Union Busting -- Now With Bullets

Via Ezra Klein, an eye-opening chart from EPI about the business climate in Colombia. Clearly, you've got some rule of law issues that could be problematic for your firm. But on the plus side, Colombia's the kind of place where you can hire someone to just go murder any pesky union organizers or other malcontents who are trying to disrupt the sweet, sweet flexibility of your local labor market.

Given Burson-Marsteller's significant union busting practice, I'm actually a bit surprised that Mark Penn was such an advocate of the Colombia free trade deal. After all, if more companies start deciding to take Colombia-style shortcuts then B-M could be out a good deal of work. Worse, with a trade deal in place, B-M could actually see its clients looking to outsource their work to Colombian paramilitaries. Or maybe Penn was looking to add a sniper brigade to his firm's work.

Comments

I believe you and Ezra have both missed the obvious implication of this chart: in 2003, increased prosecutions brought increased murders. Since then, as prosecutions dropped, so did the trade-unionist murder rate. When the prosecution rate dropped to zero last year, trade unionist murders dropped to their lowest level on the chart. Clearly, Columbia's overzealous prosecutorial efforts, like all liberal regulatory regimes, was producing a perverse outcome, and the subsequent embrace of flexibility and market mechanisms is moving the country toward a more optimal equilibrium. I suspect that if Columbia were to start releasing trade-unionist murderers who were convicted in the past (that is, if any were convicted), then the trade-unionist murder rate could be brought lower still. You see, that's how markets solve problems.

Posted by Rich C | April 7, 2008 5:55 PM

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the same subject after you read the following article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/opinion/29schumacher.html

Posted by Anon | April 7, 2008 6:01 PM

Two things: 1. No mention was made of the fact that this is a much longer term trend than what this graph shows (which seems to concentrate on the Uribe years).

That seems dishonest to me, especially because of how dangerous Colombia has been since the 1948 Bogotazo (i.e., correlation does not prove causation).

2. From a geopolitical standpoint, it seems nuts for the U.S. not to approve the FTA with Colombia.

Whatever else his failings may be, Uribe is wildly popular in his country, Colombia is a much safer country than it was and is CLEARLY the strongest U.S. ally in South America (and I don't buy it that the U.S. is going to have a nice time of it here in Lat Am once W is gone).

What Matt and others don't seem to think about is what would happen if the FTA is not approved AND the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (which allowed exports into the U.S. with preferential tax treatment and which expires at the end of September) is not extended for Colombia AND other countries in the region.

I'd love to read someone explain how Colombia is going to (a) maintain the rule of law; (b) decrease paramilitary and guerrilla activity; (c) cut down on the narcoeconomy; and (d) remain a U.S. ally if the above happens, because I don't see it.

Posted by JRVJ | April 7, 2008 6:02 PM

And we know these are "assassinations" committed by business interests intended to maintain the "flexibility of [the] local labor market"... how, exactly? You know, as opposed to killings by, say, random people or by FARC?

Posted by Al | April 7, 2008 6:06 PM

Further to my last comment, it appears from the Times op-ed linked above that (a) the numbers on Matthew's graph are complete BS, as there were 40 convictions for murders of trade unionists last year, not the zero noted in the graph, and (b) union activity was the motive in only a tiny minority of the murders - many more were motivated by common crime, a crime of passion, or FARC (or some other guerrilla) activity.

This is just more lies from people who are simply isolationist and protectionist.

Posted by Al | April 7, 2008 6:30 PM

saw that sniper line coming a mile away...

Posted by MattMickG | April 7, 2008 7:34 PM

While the graph is indeed wrong on the prosecutions, one contrarian NYT op-ed is hardly the end of the argument. Even the freakin State Dept. doesn't come up with 40 in this year's Colombia human rights report; moreover, even in the op-ed that number must presumably be based on some count of number of people convicted rather than the number of murders in which there were convictions. From the State Dept:

"In October 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office worked with the three largest unions to identify 187 priority cases of violence against trade unionists. By year's end, 13 of the 187 had been prosecuted, resulting in conviction and imprisonment of 25 perpetrators."

