Corus announcement is a great boost for the region
Commenting on the purchase of the Corus plant in Teeside Derek Simpson, Unite Joint General Secretary, said: “Corus workers fought tooth and nail for the chance of a future. We ask that the Government now ensures that every assistance is given to see that this purchase is smooth and that jobs and skills are retained for the North-east.”
Terry Pye, national officer of Unite the Union, said: “Last year this site was pronounced dead but thanks to the intervention, and determination of the workforce and their unions to find a buyer this steel plant has been brought back to life.”
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Scottish councils impose pay deal
Scotland's council leaders have imposed a three-year pay deal after a breakdown in talks.
The deal, affecting about 150,000 staff, is significantly less than a recently rejected offer and could lead to industrial action.
The move will see staff receive a rise of 0.65% backdated to April, followed by pay freezes next year and in 2012.
Council body Cosla said the unions had put local authorities in an "impossible position".
But the country's biggest union, Unite, said low-paid workers were being neglected - while claiming it had never formally rejected the earlier pay offer.
Members of the three unions which represent most council staff, which also include Unison and GMB, had hit out at the previous deal, which would have given them a 1% increase this year, followed by a pay freeze next year and a 0.5% rise in 2012-13.
Unite's local government officer, Jackson Cullinane, said the union had been willing to consider a re-working of the earlier pay offer, but argued Cosla had now "chosen to move in a wholly negative direction".
"They have also slashed what was on offer for year one and have ignored the need to address the significant issue of low pay in Scottish local government," he said.
Mr Cullinane said the unions were open to further talks with Cosla, but warned: "They have, therefore, left us with no other option, but to consider consulting our members on potential industrial action in response to their imposition."
Unison's Stephanie Herd added: "Cosla has misrepresented the unions' negotiating position and has said they value employees, while kicking them in the teeth today.
"Imposing a deal is not the way to do pay bargaining and is totally unfair to hard working local government workers across Scotland."
The deal, affecting about 150,000 staff, is significantly less than a recently rejected offer and could lead to industrial action.
The move will see staff receive a rise of 0.65% backdated to April, followed by pay freezes next year and in 2012.
Council body Cosla said the unions had put local authorities in an "impossible position".
But the country's biggest union, Unite, said low-paid workers were being neglected - while claiming it had never formally rejected the earlier pay offer.
Members of the three unions which represent most council staff, which also include Unison and GMB, had hit out at the previous deal, which would have given them a 1% increase this year, followed by a pay freeze next year and a 0.5% rise in 2012-13.
Unite's local government officer, Jackson Cullinane, said the union had been willing to consider a re-working of the earlier pay offer, but argued Cosla had now "chosen to move in a wholly negative direction".
"They have also slashed what was on offer for year one and have ignored the need to address the significant issue of low pay in Scottish local government," he said.
Mr Cullinane said the unions were open to further talks with Cosla, but warned: "They have, therefore, left us with no other option, but to consider consulting our members on potential industrial action in response to their imposition."
Unison's Stephanie Herd added: "Cosla has misrepresented the unions' negotiating position and has said they value employees, while kicking them in the teeth today.
"Imposing a deal is not the way to do pay bargaining and is totally unfair to hard working local government workers across Scotland."
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Mexican miners win important victory at Cananea
The Los Mineros miners' union in Mexico has won an injunction confirming the legality of the strike at the Cananea mine. The miners who were forcibly removed by the police in June have returned to the mine and are continuing their strike.
More than 800 workers, accompanied by their families and residents of the town, have once again occupied mine installations at Cananea, after being evicted on June 6, 2010.
Workers returned to the mine after the Ninth District Judge in the State of Sonora accepted the request for an injunction lodged by the National Miners Union (SNTMMSRM). On August 12, the judge ruled that the strike organised by the union, which started on July 30, 2007, remains valid despite the forcible removal of striking workers by federal police in June.
Speaking to a radio station, union leader, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, said that the judge's provisional suspension of the previous court ruling represents a victory for the rule of law, allows workers to legally continue the strike and means they should not be removed from the mine.
He said that the federal and state police forces took control of the mine illegally on June 6. He added that there was no court order to occupy the installations, simply an instruction from the Public Prosecutors Office to conduct some formalities.
The union has notified the Federal Secretary for Public Safety to refrain from taking action that either threatens public safety or interferes with the peaceful occupation of the installations by striking workers. The union also called on the authorities to respect workers' rights and not deploy the police force against workers who are only exercising their rights as set out in the Constitution and in accordance with the pronouncements of the judicial authorities.
The United Steelworkers Union (USW) of the United States and Canada has requested the Mexican government to withdraw federal and police forces from the Grupo Mexico mine installations in Cananea. The IMF supports this request, warns the government that it will be solely responsible for any violence at the mine and calls on it to safeguard the health of workers at Cananea.
In addition, the United Steelworkers' (USW) President Leo Gerard announced on August 20 solidarity action for the striking workers in Cananea, with the USW placing a rotating team of international observers in the city to monitor the illegal police presence, who are intimidating strikers and protecting scabs.
Government support for the strikebreakers continues, with local authorities accused of cutting electric power to some of the strikers' homes, in an effort to intimidate them.
Grupo Mexico and Mexico's Labour Ministry have refused to accept the appeal ruling, stating that the union's contract remains suspended, and that the District Judge's decision has no effect as the eviction of the strikers has already occurred. Aug 24, 2010 – Valeska Solis
More than 800 workers, accompanied by their families and residents of the town, have once again occupied mine installations at Cananea, after being evicted on June 6, 2010.
Workers returned to the mine after the Ninth District Judge in the State of Sonora accepted the request for an injunction lodged by the National Miners Union (SNTMMSRM). On August 12, the judge ruled that the strike organised by the union, which started on July 30, 2007, remains valid despite the forcible removal of striking workers by federal police in June.
Speaking to a radio station, union leader, Napoleón Gómez Urrutia, said that the judge's provisional suspension of the previous court ruling represents a victory for the rule of law, allows workers to legally continue the strike and means they should not be removed from the mine.
He said that the federal and state police forces took control of the mine illegally on June 6. He added that there was no court order to occupy the installations, simply an instruction from the Public Prosecutors Office to conduct some formalities.
