The level of membership of trade Unions in Latin America is low. This affects the level of representation of workers by the unions. However, this statement would leave aside the fact that the national legislation formally prevents a substantive number of workers to establish a union in the enterprise or in the industry. The present investigate clarifies this issue based on an analysis or the normative framework and based on official statistical data. / La sindicalización en América Latina es baja. Lo que pone en tela de juicio la representación  de los trabajadores por medio de los sindicatos. Sin embargo, esta afirmación dejaría de lado que la propia normativa nacional impide formalmente que un significativo número de trabajadores puedan constituir un sindicato en la empresa o en la industria. El presente estudio aborda esta problemática integrando en su análisis tanto la interpretación normativa como los datos estadísticos oficiales para dilucidar esta interrogante.

Critique of trade union freedomThe article begins of the protective character of Labor Law and of the study of trade union freedom as an instrument of compensatory inequality, to analyze critically the protection of this right in the Committeeof Trade Union Freedom. Then, it develops causes of the current crisis of trade unionism and the possibility of atrade union self-reform and of an International Court of Trade Union Freedom. Finally, the article presents some strategies for overcoming the crisis of trade unionism / El artículo parte del carácter protector del derecho del trabajo y del estudio de la libertad sindical como instrumento de desigualdad compensatoria, para analizar críticamente la protección de este derecho enel Comité de Libertad Sindical. Seguidamente, se desarrollan las causas de la actual crisis del sindicalismo y la posibilidad de una autorreforma sindical y de un Tribunal Internacional de la Libertad Sindical. Finalmente, el artículo presenta algunas estrategias para superar la crisis del sindicalismo

O tema deste estudo é a relação entre o Direito Coletivo do Trabalho e o sindicalismo. Caracterizamos a institucionalidade sindical brasileira, seguindo os estudos de Armando Boito Jr., como estrutura sindical de Estado: um sistema de controle do movimento sindical dos trabalhadores pelo Estado capitalista. Rediscutimos as determinações de classe da ideologia que ela encerra: o fetiche do Estado protetor e a ordenação capitalista pelo Estado. Para a discussão do Direito Coletivo atual, parte-se da constatação de que a Constituição de 1988 passou o controle do sindicalismo das mãos do Poder Executivo para o Judiciário. Diante disso, defendemos a tese de que se manteve a função geral de desorganização, moderação e controle do movimento dos trabalhadores. Na dimensão organizativa, a partir de estudos de dois casos concretos, apontamos que a gestão judiciária da estrutura interveio de modo particular, mas para fixar os limites do enquadramento oficial. Na negociação coletiva, entendemos que houve a modificação da função do Poder Normativo, que deixou de garantir reajustes salariais e direitos mínimos, ao passo que manteve seu caráter repressivo e limitador. E quanto ao direito de greve, demonstramos a continuidade da linha jurisprudencial anterior à novidade normativa trazida pela CF/88 na matéria. Nesse percurso, defendemos a coerência entre a crítica do direito em geral e a crítica da estrutura sindical de Estado em particular. / The subject of this research is the relations that exist between the Labor Law System and the workers movement. We treat the Brazilian corporatist labor law system as a system of controlling unions by the capitalist state. The text also discusses the class determinations of the ideology that this system embodies and reproduces: the fetish of a protective State and the ordination of capitalism by the State. The current labor law regime was redesign by the Constitution of 1988. Our thesis start from this point: the charge of the state´s controlling of the unionism was transferred from the Executive to the Judicial Power. However, we claim that the general role of the collective labor system has been preserved: role of disorganization, moderation and controlling the worker´s unionism. First, at the organization matter, we part from two cases which show that judicial management has been successfully on intervening into unionism to fix it in the fragmented official framework. Second, at the collective bargaining sphere, we point that it has been a change on the role of the obligatory judicial arbitration of collective conflicts. It doesn´t function anymore as a way of guaranteeing minimum wages corrections annually, although it has continued to be an instrument to repress strikes and so to impose medium wages increases. At least, about unions power to strike, we say that judicial management of the collective labor system has not take advantage of the legal innovations generated by the redemocratization process, as to say, it kept its traditional jurisprudence. Along this way we advocate the coherence between the struggle for the union freedom and the Marxist´s critique of the law itself.

