sensei
29/06/2016

Government Employees’ Right to Strike
It is a fact that Government employees’ right to strike is a very restricted right and has no effectiveness whatsoever.
In Diez de Bonilla, Kuri y Asociados, S.C., we have sustained that paragraph B of Article 123 of the Constitution was created for Government’s convenience, since the Government decided not to become subject to the Federal Labor Law of Mexico (Ley Federal del Trabajo – LFT) out of fear and, one might say, due to an implicit recognition that the own Government would violate labor rights. Therefore, under a dual political speech, paragraph B was created as it was sustained that the Government, since it has no profit objectives but rather aims and have as purpose providing public services, could not be subject to the LFT but rather to different legal provisions that address such purpose and favor social or collective interests over the personal interests of the employees.
The Government employees’ right to strike is just one example of many cases that the truth is a stranger to the law. Such factual situations prevail and are allowed by the Government, such as when illegal work stoppages of the workers at Government’s service take place, who every day take the streets to demand respect for their labor rights, working conditions, and to demand a dignified work, and ultimately the Government allows it and it is even forced to negotiate although, under a strict adherence to the law, it could fire such workers for not attending to their work; however, the side effects for laying them off would be worst. This is why the Government ends up implicitly recognizing that their workers have fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of association and, even though it is not a full right given the manner in which it is regulated, terminating labor relationships would not be the solution. The difference to face this reality would be, in our opinion, by recognizing the labor rights of such workers in a full manner. When recognizing their rights, both substantive and adjective rights, such as the right to strike, and the right to submit the Government –as an employer- to the LFT, the Government would be required to be a proper employer, that is, an employer that respects workers’ rights, but at the same time, the workers may be required to comply with the law that meets their needs. A society that privileges their workers creates wealth and harmony, otherwise we will have bad bureaucrats and streets invaded by protesters. When looking other Governments and Organizations, such as members of the European Union, where workers at the service of public duties have rights such as the right to strike and, if such government agency violates the same workers can make use of said right and they even do it, but under a regulatory framework and not under factual situations as it occurs in our country. Some consider that it would be catastrophic to allow Strikes to Government workers in the same terms as provided in article 123 in section A, of the Constitution; however, we insist that work stoppage already take place given factual situations though they are not regulated by law and are allowed. Why? Because it is a reality that the Government cannot ignore, because such right to strike is immersed in such right to freedom of association, which, if the Government ignores or limits, it would create profound problems. But then, if under the demagogy of privileging the public service over the rights of the workers at Government’s service, results in reality that such service is truly bad and that there are disconformities in those workers, then it means that something is not working. Therefore, in our opinion, the right to strike recognized in paragraph B of article 123 of the Constitution, along with everything in that section, was created under demagoguery and a dual political speech, without grounds whatsoever but rather for preventing the Government from becoming subject to the LFT; when what should happen is to recognize that the Government is also an employer, and therefore, must respect the rights of its workers and with more reason, since they provide a public service; therefore, such rights should be privileged and, in turn, demanded so that such public service is provided and provided properly. Under the protection of Labor Law, which protects dignified work, a special regulatory framework for workers at Government’s service could be created, with a right to strike that balances the rights of those from whom we receive public services but also the fundamental labor rights of these workers; under this premise special regulations for Government employees could be created pursuant to the principles and fundamental rights that every worker should have.

Government Employees’ Right to Strike
sensei
29/06/2016
It is a fact that Government employees’ right to strike is a very restricted right and has no effectiveness whatsoever.
In Diez de Bonilla, Kuri y Asociados, S.C., we have sustained that paragraph B of Article 123 of the Constitution was created for Government’s convenience, since the Government decided not to become subject to the Federal Labor Law of Mexico (Ley Federal del Trabajo – LFT) out of fear and, one might say, due to an implicit recognition that the own Government would violate labor rights. Therefore, under a dual political speech, paragraph B was created as it was sustained that the Government, since it has no profit objectives but rather aims and have as purpose providing public services, could not be subject to the LFT but rather to different legal provisions that address such purpose and favor social or collective interests over the personal interests of the employees.
The Government employees’ right to strike is just one example of many cases that the truth is a stranger to the law. Such factual situations prevail and are allowed by the Government, such as when illegal work stoppages of the workers at Government’s service take place, who every day take the streets to demand respect for their labor rights, working conditions, and to demand a dignified work, and ultimately the Government allows it and it is even forced to negotiate although, under a strict adherence to the law, it could fire such workers for not attending to their work; however, the side effects for laying them off would be worst. This is why the Government ends up implicitly recognizing that their workers have fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of association and, even though it is not a full right given the manner in which it is regulated, terminating labor relationships would not be the solution. The difference to face this reality would be, in our opinion, by recognizing the labor rights of such workers in a full manner. When recognizing their rights, both substantive and adjective rights, such as the right to strike, and the right to submit the Government –as an employer- to the LFT, the Government would be required to be a proper employer, that is, an employer that respects workers’ rights, but at the same time, the workers may be required to comply with the law that meets their needs. A society that privileges their workers creates wealth and harmony, otherwise we will have bad bureaucrats and streets invaded by protesters. When looking other Governments and Organizations, such as members of the European Union, where workers at the service of public duties have rights such as the right to strike and, if such government agency violates the same workers can make use of said right and they even do it, but under a regulatory framework and not under factual situations as it occurs in our country. Some consider that it would be catastrophic to allow Strikes to Government workers in the same terms as provided in article 123 in section A, of the Constitution; however, we insist that work stoppage already take place given factual situations though they are not regulated by law and are allowed. Why? Because it is a reality that the Government cannot ignore, because such right to strike is immersed in such right to freedom of association, which, if the Government ignores or limits, it would create profound problems. But then, if under the demagogy of privileging the public service over the rights of the workers at Government’s service, results in reality that such service is truly bad and that there are disconformities in those workers, then it means that something is not working. Therefore, in our opinion, the right to strike recognized in paragraph B of article 123 of the Constitution, along with everything in that section, was created under demagoguery and a dual political speech, without grounds whatsoever but rather for preventing the Government from becoming subject to the LFT; when what should happen is to recognize that the Government is also an employer, and therefore, must respect the rights of its workers and with more reason, since they provide a public service; therefore, such rights should be privileged and, in turn, demanded so that such public service is provided and provided properly. Under the protection of Labor Law, which protects dignified work, a special regulatory framework for workers at Government’s service could be created, with a right to strike that balances the rights of those from whom we receive public services but also the fundamental labor rights of these workers; under this premise special regulations for Government employees could be created pursuant to the principles and fundamental rights that every worker should have.