The union has notified the Federal Secretary for Public Safety to refrain from taking action that either threatens public safety or interferes with the peaceful occupation of the installations by striking workers. The union also called on the authorities to respect workers' rights and not deploy the police force against workers who are only exercising their rights as set out in the Constitution and in accordance with the pronouncements of the judicial authorities.
The United Steelworkers Union (USW) of the United States and Canada has requested the Mexican government to withdraw federal and police forces from the Grupo Mexico mine installations in Cananea. The IMF supports this request, warns the government that it will be solely responsible for any violence at the mine and calls on it to safeguard the health of workers at Cananea.
In addition, the United Steelworkers' (USW) President Leo Gerard announced on August 20 solidarity action for the striking workers in Cananea, with the USW placing a rotating team of international observers in the city to monitor the illegal police presence, who are intimidating strikers and protecting scabs.
Government support for the strikebreakers continues, with local authorities accused of cutting electric power to some of the strikers' homes, in an effort to intimidate them.
Grupo Mexico and Mexico's Labour Ministry have refused to accept the appeal ruling, stating that the union's contract remains suspended, and that the District Judge's decision has no effect as the eviction of the strikers has already occurred. Aug 24, 2010 – Valeska Solis
Unite Throws Weight Behind Ed Milliband
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/94522
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Unite Fears Over Campbell's Possible Takeover
Fears of a takeover at United Biscuits (UB) have prompted a call from Unite for talks to safeguard jobs.
Recent reports claimed US food group Campbell Soup Company is considering a £1.5bn bid for the biscuits division of UB.
The company employs 941 staff at its Aintree Jacob’s plant and 151 at its Binns Road administrative centre in Wavertree.
More than 70 of the Binns Road jobs are due to be “off-shored” to India, despite a bitter fight to avert the cuts last year.
However, Unite said it will insist on immediate talks in a bid to preserve as many of the almost 1,100 Liverpool jobs as possible should a bid emerge.
Unite regional officer Debbie Brannan said: “Our priority is preserving jobs.
“At this moment we have not heard anything one way or another, but if this did come to fruition we would look for early consultation to minimise any impact it could have on job losses for people who work there, but also to minimise any impact on the wider economy of Merseyside, particularly at this moment in the economic climate.”
Recent reports claimed US food group Campbell Soup Company is considering a £1.5bn bid for the biscuits division of UB.
The company employs 941 staff at its Aintree Jacob’s plant and 151 at its Binns Road administrative centre in Wavertree.
More than 70 of the Binns Road jobs are due to be “off-shored” to India, despite a bitter fight to avert the cuts last year.
However, Unite said it will insist on immediate talks in a bid to preserve as many of the almost 1,100 Liverpool jobs as possible should a bid emerge.
Unite regional officer Debbie Brannan said: “Our priority is preserving jobs.
“At this moment we have not heard anything one way or another, but if this did come to fruition we would look for early consultation to minimise any impact it could have on job losses for people who work there, but also to minimise any impact on the wider economy of Merseyside, particularly at this moment in the economic climate.”
Monday, August 23, 2010
New pay deal for Cadbury staff
Cadbury employees have been offered a pay increase of 3.7 per cent by new owners Kraft.
Staff at Cadbury sites in Bournville, Somerdale, Chirk and Marlbrook, Herefordshire, have been told the pay will be backdated to March.
Union Unite is recommending workers accept the deal. Unite convener John Flavin said the pay award reflected the efforts of the workforce. American firm Kraft took over Cadbury six months ago.
Mr Flavin said that before Kraft took over Cadbury, Cadbury was a very profitable company and still would have been so.
"I think the pay award reflects the hard work and efforts of the work force," he said.
Kraft has been criticised by the Takeover Panel, which polices takeover bids in the UK, over its statement during its bid that it would keep open Cadbury's Somerdale factory at Keynsham.
After it had bought Cadbury, Kraft then announced it was shutting the Keynsham plant after all.
Staff at Cadbury sites in Bournville, Somerdale, Chirk and Marlbrook, Herefordshire, have been told the pay will be backdated to March.
Union Unite is recommending workers accept the deal. Unite convener John Flavin said the pay award reflected the efforts of the workforce. American firm Kraft took over Cadbury six months ago.
Mr Flavin said that before Kraft took over Cadbury, Cadbury was a very profitable company and still would have been so.
"I think the pay award reflects the hard work and efforts of the work force," he said.
Kraft has been criticised by the Takeover Panel, which polices takeover bids in the UK, over its statement during its bid that it would keep open Cadbury's Somerdale factory at Keynsham.
After it had bought Cadbury, Kraft then announced it was shutting the Keynsham plant after all.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Support Bangladesh Garment Workers
The Bangladeshi government is cracking down on labour rights advocates, who need our help now.
This crackdown is taking place amidst massive public demonstrations by garment workers who have been demanding increases in the country's minimum wage.
Arrest warrants have been issued against hundreds of workers and several labour rights leaders.
There is evidence that a specific company, Nassa Global Wear, has played a role in spurring the government's attacks against the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity in retaliation against worker organizing efforts at its factories.
Please write to the Bangladesh authorities to demand the release of the jailed activists, withdrawal of the criminal cases, and a guarantee of safety for all the worker leaders under attack.
URL below:
http://en.maquilasolidarity.org/node/953
This crackdown is taking place amidst massive public demonstrations by garment workers who have been demanding increases in the country's minimum wage.
Arrest warrants have been issued against hundreds of workers and several labour rights leaders.
There is evidence that a specific company, Nassa Global Wear, has played a role in spurring the government's attacks against the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity in retaliation against worker organizing efforts at its factories.
Please write to the Bangladesh authorities to demand the release of the jailed activists, withdrawal of the criminal cases, and a guarantee of safety for all the worker leaders under attack.
