Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
- Presentation: Please Endorse the "Open Letter to the ILO
Workers' Group" Urging Rejection of the FEDECAMARAS-CTV Complaint in
the ILO! -- by Alan Benjamin, Co-Coordinator of the OWC Continuations
Committee
- Joint Communiqué Issued by the International Liaison Committee of
Workers and Peoples (ILC) and the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT)
-- Caracas, Venezuela, February 3, 2005
- Open Letter to the Workers' Group of the ILO -- issued by the national
coordinators of the UNT
- Endorsement Coupon of the Open Letter to the Workers' Group of the ILO
- Memorandum on the Employer Offensive Against Venezuela Within the ILO --
prepared by the national coordinators of the UNT
- The Truth About Trade Union Freedoms in Venezuela -- major excerpts from
a pamphlet produced in June 2004 by the national coordinators of the
National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT)
- Joint ILC-UNT Declaration of December 10, 2004
********************
Presentation: Please Endorse the "Open Letter to the ILO Workers'
Group" Urging Rejection of the FEDECAMARAS-CTV Complaint in the ILO!
Dear Sisters and Brothers:
The Bush administration is at again, building its case to prepare one more
time the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela.
Last November, the New York Times revealed that the Bush
administration and the CIA had advance knowledge of the military coup that
removed President Hugo Chavez from office for 48 hours on April 11-12,
2002. Top secret documents obtained by the Times show that in the
weeks prior to the coup against Chavez, the CIA had full knowledge of the
events to occur and, in fact, even had the detailed plans in their
possession.
Of course, it was an open secret that the coup plotters -- beginning with
FEDECAMARAS, the association of Venezuelan employers, and the
Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) -- had received substantial
funds from the U.S. State Department, via the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), to launch this unsavory operation in conjunction with a
wing of the military brass all too willing to be bought off by the U.S.
paymasters. The failed military coup was vintage "Made in
Washington."
Today, a new and major threat is being directed at the Venezuelan
government and at the genuine trade union movement of that country by the
very same forces that came together to organize the attempted coup and,
later, the lockout/work stoppage in the oil industry. It is a threat that
can and must be stopped by the international labor movement.
This coming March, the Governing Body of the International Labor
Organization (ILO) in Geneva will hear an Article 26 Complaint filed by
FEDECAMARAS and the CTV union federation against the Venezuelan government
for supposed "violations of trade union freedoms." The Complaint
has been endorsed by the Bush administration and by employers'
associations in 23 countries, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. If
the Complaint is supported by the ILO Governing Body in March, it is then
forwarded to the International Labor Conference of the ILO next June for
concurrence and immediate action.
While the charges contained in the ILO Complaint against Venezuela are
frivolous and unfounded, the Venezuelan government and the newly formed
National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT) are taking them extremely
seriously. They understand that these charges, should they be endorsed by
the ILO, are a key component of the Bush administration's attempt to
isolate Venezuela and prepare possible international sanctions against
their country.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela
William Brownfield are already getting their ducks lined up for this shady
venture. They are pushing strongly, for example, to have the former
president of El Salvador, Francisco Flores, take over the post of General
Secretary of the Organization of American States in the coming weeks.
Flores publicly supported the April 11, 2002 coup against Chavez. In
recent days he has denounced the Venezuelan government for allegedly
supporting "international terrorism." He has stated that Chavez
is a "dictator that must be removed from office." (source: Diario
de la Economía, Caracas, February 4, 2005)
In her Senate confirmation hearings, Rice made numerous references to
President Chavez, at one point calling him a "negative force in the
region." In a not-so-subtle quote in the February 10 issue of Washington
Times, an unnamed "senior U.S. official" claimed that Chavez
is "consolidating a dictatorship. It's a Cuban-style dictatorship.
He's arming loyalists and setting them lose to intimidate people at the
city block level."
Less recognized, but perhaps more sinister, was something that occurred
four days prior to the Rice hearings. On January 14, three major
newspapers ran reports on Venezuela -- on the same day and with the same
premise -- arguing that the State Department needed to step up its
activities in Venezuela "because Chavez was tightening his Iron
Grip" on the Venezuelan people.
On February 3, Venezuelan Labor Minister María Cristina Iglesias told a
visiting delegation from the International Liaison Committee of Workers
and Peoples (ILC) that in her view, the U.S. State Department and its
cronies in Venezuela are out to "crucify" the Venezuelan
government at the upcoming meetings of the ILO. She called on all
supporters of labor and democratic rights around the world to reject the
accusations against the Venezuelan government contained in the ILO
Complaint.
This same view was expressed by the national coordinators of the UNT, who,
accordingly, have issued an "Open Letter to the ILO Workers'
Group" urging them to reject the Complaint.
The International Liaison Committee (ILC) and the Continuations Committee
of the Open World Conference (OWC) fully support this international
campaign initiated by the UNT. We believe it is possible to generate
sufficient pressure within the labor movements around the world to compel
the union representatives in the ILO Workers' Group to reject the
FEDECAMARAS-CTV Complaint.
We call upon all trade unionists -- particularly in the United States,
where we have a major responsibility to turn around the stance by the
national AFL-CIO leadership -- to endorse and help us promote for wider
endorsement the "Open Letter to the Workers' Group of the ILO"
that has been issued by the national coordinators of the UNT.
To assist you in this effort, we have prepared a full dossier with all the
background information you will need to understand -- and to expose -- the
many accusations contained in the U.S.-backed Complaint in the ILO.
Please send us your endorsement of this Open Letter. Please forward this
message to your lists and print out copies for endorsement by your unions.
And please send us a much-needed financial contribution to help us ensure
the success of this campaign.
We have only a few months to force the rejection by the ILO of these
unfounded charges -- but with your help we know we can succeed, as we have
succeeded with so many of our other international labor campaigns.
We thank you in advance for your support for this important effort in
defense of Venezuela's sovereignty and in defense of genuine trade
unionism in Venezuela.
In solidarity,
Alan Benjamin,
Co-Coordinator,
OWC Continuations Committee
********************
Joint Communiqué Issued by the International Liaison Committee of Workers
and Peoples (ILC) and the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT)
(Caracas, Venezuela -- February 3, 2005)
A delegation from the International Liaison Committee of Workers and
Peoples (ILC) met with the national coordinators of the National Union of
Workers of Venezuela (UNT) on February 3 in Caracas.
The coordinators of the UNT explained the international campaign they have
launched with the "Open Letter to the Workers' Group of the
International Labor Organization (ILO)." In this Open Letter they
urge the ILO Workers' Group to reject the unfounded Complaints against the
Venezuelan government lodged by FEDECAMARAS, the employers' association of
Venezuela, alleging violations of trade union freedoms.
The ILC delegation indicated its full agreement with this campaign and
declared its willingness to promote this campaign widely at all levels of
the international labor movement in the months leading up to the
International Labor Conference of the ILO, which will take place in Geneva
in June 2005.
The coordinators of the UNT explained they soon will be convening a
National Congress of the UNT, as mandated by their bylaws. The
representatives of the UNT and the ILC decided to jointly convene an
"International Meeting In Defense of the Sovereignty of Venezuela and
In Defense of the UNT" at the conclusion of the UNT Congress.
This International Meeting is being called on the basis of the joint
ILC-UNT declaration of December 10, 2004. [See statement below.]
The coordinators of the UNT invite the representatives of labor
organizations from around the world to this international meeting so that
they can learn first hand about the real situation of trade union freedoms
in Venezuela and so that they can help advance the struggle to defend the
sovereignty of Venezuela and the very existence of the UNT.