Relations between collective autonomy and government in Uruguay: chronic with open endingThe present article, after making a brief recount of the model of Uruguayan collective labor relations, analyzes the foundation and impact of heteronomous regulation on the protection of trade union freedom and collective bargaining released in the context of transformation model during periods from 2005 to 2009 and so far until 2012, with the purpose of determining whether the same meant a profound and definitive break of the pre-existing model or rather it emphasizes some of its elements without disturbing the nature / El presente artículo, tras efectuar un breve recuento del modelo de relaciones colectivas de trabajo uruguayo, analiza el fundamento y el impacto de la regulación heterónoma en materia de protección de la libertad sindical y de negociación colectiva, regulación emitida en el marco del modelo de transformación durante los períodos 2005 a 2009 y lo que va hasta el 2012. El objetivo del trabajo es determinar si dicha regulación significó una ruptura profunda y definitiva del modelo preexistente o si enfatiza más bien alguno de sus elementos sin alterar la naturaleza.

O tema deste estudo é a relação entre o Direito Coletivo do Trabalho e o sindicalismo. Caracterizamos a institucionalidade sindical brasileira, seguindo os estudos de Armando Boito Jr., como estrutura sindical de Estado: um sistema de controle do movimento sindical dos trabalhadores pelo Estado capitalista. Rediscutimos as determinações de classe da ideologia que ela encerra: o fetiche do Estado protetor e a ordenação capitalista pelo Estado. Para a discussão do Direito Coletivo atual, parte-se da constatação de que a Constituição de 1988 passou o controle do sindicalismo das mãos do Poder Executivo para o Judiciário. Diante disso, defendemos a tese de que se manteve a função geral de desorganização, moderação e controle do movimento dos trabalhadores. Na dimensão organizativa, a partir de estudos de dois casos concretos, apontamos que a gestão judiciária da estrutura interveio de modo particular, mas para fixar os limites do enquadramento oficial. Na negociação coletiva, entendemos que houve a modificação da função do Poder Normativo, que deixou de garantir reajustes salariais e direitos mínimos, ao passo que manteve seu caráter repressivo e limitador. E quanto ao direito de greve, demonstramos a continuidade da linha jurisprudencial anterior à novidade normativa trazida pela CF/88 na matéria. Nesse percurso, defendemos a coerência entre a crítica do direito em geral e a crítica da estrutura sindical de Estado em particular. / The subject of this research is the relations that exist between the Labor Law System and the workers movement. We treat the Brazilian corporatist labor law system as a system of controlling unions by the capitalist state. The text also discusses the class determinations of the ideology that this system embodies and reproduces: the fetish of a protective State and the ordination of capitalism by the State. The current labor law regime was redesign by the Constitution of 1988. Our thesis start from this point: the charge of the state´s controlling of the unionism was transferred from the Executive to the Judicial Power. However, we claim that the general role of the collective labor system has been preserved: role of disorganization, moderation and controlling the worker´s unionism. First, at the organization matter, we part from two cases which show that judicial management has been successfully on intervening into unionism to fix it in the fragmented official framework. Second, at the collective bargaining sphere, we point that it has been a change on the role of the obligatory judicial arbitration of collective conflicts. It doesn´t function anymore as a way of guaranteeing minimum wages corrections annually, although it has continued to be an instrument to repress strikes and so to impose medium wages increases. At least, about unions power to strike, we say that judicial management of the collective labor system has not take advantage of the legal innovations generated by the redemocratization process, as to say, it kept its traditional jurisprudence. Along this way we advocate the coherence between the struggle for the union freedom and the Marxist´s critique of the law itself.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Joao Batista Pereira Neto.pdf: 1541332 bytes, checksum: e6e76992f0e3c38a91eae5c18c276c2b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-10 / The Brazilian labor union system has as its two main characteristics the single-laborunion rule and the compulsory representation, both of which contribute to a not very effective environment for collective bargaining. This essay proposes a reflection about that reality and, for this purpose, presents a detailed examination of the Brazilian labor union system, including the study of the history of the workers associations in unions and the legislative development in Brazil on this subject until the current structure was established. From this analysis, a few particularities of the union structure and of the environment in which the collective bargaining is developed will be presented, what will allow understanding the issues and interests involved and the reason of the resilience to reform the current labor union system. Finally, this essay debates the necessity of adopting the unrestricted union freedom in Brazil, as a method to solve the crisis of union representativeness and to recognize the fundamental right of liberty / O sistema sindical brasileiro tem como duas principais características o princípio da unicidade sindical e a compulsoriedade de representação, que contribuem para um ambiente de negociação coletiva pouco efetiva. Este trabalho propõe uma reflexão sobre essa realidade e, para tanto, aborda um exame detalhado do sistema sindical brasileiro, com o estudo histórico da associação de trabalhadores em sindicatos e da evolução legislativa no Brasil sobre o tema, até que se estabelecesse a estrutura atualmente vigente. A partir dessa análise, apresentam-se algumas particularidades da estrutura sindical e do ambiente em que se desenvolvem as negociações coletivas de trabalho, que permitem entender as questões e interesses envolvidos e o porquê da resistência à reforma do modelo sindical atualmente vigente. Por fim, este trabalho debate a necessidade de adoção da ampla liberdade sindical no Brasil, como meio de solucionar a crise de representatividade sindical e como reconhecimento de direito fundamental de liberdade

