Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.aspx
😴😴
You've failed to show any of the above.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-lt-venezuela-intimidation,0,2116035.story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
(have a look at venezuela's position)
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoThe first is a dated piece from the Christian evangelical outlet Christian Broadcast Network. It's short on facts and heavy with propaganda.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050531a.aspx
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-lt-venezuela-intimidation,0,2116035.story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World
(have a look at venezuela's position)
You've already cited the second which says that elections will be held on Sunday. Hardly the action of an "authoritarian" government.
A list based on Milton Friedman's conceptions of how a government should structure its economic system isn't indicative of anything.
Originally posted by no1marauderThats not the only evidence, there's more if you look for it.
The first is a dated piece from the Christian evangelical outlet Christian Broadcast Network. It's short on facts and heavy with propaganda.
You've already cited the second which says that elections will be held on Sunday. Hardly the action of an "authoritarian" government.
A list based on Milton Friedman's conceptions of how a government should structure its economic system isn't indicative of anything.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat doesn't justify the ignoring a union because it isn't pro government. You appear to be ignoring political discrimination when it suits you
What a bunch of nonsense. Pro-government anythings get more favorably treatment anywhere by the government than anti-government anythings. Welcome to Planet Earth.
Originally posted by no1marauder...but then they accepted a union that hadn't even HAD an election!
As for the Public Health Workers Union (not just doctors):
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 elect ...[text shortened]... had to be adjudicated. 17 months isn't a shocking amount of time for legal proceedings to take.
You call that fair, or discriminatory?
Originally posted by mrstabbyIf you bothered to read the details (which you obviously didn't), you'd know that new unions weren't required to have elections during their provisional period. You might not like that, but it is Venezuelan law. Why is it that unions critical of Chavez aren't bound by Venezuelan law?
...but then they accepted a union that hadn't even HAD an election!
You call that fair, or discriminatory?
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd now we meet the crux of the matter, which is the legislation in place.
If you bothered to read the details (which you obviously didn't), you'd know that new unions weren't required to have elections during their provisional period. You might not like that, but it is Venezuelan law. Why is it that unions critical of Chavez aren't bound by Venezuelan law?
Read from page 144 and onwards.
"The 1999 Constitution mandated the alternation of union leaders at least every three
years. The government argued that the provision was necessary to ensure that
union leadership elections were held in practice and that union leaders did not
monopolize power. However, the ILO has noted that decisions as to the alternation
of trade union leadership must lie exclusively with workers’ organizations and their
members and that “provisions restricting or prohibiting the re-election of trade union
officers are a serious obstacle to the right of organizations to elect their
representatives in full freedom."
Forcing unions to go through the CNE is also wrong. Unions should be allowed to ask for assistance, but allowed to run on their own.
Originally posted by mrstabbyHere's another view on HRW and the report:
And now we meet the crux of the matter, which is the legislation in place.
Read from page 144 and onwards.
"The 1999 Constitution mandated the alternation of union leaders at least every three
years. The government argued that the provision was necessary to ensure that
union leadership elections were held in practice and that union leaders did not
m ...[text shortened]... also wrong. Unions should be allowed to ask for assistance, but allowed to run on their own.
4. Organized Labor
HRW claims that the Venezuelan government has violated ‘basic principles of freedom of association' because it requires state oversight and certification of union elections and that by denying the right to bargain collectively to non-certified unions, it undermines workers' rights to freely join the union of their choosing and to strike. Practically every government in the West has rules and regulations regarding oversight and certification of union elections, none more onerous than the US starting with the Taft-Hartley Act of the 1940's and the ‘Right to Work' Laws current in many states, which have reduced the percentage of unionized workers in the private sector to less than 3%. In contrast, during the Chavez Presidency, the number of unionized workers has more than doubled, in large part because new labor legislation and labor officials have reduced employer prerogatives to arbitrarily fire unionized workers. The only union officials who have been ‘decertified' are those who were involved in the violent coup of April 2002 and the employers lockout intended to overthrow the government, suspend the constitution and undermine the very existence of free unions. José Miguel Vivanco delicately overlooks the gangsterism, thuggery and fraudulent election procedures, which ran rampant under the previous rightwing Venezuelan labor confederation, CTV. It was precisely to democratize voting procedures and to break the stranglehold of the old-guard trade union bosses that the government monitors oversaw union elections, many of which had multi-tendency candidates, unfettered debates and free voting for the first time.
I attended union meetings and interviewed high level CTV trade unions officials in 1970, 1976 and 1978 and found high levels of open vote buying, government and employer interference and co-optation, collaboration with the CIA-funded American Institute of Free Labor Development and large-scale pilfering of union pension funds, none of which was denounced by HRW. I attended the founding of the new Venezuelan union confederation, Union Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT) in 2003 and a subsequent national congress. I have witness a totally different unionism, a shift from government-run ‘corporate' business unionism to independent social movement unionism with a decidedly class oriented approach. The UNT is a multi-tendency confederation in which diverse currents compete, with varying degrees of support and opposition to the Chavez Government. There are few impediments to strikes and there is a high degree of independent political action with no inhibition to workers resorting to strikes in order to demand the ouster of pro-employer labor officials.
For example, this year, steel workers in the Argentine-owned firm SIDOR, went on strike several times protesting private sector firings (HRW, of course never discussed private sector violations of workers rights). Because the Venezuelan Labor Minister tended to take the side of the employers, the steelworkers marched into a meeting where Chavez was speaking and demanded the dismissal of his Minister. After conferring with the workers' leaders, Chavez fired the Labor Minister, expropriated the steel plant and accepted workers demands for trade union co-management. Never in Venezuelan labor history have workers exercised this degree of labor influence in nationalized plants. There is no doubt that there are government officials who would like to ‘integrate' labor unions closer to the state; the new unionists do spend too much time in internal debates and internecine struggles instead of organizing the informal and temporary worker sectors. But one fact stands out: Unionized and non-unionized Venezuelan workers have experienced greater social welfare payments, rising living standards, greater job protection and greater free choice in union affiliation than any previous period in their history. It is ironic that Vivanco, an uncritical apologist of the AFL-CIO (the declining and least effective labor confederation in the industrialized West), should launch a full-scale attack on the fastest growing, independent and militant trade union movement in the Western hemisphere. Needless to say, Vivanco avoids any comparative analysis, least of all between Venezuelan and US labor over the spread of union organizing, internal democracy and labor representation in industry, social benefits and influence over government policy. Nor does HRW refer to the positive assessment by independent international labor organizations regarding union and labor advances under the Chavez Presidency.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3841
Originally posted by no1marauderPointing the finger at other countries doesn't make what Chavez does right. The right to free association is being denied. Things are better than they were before he was in power but there's still a long way to go.
Here's another view on HRW and the report:
4. Organized Labor
HRW claims that the Venezuelan government has violated ‘basic principles of freedom of association' because it requires state oversight and certification of union elections and that by denying the right to bargain collectively to non-certified unions, it undermines workers' rights to fr ...[text shortened]... advances under the Chavez Presidency.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3841
Do you have any objections to the recommendations on pages 196-7?
Originally posted by mrstabbyI've never heard such a ridiculous assertion has that having the government oversee and certify union elections is a violation of the right to organize. The practice of nations is a relevant consideration as to what violates international law. There are good and compelling reasons to regulate union elections to insure that the will of the workers is reflected in the results and virtually all countries do so. That HRW would base two of their 4 claims that Venezuela is violating the right to free association on such a ludicrous reed is telling.
Pointing the finger at other countries doesn't make what Chavez does right. The right to free association is being denied. Things are better than they were before he was in power but there's still a long way to go.
Do you have any objections to the recommendations on pages 196-7?
More workers are in more representative unions getting better pay and benefits yet the right to free association is being denied? Hogwash.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHow does that answer my question? What are these compelling arguments for violating human rights?
I've never heard such a ridiculous assertion has that having the government oversee and certify union elections is a violation of the right to organize. The practice of nations is a relevant consideration as to what violates international law. There are good and compelling reasons to regulate union elections to insure that the will of the workers is refl ...[text shortened]... ons getting better pay and benefits yet the right to free association is being denied? Hogwash.
Results are being achieved, but are they in line with the demands that the unions that have been ignored and discriminated against?
Union elections should be regulated when members ask for it. At the moment the regulation is being misused to block current unions from having any say. There is a blatant favouritism for new, small, pro-government unions whilst larger long-standing ones are being ignored. If the government is making the terms for "free" association, then it's not free. In many cases they are being blocked by government regulations and unnecessary bureaucracy. If people want the government's help in ensuring a union is being run fairly then they are entitled to help, but not obliged to interference.
Incidentally, your last statement is a classic non sequitur - the fact that things have improved does not mean that they are as they should be.
I ask again: what are your objections to the recommendations on page 196-7?