- For the ILC Delegation: Daniel Gluckstein (coordinator), Alan
Benjamin (USA) and Julio Turra (Brazil)
- For the National Coordinators of the UNT: Orlando Chirino,
Marcela Maspero, Stalin Perez Borges and Ruben Linares.
********************
Open Letter to the ILO Workers' Group
We, the undersigned leaders of the National Union of Workers of
Venezuela (UNT), issue this appeal to the trade unions around the world
that are represented in the Workers' Group of the International Labor
Organization (ILO), as well as to all our sisters and brothers who are
championing the trade union battles in defense of workers' rights.
Dear Sisters and Brothers:
We in Venezuela have been been part of the effort by the working class
to create a trade union federation that is built from the bottom up by the
rank and file and that is rooted in the principles of class independence,
trade union democracy and full autonomy in relation to the State and all
political parties. This effort -- which in April 2003 brought unionists
from different sectors and trade union currents together to create the UNT
-- is part and parcel of the struggle of our people in defense of their
national sovereignty.
Today, the UNT represents the majority of the organized workforce in
Venezuela. Its creation in 2003 has given a huge impetus to the drive to
organize trade unions across our country. The rate of trade union
affiliation has increased from 11% in 2001 to 23% in 2004. The UNT also
has been present in the last two International Labor Conferences of the
ILO in June 2003 and June 2004.
But these recent years also have seen FEDECAMARAS, the employers'
association of Venezuela, join forces with the Confederation of Venezuelan
Workers (CTV) to present a Complaint to the ILO's Committee on Freedom of
Association alleging that the Venezuelan government has violated Trade
Union Freedoms and the Right to Strike.
The joint Complaint by FEDECAMARAS and the CTV is highly unusual, as trade
unions are generally the ones filing ILO Complaints against the employers
and seeking support from the ILO Workers' Group against all violations of
trade union rights, including the right to strike. It is unprecedented, as
well, on account of the convergence of interests between FEDECAMARAS and
the CTV.
Such a Complaint can be understood only in the context of the unfolding
political situation in Venezuela, in which FEDECAMARAS and the top
leadership of the CTV participated directly in the attempted military coup
of April 2002, together with the opposition political parties and with the
encouragement of the U.S. Embassy. The coup -- which established a
"government" headed by Pedro Carmona, then president of
FEDECAMARAS -- was foiled after just two days by the mass mobilizations of
the Venezuelan workers and people.
Later, in December 2002 and January 2003, FEDECAMARAS -- together with the
same leaders of the CTV -- organized an employer lockout/work stoppage
that was political in nature and that sought to bring down the government
through the sabotage of the country's main source of income: the oil
industry. In both the attempted coup and the bosses' lockout/work
stoppage, the CTV leadership took actions that were repudiated by the
overwhelming majority of the workers of Venezuela. At no time, in fact,
were the workers consulted by the CTV leadership about the work stoppage
in the oil industry. Quite the contrary, upon learning of this action by
the CTV leadership, the workers mobilized massively to occupy the oil rigs
and refineries to ensure the resumption of oil production.
These undeniable facts were reported in detail by 35 leaders of the UNT to
the Contact Mission of the ILO that traveled to Venezuela in October 2004.
It is not new, nor is it unexpected, that employers should resort to
lockouts against the workers to promote their interests. Many of you
undoubtedly have witnessed such bosses' lockouts in your countries. It is
less frequent for the employers to resort to military coups, but, alas,
such actions are not unprecedented. But isn't it an insult to our
intelligence to try to have us believe that employer lockouts and military
coups can somehow be aimed at defending democracy and trade union rights?
Do they think we're fools who cannot see through their hypocrisy?
In June 2004, FEDECAMARAS -- with the full support of the International
Organization of Employers (IOE) and representatives from bosses'
organizations in 22 countries, including the United States, all of them
notorious for their anti-union activities -- invoked Article 26 of the ILO
Constitution and proposed that a Commission of Inquiry be established in
relation to alleged violations of Trade Union Freedoms in Venezuela.
The March 8-24, 2005 meeting of the Governing Body of the ILO is scheduled
to take a vote on this request by FEDECAMARAS. It is worth noting that
while this baseless Complaint against the Venezuelan government moves
through the ILO system, the government of Colombia has not been subjected
to any sanctions or pressures by the ILO -- even when the ILO itself
registered at the beginning of 2004 that 186 trade unionists had been
assassinated for their union activity in that country, a number that now
surpasses the 200 mark.
Dear Sisters and Brothers:
The Venezuelan government today has wide popular support to advance
its Agrarian Reform program and, with the aim of guaranteeing jobs and
wages, to take over factories abandoned or bankrupted by their employers.
Yet at this very moment, incidents are being staged to create a diplomatic
conflict between Venezuela and Colombia. More ominous still, U.S.
President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have
issued public warnings against the alleged "negative" and
"destabilizing" role of Venezuela in the region.
Anyone familiar with the international policies implemented by the Bush
administration in the recent period can understand full well that these
are not simply words; they are a direct threat to Venezuela. Bush and Rice
invoke the concept of "democracy" -- but if one looks at what is
going on in Iraq today, one can see what they mean by
"democracy."
Is it possible not to see a link between these political developments and
the stance taken by FEDECAMARAS at the ILO?
Regardless of what one's opinions may be about the Venezuelan government
and its policies, it's a fact that it's a government that received the
support of more than 60% of the people in the August 15, 2004 recall
referendum, thereby dealing a blow to the effort by FEDECAMARAS and the
top officials of the CTV to oust the Chávez government. The election
results were ratified, in fact, by the Organization of American States
(OAS) and the Carter Center, two bodies that cannot be accused of
harboring any sympathies for the Venezuelan government.
It is also an undeniable fact that the partisans of the current Venezuelan
government obtained the overwhelming support of the people in the state
and regional elections held in October 2004.
From our vantage point as the UNT, genuine democracy means respecting the
sovereign will of people to determine their own fate. And we wish to
reiterate this point: Venezuela's right to self-determination must be
respected and upheld independent of whatever one may think about the
current government of Venezuela. It is not up to the U.S. government to
decide in the place of the Venezuelan people what is "positive"
or "negative" for Venezuela.
It is totally understandable that the representatives of the employers in
the ILO should form a common front with FEDECAMARAS in support of this
Complaint. Likewise, it is not surprising that governments, particularly
that of Bush in the United States, should follow suit. But in no way can
the representatives of the workers' organizations in the ILO support this
attack upon our sovereignty and our independent trade union organizations.
Is it not obvious that allowing the Commission of Inquiry to be approved
-- as FEDECAMARAS demands -- would, in fact, be tantamount to trampling
upon our trade union freedoms and the very sovereignty of our country?
Only we, the workers of Venezuela, can and must decide what kind of trade
union organizations we should build, in the framework of the principles of
Trade Union Freedom.
We issue this urgent appeal to all trade union organizations the world
over. We call upon one and all to reject the proposal by FEDECAMARAS and
its cohorts to sanction Venezuela and to conduct an ILO Commission of
Inquiry. Such an action is not called for, nor does it correspond to the
real situation of trade union freedoms in Venezuela, which is a country
that has ratified ILO Conventions 87 and 98.
For our part, as trade union officers who are committed to the rank and
file,we have nothing to hide. That is why we are appending to this Open
Letter a Memorandum that responds to the specific charges contained in the
Complaint filed by FEDECAMARAS and the CTV.