URL below:
http://en.maquilasolidarity.org/node/953
Friday, August 13, 2010
More on BAA Dispute
Brian Boyd Unite National Officer on Channel 4 News
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid62612474001?bctid=541378206001
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid62612474001?bctid=541378206001
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Chavez-Santos Summit in Colombia: UNASUR-brokered peace breaks out
Chavez-Santos Summit in Colombia: UNASUR-brokered peace breaks out
By Francisco Dominguez
Secretary Venezuela Solidarity Campaign
The already bad relations between Venezuela and Colombia took a turn for the worse after the accusations made by the outgoing Uribe government's OAS representative, Luis Hoyos, who charged the Venezuelan government with harbouring Colombian guerrillas (1,500) and allowing guerrilla camps (85) inside its territory. The "evidence" - which has been pretty discredited - for this batch of accusations -as with previous ones- also came from the eight 'magical laptops' seized by Colombian military forces in an illegal military attack in March 1, 2009.
Chavez reacted by breaking off relations with Colombia, leading to a further worsening of the relations between the two nations, but sent his foreign minister to attend Santos' inauguration anyway. Uribe's response was to announce that his government was lodging a formal accusation against Venezuela in the Inter-American Committee of Human Rights and another formal charge against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court, one day before Juan Manuel Santos inauguration. Furthermore, Uribe, reportedly, announced he would be prepared to testify to the ICC against Hugo Chavez.
However, after intense diplomatic activity undertaken by UNASUR, Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's Foreign Relations Minister, Nestor Kirchner, UNASUR's President, and Brazils' President, Lula, the latter two very publicly meeting with both Hugo Chavez and Juan Manuel Santos at various separate meetings, managed, in a matter of few days, to turn what looked like an inexorable slide to disaster, into one of the most extraordinary political turnarounds from the brink in recent Latin American history.
At his inauguration, Juan Manuel Santos stunned the world by announcing that his administration would be seeking to repair and normalise Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador as a matter of priority. And in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude under Uribe, Santos declared "The word war is not in my dictionary when I think about Colombia's relations with its neighbours" (a far cry from Uribe's warmongering). Furthermore, Santos had previously indicated his willingness, under certain conditions, to even talk to the Colombian guerrillas. More surprises were to follow: Santos ordered the handing over of Raul Reyes' 'magical laptops' to the government of Ecuador.
Some in the British media such as The Guardian, The Economist, the BBC and, of course, the ubiquitous Human Rights Watch, enthusiastically accepted the evidence publicised by the Colombian authorities at the time. The attitude of the US corporate media was significantly worse. As is well known, but not widely publicised by the corporate media, Ronald Coy, Head of Colombia's technical police, admitted to an official investigation both that the data in the laptops had been manipulated before it was subjected to judicial review and that no emails had been found in them (this did not prevent The Guardian's Latin American correspondent, Rory Carroll, from reading several emails from the magical laptops, as he reported at the time).
We shall very soon see how much of Mr Hoyos' "evidence" to the OAS is left standing after Ecuador's expert analysis of the 'magical laptops' takes place. The Venezuelan government has consistently denied any such charges and to this day, apart from regular media repetition of Uribista "false positives", no serious evidence of any kind has been produced to substantiate the allegations that Venezuela harbours guerrillas and guerrilla camps in its territory or that it gives them resources and weapons.
Venezuela and Colombia share a 1,375-mile of very porous border. Colombia's internal conflict has the unfortunate dynamic of spilling over into other countries in the form of guerrillas, paramilitaries, drug traffickers, refugees, and immigrants escaping from the conflict (about 5 million Colombians reside permanently in Venezuela). It is estimated that overall, Colombia's military have over 300,000 soldiers -proportionately one of the largest in the region, and seven times larger than the armed forces of Venezuela - and have benefited from US$7 bn in military aid -the second largest in the world- which are nevertheless incapable to controlling their own domestic terrain in which there are about 8,000 armed guerrilla fighters, many thousands of active illegal paramilitary forces and a great deal of drug trafficking. Most of the cocaine in the world is produced in Colombia, and most of cocaine production takes place in Colombia- according to UNODOC about 50%. Furthermore, Venezuela finds itself geographically sandwiched between the largest producer and the largest consumer of cocaine in the world, Colombia and the United States respectively.
After Santos' inauguration, events have developed at neck-breaking speed. Assisted by Nestor Kirchner, the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Venezuela met last Sunday in Bogota, and they announced that Presidents Santos and Chavez would be meeting at a special summit on Tuesday 10 August in Colombia. Chavez immediately seized the opportunity offered by his Colombian counterpart and called upon the guerrillas to seek a political solution: "The Colombian guerrillas do not have a future by way of arms... moreover, they have become an excuse for the [US] empire to intervene in Colombia and threaten Venezuela from there” he said on Sunday. He also called upon them to show their commitment to a peace accord through “decisive demonstrations, for example, that they liberate all those they have kidnapped.”
It is clear that Santos wanted to repair relations with Venezuela and Ecuador and that he was willing to accept UNASUR's good offices to facilitate his meeting with President Chavez. However, the most significant aspects of this development is that Santos was determined to seek the improvement of Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador, partly because it wanted to end Colombia's regional isolation, but also because the almost complete cessation of trade with Venezuela was making Colombia's economy scream (their mutual trade had declined by 73.7%). It is also clear that Uribe knew this and all his last-minute rabid attacks on Venezuela seemed to have been aimed more at Santos than Chavez. Uribe desperately tried to torpedo the Colombo-Venezuelan rapprochement because he knew it was in the offing.
Uribe's desperate efforts mirror the actions of powerful forces in Washington which have been vigorously lobbying to declare Venezuela a "state that sponsors terrorism", "a narco-state" (view which is specially strong in SOUTHCOM and the US Congress - and which, therefore, seem to favour a 'military' solution to the US 'Venezuelan problem'. SOUTHCOM has been busily installing US military bases everywhere in the region and has even resuscitated the IV Fleet (which was decommissioned in 1950). The US has deployed 20,000 soldiers in Haiti after the earthquake and has also stationed massive military forces in Costa Rica (7,000 soldiers, 200 helicopters and 46 warships until the end of December 2010). Thus, labeling Venezuela a 'sponsor of terrorism' is not just right-wing rhetoric, it may have very serious military consequences. Regional leaders are very alarmed about these developments and have expressed serious concern.