That's not a particularly inspiring conviction rate for "priority cases."

Also JRVJ it's the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act(ATPDEA) not the Caribbean Basin Initiative. It has neared expiration many times and is always extended. The chance of it being allowed to expire is next to nil - we even extend it routinely for nations like Bolivia with whom we have much less friendly relations, let alone Colombia.

Posted by jd | April 7, 2008 7:49 PM

Matt,

That is a piece of disinformation.

The murder rate of unionized workers is lower than the general population in Colombia.

There are also quite a few terrorists (e.g. Mr. Reyes) who were at some point union leaders, hence when they die in combat against the Colombian army, that is counted too as "murder of an union leader".

Please read this piece from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/opinion/29schumacher.html?scp=4&sq=Colombia+union&st=nyt

Posted by Eco | April 8, 2008 1:24 AM

It's amazing that Columbia remains as good an ally as it is given the devastation caused there by our moronic "Global War on Drugs".

We have kept an unwinnable-by-either-side civil war going in Columbia for decades by funding both sides and attempting to blame drug abuse in wealthy countries like ours on dirt-poor farmers in Third World countries like Columbia and Afghanistan.

Pass the FTA, and deep-six the GWOD. It will also help to keep outing blatant propaganda spread by dupes like Matt. Nice catch, Al and Eco.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 8, 2008 3:13 AM

In addition to the points Al and Eco made, I also noticed that the graph only tells us the percentage of trade unionist murders brought to trial, not the percentage of trade unionist murders prosecuted or resulting in convictions of some sort. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the Colombian legal system, but if it is set up anything like most Western legal systems, the distinction is important.

Assuming there is a difference in Colombian law as well, the graph therefore also tells us nothing about the average sentence received by trade unionist murderers.

Posted by Mark | April 8, 2008 7:36 AM

Okay, okay, Al and Eco--you guys have convinced us--Colombia is perfectly right to murder all those trade unionists.

Posted by rea | April 8, 2008 7:52 AM

Forget Matt's graph, which is wrong - the question is Colombia's record, and just because y'all read one NYT op-ed doesn't mean you know anything about it. I don't know where the op-ed writer's numbers are from but even the State Dept. (see above) is not so sanguine. Prosecuting 13 out of 187 "priority cases" is absurdly unimpressive.

"The murder rate of unionized workers is lower than the general population in Colombia."

Civilians obviously should be murdered at a lower rate than the general population in a country in a state of armed conflict. And anyway that has nothing to do with being able to kill union workers with impunity. The unions and some of their advocates have surely been overzealous with the statistics at moments and have given suckers who don't know anything about the country some ammo, but the reality of trade unionism in Colombia is grim, period.

Not to mention all the other human rights issues in the country, like this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901118.html

Posted by jd | April 8, 2008 8:13 AM

Perhaps it's necessary to remind folks that it isn't necessary to murder high percentages of union members or union-leaning employees in order to halt union or unionizing activity -- one or two is often fairly effective.

In any case...

Despite a reduction in killings, Colombia remains the world's deadliest country for union activists. More than 700 unionized workers have been killed in Colombia since 2001, the government said. Colombia accounted for half of all such killings globally in 2006, according to the International Trade Union Confederation. Uribe has said just 26 union members were killed in all of 2007, but 11 were killed in the past month alone.

``It is certainly down from 2002, which was a nightmare year,'' said Isacson. ``What has not improved is punishment when it happens. The impunity rate of these killings is 98 or 99 percent.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7444775

Four of those killed in the past month (March) were leaders of a nation-wide series of marches commemorating the victims of state-related violence.

Uribe's adviser Jose Obdulio Garcia publicly claimed a month in advance that the marches (which followed by a week the state-encouraged march commemorating victims of leftist guerrillas, who are rightly commemorated but whom are vastly outnumbered by victims of the security and right wing narco-paramilitary forces) were "organized by the FARC".

The supposedly disbanded paramilitary AUC then issued messages echoing Uribe's adviser's calumny, and it had the intended effect, with the death squads killing those march organizers.

But then, I guess the numbers & focus are exaggerated in importance, since tens of thousands of people marched in the MOVICE events while only a small number (4) of organizers were killed with the public encouragement of the president's adviser.

Posted by El Cid | April 8, 2008 9:07 AM

Rea:
"Okay, okay, Al and Eco--you guys have convinced us--Colombia is perfectly right to murder all those trade unionists."

Not sure where should I start with.

First, Colombia is not a being, it does not kill trade unionists.

Second, Colombia is at a war. On one side there is a small minority that would like to see their country under a totalitarian regime, on the other side stands the vast majority of Colombians of all social strata that would like to see their country become a normal democracy (say, Brazil or Chile).

Third, do you know what is the murder/kidnap rate of businesspeople? I'd like to know it before I could judge whether the rates for union leaders are high or not compared to the general population in a country in civil war. I suspect businesspeople are at an even higher risk than union leaders in Colombia.

(I happen to know a few upper middle class Colombians, and none of them can boast that their family has escaped from the usual kidnappings or murders)

Eco

Posted by Eco | April 8, 2008 10:26 AM

Second, Colombia is at a war. On one side there is a small minority that would like to see their country under a totalitarian regime, on the other side stands the vast majority of Colombians of all social strata that would like to see their country become a normal democracy (say, Brazil or Chile).

That Colombia cannot conclude a civil war makes it exceptional from lots of other Latin American countries which managed to do so.

There are certainly a large majority of Colombians who would prefer that the civil war finally be concluded.

There are also an enormous number of Colombians who are sick and tired of the guerrillas being used as an excuse for the state to back lawless and incredibly murderous forces, in the form of the paramilitaries (and yes, they're still there), who are simultaneously responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths for Colombia's failure to conclude the civil war -- and the vast majority of their victims are poor countryside inhabitants mainly ignored by the types of Colombians many Americans encounter, and at the same time those government-linked paramilitaries are controlling most of the narco-trafficking.

So, the "small minority that would like to see their country under a totalitarian regime" includes both the pathetically remaining guerrilla forces and their partners in violence -- the very leaders of the government, who have been at best forced by the scandal and the independent judiciary to begin rolling back the massive, dominant effects of their mafia narco death squad allies.

Now, admittedly, the leaders of the government would prefer to have a normal democracy, but they are too committed to their other goals -- such as backing the eliminationist movements of large landholders to drive the rural smallholders off of lands which they want -- to let reality intrude on fantasies of having both. (To this extent this sort of statement is like John McCain saying that a 100 year occupation of Iraq would be fine if it was cool and peaceful like South Korea and maybe also if Iraq were filled with magic leprechauns who gave all our troops gold coins & Lucky Charms cereal.)

Whether they even possess the ability, having given rise to this para-state violence, to reel it back in is seriously in question, as the Aguilas Negras are already back in operation in Bogota -- that is, if you listen to reporters & eyewitnesses and victims rather than government propaganda forces.

All of this is reality, no matter the degree of Uribe's popularity in urban areas, nor the degree to which Colombian middle and upper class citizens that people may meet or hear from care about the forces impacting the countryside.

Posted by El Cid | April 8, 2008 10:45 AM

El Cid,

Not sure what you mean "Colombians many Americans encounter". After all, I am not an American, and I encounter many Colombians from humble backgrounds, inside and outside Colombia, who share the same antipathy to the FARC.

Your analogy between the FARC and the leaders in government is simply wrong. Uribe and his political group are not trying to install anything resembling a totalitarian regime in Colombia. The FARC is.

The comparison with McCain's rhetoric on Iraq is also disingenuous. There is no need to "stay 100 years" to pacify Colombia. They only need a chance to do what some of their neighbors could do. Peru broke the back of the Sendero; Brazil got it done with its totalitarian guerrillas in the Amazon (grim detail: the military had to cut off their heads for later identification); as Italy did with the Brigate Rosse; and the US did with the Nazis etc --- To defeat the FARC politically and militarily is a PRECONDITION for Colombia to become a normal plain-vanilla democratic country.

