Friday, November 17, 2006

Union Activists Claim Factory Has Blacklisted Them

Friday, November 17, 2006

By Prak Chan Thul and Erik Wasson
THE CAMBODIA DAILY


Several Free Trade Union activists laid off following a violent confrontation with police at a Phnom Penh garment factory last month said Thursday that they have been placed on an industry-wide blacklist preventing them from obtaining work elsewhere.

Bright Sky factory owner Albert Tan said he had distributed the names of the leaders of the disturbance to the authorities and the Garment Manufacturers Association of Cambodia.

"We reported the names of those who caused the disturbance. We reported to GMAC, to the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Labor," Tan said.

FTU President Chea Mony said 12 people have been blacklisted from jobs in the industry.

Hundreds of heavily armed police called in by factory management violently dispersed a protest Oct 18 by Bright Sky workers leading to the shooting of one worker in the abdomen.

Bright Sky management said workers had surrounded the plant on the night of the incident, caused minor damage to a fence and had thrown rocks at police.

FTU members maintain that the workers were participating in a peaceful protest before police arrived and attacked them.

Chy Simum, 27, the former FTU leader at Bright Sky, said he was fired from his job Nov 6 after one morning of work because he is on the blacklist.

"This is the revenge of the factory," he said.

Former Bright Sky FTU activist Sok Savy said he had failed to find work at 30 factories.

"Now I am jobless. They know that I have a bad background," he said. "No one accepts me, they regard [us] as the chaos-makers."

Former Bright Sky employee Chhay Tieng said she found work by neglecting to tell her new employer where she previously worked. "Now I work in a new factory because they don’t know me. If they knew, they would also fire me," she said.

Chea Mony said that blacklisting union members, who had not behaved violently, violated their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Their only offense was involvement in the union, he added.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I URGE EVERYBODY TO FILE A LAW SUIT AGAINST THIS SCUM. TAKING THIS SCUM TO COURT. THEY BLACKLISTED YOU IS AGAINST THE LAW. WHAT THEY DID WAS FALLING INTO CRIMINAL ACTS THAT SPOIL SOMEONE REPUTATION AND PROHIBITING YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOM TO PERFORME PUBLIC WORK IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE. YOU ALL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. IF YOU FIGHT BY LAW AND YOU LOOSE, THEN THE ONLY WAY IS KILL HIM. DON'T FORGET USE COORDINATE ATTACK. PLAN IT VERY GOOD, MAKE SURE HE DIAPPEAR WITHOUT A TRACE.

Anonymous said...

I think, the right to freedom of expression would be only taken place at the venue of the meeting or even outside the factory provided that it is not harmful or demaged somebody's right or property.

If somebody is not obeying this principle, in another word, by staging a strike/demontration to destroy somebody's property, he or she is considered to be violated to the constitution or rule of law of the country. If like so, he or she shall be deem as a vandalist.

With this connection, therefore, the police or court can take a legal action against this committed person. Or even the factories owners can also have a right to take the its own internal administrative action.

My suggestion is that: in order to avoid a crime offender, he or she must well understand and clearly bear in mind on the concept of the principle of: "Right and Obligation". That mean before doing something he or she must be well aware or rational, what should do and what should not or what can do or what cannot.

Anonymous said...

If you are an employer, and you have to choose between hiring a well-behaved Khmer and a trouble-maker, who would you choose?

Anonymous said...

Of course, if I were an employer, I will absolutely choose and hire a well-behaved Khmer instead of a trouble-maker. I think you or other people have the same minds or sensibility like me including the vocal criticizer, are you?

Anyhow, the trouble maker can use his or her right to quit or design from job if he or she is unhappy, I suppose. And the same time, there is nothing wrong to the owner, owner has a right to accept or reject the application form because it is his or her discretion, and there is no violation to the constitution or law at all.