Originally posted by mrstabbyI don't have time to read a 236 page book detailing every minor complaint about Chavez. Could you hit the high points and we could discuss those? It seems to me that Chavez's response to the 2002 coup (which, if successful, would have totally dismantled the 1999 Constitution by fiat) has been far more measured than a response in most countries would have been to a military coup.
Surely Human Rights Watch will be a satisfactory middle ground?
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/venezuela0908web.pdf
Unfortunately, the US sponsored coup in 2002 appears to have made Chavez paranoid enough to undo the good work he did prior to the attempted revolution. He needs to stick by the constitution he enacted.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm inclined to agree with that to a certain extent... under human rights law he is at liberty to censor media if the media is inciting violence. It's a public order matter. However, that doesn't mean his powers are limitless. It's a bit hypocritical when he responds in an inflammatory manner. The constitution's thankfully still there, but unfortunately it's being violated.
I don't have time to read a 236 page book detailing every minor complaint about Chavez. Could you hit the high points and we could discuss those? It seems to me that Chavez's response to the 2002 coup (which, if successful, would have totally dismantled the 1999 Constitution by fiat) has been far more measured than a response in most countries would have been to a military coup.
I've only fully read the first 9 pages myself, skimming over the other chapters.
The main points are:
Political discrimination
Media manipulation
Making the courts part of the government as opposed to being independent
Undermining union rights
Making it difficult for rights advocates and civil society organisations to do their work
He could be doing better, but then again so could a lot of countries!
Originally posted by mrstabbyAre you talking about Venuzuela here? Or...
Political discrimination
Media manipulation
Making the courts part of the government as opposed to being independent
Undermining union rights
Making it difficult for rights advocates and civil society organisations to do their work
Originally posted by no1marauderI trust HRW as a resource, and I'd be very surprised if they blew something out of proportion. There was plenty to glean from the information in the introduction to see that they're onto something.
Shouldn't you at least read the section before you decide whether Chavez is truly "undermining union rights"?
If a union is to be truly democratic then it should be free from state intervention. The state should not ban the forming of unions, show favouritism towards pro state unions and ban legitimate strike activity.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyHow about if the union is dedicated to the overthrow of the government by non-democratic means? Here's some background regarding the CTV: http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona10222005.html
I trust HRW as a resource, and I'd be very surprised if they blew something out of proportion. There was plenty to glean from the information in the introduction to see that they're onto something.
If a union is to be truly democratic then it should be free from state intervention. The state should not ban the forming of unions, show favouritism towards pro state unions and ban legitimate strike activity.
Originally posted by no1marauderIn that case? Individual action is justified.
How about if the union is dedicated to the overthrow of the government by non-democratic means? Here's some background regarding the CTV: http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona10222005.html
Violating the freedom to associate and negotiate through legislation isn't.
Originally posted by no1marauderso you're blaming the coup (2002) for his radical actions (2008)?
I don't have time to read a 236 page book detailing every minor complaint about Chavez. Could you hit the high points and we could discuss those? It seems to me that Chavez's response to the 2002 coup (which, if successful, would have totally dismantled the 1999 Constitution by fiat) has been far more measured than a response in most countries would have been to a military coup.
explain yourself
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyI read the summary on labor on page 6. The relevant accusations are as follows:
In that case? Individual action is justified.
Violating the freedom to associate and negotiate through legislation isn't.
Undermined workers’ right to elect their representatives by requiring state
oversight and certification of union elections;
• Denied the right to bargain collectively to unions which do not receive state
approval of election results;
• Undermined workers’ right to freely join the labor organization of their
choosing by engaging in favoritism toward pro-government unions; and
• Undermined workers’ right to strike by banning legitimate strike activity and
engaging in mass reprisals against striking oil workers.
If 1 and 2 are a denial of the right to collectively bargain, then the US has been in violation of such for decades as all union elections have to be certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
I don't find "engaging in favoritism toward pro-government unions" to be a serious charge.