A normally omitted dimension of Colombo-Venezuelan relations is the attitude of Venezuela's right wing. In every Venezuela-Colombia spat under Uribe's two presidential mandates, they have sided enthusiastically with Uribe. They did so again this time but were unwittingly wrong-footed by Santos' announcement. When it comes to opposing President Chavez Venezuela's right wing seem to have no sense of proportion, thus, for instance, the governor of the state of Táchira, Cesar Perez Vivas, a member of COPEI, went as far as to appeal to Chavez not to make the US military bases in that country a precondition for the normalisation of relations with Colombia. Venezuelan TV broadcaster, Alberto Nolla, suggested that during the crisis unleashed by the Uribe's actions, the Venezuelan right wing media was more strident in their support for Uribe than the Colombian media had been during the same period. Any cursory look at the main right wing newspapers such as El Universal and El Nacional and TV channels such as Globovision confirm this conclusively.
What is totally unprecedented is the fact that the US administration was de facto reduced to the role of spectator (specialists confirm this). The U.S. were supportive of the accusations against Chavez at the OAS (…”our concerns about the links between Venezuela and the FARC that we have not certified Venezuela in recent years as fully cooperating with the United States and others in terms of these antiterrorism efforts,” stated U.S. ambassador to OAS) but were clearly sidelined by UNASUR's brinkmanship which managed to bring the rapprochement between Colombia and Venezuela. It is Santos, Chavez and UNASUR (especially Brazil) who have been doing the running (“Brazil’s government has made it clear that it would like the matter to be taken up within UNASUR, without the influence of the United States. It proclaimed South America a “region of peace” and affirmed that problems between countries should be first dealt with bilaterally.) This reality shows first the growing assertiveness and independence of the region from U.S. influence, but secondly, it shows that underlying this political reality there is the growing independence of the region from traditional economic centres and a steady distancing from the U.S. The Tectonic plates have dramatically shifted and most Latin American leaders feel they have averted an almost certain Uribe-US driven war.
It remains to be seen how far this summit takes the two countries. They have decided to fully restore their relations in every field and the two presidents have established five commissions within the framework of a statement of principles signed by them. They include a commission for debt; another for the economic collaboration between the two countries; one for the development of a plan of investment in their common border; another for the joint undertaking of infrastructural works; and a security commission. Both heads of state undertook a commitment to collaborate in the struggle against drug trafficking, paramilitary and illegal armed activity. Colombia has sent the President of Colombia's Congress, Armando Benedetti, to assist the process of full restoration of relations between the two countries. The OAS reacted by applauding the diplomacy of Santos and Chavez. There has been popular rejoice in both countries. Not all the issues pending between the two nations were, however, addressed, such as the U.S. military bases in Colombia, the urgent need for a peace process in Colombia, and the charges levelled by Uribe against Venezuela to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court.
The dogs of war have been kept at bay, at least temporarily. Peace has broken out. The full restoration of relations between Venezuela and Colombia is indeed very positive. However, the array of forces set against the implementation of such a broad peaceful agenda is also pretty formidable. For start it is led by the U.S. and it also involves powerful economic groups in most countries in the region, such as the separatists in the Eastern of Bolivia, that nearly overthrew Morales' government in 2009; the Venezuelan right which managed to actually oust Chavez in 2002 -but who the people returned to power-; the Colombian oligarchy itself; the extremely wealthy and powerful Chilean Pinochetista bourgeoisie; the right in Argentina; the very wealthy Guayaquil entrepreneurs; and so forth. All of whom in one way or another favour the US militarisation of the region as a solution of last resort in the face of radical social movements and progressive governments in the continent. In the meantime the U.S. militarisation of the region continues apace.
It is in the interest of Latin America, very well represented on this historic occasion by UNASUR, to help the Colombian oligarchy to loosen the too uncomfortable US embrace in which Uribe got them into. On the other hand there are the U.S. hegemonic interests in the region and its growing oil dependency from fiercely nationalist governments which are asserting their independence collectively. Washington's political and military strategists must be stunned by the extraordinary rapprochement between Santos and Chavez.
Uribe's insane efforts to bring about a war with Venezuela, underscores the ‘predicament’ the U.S. finds itself in: faced with the rebellion of its Southern neighbours, unable to win politically, and incapable of offering anything such as development, progress, investment or even the American Way of life (which is crushingly coming to an end in the United States itself), has decided to resort to war to maintain its backyard under subjection. Latin America has opted for democracy, social progress, national sovereignty and peace. On this occasion even the staunchest pro U.S. Colombian oligarchy have sided with the South, not the North. We shall see who beats the other in the historic arm-wrestling underway.
By Francisco Dominguez
Secretary Venezuela Solidarity Campaign
The already bad relations between Venezuela and Colombia took a turn for the worse after the accusations made by the outgoing Uribe government's OAS representative, Luis Hoyos, who charged the Venezuelan government with harbouring Colombian guerrillas (1,500) and allowing guerrilla camps (85) inside its territory. The "evidence" - which has been pretty discredited - for this batch of accusations -as with previous ones- also came from the eight 'magical laptops' seized by Colombian military forces in an illegal military attack in March 1, 2009.
Chavez reacted by breaking off relations with Colombia, leading to a further worsening of the relations between the two nations, but sent his foreign minister to attend Santos' inauguration anyway. Uribe's response was to announce that his government was lodging a formal accusation against Venezuela in the Inter-American Committee of Human Rights and another formal charge against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court, one day before Juan Manuel Santos inauguration. Furthermore, Uribe, reportedly, announced he would be prepared to testify to the ICC against Hugo Chavez.
However, after intense diplomatic activity undertaken by UNASUR, Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's Foreign Relations Minister, Nestor Kirchner, UNASUR's President, and Brazils' President, Lula, the latter two very publicly meeting with both Hugo Chavez and Juan Manuel Santos at various separate meetings, managed, in a matter of few days, to turn what looked like an inexorable slide to disaster, into one of the most extraordinary political turnarounds from the brink in recent Latin American history.