We invite trade unions from all around the world to come to Venezuela to
see for yourselves the reality of our country, where even the CTV -- which
participated directly in the attempted coup of April 2002 and the
lockout/work stoppage of December 2002-January 2003, enjoys full trade
union freedoms.
We also invite representatives of the international trade union movement
to attend the upcoming National Congress of the UNT. This will permit you
to learn firsthand from the workers about the real situation of the trade
unions in Venezuela.
To conclude, we call upon all trade union organizations and officers to
reject the provocation by FEDECAMARAS and its allies to establish an ILO
Commission of Inquiry for Venezuela. We call upon you to add your names in
support of this Open Letter to the ILO Workers' Group.
- In defense of the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people!
- In defense of true Trade Union Freedoms!
In solidarity,
signed by following National Coordinators of the UNT:
Orlando Chirino, Marcela Máspero, Stalin
Pérez Borges and Rubén Linares
********************
Endorsement Coupon of the Open Letter to the Workers' Group of the ILO
[ ] I have read the "Open Letter to the Workers' Group of the ILO"
issued by the national coordinators of the National Union of Workers of
Venezuela (UNT) on February 3, 2005. Please add my name as an endorser of
this Open Letter.
[ ] I will send a financial contribution of $ ___ payable to "OWC"
to OWC, c/o San Francisco Labor Council, 1188 Franklin St. #203, San
Francisco, CA 94109.
NAME
UNION/ORG & TITLE (list if for id. only)
CITY
STATE
COUNTRY
EMAIL
(please fill out and return to <ilcinfo@earthlink.net>. Please send
copies to Julio Turra, National Executive Director, CUT Federation, Brazil
to <<?color><?param 0000,0000,00FF>julioturra@cut.org.br<?/color>>
and to the UNT federation of Venezuela to <?color><?param
0000,0000,00FF><untve-23@hotmail.com>
<?/color>********************
MEMORANDUM On the Employer Offensive Against Venezuela Within the ILO
The National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT) -- which was present
at the 91st (2003) and 92nd (2004) sessions of the International Labor
Conference of the ILO -- wishes to convey to all trade unionists around
the world the main elements of the offensive waged against Venezuela by
FEDECAMARAS, the employers' association of Venezuela.
This Memorandum is an addendum to the "Open Letter to the Workers'
Group of the ILO" that we issued in Caracas on February 3, 2005.
Some Necessary Background
In 1999, Hugo Chavez assumed the reins of government in Venezuela
after winning the presidential election in 1998 by a substantial margin.
It was from this time on that FEDECAMARAS and the Confederation of
Venezuelan Workers (CTV) joined forces to lodge a series of formal
Complaints against the Chavez government before the ILO's Committee on
Freedom of Association and the ILO's Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
It is no secret that FEDECAMARAS and the leadership of the CTV opposed
from the very beginning the policies of the legitimately elected
government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Nevertheless, things
changed qualitatively in April 2002, when the central leaders of both
organizations participated directly in the coup d'etat which, for 48
hours, established a "government" headed by Pedro Carmona (then
president of FEDECAMARAS), with two government ministries consigned to
leaders of the CTV.
Despite the explicit support of the U.S. government for the coup and the
participation of high-level officers of the Armed Forces in its
preparation and execution, the attempted coup failed because of the
overwhelming mobilization of the Venezuelan people, who demanded the
immediate return of Chavez as the president of the Republic.
Nine months later, between December 2002 and January 2003, the managers
and directors of PDVSA (the state oil company), with the support of
FEDECAMARAS and the CTV, decreed a work stoppage that was in effect a
sabotage of the country's main source of income. This work stoppage in the
oil industry was decided without any workers' assembly having voted to
carry it out.
It was the workers, once again, who combated the employer lockout/work
stoppage and who re-started production in the oil industry and in the
other sectors affected by the lockout. It was the workers who, through
their concerted actions in defense of Venezuela's sovereignty, defeated
this employer lockout. As a result of the FEDECAMARAS-CTV lockout, many
private companies closed their doors. An estimated 250,000 people lost
their jobs, with an equal number forced to accept takebacks and
concessions.
The UNT was constituted in April 2003 as a reaction by the overwhelming
majority of the trade union rank and file who opposed the CTV's
participation, alongside the bosses, in the attempted coup and in the
lockout./work stoppage of late 2002. Many trade unions and federations
that belonged to the CTV became founding members of the new workers'
confederation in Venezuela: the National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT).
The Most Recent Complaints (No. 2249 and No. 2254)
After the failed coup d'etat in April 2002 and the year-end
sabotage/work stoppage, the CTV in February 2003 issued ILO Complaint No.
2249 with the following allegations: murder of a trade unionist;
preventing the legal registration of a trade union; hostile declarations
by the authorities against the CTV; order of arrest against the president
of the CTV; promotion of a new labor confederation by the authorities;
obstacles in collective bargaining in the public sector; orders of arrest
and penal procedures against trade union leaders; firing of over 18,000
workers for their trade union activities; non-compliance with
collective-bargaining agreements; interference by the authorities and
Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) and other anti-trade union acts;
tardiness in procedures for violation of trade union rights; negotiation
with minority organizations of public service employees, setting aside the
more representative unions; and actions by the authorities to divide trade
union organizations.
One month later, in March 2003, FEDECAMARAS and the International
Organization of Employers (IOE) lodged Complaint No. 2254, in which they
alleged the following: the exclusion of employers' organizations from the
country's decision-making process; interference of the government aimed at
promoting a new employer organization in the agricultural sector; the
detention of Carlos Fernández on February 19, 2003 in retaliation for his
actions as president of FEDECAMARAS; actions by violent paramilitary
groups with government support; actions against the installations of an
employer's organization and against protest actions by FEDECAMARAS; the
creation of a hostile environment for employers, by allowing the workers
to take over and occupy farms in full production; application of a
decidedly unilateral foreign exchange system by the authorities, thereby
discriminating against affiliates of FEDECAMARAS in relation for the
participation of FEDECAMARAS in the national 'civic work stoppages'."
We refer all trade unionists to the full text of these Complaints on the
ILO website so that you can draw your own conclusions.
- Concerning the discussions in the ILO Committee on Freedom of
Association, please visit the following pages on the ILO website: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb289/pdf/gb-9.pdf.
- Concerning the discussions in the ILO Committee of Experts on the
Application of ILO Conventions and Recommendations, please go to: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc91/pdf/pr-24p2.pdf.
We also invite you to read the Report we prepared for the ILO's
International Labor Conference in June 2004 titled "The Truth About
Trade Union Freedoms in Venezuela." [See below.]
We would like in this short space to make a few observations regarding the
latest Complaints presented by FEDECAMARAS and the CTV.
The first comment is that, putting aside their complementary nature, both
complaints by the CTV and FEDECAMARAS have carefully avoided mentioning
the fact that both organizations participated, along with sectors of the
oppositionist political parties and military brass, in an attempted coup
d'etat and later, an operation aimed at bringing the national economy to
its knees.
Hence, the allegations that the arrest orders for Carlos Ortega (president
of the CTV) and Carlos Fernandez (president of FEDECAMARAS) are a
violation of trade union freedoms are completely false, since
participation in a coup d'etat and later in a sabotage operation against
the oil industry has nothing to do with the labor rights enshrined in ILO
Conventions 87 and 98.