I'll read the specifications of 4.
EDIT: I disagree that the oil strike. which was part of a more general strike called a few months after the coup, and who's explicit purpose was to cause the overthrow of an elected government, was "legitimate strike activity". Chavez was justified in firing those workers; far more justified than Reagan was in firing the air traffic controllers. In addition as HRW concedes:
It is true that, under international law, the prohibition on retaliatory dismissals does not cover strikes that have purely political aims. Such political strikes, according to the ILO, do not fall within the scope of the principles of freedom of association.
Though the ILO found otherwise (on flimsy grounds that would wipe out the "purely political" exception), there isn't much reasoned doubt that the oil strike's sole motivation was to do what the coup failed to do i.e. topple Chavez. That the union leaders asserted that the fall of Chavez would economically benefit their workers doesn't change that no matter what the ILO says.
Originally posted by no1marauderThis isn't about the US, this is about Venezuela.
I read the summary on labor on page 6. The relevant accusations are as follows:
Undermined workers’ right to elect their representatives by requiring state
oversight and certification of union elections;
• Denied the right to bargain collectively to unions which do not receive state
approval of election results;
• Undermined workers’ r ...[text shortened]... economically benefit their workers doesn't change that no matter what the ILO says.
Engaging in favouritism because of political views is utterly undemocratic, unions like people, should be treated equally regardless of political viewpoints. It's blatant discrimination.
Refusing to recognise a doctors union election for 17 months, then accepting a union that hasn't even had elections (page 136)
Since the oil strike, workers have been actively discriminated against for their political beliefs. The energy minister went as far to suggest that you must support the government or leave.
Minutes from a PDVSA meeting state “All individuals (from leaders down) that are not identified with the process will be assigned to irrelevant activities, overtime will be eliminated for them and they will be taken out of activities on Saturday and Sunday. Those who are not with Chávez must not be in PDVSA.”
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyWhat a bunch of nonsense. Pro-government anythings get more favorably treatment anywhere by the government than anti-government anythings. Welcome to Planet Earth.
This isn't about the US, this is about Venezuela.
Engaging in favouritism because of political views is utterly undemocratic, unions like people, should be treated equally regardless of political viewpoints. It's blatant discrimination.
Refusing to recognise a doctors union election for 17 months, then accepting a union that hasn't even had elections ( ...[text shortened]... ut of activities on Saturday and Sunday. Those who are not with Chávez must not be in PDVSA.”
Originally posted by mrstabbyAs for the Public Health Workers Union (not just doctors):
This isn't about the US, this is about Venezuela.
Engaging in favouritism because of political views is utterly undemocratic, unions like people, should be treated equally regardless of political viewpoints. It's blatant discrimination.
Refusing to recognise a doctors union election for 17 months, then accepting a union that hasn't even had elections ( ...[text shortened]... ut of activities on Saturday and Sunday. Those who are not with Chávez must not be in PDVSA.”
At 7:40 p.m. on November 29, 2004, the leaders of SUNEP-SAS received an
administrative order from the CNE to suspend the elections scheduled for the next
day.485 According to the CNE, a group of SUNEP-SAS workers had filed a complaint to
the CNE about irregularities in the electoral process, so the CNE issued an injunction
to postpone the elections until the dispute was resolved.486
SUNEP-SAS decided to proceed with the elections because the union had already
expended considerable energy and resources to install voting equipment in the
union’s 26 chapters across the country. The elections occurred without incident or
further challenge.487 Nonetheless, the CNE did not certify the results and did not
respond to SUNEP-SAS’s appeal requesting reversal of the election suspension order
and recognition of the election results.488 SUNEP-SAS’s appeal to the Venezuelan
courts was also unsuccessful, being ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on
the basis of alleged procedural irregularities.489
So the union disobeyed a government injunction and the matter of the election they illegally held had to be adjudicated. 17 months isn't a shocking amount of time for legal proceedings to take.