the Factories Act? Why is it not interested in the
Employment Act?”
Wal-Mart Challenge of union rejected
by Labor Board
Compiled by Finn Finneran
Sept. 15 (AGR) — The Quebec Labor Relations Commission
(QLRC) has rejected Wal-Mart’s challenge to the union certification
of its store in Jonquière, Québec – leaving it
the only unionized Wal-Mart in the world.
The QLRC dismissed Wal-Mart’s argument that the bargaining unit
certified at the store was not valid because it did not include store
management personnel. In a six-page written decision the QLRC rejected
Wal-Mart’s application to stall the process leading to a first
contract, and confirmed that the bargaining unit certified by the
commission in August should stand.
According to an analysis published by the Canadian magazine, Straight,
many unions throughout the continent have “quietly declared an
all-out war on Wal-Mart.” Their goal is to unionize Wal-Mart’s
1.2 million US workers and 60,000 workers in Canada.
“It’s a priority to organize Wal-Mart,” explained Andy
Neufeld, spokesperson for the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Local 1518’s head office in Burnaby, BC. “Since the fall
of 2003, our local has certainly put more of a concerted effort into
organizing Wal-Mart.”
Local 1518, which represents 26,000 workers in BC’s retail, commercial,
industrial, and health-care sectors, is responsible for organizing
the union drive at Wal-Mart’s Jonquière store. On Aug.
2, UFCW Canada made labor history — in what the union’s
national director, Michael Fraser, called “a great victory ...
for Wal-Mart workers everywhere” — when it received certification
for the only union at a Wal-Mart anywhere in North America, in Jonquière,
Quebec. Wal-Mart immediately applied to challenge the certification,
but was rejected on Sept. 10, to the union’s relief.
“We were euphoric Aug. 2 and that has been reconfirmed today,”
Marie-Josee Lemieux, president of the local union, said in a telephone
interview.
“We’re sending Wal-Mart a letter to begin contract talks,”
said Louis Bolduc, head of the Quebec region of UFCW Canada, “and
we will also soon be meeting with our Jonquière Wal-Mart members
to discuss their goals in the upcoming negotiations.”
As other corporations widely emulate Wal-Mart’s business model,
the labor movement has decided that tackling Wal-Mart is the key to
improving wages and working conditions across North America.
“It’s not just, ‘Let’s whack Wal-Mart,’”
said T. J. Michels, media spokesperson for the Service Employees International
Union (SEIU), which represents 1.6 million workers in Canada, the
US, and Puerto Rico. “But let’s whack the business model
that drives workers’ wages down. Wal-Mart is not just a UFCW
problem; Wal-Mart is a labor problem.”
At the SEIU’s June convention, it voted to set aside $1 million
for an as-yet-unnamed Wal-Mart campaign in Canada and the US. The
idea, Michels explained, is to use the fund as “seed money”
to assist community, environmental, and other groups that have concerns
about Wal-Mart.
All previous attempts to organize Wal-Marts in Canada and the US had
met with failure. For example, in 2002, after Wal-Mart meat cutters
at a Jacksonville, TX store voted to unionize their 10-person department,
Wal-Mart effectively eliminated their jobs. The company moved the
butchers to other departments and began offering prepackaged meats.
Despite Wal-Mart’s grim labor organizing history, similar store-wide
union drives are underway in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British
Columbia.
Sources: Canadian Press, Straight Magazine,
UFCW Canada
|