At his inauguration, Juan Manuel Santos stunned the world by announcing that his administration would be seeking to repair and normalise Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador as a matter of priority. And in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude under Uribe, Santos declared "The word war is not in my dictionary when I think about Colombia's relations with its neighbours" (a far cry from Uribe's warmongering). Furthermore, Santos had previously indicated his willingness, under certain conditions, to even talk to the Colombian guerrillas. More surprises were to follow: Santos ordered the handing over of Raul Reyes' 'magical laptops' to the government of Ecuador.
Some in the British media such as The Guardian, The Economist, the BBC and, of course, the ubiquitous Human Rights Watch, enthusiastically accepted the evidence publicised by the Colombian authorities at the time. The attitude of the US corporate media was significantly worse. As is well known, but not widely publicised by the corporate media, Ronald Coy, Head of Colombia's technical police, admitted to an official investigation both that the data in the laptops had been manipulated before it was subjected to judicial review and that no emails had been found in them (this did not prevent The Guardian's Latin American correspondent, Rory Carroll, from reading several emails from the magical laptops, as he reported at the time).
We shall very soon see how much of Mr Hoyos' "evidence" to the OAS is left standing after Ecuador's expert analysis of the 'magical laptops' takes place. The Venezuelan government has consistently denied any such charges and to this day, apart from regular media repetition of Uribista "false positives", no serious evidence of any kind has been produced to substantiate the allegations that Venezuela harbours guerrillas and guerrilla camps in its territory or that it gives them resources and weapons.
Venezuela and Colombia share a 1,375-mile of very porous border. Colombia's internal conflict has the unfortunate dynamic of spilling over into other countries in the form of guerrillas, paramilitaries, drug traffickers, refugees, and immigrants escaping from the conflict (about 5 million Colombians reside permanently in Venezuela). It is estimated that overall, Colombia's military have over 300,000 soldiers -proportionately one of the largest in the region, and seven times larger than the armed forces of Venezuela - and have benefited from US$7 bn in military aid -the second largest in the world- which are nevertheless incapable to controlling their own domestic terrain in which there are about 8,000 armed guerrilla fighters, many thousands of active illegal paramilitary forces and a great deal of drug trafficking. Most of the cocaine in the world is produced in Colombia, and most of cocaine production takes place in Colombia- according to UNODOC about 50%. Furthermore, Venezuela finds itself geographically sandwiched between the largest producer and the largest consumer of cocaine in the world, Colombia and the United States respectively.
After Santos' inauguration, events have developed at neck-breaking speed. Assisted by Nestor Kirchner, the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Venezuela met last Sunday in Bogota, and they announced that Presidents Santos and Chavez would be meeting at a special summit on Tuesday 10 August in Colombia. Chavez immediately seized the opportunity offered by his Colombian counterpart and called upon the guerrillas to seek a political solution: "The Colombian guerrillas do not have a future by way of arms... moreover, they have become an excuse for the [US] empire to intervene in Colombia and threaten Venezuela from there” he said on Sunday. He also called upon them to show their commitment to a peace accord through “decisive demonstrations, for example, that they liberate all those they have kidnapped.”
It is clear that Santos wanted to repair relations with Venezuela and Ecuador and that he was willing to accept UNASUR's good offices to facilitate his meeting with President Chavez. However, the most significant aspects of this development is that Santos was determined to seek the improvement of Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador, partly because it wanted to end Colombia's regional isolation, but also because the almost complete cessation of trade with Venezuela was making Colombia's economy scream (their mutual trade had declined by 73.7%). It is also clear that Uribe knew this and all his last-minute rabid attacks on Venezuela seemed to have been aimed more at Santos than Chavez. Uribe desperately tried to torpedo the Colombo-Venezuelan rapprochement because he knew it was in the offing.
Uribe's desperate efforts mirror the actions of powerful forces in Washington which have been vigorously lobbying to declare Venezuela a "state that sponsors terrorism", "a narco-state" (view which is specially strong in SOUTHCOM and the US Congress - and which, therefore, seem to favour a 'military' solution to the US 'Venezuelan problem'. SOUTHCOM has been busily installing US military bases everywhere in the region and has even resuscitated the IV Fleet (which was decommissioned in 1950). The US has deployed 20,000 soldiers in Haiti after the earthquake and has also stationed massive military forces in Costa Rica (7,000 soldiers, 200 helicopters and 46 warships until the end of December 2010). Thus, labeling Venezuela a 'sponsor of terrorism' is not just right-wing rhetoric, it may have very serious military consequences. Regional leaders are very alarmed about these developments and have expressed serious concern.
A normally omitted dimension of Colombo-Venezuelan relations is the attitude of Venezuela's right wing. In every Venezuela-Colombia spat under Uribe's two presidential mandates, they have sided enthusiastically with Uribe. They did so again this time but were unwittingly wrong-footed by Santos' announcement. When it comes to opposing President Chavez Venezuela's right wing seem to have no sense of proportion, thus, for instance, the governor of the state of Táchira, Cesar Perez Vivas, a member of COPEI, went as far as to appeal to Chavez not to make the US military bases in that country a precondition for the normalisation of relations with Colombia. Venezuelan TV broadcaster, Alberto Nolla, suggested that during the crisis unleashed by the Uribe's actions, the Venezuelan right wing media was more strident in their support for Uribe than the Colombian media had been during the same period. Any cursory look at the main right wing newspapers such as El Universal and El Nacional and TV channels such as Globovision confirm this conclusively.
What is totally unprecedented is the fact that the US administration was de facto reduced to the role of spectator (specialists confirm this). The U.S. were supportive of the accusations against Chavez at the OAS (…”our concerns about the links between Venezuela and the FARC that we have not certified Venezuela in recent years as fully cooperating with the United States and others in terms of these antiterrorism efforts,” stated U.S. ambassador to OAS) but were clearly sidelined by UNASUR's brinkmanship which managed to bring the rapprochement between Colombia and Venezuela. It is Santos, Chavez and UNASUR (especially Brazil) who have been doing the running (“Brazil’s government has made it clear that it would like the matter to be taken up within UNASUR, without the influence of the United States. It proclaimed South America a “region of peace” and affirmed that problems between countries should be first dealt with bilaterally.) This reality shows first the growing assertiveness and independence of the region from U.S. influence, but secondly, it shows that underlying this political reality there is the growing independence of the region from traditional economic centres and a steady distancing from the U.S. The Tectonic plates have dramatically shifted and most Latin American leaders feel they have averted an almost certain Uribe-US driven war.
