MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047656572 · doi:10.1353/eco.2011.0013

Is Violence against Union Members in Colombia Systematic and Targeted?

2011· article· en· W2047656572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Mejía, María José Uribe

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomía · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceTrade unionNegotiationGovernment (linguistics)International free trade agreementInternational tradeLawEconomic integrationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Is Violence against Union Members in Colombia Systematic and Targeted? Daniel Mejía and María José Uribe (bio) Violence against union members and union leaders has been at the center of a debate in Colombia and in countries currently negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia. In particular, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and union leaders in Colombia, Europe, Canada, and the United States persistently argue that FTAs with Colombia should be blocked because there are no results to be seen from attempts by the current Colombian government to halt violence against union members. Furthermore, a recent report by an NGO claims that “while the Colombian government claims that most of the violence against trade unions is a by-product of the armed conflict, the Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS), a respected NGO that provides training and support to the Colombian labor movement, says that the majority of the anti-union violence that takes place in Colombia is in response to the victims’ normal union activities” (see USLEAP 2008). Union leaders, for their part, have argued that under the Uribe administration, homicides of union members have increased. For instance, in a recent letter to the permanent representatives of the EU member states, John Monks, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), argues that “assassinations of trade unionists in Colombia continue at a rate unseen in any other country. . . . The country’s main trade union confederations, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores [Central Union of Workers], the Confederación General del Trabajo [General [End Page 119] Confederation of Labor], and the Confederación de Trabajadores de Colombia [Confederation of Workers of Colombia], are alerting us and providing documentation that refutes claims by the Uribe Government that the situation is under control.” He then asks the representatives to “call a halt to the FTA negotiation . . . and so make it clear to the Colombian authorities that the EU and its Member States do not condone the current situation in Colombia.”1 The topic of violence against union members in Colombia even reached the debates in the last U.S. presidential campaign. More precisely, in a debate in New York, then-senator Obama pointed to abuses in Colombia as the reason for his opposition to the FTA with Colombia, saying that labor leaders were being targeted for assassination on a consistent basis.2 The Colombian government defends itself, explaining that huge efforts have been made to protect unionists. During a speech in 2007, President Alvaro Uribe responded to a message sent by a U.S. member of Congress, arguing that 6,000 people in Colombia were receiving personal protection; of those, a fourth (1,500) were union members.3 And so the debate goes. Many points of view are presented in discussions, and FTAs continue to be blocked. Despite the serious claims used to block economic reforms, the abundant available evidence is rarely used to support the allegations. What are the specific indicators for violence against union members in Colombia? How do they compare with those in other countries in the region? Has there been any progress in solving the problem? Can killings of union members in Colombia be explained by their involvement in union activities? This paper first presents the main stylized facts on violence against union members in Colombia, comparing them with the evolution of the total homicide rate and with the homicide rate for other groups identified as vulnerable (journalists, council members, mayors, teachers and the indigenous population). We also compare the level of violence against unionists in Colombia with that in other Latin American countries. Then, using panel data for Colombia at the state level from 2000 to 2008, we test the claim that union activities (wage agreements and negotiations, strikes, work stoppages, street marches, and so forth) help explain the level of violence against union members in Colombia. Testing this hypothesis is a first step toward finding whether (on average) union members in Colombia are killed because of their involvement in union activities. [End Page 120] If this hypothesis is proved wrong, that would suggest that the argument being used to block economic reforms such as FTAs with the United States, Canada, and the European Union is not supported...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomíaSame topicPolitical Conflict and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207