are living the worst days of dictatorship - and breathed the stifling atmosphere that it portrays a series of fashion in television and a small group chosen to as if nothing happened and were engaged in writing, or more nor less than a new constitution.
There, "while taking tea with biscuits, giving free rein to his wit: Senators appointed national security council, the binomial system, the ban on Marxist doctrines and anti-family, and to inventions to drive away the majority of power and make the future democracy a safe and peaceful for your interest.
And what if they succeeded. Ortúzar, Ovalle, Romo, Diez et al.
all good men-and right-did the job that they did with commendable fussiness.
are our founding fathers, although Chile is known, is a country of outcasts.
on strike and had no doubts: should be banned. Was expression of class struggle, Sergio Diez said without blushing. "It is contrary to the natural state," were his exact words. To this were added, in chorus, the rest of his friends.
Hence, it is perfectly understandable because our elite will today, as yesterday, strike a crime. The strike often questioned the order, and order often reflect the balance of ganadores.Y then, go out to do something unique in the Western world after the Second World War: constitutionally prohibit the strike. Then came the cold rationality of Jaime Guzmán: "We can not," he said with such conviction and frustration. That will create international problems and is against "the text said Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes as a right in Article 8.
Too bad, I guess Ortúzar and his friends said, chewing frustration. But at least accomplished something: ban for public officials.
Now, that hostility to the strike, of course, not invented by Guzmán and his friends. Not so. Comes from very old, and collected the best of our authoritarian traditions, being a part of the heart of much of our elite.
is a long tradition of repression and criminalization of the strike as a means of expressing dissent and social protest which had its most brutal and inaugural speech in the massacre of Santa Maria de Iquique. President Montt and his henchman occasionally General Silva Renard-no hand shook them hard.
Obviously we're not for the criminal repression of the century. But our men of government - or Hinzpeter Mañalich style-still think the same: the strike is a disturbance to public order and therefore have the best reason to suppress it. With sticks and Hercules-like Collahuasi - or with the appropriate legal reprisals, such as public officials and their discounts.
all seems so clear and well argued. But
problem is that things can and in fact have "a completely different reading:
The strike is not an illegitimate alteration to the social order or anything. It is a fundamental right of all people-whether public or private officials, "widely recognized in international treaties, such that he was afraid to violate Guzmán-such as ILO Convention 87 and the Covenant on Economic and Social.
Therefore, the same Chileans who are willing to sacrifice without regard, they should be excited as in the developed world these rights are exercised by large sectors of society including government officials, and even to police.
Interestingly, at this point is that this right is widely recognized in the OECD countries, in which Chile is by far, which has a more aggressive regulation against the strike. Practically no one accepts, for example, replacement of striking workers, largely provided by Chilean law. And many of them allow the strike of public servants such as France, Sweden or Spain. In Germany, the Federal Court said in 1980 that "the negotiations without the right to strike, but it was not collective begging."
is a right also especially valuable for the weaker sections of society such as employees, both public and private. They need to strike as a key vehicle of expression, in some cases unique.
Hence, it is perfectly understandable because our elite will today, as yesterday, strike a crime. The strike often questioned the order, and order often reflect the balance of the winners.
The small detail is that the order can take-no problems-most scandalous levels of inequality and exclusion.
There, "while taking tea with biscuits, giving free rein to his wit: Senators appointed national security council, the binomial system, the ban on Marxist doctrines and anti-family, and to inventions to drive away the majority of power and make the future democracy a safe and peaceful for your interest.
And what if they succeeded. Ortúzar, Ovalle, Romo, Diez et al.
all good men-and right-did the job that they did with commendable fussiness.
are our founding fathers, although Chile is known, is a country of outcasts.
on strike and had no doubts: should be banned. Was expression of class struggle, Sergio Diez said without blushing. "It is contrary to the natural state," were his exact words. To this were added, in chorus, the rest of his friends.
Hence, it is perfectly understandable because our elite will today, as yesterday, strike a crime. The strike often questioned the order, and order often reflect the balance of ganadores.Y then, go out to do something unique in the Western world after the Second World War: constitutionally prohibit the strike. Then came the cold rationality of Jaime Guzmán: "We can not," he said with such conviction and frustration. That will create international problems and is against "the text said Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes as a right in Article 8.
Too bad, I guess Ortúzar and his friends said, chewing frustration. But at least accomplished something: ban for public officials.
Now, that hostility to the strike, of course, not invented by Guzmán and his friends. Not so. Comes from very old, and collected the best of our authoritarian traditions, being a part of the heart of much of our elite.
is a long tradition of repression and criminalization of the strike as a means of expressing dissent and social protest which had its most brutal and inaugural speech in the massacre of Santa Maria de Iquique. President Montt and his henchman occasionally General Silva Renard-no hand shook them hard.
Obviously we're not for the criminal repression of the century. But our men of government - or Hinzpeter Mañalich style-still think the same: the strike is a disturbance to public order and therefore have the best reason to suppress it. With sticks and Hercules-like Collahuasi - or with the appropriate legal reprisals, such as public officials and their discounts.
all seems so clear and well argued. But
problem is that things can and in fact have "a completely different reading:
The strike is not an illegitimate alteration to the social order or anything. It is a fundamental right of all people-whether public or private officials, "widely recognized in international treaties, such that he was afraid to violate Guzmán-such as ILO Convention 87 and the Covenant on Economic and Social.
Therefore, the same Chileans who are willing to sacrifice without regard, they should be excited as in the developed world these rights are exercised by large sectors of society including government officials, and even to police.
Interestingly, at this point is that this right is widely recognized in the OECD countries, in which Chile is by far, which has a more aggressive regulation against the strike. Practically no one accepts, for example, replacement of striking workers, largely provided by Chilean law. And many of them allow the strike of public servants such as France, Sweden or Spain. In Germany, the Federal Court said in 1980 that "the negotiations without the right to strike, but it was not collective begging."
is a right also especially valuable for the weaker sections of society such as employees, both public and private. They need to strike as a key vehicle of expression, in some cases unique.
Hence, it is perfectly understandable because our elite will today, as yesterday, strike a crime. The strike often questioned the order, and order often reflect the balance of the winners.
The small detail is that the order can take-no problems-most scandalous levels of inequality and exclusion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment