Under what context it is possible that an employer can impose their own conditions of farm workers such that mean putting your life at risk to get a salary? And deeper still: why society allows its workers have to endure in the early twenty-first century forms of slavery own?
The explanation of the company is not even worth considering. Justify the closure of workers for technical reasons, it was a problem of plates, said holding Paulmann-not stand analysis. In fact, the chain, whose motto is "Santa Isabel you know" - is like the imp discovered "in flagrante" invented the first thing that happened.
The real explanation is, in my opinion, so simple and brutal: the radical loneliness that is the Chilean worker. In the absence of ability to form strong unions, prevented from resorting to strike and abandoned by the state, the Chilean worker has to make only against an employer who, by definition, has enormous power, which gives the dismissal.
Let's see how our workers were left alone. First, there are no unions. Only ten percent of Chilean workers have a union to represent you, and the average membership of around 34 members. They are not, strictly speaking, unions, but "sindicatitos." And that question is obvious: someone claims that Penan unions where souls can take on giants like Cencosud, owner of Santa Isabel Supermarket, with all its institutional power and the media?
Second, there is no collective bargaining on working conditions. In Chile, only 5 percent of workers access to a collective agreement. So 95 percent is subject entirely to the individual working conditions which are, by definition, offered by the employer unilaterally.
And if they have no union or bargain collectively, maybe our workers may use to strike in serious and qualified, for example, when an employer decides on the verge of delirium locked up to prevent theft? Nor can. This strike, like most of the strikes in Chile would be illegal. Declared a hypothesis only when workers are negotiating a collective agreement, the strike in Chile suffers more restrictive legal regulation of the world. Hence, although it sounds absurd, if workers or miners Santa Isabel de San José, both slaves to the greed of their employers, had decided on a strike to protest the abuse, this strike would have been hopelessly illegal. Disabled
then to use their own hands to defend collectively, perhaps it is the State of Chile that this responsibility. And then the cold of solitude is complete. The Labour Inspectorate has structural problems, legal and factual now which prevent compliance with the rights of workers. Labor laws because the penalties are simply ridiculous. It is difficult to overcome-fines in more serious cases, the 60 UTM, and that many companies simply assume as a cost, in any case, it is cheaper to enforce the law.
Is the holding Cencosud scare a fine is unlikely to exceed a few million weights? Are owners scared intercity buses with years and years of fines to meet the drivers' rest between working days? Is it scared the owners of the San José mine when a month before the accident were fined a million dollars for security problems on the roof of the mine?
And there are structural reasons, because obviously that public service is not able to monitor millions of daily working relationships and we know that the new guidelines of the audit service are to encourage education over the audit. There are no bad businesses, only uninformed, it seems the new maximum control of that body.
Nothing can then be worse for workers in Chile.
Perhaps his only hope to be themselves: loneliness only ends with another one.