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe existing unions were puppets of the ruling classes that screwed over the workers as the material I've cited to clearly shows. The first chance workers got, they flocked to the newly formed unions which actually have delivered on higher pay and benefits and has caused a doubling of the number of workers unionized. That the old boss unions would complain about this is not surprising; it is surprising that some people have been so obviously duped by their complaints when the facts are pretty clear.
How does that answer my question? What are these compelling arguments for violating human rights?
Results are being achieved, but are they in line with the demands that the unions that have been ignored and discriminated against?
Union elections should be regulated when members ask for it. At the moment the regulation is being misused to block curre ...[text shortened]... ey should be.
I ask again: what are your objections to the recommendations on page 196-7?
I'm uninterested in the recommendations on pages 196-97 as they attempt to address non-existent "problems". I generally don't support term limits of any kind, so abolishing them for union officials would be OK with me though I fail to see how this affects the "right to organize" (of course, Chavez's opponents hypocritically called him a would be dictator for attempting to get Presidential term limits eliminated). No country allows political strikes in the public sector as the recommendations insist on; this is another ridiculous demand coupled with the false claim that the allowance of political strikes is a required part of international law (which it is clearly not). None of the other recommendations are needed given that unionism is alive and growing in Venezuela.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe material you cited has a blatant left wing bias - labelling someone as right wing, even going as far to make up complete lies about Vivanco being linked to Pinochet (which they subsequently removed); calls http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/kosov2/ "covering up"... most of the allegations made against it are of a defamatory and false nature. If that's not propaganda I don't know what is.
The existing unions were puppets of the ruling classes that screwed over the workers as the material I've cited to clearly shows. The first chance workers got, they flocked to the newly formed unions which actually have delivered on higher pay and benefits and has caused a doubling of the number of workers unionized. That the old boss unions would compla ...[text shortened]... other recommendations are needed given that unionism is alive and growing in Venezuela.
The complaints in the article are distractions and missing the point - HRW's role is to point out misdemeanours, not to big up all the good work that a country has done. In terms of the right to organise, unions should be allowed to define their own terms of organisation, and not have the government looking over their shoulder unless it's asked for. The point is the ends don't justify the means, and there's now legislation in place that's very open to abuse by the next government in power. What if the next president is further right wing than you like and decides to do to the current pro government unions exactly what's been done to the long standing unions... will you say that's fair?
The idea that you can take industrial action against private business but not the state is utterly inconsistent. People either have the right to associate or they don't - can you show me where on the declaration of human rights a distinction between private business and state is made? Sure, using a strike to depose a government or change unrelated policy isn't allowed for, but in international law, unions are entitled to take industrial action when the politics have clear industrial ramifications. Coercing employees to be pro government or not work (which I mentioned before but you neglected to comment) is another clear violation. Your argument that conditions are better is bang out of line with the final human right - human rights can not be used to justify the violation of others.
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyYour refusal to accept the reality that the pre-existing unions in Venezuela were dismal failures or to accept that most workers willingly left them is predictable. Your refusal to admit that what the HRW is proposing is that government unions be allowed to strike for nothing more than political purposes rather than to better the working conditions of those they represent is telling.
The material you cited has a blatant left wing bias - labelling someone as right wing, even going as far to make up complete lies about Vivanco being linked to Pinochet (which they subsequently removed); calls http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/kosov2/ "covering up"... most of the allegations made against it are of a defamatory and false nature. If tha inal human right - human rights can not be used to justify the violation of others.
The HRW report is a biased hatchet job by an individual with an axe to grind. Sure, the articles that tell the truth have a "leftist bias" to you (as Stephen Colbert says: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."😉, though I've noticed you've failed to dispute a single fact they bring forth. In fact, you don't bother to dispute that the overseeing of union elections is utterly commonplace in even the most union friendly countries; you just parrot HRW's ridiculous claim that this is somehow a violation of the "right to organize". Of course it isn't; the right to organize encompasses the right to actually pick your union leaders in a fair process - something denied to workers in Venezuela for decades.
You and HRW have failed to show any actual violations of "human rights" no matter how many times you repeat the propaganda handed to you. The elections mentioned in the first post have been held and unsurprisingly Chavez's allies have won big though the opposition now controls a few states (3-5 out of 22). The people of Venezuela in the elections over the last decades and the workers of Venezuela by their leaving the corrupt CTV in droves in favor of new, more representative unions who's agenda is for the workers, not to overthrow the elected President, have spoken clearly. Unfortunately, people like you won't listen to anything but the anti-Chavez propaganda of a hack like Vivanco.