Posted by Eco | April 8, 2008 11:04 AM

Eco, Colombia's failure to resolve its civil war is an ongoing tragedy. And sure, fantasies that they'll soon wrap it all up militarily are great. And this is true, and real, no matter the degree of antipathy to the FARC. Sure, everyone should hate the FARC, great, in fact I'll daily wish they were gone. But they aren't, and it isn't Colombia's neighbors' faults that they persist.

I know, I know, I get it, you want to keep trying to claim that anyone who doesn't simply blame the FARC for everything is obviously some guerrilla / terrorist / communist / chaos lover and you'll keep repeating that people hate the FARC until you think you've wiped away all the other important points. I get it. Hey, plenty of Colombians do the same thing -- and they're wrong too, just like the American idiots who try to drown out any opposition to our government's lunatic policies by screaming "Al Qa'ida! Al Qa'ida! Al Qa'ida!"

However, it is the paramilitaries, the newest incarnation of which was launched on Uribe's family ranch and which flowered during his tenure as governor of Antioquia, and to which increasing numbers of Uribe's closest government allies are tied, which have slaughtered (officially) 70% of the victims of the ongoing civil war and which control the gigantic drug "trade" which undercuts so persistently and violently the democracy you claim they desire.

And you're right -- Uribe and his allies aren't trying to install a totalitarian regime.

They're just happy to allow their totalitarian paramilitary allies to continue slaughtering the innocent, fixing elections, killing & threatening union organizers, human rights observers, civil society leaders, and political candidates.

So I guess it's not totalitarian if your government allows large regions of the countryside to complain that their candidates are being threatened or assassinated and voters are threatened by armed gunmen whom evidence continually ties to your own country's military and police and politicians.

Of course, you're more than welcome to try to avert any substantial debate or understanding by shouting about FARC & totalitarian, just like the Reaganites did for their death squad democracy allies a few decades back.

But none of this matters, since as long as you shout louder than anyone else that Colombia is in a war and that the FARC is totalitarian! all the other problems magically vanish.

You just need to add a few more comments about toughness, resolve, stay the course, "surge", "fifth columnists", and the like, and you'll be well on the way.

Posted by El Cid | April 8, 2008 11:31 AM

Does anything El Cid just said suggest that trade unionists are being killed at a rate higher than the rest of the people in the country?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | April 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Sebastian Holsclaw: Some might find that there's a difference between rates of violent crimes versus targeted assassinations.

For example, I don't know the murder rate of 1968 off-hand, but the rate at which high level U.S. political and civil leaders were assassinated has often been perceived as notable, even beyond the violent crime rate.

Conflating general crime rates with targeted (and typically announced) assassinations is either a profound genuine error or a terribly cynical game.

Posted by El Cid | April 8, 2008 12:30 PM

Typcially announced? How many of those approximately 100 homicides of trade unionists per year were pre-announced? I strongly suspect you don't have any idea and are just trying to shut me up.

The recorded homicide rate per 100,000 in Colombia has been in the 40-50 range for about 10 years. That is ridiculously high, but unfortunately expected in a country where the drug lords revolutionaries are as powerful as the government.

Colombia has approximately 44 million people.

I couldn't find the trade union membership numbers but I'd be relatively surprised to find that it was less than 1% of the working population. Which at least at first blush would put the trade union homicide rate at well below the rate of the population as a whole.

So either the trade union membership is amazingly low (possible, please feel free to point me to some numbers) or the homicide rate isn't nearly as high enough to justify the silliness coming from Ezra who really should know statistics better than he is letting on.

And again, the kidnapping and killing of businessmen in Colombia is well documented, which makes his comment about how different it would be if they were getting killed suggest that he just doesn't know anything at all about Colombia.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | April 8, 2008 2:34 PM

Over 1 million Colombians are union members. The killings of union members are isolated at most. For example, 39 union members were killed last year. That is 4 per 100,000 people, less than the homicide rate in Colombia and the U.S. The motive for the vast majority of these murders is either common crime, crimes of passion, or participation in guerilla activity. Very few, if any of the murders of union members in 2007 can be attributed to union activity. This is a red herring.

Posted by artigano | April 8, 2008 6:01 PM

"You just need to add a few more comments about toughness, resolve, stay the course, "surge", "fifth columnists", and the like, and you'll be well on the way."