It remains to be seen how far this summit takes the two countries. They have decided to fully restore their relations in every field and the two presidents have established five commissions within the framework of a statement of principles signed by them. They include a commission for debt; another for the economic collaboration between the two countries; one for the development of a plan of investment in their common border; another for the joint undertaking of infrastructural works; and a security commission. Both heads of state undertook a commitment to collaborate in the struggle against drug trafficking, paramilitary and illegal armed activity. Colombia has sent the President of Colombia's Congress, Armando Benedetti, to assist the process of full restoration of relations between the two countries. The OAS reacted by applauding the diplomacy of Santos and Chavez. There has been popular rejoice in both countries. Not all the issues pending between the two nations were, however, addressed, such as the U.S. military bases in Colombia, the urgent need for a peace process in Colombia, and the charges levelled by Uribe against Venezuela to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court.
The dogs of war have been kept at bay, at least temporarily. Peace has broken out. The full restoration of relations between Venezuela and Colombia is indeed very positive. However, the array of forces set against the implementation of such a broad peaceful agenda is also pretty formidable. For start it is led by the U.S. and it also involves powerful economic groups in most countries in the region, such as the separatists in the Eastern of Bolivia, that nearly overthrew Morales' government in 2009; the Venezuelan right which managed to actually oust Chavez in 2002 -but who the people returned to power-; the Colombian oligarchy itself; the extremely wealthy and powerful Chilean Pinochetista bourgeoisie; the right in Argentina; the very wealthy Guayaquil entrepreneurs; and so forth. All of whom in one way or another favour the US militarisation of the region as a solution of last resort in the face of radical social movements and progressive governments in the continent. In the meantime the U.S. militarisation of the region continues apace.
It is in the interest of Latin America, very well represented on this historic occasion by UNASUR, to help the Colombian oligarchy to loosen the too uncomfortable US embrace in which Uribe got them into. On the other hand there are the U.S. hegemonic interests in the region and its growing oil dependency from fiercely nationalist governments which are asserting their independence collectively. Washington's political and military strategists must be stunned by the extraordinary rapprochement between Santos and Chavez.
Uribe's insane efforts to bring about a war with Venezuela, underscores the ‘predicament’ the U.S. finds itself in: faced with the rebellion of its Southern neighbours, unable to win politically, and incapable of offering anything such as development, progress, investment or even the American Way of life (which is crushingly coming to an end in the United States itself), has decided to resort to war to maintain its backyard under subjection. Latin America has opted for democracy, social progress, national sovereignty and peace. On this occasion even the staunchest pro U.S. Colombian oligarchy have sided with the South, not the North. We shall see who beats the other in the historic arm-wrestling underway.
BAA Ballot Result Annoncement - Unite National Officer Brian Boyd
Unite members vote for industrial action at BAA airports across the country.
Video of Unite National Officers Brian Boyd and Brendan Gold press conference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10957587
Video of Unite National Officers Brian Boyd and Brendan Gold press conference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10957587
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Defend The Link Between Unions and the Labour Party
Sign the email letter to the Labour Party leadership candidates
http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/page/s/openletter?source=email20100810&utm_source=TULO&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email20100810
http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/page/s/openletter?source=email20100810&utm_source=TULO&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email20100810
Sunday, August 8, 2010
"Don't Fall For The Card Trick Again" - Derek Simpson on Andrew Marr
Full transcript of Derek Simpson's interview on Andrew Marr programme
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8895546.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8895546.stm
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Article On The Battle For Higher Pay and Unionisation In Bangladeshi Garment Industry
Visit:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/93663
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/93663
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Unite members at Corus to ballot on pay deal
Thousands of Unite members working for Corus across the country are to be balloted over an improved pay offer of 3.2 per cent, backdated to 1 April 2010, with a one-off payment of £200.
Unite has over 8,000 members working at Corus spread over its 15 UK sites.
Unite national officer for the Steel Industry, Terry Pye, said: “After months of long and tough negotiations this is a breakthrough in the pay negotiations and this new offer will be well deserved by our members. This new deal offered by Corus will also go some way to rebuilding trust with management.
"Whatever the outcome of the ballot with our members on the revised pay offer, we are pleased that the company has made a significant improvement to the pay offer, which we are recommending to our members.”
The ballot will commence immediately and the union will have the results in the next four weeks.
Unite has over 8,000 members working at Corus spread over its 15 UK sites.
Unite national officer for the Steel Industry, Terry Pye, said: “After months of long and tough negotiations this is a breakthrough in the pay negotiations and this new offer will be well deserved by our members. This new deal offered by Corus will also go some way to rebuilding trust with management.
"Whatever the outcome of the ballot with our members on the revised pay offer, we are pleased that the company has made a significant improvement to the pay offer, which we are recommending to our members.”
The ballot will commence immediately and the union will have the results in the next four weeks.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Stop The EDL Demonstrating In Bradford
Sign up to the campaign now!!!
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/StoptheEDL?source=EDLletter&utm_source=growth&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EDLletter
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/StoptheEDL?source=EDLletter&utm_source=growth&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EDLletter
Support For Bangladeshi Garment Workers!
Letter printed in the Morning Star.
Back the Bangladeshi garment workers
I am delighted that the Star has begun covering the plight and struggles of the 3.5 million Bangladeshi garment workers for a living wage.
Having just returned from Bangladesh and spoken with trade union leaders, members and non-members (union membership only stands at 100,000) I can assure readers that the workers are up for a fight.
Friday July 30 saw widespread protests including road blockages and attacks on the garment factories by workers frustrated by the betrayal of the Bangladesh government to legislate for 5,000 takka (£46) a month, implementing the minimum wage much lower at 3,000 takka (£27.50) - 92 pence a day.
Some union leaders have acknowledged acceptance of the pay award but readers need to know that there are 6,000 trade unions in Bangladesh with many of these aligned with very right-wing parties. The militant unions are standing firm for the full demand and it is they who should receive our support.