It is also completely false to suggest that the work stoppage-sabotage of
the oil industry of December 2002-January 2003 can be equated with a
strike. No worker assembly at any time voted to conduct this job action,
nor was any prior strike notice given, as established under the law. Those
who were fired from their managerial and security positions were fired
simply because they abandoned their jobs and responsibilities.
It is worth reprinting a communiqué of the oil workers' trade union
organizations -- FEDEPETROL, FETRAHIDROCARBUROS and SINUTRAPETROL --
regarding these events. It states, in part:
"We, the workers on the payroll, did not join or otherwise support
the lockout/work stoppage. We kept the plants operating and supplying oil
and gas to its customers -- which was a difficult task. We had to take
over the jobs held by management when they walked off their jobs, without
any legal or contractual obligation to act as we did.
" We, the workers on the payroll, had just signed a
collective-bargaining agreement with management in which we obtained some
important gains. In the face of the irresponsibility of our supervisors,
who walked off their jobs, the 30,000 wage-earners in the oil industry
took upon ourselves the patriotic duty to ensure that our principal
industry not succumb and that our people not be engulfed in desperation
and chaos, with unpredictable results we would still be regretting today
had we not succeeded in keeping our industry up and running."
The so-called UNAPTEROL "trade union" -- one of the ILO
Claimants, along with the CTV and FEDECAMARAS -- was formed by managers
and heads of PDVSA to "represent the workers" in the collective
bargaining process in the industry, in the place of the three
aforementioned trade union organizations. UNAPETROL has not been
recognized by the government for a very simple reason: Its composition
(predominantly company managers and supervisors) runs counter to the
principle of "purety of representation" and counter to ILO
Convention 87 itself, which prohibits joint organizations of workers' and
bosses' representatives. That is why the authorities responsible for
registering trade unions in Venezuela did not recognize it.
As for the "murder of a trade union leader" -- an accusation
that appears in Complaint No. 2249 -- the death was the result of a
private fight. Numar Ricardo Herrera, member of the Federation of
Construction Workers, was unfortunately murdered at the end of the May 1
celebrations of the CTV a big distance from the place where the
demonstrators had gathered. Manuel Arias, after an argument with Herrera,
fired his gun and killed him. The killer was apprehended by police
authorities and is being tried for homicide. This was an isolated event
without any political connotations or violation of trade union freedoms.
The facts are there for all to see and examine.
The FEDECAMARAS Complaint includes the charge "of exclusion of
employer association from the decision-making process." This
accusation is completely bogus. In Venezuela, the legitimately elected
president was again ratified in office by the August 15, 2004 referendum.
It is a government that is perfectly competent to make decisions on its
own.
Measures taken in defense of the poorest sectors of the population, such
as the recent Law on Land Use (January 10, 2005), constitute for
FEDECAMARAS and its junion partners the "creation of a hostile
environment for employers." The arrogance of the bosses reached its
height when they complained that "the application of foreign exchange
controls was decided unilaterally by the authorities." Venezuela is a
sovereign country and can take whatever measures its elected officials
deem fit to promote the wellbeing of the people. If a government of a
sovereign nation does not have this right, who then has such a right?
It is obvious that the Complaints filed by FEDECAMARAS and the CTV are
part of a continuing policy aimed at making the ILO the stage to gain
advantages in the political disputes inside Venezuela and not, as it
should be, to defend trade union rights when these are threatened.
The Proposal of an ILO Commission of Inquiry
Venezuela has received several Direct Contact visits from officers of
the ILO. A Direct Contact Mission of the ILO visited the country on
October 13-15, 2004. The delegation interviewed leaders of the UNT, at
which time we provided complete information and the truth about the
situation of Trade Union Freedoms in Venezuela. We rejected point by point
the joint accusations by the bosses and the leaders of the CTV -- leaders
who, it should be noted, hold office illegitimately as they were
"elected" in fraudulent trade union elections in October 2001.
The UNT learned during that visit that the Executive Director in charge of
Principles and Fundamental Rights in the ILO, Mr. Kari Tapiola, had
informed the government of Venezuela that several employer delegates had
filed a Complaint against the government of Venezuela based on Article 26
of the ILO Constitution. If approved, this Article 26 Complaint would call
for sending a full Commission of Inquiry to Venezuela to investigate the
status of trade union freedoms and the right to create a trade union (ILO
Convention 87) and the right of trade unions to collective bargaining (ILO
Convention 98), both conventions ratified by Venezuela.
It should be noted that the employers' delegates, both full and
alternates, who supported the Article 26 Complaint by FEDECAMARAS were the
delegates from the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Venezuela, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Tunisia, Great Britain and the United States -- for a total
of 23 employers.
The next Governing Body of the ILO on March 8-24, 2005, must decide by
majority vote if Article 26 of the ILO Constitution applies or not in the
case of Venezuela.
The Complaint lodged by the employers notes that "since 1999 the
employers' association of Venezuela, as well as the workers'
organizations, have been victims of intimidation. Moreover, the
government's policies have led to the closure of 100,000 companies and the
loss of employment for thousands of workers. ... Yet despite the different
recommendations formulated by the governing bodies of the ILO, the
Venezuelan government continues to make physical, economic and moral
attacks against independent Venezuelan employers, sidelining the majority
of employer organizations and excluding them from the processes of social
dialogue and tripartite consultation." These are among the many
arguments contained in the ILO Complaint.
It also should be noted that since March 2003, the employers' group of the
ILO has been threatening to push for the Commission of Inquiry procedure
in relation to Venezuela. Thus, before the end of the 92nd meeting of the
International Labor Conference, the spokesperson for the employers, during
the Conference plenary session devoted to the report from the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, said the
following: "Unfortunately this year we have not been able to impose a
special paragraph for Venezuela, a country where there are undisputed
violations of trade union freedoms. This situation has not improved
especially in relation to previous years, during which we introduced
special paragraphs. For this reason, the employers will present in
conformity with Article 26 of the ILO Constitution, a more stringent
Claim, one that no doubt has already reached the International Labor
Bureau."
The UNT considers that the convening of an ILO Commission of Inquiry, as
proposed by the employers of Venezuela and their counterparts in other
countries, is aimed at imposing a "sanction" against the
government of a sovereign country. Such a Commission of Inquiry would also
be an affront against all Venezuelan trade unionists who are truly
committed to the defense of the workers and their rights, to the defense
of national sovereignty and democracy.
That is why we urge all our trade union brothers and sisters around the
world to endorse and support the "Open Letter to the Workers' Group
of the ILO" which accompanies this Memorandum.
Caracas, February 2005
National Union of Workers of Venezuela (UNT)
********************
The Truth About Trade Union Freedoms in Venezuela
(major excerpts from a pamphlet produced in June 2004 by the national
coordinators of the National Union of Workers of Venezuela/UNT)
In 1999, Hugo Chávez Frías became president of Venezuela, having won the
presidential election in late 1998. Soon after, FEDECAMARAS, the country's
employer association, and the leadership of the Confederation of
Venezuelan Workers (CTV) began filing charges against the Venezuelan
government within the International Labor Organization (ILO) system,
alleging violation of trade union rights and freedoms.
1) The 1999 Constitution
The first set of charges by FEDECAMARAS and its cronies pertain to the
process initiated by the Constituent Assembly of 1999 which, given the
endemic history of corruption and government control of the trade unions,
placed the matter of democratizing the trade union movement on the order
of the day.