El Cid,

Drop the snark.
Go find a definition of "totalitarian".
Then get the basics on Colombian politics.

Eco

Posted by Eco | April 8, 2008 6:39 PM

Eco, I don't think I need to sign up for any lessons you would recommend on Colombian politics. And as long as you make points as blindly stupid as you do, the snark is not only permitted, but required.

Sebastian Holsclaw, I would not try to shut you up. Your astoundingly callous attempt to compare targeted assassinations -- and I'm specifically talking about the universe of targeted assassinations, which could be specifically applied to union leaders & organizers or to broader categories of activists & community leaders -- with general crime rates is evidence of the lack of utility of this argument.

During the height of investigations & prosecutions of organized crime in Sicily, the number of prosecutors, police detectives, judges, etc., actually killed was comparatively low, yet were often tied to the groups who opposed their activities. There too it was inappropriate to compare those numbers with general violence rates.

Go ahead & try to establish that there's a greater record in Colombia of businessmen and ranch-holders being targeted than trade unionists & civil society leaders. The stats aren't with you -- particularly when, say, large scale massacres are included -- but feel free. No, no, in fact, please: do so with a greater intensity than you have so far suggested. You'll only continue to make my points with greater effectiveness.

Although, there too, I could object that the kidnapping of businessmen by the guerrilla groups is, in general, simply a manifestation of general crime rates and to be expected in a country in which the government-linked narco-paramilitaries hold such power.

Posted by El Cid | April 9, 2008 4:12 AM

This is the kind of thing which no one in Colombia mistakes for general violent crime statistics:

Fiscalía ordenó detención de dos paramilitares por homicidio de juez de Becerril
Abril 7 de 2008

Oscar José Ospino Pacheco, alias 'Tolemaida'; y Luis Carlos Marciales Pacheco, alias 'Cebolla', son investigados por el crimen de Marilys de Jesús Hinojosa Suárez.

La decisión fue emitida por un fiscal de la Unidad de Derechos Humanos y DIH de la Fiscalía al sindicar a 'Tolemaida' y 'Cebolla' de homicidio agravado y concierto para delinquir, confirmó el organismo judicial

La Juez de Becerril fue aeesinada en cercanías del municipio de Codazzi, en el departamento de Cesar, el 27 de enero de 2003. Hombres armados la interceptaron en su vehículo y dispararon contra ella y una acompañante, quien sobrevivió.

'Tolemaida' y 'Cebolla' eran cabecillas del grupo de las Auc comandado por Rodrigo Tovar Pupo, alias 'Jorge 40'.

Alias 'Tolemaida' tambiéstá vinculado al proceso por el homicidio de los sindicalistas Valmore Locarno Rodríguez y Víctor Hugo Orcasita Amaya, asesinados en Bosconia, Cesar, el 12 de marzo de 2001.

http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/2008-04-07/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-4079722.html

Also in recent developments, the FARC assassins of the governor of Antioquia and other high officials were duly found guilty for their targeted assassinations, and the "parapolitica" scandal of politicians arrested for working with the right wing narco-paramilitaries breaks 51 politicians charged or arrested under investigation, which means it's now on a far larger scale than the famous 8.000 scandal.

The heroes of this story continue to be Colombia's independent judiciary, who in large degree continue to show a real rather than verbal commitment to a nation of laws which applies to all.

Posted by El Cid | April 9, 2008 5:31 AM

"During the height of investigations & prosecutions of organized crime in Sicily, the number of prosecutors, police detectives, judges, etc., actually killed was comparatively low, yet were often tied to the groups who opposed their activities. There too it was inappropriate to compare those numbers with general violence rates."

Ummm, weren't we talking about the graph at the top of this post? Were you talking about something else all along?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | April 9, 2008 5:30 PM

How to set your unionist murder quota:

1. Calculate the number of unionists.

2. Find your nation' murder rate.

3. Multiply 1. by 2.

4. Subtract a few.

5. Compare apples and oranges.

Posted by ChampSummers | April 14, 2008 8:19 PM