Workers Uniting has played a not insubstantial part in solidarity with the workers, including meeting the labour minister where we informed him that we would galvanise world opinion behind the workers if their just demands weren't met and particularly if violence was meted out against the protesters, who are predominantly - 80 per cent - young women.
I hope that the Star will give maximum coverage to this struggle and bring to readers' attention that it is companies like Marks and Spencer, Asda and Tesco which are responsible for the impoverishment of the Bangladeshi workers in their relentless race to the bottom in the global economy.
Steve Davison
Vice-Chairman, Unite
Back the Bangladeshi garment workers
I am delighted that the Star has begun covering the plight and struggles of the 3.5 million Bangladeshi garment workers for a living wage.
Having just returned from Bangladesh and spoken with trade union leaders, members and non-members (union membership only stands at 100,000) I can assure readers that the workers are up for a fight.
Friday July 30 saw widespread protests including road blockages and attacks on the garment factories by workers frustrated by the betrayal of the Bangladesh government to legislate for 5,000 takka (£46) a month, implementing the minimum wage much lower at 3,000 takka (£27.50) - 92 pence a day.
Some union leaders have acknowledged acceptance of the pay award but readers need to know that there are 6,000 trade unions in Bangladesh with many of these aligned with very right-wing parties. The militant unions are standing firm for the full demand and it is they who should receive our support.
Workers Uniting has played a not insubstantial part in solidarity with the workers, including meeting the labour minister where we informed him that we would galvanise world opinion behind the workers if their just demands weren't met and particularly if violence was meted out against the protesters, who are predominantly - 80 per cent - young women.
I hope that the Star will give maximum coverage to this struggle and bring to readers' attention that it is companies like Marks and Spencer, Asda and Tesco which are responsible for the impoverishment of the Bangladeshi workers in their relentless race to the bottom in the global economy.
Steve Davison
Vice-Chairman, Unite
Tanker Drivers Could Ballot
Thousands of fuel tanker drivers could take industrial action later this year unless job losses and pay cuts in the sector are halted, Unite has warned.
Unite has written to oil companies and supermarket chains that sell fuel claiming its members are being "forced" towards conflict.
Unite claims morale among its 3,000 members in the sector has plummeted.
Unite blames the increasing use of alternative contractors in the sector - which it claims are willing to "undercut" other employers - for forcing down wages and undermining conditions of employment.
Unite National Officer Ron Webb said the union had cautioned oil employers that "attacking wages and squeezing more and more out of their drivers but giving them less and less" would backfire.
"We are at a very dangerous moment for this sector. In my 15 years as a negotiator for this sector I have never witnessed such low morale among the drivers," he said.
Ron Webb said tanker drivers were highly specialist workers who were vital to the UK economy.
He said the drivers were employed by some of the most "profitable companies in the land," and that all they wanted was a wage "which reflects their hard work and professionalism".
Unite has written to oil companies and supermarket chains that sell fuel claiming its members are being "forced" towards conflict.
Unite claims morale among its 3,000 members in the sector has plummeted.
Unite blames the increasing use of alternative contractors in the sector - which it claims are willing to "undercut" other employers - for forcing down wages and undermining conditions of employment.
Unite National Officer Ron Webb said the union had cautioned oil employers that "attacking wages and squeezing more and more out of their drivers but giving them less and less" would backfire.
"We are at a very dangerous moment for this sector. In my 15 years as a negotiator for this sector I have never witnessed such low morale among the drivers," he said.
Ron Webb said tanker drivers were highly specialist workers who were vital to the UK economy.
He said the drivers were employed by some of the most "profitable companies in the land," and that all they wanted was a wage "which reflects their hard work and professionalism".
BA Talks: Meet Again Next Week
Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley of Unite and British Airways (BA) met yesterday to re start negotiations to try to resolve the dispute between Unite and BA at the conciliation service Acas with plans to meet again next week.
The talks are a fresh bid to settle the long running dispute between the two, which has already seen BA cabin crew strike for 22 days this year costing BA up to £191m.
The talks are a fresh bid to settle the long running dispute between the two, which has already seen BA cabin crew strike for 22 days this year costing BA up to £191m.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Unite fears ‘lynch mob’ mentality to public sector pensions
Unite fears the government, media, pension industry ‘experts’ and private sector employers are acting ‘like a lynch mob’ in demanding reductions in public sector pensions.
Unite, which represents more than 250,000 public sector workers, believes this coalition of vested interests has already decided that public sector pensions should be reduced, and has created a climate of hysteria designed to manipulate the facts to make the case for this.
In its evidence submitted to the Hutton commission of public sector pensions, the union argued that:
Government is uniquely placed to provide pensions for its employees at a much lower cost than is possible for private sector employers
Public sector pensions are being funded in a controlled and responsible manner.
The agreed ‘cap and share’ framework provides a basis that will ensure that scheme costs are sustainable in the face of rising cost.
The imposition of a change in indexation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which can be construed as pre-judging the commission’s findings, is in breach of understandings surrounding cost-sharing, as also would be the imposition of any across-the-board contribution increase.
Public sector pensions are proportional to pay and earned by service and so higher pensions reflect not gold-plating but a just reward for a long career in public service.
The commission, headed by former Labour cabinet minister John Hutton, is due to make an interim report in September, with the review’s full proposals by the time of the 2011 budget.
Unite joint general secretary, Derek Simpson, said: ”We are pleased to be able to present a defence of public sector pension provision, which Unite is doing against a lynch mob mentality by a coalition of vested interests – government, the media, so-called ‘experts and private sector employers – wishing to reduce public sector pensions.
”There is a climate of hysteria being generated, with facts being manipulated to fit a pre-judged case. This unholy alliance, embracing CBI leaders and Nick Clegg, already have good pension nest eggs, which the average private and public sector employees can only dream about.
”Last year, the TUC said that the majority of public sector pensioners received a pension of less than £5,000 a year and that half the women on NHS pensions receive less than £3,500 annually. We are not talking about great riches here.
”This review will potentially affect the livelihoods of many millions of past and present public service employees and their views as members need to be properly considered, alongside those of taxpayers’ in general. It is unfortunate that in relation to pension debates that members’ interests are very rarely given due consideration.