The Constitution of 1999 fully respected trade union autonomy while
addressing three central questions: henceforth (1) the executive board
members of the trade unions must declare their financial assets to the
Comptroller of the Republic, (2) the workers' representatives on the board
of directors of the state enterprises must be elected democratically by
the workers, and not appointed (as had been the case) by the CTV, and (3)
the leadership of the trade unions must be renewed periodically through a
union election process.
The new Venezuelan Constitution, including its reforms aimed at ensuring a
democratic trade union movement, were then approved by the Venezuelan
people through a national referendum.
These three questions pertaining to the trade unions, all clearly and
openly democratic in nature, were reported to the ILO by FEDECAMARAS and
the CTV leadership as "violations of trade union freedoms." In
response to the complaints, the ILO sent a Direct Contact mission to
Venezuela. We ask: How can anyone claim that trade union freedoms are
infringed upon when, in the quest to root out corruption, trade union
leaders are compelled to declare their financial assets? The Constitution
makes this requirement of all public functionaries and employees. And in
what way are trade union freedoms violated when workers are given the
right to choose their own representatives?
2) The 2001 Trade Union Elections
The process of relegitimizing the leaderships of the trade unions
through elections took place in 2001 under the supervision of the National
Election Council (CNE), as per the Constitution and the referenda process
in which the CTV itself participated. This process was consistent,
moreover, with the bylaws of the CTV.
A total of 3,543 trade union organizations were registered officially.
Some others did not participate in the re-registration process, arguing
that the CNE guidelines went against their bylaws. The CTV and its
affiliates, though, did participate, thereby accepting the role and
functions of the CNE as established by the 1999 Constitution and ratified
by the people in a national referendum.
Of this total, 2,974 trade union organizations fulfilled the legal
requirements for the electoral process; 2,871 of them were local trade
union organizations, while 103 were trade union federations.
At that time (2001), 68% of the trade union organizations were affiliated
to the CTV, while 29% did not belong to any federation or confederation,
and 3% were affiliated to other existing trade union confederations. A
total of 2,852 trade union elections were carried out, and 2,749 were
approved and ratified by the CNE. One-hundred and three trade union
organizations, however, did not complete their election process due to
defects and problems in the process. This included the CTV itself.
During the CTV's elections on October 21, 2001 several voting centers were
assaulted by armed bands, and witnesses were refused access in many voting
centers located on the premises of private companies. The minutes and
documents of the CTV that included the number of affiliates had to be
filled out immediately, but these took up to three weeks in being returned
to the CNE. Those documents that arrived clearly had been tampered with.
Major questions arose immediately as to the legitimacy of the ballot
results and the total number of affiliates claimed by the CTV.
The CTV leadership claimed that it had sent double the number of records
than were received by the CNE, and it blamed the CNE for the alleged
"disappearance" of the records of the other affiliates. When
asked to produce copies of the originals, the CTV offifcers refused,
choosing to blame the CNE instead for alleged "tampering" and
"fraud" -- which was a boldfaced lie. Objecting to the official
results, the president of the CTV's Election Council -- a Council that had
developed a hardened and factional oppositional stance toward the Chavez
administration -- refused to sign the final CTV Election Statement.
The CTV declared that it had 1,050,000 affiliated members -- yet only
450,000 workers of the CTV were on the books at the time of the election
process, according to the statements submitted by the CTV leadership.
Again, despite repeated attempts by the CNE to set the record straight,
the CTV leaders were unable or unwilling to provide any documentation for
the remaining 600,000 workers claimed to be part of the CTV. What is more,
the final minutes of the CTV submitted to the CNE show that only 240,000
workers actually participated in the election that elected Carlos Ortega
president of the CTV. The documents submitted to the CNE show that Ortega
was elected with 150,000 votes -- only about 15% of the total number of
members alleged by the CTV.
The CNE did not accept this illegal self-proclamation of Ortega as
president of the CTV. This, however, did not prevent Mr. Pedro Carmona,
president of FEDECAMARAS -- that is, the employers' organization of
Venezuela -- from holding a press conference and announcing to the
national and international press that Carlos Ortega had been elected
president of the CTV. It was clear to most people in Venezuela, in
particular to most of the rank and file of the CTV, that Ortega's
electoral "victory" had been decided by FEDECAMARAS -- just as
had occurred for so many decades in the past.
Every opportunity was afforded to the CTV leadership to come clean with
its internal election results, but at every juncture, they refused to
comply. So we ask the ILO and the international labor movement: Is having
FEDECAMARAS choose the president of the CTV consistent with trade union
freedoms? We don't think so.
The majority of local affiliates of the CTV understood this corporate
maneuver and, in writtent statements sent to the CNE, they refused to
recognize the fraudulent Executive Boards placed at the helm of the main
CTV federations of the following sectors: oil, electricity,
pharmaceuticals, aluminum, steel, university and public sector. The local
affiliates demanded that the CNE not recognize these Executive Boards and
that the CNE issue a statement to that effect.
The CNE did not issue such a statement because it never received documents
from the CTV that would allow it to issue a favorable or unfavorable
opinion regarding the elections and the Executive Boards. Up till now,
three years later, the full documentation requested by the CNE to validate
the CTV internal elections -- documentation that is required of unions in
countries around the world -- has not been delivered to the CNE.
What we, the UNT, say is that the leadership announced by the CTV in
October 2001 is not legitimate: The process that led to its
"election" -- the more appropriate term is selection -- is
contrary to the CTV's own bylaws, just as it is contrary to the entire
Constitutional process that was established to ensure the democratic
functioning of the trade unions in Venezuela.
The questioning of the legitimacy of the CTV's Executive Board does not
come from the Venezuelan government, as the ILO has been told repeatedly.
It comes from the hundreds of local affiliates of the CTV in signed
statements submitted to the CNE.
The CTV and its freedom to function has not been attacked. The legitimacy
of its Executive Board is still in dispute, as the CTV refuses to comply
with the process that was established for all unions in our country. ILO
officials have demanded that the Venezuelan government recognize the
self-proclaimed CTV Executive Board, but that would mean ignoring the
country's laws, the will of the overwhelming majority of CTV members and
affiliates, and even the CTV's own bylaws.
Is it the proper purview of the ILO to place such demands on the
Venezuelan government?
3) Conspiratorial Activity Against the Bolivarian Constitution
On December 10, 2001 FEDECAMARAS, with CTV's support, called a
national strike to protest a set of laws that had been passed by the
Chavez administration. By the end of 2001, the CTV had strayed even
further from its mandate as a trade union organization, becoming a key
political adjunct to FEDECAMARAS and the newly formed Opposition "Coordinadora,"
or Coordinating Committee.
The Venezuelan Constitution allows for an abrogation referendum through
which citizens or organizations can propose the repeal of any law passed
by the executive branch. However, FEDECAMARAS never requested such a
referendum; rather, it took the path of direct confrontation. The strike
was limited to the private sector: workers were sent home. In the public
sector it only affected the oil industry's offices and management areas.
Inside the CTV, the decision by the illegitimate Executive Board to
support the bosses' strike was strongly questioned by the ranks.
By the year 2002, the political climate had become even more polarized,
with harsh anti-government statements issued regularly by some
high-ranking military officials. The oil industry's management also issued
a statement against the government's oil policy, which had called for
strengthening OPEC and respecting production quotas.
The government appointed a new Board of Directors for PDVSA, the national
oil company. Management in the oil industry then formed UNAPETROL, which
was supposedly a trade union but whose officers are all top industry
managers. A short time later, FEDECAMARAS -- again supported by the CTV --
called another strike, this time an indefinite strike aimed at securing
Chavez's resignation. Most of the country's trade unions rejected this
strike, including the three existing federations in the oil sector, with
the CTV being one of them.
The strike had little support but it continued nonetheless because it was
a smokescreen to provide cover for a military coup that was carried out
only a few hours after the strike began.
4) The Military Coup of April 11, 2002
On April 11, 2002 a military coup was organized by high-ranking
military officials -- with direct support from the owners of the mass
media networks, the Executive Board of the CTV, FEDECAMARAS, and the top
management of the oil industry. The military officials behind the coup
demanded Chavez's resignation and threatened to attack the presidential
palace, which was surrounded by thousands of Chavez supporters. Chavez
agreed to surrender, but he did not resign from his post and so was
detained by the top military officers. In the early morning hours, the
plotting military commanders announced the new president of Venezuela:
Pedro Carmona, then president of FEDECAMARAS.
The following morning, on April 12, the promoters of the coup announced
the composition of the new government. Two top government positions -- the
Ministry of Labor and the Minister of Planning -- were given to the CTV
officials. A few days later, speaking from exile, Pedro Carmona explained
that "The only argument within the government [established by the
coup] was about whom would be Venezuela's new vice president, given that
the CTV insisted that it should be granted that position."
The only decree of the FEDECAMARAS-CTV government -- one that was adopted
by consensus -- consisted in suppressing the Constitution, dissolving the
National Assembly, and dismissing all the government ministers, the
Attorney General and the magistrates of the Supreme Court. What was
installed in power was a dictatorship, by any standard definition of the
term -- and this dictatorship was publicly supported by the CTV. In the
national oil industry, management took over the entire administration of
this sector and dismissed any worker who did not support the coup. More
than 2,000 firings were announced in a single day. Especially targeted
were trade unionists and officers at all levels. The homes of several
trade unionists were raided, and hundreds of unionists were incarcerated
during the coup's first hours.
But while there was a lot of celebrating going on in the presidential
palace, the streets started buzzing with protests against the
dictatorship. Spontaneously, on the afternoon of April 12, a labor strike
erupted throughout the country's main industries. The strike in the oil,
steel and transportation sectors was particularly massive.
By April 13, the strike and protests had extended to the military
garrisons, where now middle and top army brass disavowed the coup leaders.
In just a few hours, hundreds of thousands of protesters amassed at the
doors of the presidential palace. In the early morning of Sunday, April 14
Chavez was rescued from La Orchila, a Venezuelan island in the Caribbean,
and taken back to the presidential palace, thus restoring the continuity
of the Venezuelan Constitution.
Despite the FEDECAMARAS-CTV-orchestrated military coup against the
government and the Constitution, there were no acts of persecution or
vengeance on the part of the government. The only civilian who was put
under arrest was Pedro Carmona, the little-while dictator. A few days
later, Carmona managed to escape from his house arrest and take refuge in
the Colombian Embassy, from where he fled to exile.
Only three weeks after the military coup, in May 2002, an ILO Direct
Contact Mission visited Venezuela. It met with representatives from the
trade unions, employers' associations, and government. The ILO Mission
listened, and was able to review all the facts submitted by the government
and the genuine trade unionists. After analyzing the information gathered
during the trip to Venezuela, the ILO Mission issued its report a few
months later.
That ILO Mission report is startling. Nowhere does it mention that there
was a military coup or a short-lived dictatorship by the president of
FEDECAMARAS that suppressed every democratic right in our country. Nowhere
is there a mention of the direct and incontrovertible complicity of the
CTV's self-annointed leadership in the military coup. Nowhere is there a
mention that hundreds of trade union leaders and rank-and-file activists
were jailed by the Carmona-CTV dictatorship, even though the ILO Mission
met with the jailed unionists and gathered their testimonies.
The ILO Mission report mentions only that a trade union leader -- an
opponent of the Chavez government -- was murdered, but it does not give
the name of the unionist or provide any information about the place and
manner in which this alleged murder took place. The ILO Mission report,
quite incredibly, stated that it was the CTV that was being harassed by
the government, despite the fact that the ILO Mission met freely with its
representatives and that the CTV had been a main actor in the recent
anti-Chavez coup
It is our view that the ILO should guarantee that its functionaries,
especially those who are part of a Direct Contact Mission, are unbiased
and transparent in their judgements. But where was that transparency? Were
the ILO Mission functionaries really unbiased? Why did the ILO Mission
reject all the information provided by the government and the trade
unionists from all levels who provided ample documentation and proof of
the pro-management and anti-labor role of the self-proclaimed CTV leaders?
How could this ILO Mission so blatantly ignore the facts? Needless to say,
the Venezuelan workers are greatly perturbed by their experience with this
ILO Direct Contact Mission and by the ILO recommendations that flowed from
this clearly biased report.
5) The Oil Lockout/Work Stoppage of December 2002-January 2003
In the aftermath of the CTV Executive Board's open and direct
participation in the military coup, the CTV leadership fractured into two.
One wing followed the illegitimate Executive Board and supported its
participation in the Opposition Coordinating Committee. But another wing
denounced the CTV's leadership role in the military coup and set out to
prevent a new coup attempt by the Opposition "Coordinadora."
At the 90th International Labor Conference of the ILO in June 2002, two
fractions of the CTV demanded to represent the CTV at the ILO conference.
The Labor Ministry referred the matter of the delegation to the Supreme
Court, which resolved the controversy by reporting that in view of the
lack of documents, it was "of public knowledge" that Carlos
Ortega was president of the CTV. The outcome was that the two wings of the
CTV were both represented at the ILO conference, with an equal number of
delegates on each side. The pro-coup wing of the CTV did not protest the
mixed delegation to the ILO's Credentials Verification Commission.
Later that year, the employers tried once again to legally register the
oil management's "trade union" -- UNAPETROL. The Labor Ministry
rejected this registration based on the fundamental principles of trade
unionism, stating that the employers' representative cannot be part of a
workers' trade union. Not surprisingly, the CTV coup wing supported the
demand to register the oil managers' association, even though three oil
workers' federations adamantly opposed oil management's claim to be a
union.
In December 2002, the oil management called a strike, again with the
public support of FEDECAMARAS and the CTV. The majority of the oil
industry's managers and directors abandoned their posts, forcing operators
to leave their areas unattended. After three days of strike, the trade
union organizations in the oil sector called the operators back to work,
thus ignoring the orders from the industry's top management. Ninety
percent of operators answered the call to return to work and confronted
the managers, thereby starting a battle over control of the oil industry..
For two months, workers tried to operate the oil industry without the
supervision of the bosses or top administrators. They faced constant
threats, including bodily threats, from the employers and their hired
goons, just as they faced all sorts of technical problems -- ranging from
outright computer sabotage of the operations to terrorist attacks that
crippled many sectors of the oil industry.
The outcome of this confrontation is well known: The oil workers and their
unions prevailed against the bosses. About 80% of the industry had to be
operated manually to overcome the computer sabotage. The ports were put
under the dockworkers' control, and the oil rigs were brought back to port
by sailors who ousted the officers that had hijacked the ships at high
sea. The refineries once again produced gasoline and gas required by the
population, and the truckers' trade unions guaranteed fuel distribution to
the entire country. By the end of January 2003, the oil lockout/work
stoppage was defeated. In February, the situation returned to normal.
Following the lockout/work stoppage, 18,000 PDVSA functionaries --
including executives; top, middle and lower-level managers, supervisors,
foremen, computer technicians, and security personnel -- were removed from
their jobs. A large number of them were evicted outright from their posts
by the oil workers themselves, who were outraged at this attempt to
cripple the oil industry and to cause untold damage to the Venezuelan
people. The workers, the unionists in the oil industry, have told the
Chavez government in no uncertain terms that they will not allow these
saboteurs and scabs back to their old jobs.
It should be noted that not a single operator or blue-collar worker was
dismissed from PDVSA, not even those who were in favor of the strike. Only
directors and administrative personnel that committed sabotage were
dismissed.
It is again most unfortunate that many ILO officials have pressured the
Venezuelan government to take back those dismissed persons in the name of
trade union freedoms. But why weren't the opinions of the more than 30,000
oil workers taken into account? How is it possible to consider that oil
industry managers and directors who attacked the workers should be
considered the victims?
It must also be pointed out that as a result of this oil lockout/work
stoppage, more than 250,000 workers in other industries were laid off by
employers who shut down their operations for two months -- irresponsibly
-- in solidarity with oil management. An additional 250,000 or so workers
were asked to accept pay cuts and other infringements to their
collective-bargaining agreements in the name of "overcoming the
crisis" created by the oil managers at PDVSA. All in all, well over
half a million workers had to pay directly and dearly for this bosses'
strike.
What's even worse, even today large numbers of employers are refusing to
reopen their factories, and/or take back their former employees, and/or
pay the benefits to which the workers are entitled. Why was the ILO's
Direct Contact Mission not interested in the fate of these workers? Why
was their only concern that of the oil managers? What kind of trade union
freedoms are these that don't apply to the workers, but only to
management?
There can be no doubt about this: The CTV leadership placed itself on the
opposite side of the battle lines from the workers. Not only did it
support the military coup and the employer lockout, it called on workers
to accept all the sacrifices demanded by the employers in the name of
these employer assaults on workers' rights.
As a result of these shameful actions, the CTV's internal fracturing
turned into an open division. Differences were no longer political or
methodological in nature. The CTV's illegitimate Executive Board was
openly carrying out FEDECAMARAS's decisions.
In April 2003, two months after the employer lockout had ended, more than
1,000 local, regional and national trade unions -- 60% of them coming from
the CTV -- held a trade union assembly to create the National Workers
Union of Venezuela (UNT).
6) The UNT: Who We Are and What We Stand For
The UNT now represents the overwhelming majority of the organized
workers in Venezuela.
Given this new situation, it is understandable that FEDECAMARAS and its
allies have launched a massive campaign aimed at discrediting the UNT,
claiming that the UNT is a government-sponsored union federation. This
charge is totally baseless. In fact, by issuing such a charge, the CTV is
doing nothing other than project its own image, because for 40 years it
was the government's official appendage in the labor movement.
The UNT defends the Bolivarian Constitution and its principles, but it
also defends workers and their rights against any enemy, whether inside or
outside the government, be it the Chavez government or anyone other one.
Seventy percent of the UNT's trade union leaders have been active in the
trade union movement for more than 15 years; they were not trained under
the protection of any government. They are wedded to the fundamental
principles of independent and democratic trade unionism.
The only true labor conflicts that the Chavez government has had to deal
with have been with UNT trade unions. However, it is also true that we in
the UNT have called on the trade union organizations and workers to defend
the constitutionally elected government against the fascist threats.
The UNT's leadership is like a melting pot that brings together all the
different currents and ideologies that exist within the Venezuelan
workers' movement: Social Democracy, Social-Christianity, Marxism,
Latin-Americanism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, or simply unaligned, independent
Trade Unionism. The UNT embodies the history of the Venezuelan labor
movement. It is not possible to reduce the labor movement or the UNT to a
single philosophy or political current.
The UNT defends social programs that use the nation's oil resources to pay
for increased health care, water, proper housing and electricity for the
poorest sectors of our people. We support all efforts to expand education
to 2 million illiterate Venezuelans, and to organize cooperatives to
rebuild the dismantled industrial base of our country.
We reject the privatization of public services and enterprises. We are
against the Free Trade Area of the Americas and the U.S.-led invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq. We support these causes not because we are on Chavez
side but because we have always defended these positions. It is the Chavez
administration that is finally on our side on these questions.
We defend trade union freedoms not only with words or because we are
scared of what others might say, but because we have been the victims of
trade union persecution. This is deeply ingrained in all of us.
No CTV member has been detained, tortured or reported missing during this
Chavez administration. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about the
governments that the CTV supported for 40 years.
We in the UNT support trade union pluralism. We believe that every
confederation must have the same rights. We are opposed to any subsidies
by the state for trade unions, and we favor the elimination of the
mandatory affiliation of public workers to trade unions. The public sector
workers should decide for themselves which unions should negotiate their
collective-bargaining agreements. Only the workers should choose their
leaders and representatives on the Board of Directors of the state
services and enterprises.
To take a stance contrary to these principles of trade union pluralism and
autonomy is to violate basic trade union freedoms -- which is precisely
what the CTV has been doing over countless years. But alas, to their great
chagrin, the era of government-imposed trade unionism is over.
8) Join Us in Rejecting These Unfounded Charges Against Venezuela and
Against the UNT!
We in the UNT reject the charges against Venezuela's sovereignty and
against the UNT that are contained in the Complaints filed by FEDECAMARAS
and its junion partners in the CTV. We reject the charges that trade union
freedoms are violated in Venezuela.
There is no doubt in our minds, in fact, that the recent years have
witnessed the period of the greatest trade union freedoms in the history
of Venezuela. In no other period have we had so many diverse trade union
organizations, or has a worker been freer to affiliate to any
organization.
We therefore call upon the international labor movement to reject all the
charges -- new and old -- brought forward within the ILO system against
Venezuela and against the UNT, in particular.
In our view, the methodology that has been applied in the case of
Venezuela leaves much to be desired regarding the ILO's much-touted
transparency. The interest of some of the ILO officers in charge of the
cases examined in relation to Venezuela does not seem to be focused -- at
least not up till now -- on establishing the objective truth. It would
appear that the main concern is to respond positively to the pressures
from the employers and their sponsors in the corporate boardrooms and
halls of power in the United States to force the Venezuelan government to
agree to some of their requests.
We fully understand that the issues are complex and often confusing. We
understand that well-meaning people might harbor doubts as to what we are
saying. We always have been willing to examine all the facts and to
provide full documentation to back our statements. We have not opposed
visits from officials sent from the ILO to evaluate the conditions of
trade union rights and freedoms in Venezuela.
But we know that forces are at play here in the Venezuelan that do not
have the best interests of working people in mind, and that have used
extra-legal means to accomplish their anti-labor objectives.
We hear regularly from representatives of FEDECAMARAS and the CTV that
unfavorable ILO reports and recommendations regarding the situation of
trade union freedoms in Venezuela could lead to a campaign of sanctions
and isolation of Venezuela, perhaps even an economic embargo. These
statements deeply worry us.
People within FEDECAMARAS and the CTV who make such statements are seeking
to instil fear in the population of Venezuela. They want to convince the
Venezuelan workers and people that any future envisioned within the
framework of the Bolivarian Revolution will be very dark, that it will
entail constant war and chaos.