This paper is about a current Collective Labour Law matter of debate, which is the provenance of the extension of collective labour agreements of minority unions in favor of the non-unionized workers. To start, the authors point the constitutional basis of the Collective Labour Law.Likewise, they refer that exists a strong dualism regarding the acceptance of the extension of the collective agreements signed by a minority union. They arrive to this conclusion after reviewing some of the Peruvian Labour case law, as well as some administrative pronouncements on this field. Finally, they conclude saying that is possible that the collective agreement it be extended, provided that the right of union freedom is not affected. / El presente trabajo versa sobre un tema de debate en la actualidad del Derecho Colectivo del Trabajo, el cual es la procedencia de la extensión de convenios colectivos de trabajo de sindicatos minoritarios a favor de trabajadores no sindicalizados. Para empezar, los autores señalan la base constitucional del Derecho Colectivo del Trabajo. Asimismo, indican que existe mucho dualismo entorno a la aceptación de la extensión de los convenios colectivos suscritos por un sindicato minoritario. Llegan a esa conclusión luego de haber revisado unos casos de la jurisprudencia laboral peruana, así como de pronunciamientos administrativos sobre el tema.Finalmente, concluyen que es factible que se extienda el convenio colectivo, siempre y cuando no se vulnere el derecho de libertad sindical.

L’année 1919 a été décisive dans l’histoire sociale. En effet, elle fut marquée par la création de l’Organisation internationale du travail (OIT), issue de la partie XIII du traité de Versailles. Cette institution à vocation universelle se plaçait dans la continuité d'expérimentations et de réflexions menées, depuis le XIXe siècle, sur le Vieux Continent. L’objectif des puissances européennes était de définir un cadre international de règles, communes aux Etats, pour empêcher à la fois les excès de certains patrons, les conflits avec les travailleurs, tout en combattant la pratique du dumping social et en garantissant une concurrence loyale, non seulement entre eux mais aussi à l’échelle internationale. La France joua un rôle majeur dans la rédaction de ces textes et dans la création de l’OIT, chargée de poursuivre ce travail. De ce fait, cette institution dut concilier l’européocentrisme dominant le BIT et sa vocation universelle. La solution apparut, durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, à travers l’interrégionalisme développé par Paul van Zeeland, et que l’institution tenta de mettre en œuvre durant l’après-guerre et la guerre froide. Il s’agissait de créer des regroupements régionaux et de les faire coopérer dans les domaines politique, économique et social pour garantir la paix dans le monde ; l’Europe occidentale devait en être le laboratoire. Cette région, notamment la France, influença donc durablement les réflexions de l’OIT. / The year 1919 was decisive in the social history. Indeed, it was marked by the creation of the International Labour Organization (ILO), resulting from part XIII of the treaty of Versailles. This institution with universal vocation placed itself in continuity of experiments and of carried out reflections, since the 19th century, on the Old continent. The objective of the European powers was to define an international framework of common rules for States, to prevent at the same time excesses of some managers, the conflicts with the workers, while fighting the practice of the social dumping and guaranteeing a fair competition, not only between them but also on an international scale. France played a major role in the writing of these texts and the creation of the ILO, charged to continue this work. So this institution had to reconcile the europeocentrism dominating the International Labour Office and its universal vocation. The solution appeared, during the Second World War, through the interregionalism developed by Paul van Zeeland, and that the institution tried to implement during the post-war period and the cold war. It was a question of creating regional regroupings and of making them cooperate in the policy fields, economic and social to guarantee peace in the world; Western Europe had to be the laboratory about it. This region, in particular France, thus influenced durably the reflections of the ILO.