”The first stage of the commission’s work has been described as ‘interim’, but it is clear from the terms of reference that, in fact, the first report will be required to make a final judgement on whether there is a case for change. Otherwise, it could not begin to make recommendations for the short term savings the government is clearly keen to realise.
”Unite questions the independence of this commission and whether it can resist the forceful lobby wishing to drastically erode the modest pensions of millions of public sector workers.”
Unite, which represents more than 250,000 public sector workers, believes this coalition of vested interests has already decided that public sector pensions should be reduced, and has created a climate of hysteria designed to manipulate the facts to make the case for this.
In its evidence submitted to the Hutton commission of public sector pensions, the union argued that:
Government is uniquely placed to provide pensions for its employees at a much lower cost than is possible for private sector employers
Public sector pensions are being funded in a controlled and responsible manner.
The agreed ‘cap and share’ framework provides a basis that will ensure that scheme costs are sustainable in the face of rising cost.
The imposition of a change in indexation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which can be construed as pre-judging the commission’s findings, is in breach of understandings surrounding cost-sharing, as also would be the imposition of any across-the-board contribution increase.
Public sector pensions are proportional to pay and earned by service and so higher pensions reflect not gold-plating but a just reward for a long career in public service.
The commission, headed by former Labour cabinet minister John Hutton, is due to make an interim report in September, with the review’s full proposals by the time of the 2011 budget.
Unite joint general secretary, Derek Simpson, said: ”We are pleased to be able to present a defence of public sector pension provision, which Unite is doing against a lynch mob mentality by a coalition of vested interests – government, the media, so-called ‘experts and private sector employers – wishing to reduce public sector pensions.
”There is a climate of hysteria being generated, with facts being manipulated to fit a pre-judged case. This unholy alliance, embracing CBI leaders and Nick Clegg, already have good pension nest eggs, which the average private and public sector employees can only dream about.
”Last year, the TUC said that the majority of public sector pensioners received a pension of less than £5,000 a year and that half the women on NHS pensions receive less than £3,500 annually. We are not talking about great riches here.
”This review will potentially affect the livelihoods of many millions of past and present public service employees and their views as members need to be properly considered, alongside those of taxpayers’ in general. It is unfortunate that in relation to pension debates that members’ interests are very rarely given due consideration.
”The first stage of the commission’s work has been described as ‘interim’, but it is clear from the terms of reference that, in fact, the first report will be required to make a final judgement on whether there is a case for change. Otherwise, it could not begin to make recommendations for the short term savings the government is clearly keen to realise.
”Unite questions the independence of this commission and whether it can resist the forceful lobby wishing to drastically erode the modest pensions of millions of public sector workers.”
Bayliss: My Vision for Union Branches and Chapels
Emailed via Les4GS by Les Bayliss who is supported by the Workers Uniting Group for Unite General Secretary.
Dear colleagues,
You don’t need me to tell you that our union branches and chapels are a vital part of our organisation. The members’ first point contact with their union is through their branch or their workplace representative if they have one. It’s how members are recruited into our union and it’s how they are serviced. In my view this is the most appropriate way for the union to operate, face-to-face is always the most powerful.
In Unite we currently have both workplace and geographical branches. I don’t favour one over the other because I understand that in such a diverse organisation it is necessary to be flexible in order to fully cater for the needs of all our members. Big workplaces where the members all do similar jobs and all face the same issues and challenges are perfect for a workplace branch. By the same token smaller workplace groups benefit from an association with members who have different employers; combining their resources makes them stronger. As General Secretary I will not interfere with the branch structure against the wishes of Unite members.
For historical reasons branches and chapels are also funded in many different ways in Unite. Here I think there is definite scope for change. I have no desire to take money away from branches for the sake of building a massive centralised treasury, as some would have you believe. I want branches and chapels to take a full part in all our recruitment, organising and campaigning activities and I want the funding to match the degree of involvement that each branch or chapel wants to undertake.
So as General Secretary I will establish a dedicated Branch Support Unit that will provide assistance, advice, education and equipment to help branches and chapels take the lead in building the union in their area or in their workplace. I will also consider ways of reforming branch funding to get more resources into the branches and chapels that want to take their fight for a better deal for members to the next level.
However, there will be no change in branch and chapel funding without genuine consultation and agreement with activists, and I assure you that this consultation will be driven by the desire, not to save money, but to increase activity at the grassroots of our union.
If you have any views about this issue I would be delighted to hear them, please e-mail me at: lesbayliss@les4gs.org
Yours fraternally,
Les Bayliss
Dear colleagues,
You don’t need me to tell you that our union branches and chapels are a vital part of our organisation. The members’ first point contact with their union is through their branch or their workplace representative if they have one. It’s how members are recruited into our union and it’s how they are serviced. In my view this is the most appropriate way for the union to operate, face-to-face is always the most powerful.
In Unite we currently have both workplace and geographical branches. I don’t favour one over the other because I understand that in such a diverse organisation it is necessary to be flexible in order to fully cater for the needs of all our members. Big workplaces where the members all do similar jobs and all face the same issues and challenges are perfect for a workplace branch. By the same token smaller workplace groups benefit from an association with members who have different employers; combining their resources makes them stronger. As General Secretary I will not interfere with the branch structure against the wishes of Unite members.
For historical reasons branches and chapels are also funded in many different ways in Unite. Here I think there is definite scope for change. I have no desire to take money away from branches for the sake of building a massive centralised treasury, as some would have you believe. I want branches and chapels to take a full part in all our recruitment, organising and campaigning activities and I want the funding to match the degree of involvement that each branch or chapel wants to undertake.
So as General Secretary I will establish a dedicated Branch Support Unit that will provide assistance, advice, education and equipment to help branches and chapels take the lead in building the union in their area or in their workplace. I will also consider ways of reforming branch funding to get more resources into the branches and chapels that want to take their fight for a better deal for members to the next level.
However, there will be no change in branch and chapel funding without genuine consultation and agreement with activists, and I assure you that this consultation will be driven by the desire, not to save money, but to increase activity at the grassroots of our union.
If you have any views about this issue I would be delighted to hear them, please e-mail me at: lesbayliss@les4gs.org
Yours fraternally,
Les Bayliss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