These spokespersons for the employers and the wealthy elite want to instil
fear among the people so that we are willing to give up the ideals of
building the new country envisioned by the Bolivarian Revolution. The same
thing happened with Nicaragua. And if fear does not defeat us, then there
is always the threat of a "liberating" invasion, as happened in
Iraq.
That is why we are summoning all supporters of labor and democratic rights
the world over to reject the charges by FEDECAMARAS and the CTV. For us,
this is a life-or-death question.
We are deeply concerned that the accusation of alleged violations of union
freedoms in Venezuela could become the equivalent of the accusation of
harboring "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. We are deeply
concerned this may be a pretext to invade Venezuela to take control of our
oil riches.
No, the problem in Venezuela is not one of lack of trade union freedoms.
The problem is that we are sitting on top of oil reserves that others, the
greedy and the wealthy, want desperately but that the Venezuelan people
need to put poverty and all the ills of corporate globalization behind
them once and for all.
That is why our motto is and will remain: "Hands Off Venezuela!"
National Coordinating Committee
Union Nacional de Trabajadores/UNT
(National Union of Venezuelan Workers
June 2004
********************
VENEZUELA: JOINT ILC-UNT DECLARATION
- Appeal for solidarity with the people and workers of Venezuela
- Against the threats and provocations threatening their national
sovereignty
- For the defense of true freedom of trade union organization
(Caracas -- December 10, 2004)
We -- members of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and
Peoples (ILC) who were present in Caracas for the recall referendum of
August 15, together with leaders of the National Union of Workers (UNT) of
Venezuela -- address our trade union brothers and sisters, and all labor
activists and defenders of democratic and trade union rights throughout
the world:
On November 18, a brutal murder shook the Venezuelan people. Judge Danilo
Anderson, who was investigating those involved in the coup d'etat of April
2002 against the elected government of Hugo Chavez, was the victim of a
terrorist bomb placed in his car.
On November 24, the UNT reacted and declared:
"Enough impunity! He was killed because he fought such impunity
and was acting for the tribunals to provide justice. It is not necessary
to be a police officer to know that those who ordered Danilo's death are
implicated in the events of April 2002 he was investigating. Those who are
implicated in these events are powerful economic sectors, politicians and
some military groups that still exist within and without the National
Armed Forces (FAN), who always believed they were untouchable. These are
same minorities that have sought to impose coup d'etats, illegal work
stoppages and paramilitary and terrorist actions."
On August 15, the victory of the "NO" vote in the recall
referendum ratified the maintenance in power of Chavez. In the October 31
regional elections, the pro-imperialist opposition and other sectors
continued to attempt, with the cruelest methods to defy the sovereign will
of the Venezuelan people, as proven by the murder of Danilo Anderson.
This is the reason why we ask all our brothers and sisters to support the
demands formulated by the UNT:
"Down with impunity! Punish the murderers and their sponsors!
- Block the bank accounts of the people and institutions incriminated in
this assassination!
- Stop the offensive of the bosses in the ILO!
Judge Anderson was investigating the role of Pedro Carmona Estanga,
a CEO of FEDECAMARAS (the bosses' association) who was made
"President of the Republic" for less that 48 hours in April
2002. As is known, the extraordinary mobilization of the Venezuelan people
re-established Hugo Chavez in power and led to the failure of the coup
d'etat.
After the failed coup d'etat, FEDECAMARAS played a leading role in the
stoppage/sabotage of the oil industry at the end of 2002 and the beginning
of 2003. No workers' assembly planned this stoppage. The bosses, based on
orders of FEDECAMARAS, closed the companies and paid the workers "not
to work." No trade union assumed responsibility for this so-called
"stoppage" -- which was actually decided by politicians, bosses
and some self-proclaimed trade union "leaders," in order to
sabotage the principal source of income of Venezuela, thereby imposing
enormous sacrifices on the entire population, especially those who are the
most exploited.
With equal cynicism, FEDECAMARAS at the International Labor Conference of
the ILO (June 2004 in Geneva) -- with the support of the representatives
of the employers group from 22 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Tunisia, Great Britain and the United States), many of whom, in their own
countries, attack the labor rights and trade union rights of workers --
presented a new "complaint" against the Venezuelan government,
alleging Article 26 of the ILO Constitution (constituting a Commission of
Inquiry).
In this "complaint," the Venezuelan government is accused of not
observing the Convention relative to trade union freedom and the
protection of the right to join a trade union (Convention No. 87) and the
Convention on the right to establish a trade union and to collective
bargaining (No. 98) of the ILO, both ratified by Venezuela.
The Governing Body of the ILO in November 2004 moved the evaluation of
this "complaint" to their next meeting in March 2005 (voted on
by the majority to determine if Article 26 of the ILO Constitution applies
or not.)
Dear Sisters and Brothers:
The proof of the existence of trade union freedom is the existence in
Venezuela of the UNT trade union federation. The UNT was constituted in
April 2003, when the trade union rank and file rejected the participation
in the work stoppages of the leaders of the Venezuelan Workers
Confederation (CTV), behind the backs of the workers, in alliance with
FEDECAMARAS and opposition forces.
The proposed attack against the government of Venezuela by FEDECAMARAS is,
in fact, an attack against the very existence of the UNT as an independent
trade union federation, autonomous from the government and political
parties. It is an attack aimed at maintaining the "monopoly" of
trade union representation by the CTV, which does not correspond to the
concrete reality of the trade union movement in Venezuela -- which today
is organized almost entirely by the UNT.
It's the Venezuelan workers who have the right to choose the trade unions
that should represent them -- not the FEDECAMARAS bosses!
Regarding the supposed violations of the "right to strike," it
would have been necessary to produce a legitimate workers ' strike to make
such a claim -- and not a stoppage/sabotage by the bosses, which was the
case.
All these facts were established in an interview with 35 UNT leaders that
was conducted by the Direct Contact Mission of the ILO that went to
Venezuela on October 13 and 14, 2004.
That is why we appeal to all trade unionists, labor activists and
supporters of democratic and trade union rights, to tell them there is no
reason to accept the "Commission of Inquiry" called for by
FEDECAMARAS and the bosses' group. We must support the sovereign will of
the working class of Venezuela to build their own future and create the
trade union organizations of their choice.
The "complaint" by FEDECAMARAS is a provocation and should be
rejected as such. We ask all our sisters and brothers throughout the world
to inform their trade union organizations at all levels of this bosses'
offensive so that, in particular, those delegates of the Workers Group of
the ILO will reject the application of Article 26 against Venezuela ,
requested by Fedecamaras and its allies. We also call on you to apply this
same pressure on your respective governments.
The UNT is preparing its National Assembly of Delegates at the beginning
of 2005 to discuss and adopt its final statutes. We are inviting trade
unionists to come to this meeting and establish relations with the UNT. At
the same time, we are organizing an international meeting to discuss all
the questions raised by the struggle of the workers for their
emancipation.
December 10, 2004
National Coordinators of the UNT of Venezuela: Orlando Chirino,
Marcela Maspero, Stalin Perez Borges, Ruben Linares and Eduardo Piñate.
ILC Delegation: Julio Turra (CUT Brazil), Fred Hirsch (Labor
Council, San Jose, CA), Robert Irminger (Labor Council, San Francisco,
CA), Armando Pasos (SITUAM, Mexico), Isaac Oliveira (SINTRAJUF, Pernambuco,
Brazil), Jose Ricardo Jacome (SINDSEP-DF, Brazil), Tomas Jensen (Asociacion
Nuestra America, Sao Paulo, Brazil)
********************