Some Colombian Workers sent a letter to Mr. P. MICHAEL MCKINLEY, Ambassador of the United States of America, in Bogotá, Colombia, relating the complex situation of fundamental rights into the country.The Colombian citizens said to him:
"Respectfully, we ask for your solidarity to ensure respect for the rights consecrated by law, and considering the facts set forth below:
1) 1) Dismissal of workers covered by the agreement of trade union as the union leaders, without any compliance with the relevant trade union uprising enshrined in the current regulations and procedures of the Law and Articles 39, 53 and 93 of the Constitution Nacional de Colombia. Moreover, counter to international agreements of the ILO, ILO Conventions, 87, 98, 151.
2) Dismissal of protected workers who enjoyed stronger employment protection as was the Social Seal, Parents householder, Handicapped, and staff close to the date of pension. Those dismissals left no opportunity for concrete protection of the rights of the family, especially the rights of children, since they are totally unrelated to the situation that happened and who should be considered always as primary recipients of benefits to protect the family and the rights of the family.
3) Dismissal of workers with a right to the Advance Pension Plan for Collective Labour Agreement or by law between the parties. In March 2001, the Advance Pension Plan was included in the agenda of Telecom 2003, after detailed reality of their workers pension which concluded that it was beneficial to the Company. The Legal Administrative Act was proposed by the Board of Directors of Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (TELECOM), by the year 2,003 1782 record. This act was removed from the attention of employees by more than 7 years. The special pension regimes recognized by the company at the time of granting the benefit described in the 1782 Act are: Workers with 20 years of state service and 50 years of age, workers with 25 years of service to the state, regardless of age; Workers with 20 years in charge of emergency services regardless of age. In 2003, many workers who were coming to meet their pension requirements within the next 7 years, were given the opportunity to enjoy the opportunity in advance of pension in the same condition as they would when fulfill their service and retirement age within the special pension regimes TELECOM. Although TELECOM established 7 years for the Pension Plan Advance, its directors failed to consider all workers who were within 7 years to meet their pension requirements and sent them off without this benefit".