Collective Bargaining at Fundación Tierra de Esperanza: From Precarious Social Work to Labor Improvement Efforts

Original article: Negociación colectiva de Fundación Tierra de Esperanza: Del trabajo social precarizado al intento de mejoras laborales By Camila Sierra M. The outsourcing of state services is not a new phenomenon, and it permeates nearly every aspect of government operations. Programs addressing the complex vulnerabilities faced by children and adolescents are just one of many state tenders that Foundations and NGOs bid to implement.

For nearly 30 years, Fundación Tierra de Esperanza has been receiving funding from what they refer to as “strategic partners”: the National Service for the Prevention and Rehabilitation of Drug and Alcohol Consumption (SENDA), the National Service for Youth Reintegration, the National Specialized Protection Service for Children and Adolescents, and the Ministry of Social Development and Family. They run programs of varying complexities across regions including Tarapacá, Antofagasta, O’Higgins, Biobío, La Araucanía, Los Ríos, Los Lagos, and the Metropolitan region. These programs include PAI (Intensive Outpatient Program of SENDA), PDE (Specialized Protection Program for Educational Reintegration from Mejor Niñez), PDC (Specialized Protection in Alcohol and Drug Consumption from Mejor Niñez), PRM (Programs for Repairing Child Maltreatment from Mejor Niñez), LAE (Special Assisted Freedom), and PEE (Specialized Protection Program for Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents under the National Service for Specialized Protection).

Over a thousand individuals, including employees and professionals, work within these programs, where workers themselves report that they operate under precarious conditions. After three years, the foundation’s workers are facing their second collective bargaining process. This does not stem from a conflict but is a legal procedure that allows employers to negotiate improved working conditions for their staff periodically—improvements that the union describes as urgent.

While this is a legal process, it is not free from stipulations. Law Nº20. 940 governs collective negotiations.

However, this was a reform made to the Labor Code in 2016 under the Labor Reform, particularly regarding collective bargaining. This reform did not alter the clause in article 304 that excludes collective bargaining in companies that receive more than 50% state funding over the last two years. The current jurisprudence of the Labor Directorate, confirmed through the courts, states that for this exclusion to apply, funding must come directly through the budget law.

In the case of Fundación Tierra de Esperanza, according to lawyer Miguel Downey from the Popular Defense Office, “the Inspection stated it was not direct funding because it operates through the bidding or award of projects, thus it is indirect or conditional, meaning it does not apply, which is why the union could initiate a collective bargaining process. The foundation continues to challenge this process, but we hope it is confirmed that the workers indeed have the right to negotiate collectively. ” Given that this organization receives state funding, negotiations occur under specific and tense terms, according to workers affiliated with the union, which has 116 members out of approximately a thousand employees at the foundation.

The same lawyer indicates that the low union membership is due to the fears among workers of potential job loss or further deterioration of their working conditions. The union at Fundación Tierra de Esperanza was formed about a decade ago and is now part of the Federation of Workers in the Social Sector, a union organization focused on labor rights, salary improvements, and dignified working conditions for professionals and collaborators in the social area. This organization has actively promoted the mobilization and organization of workers in this field, who themselves report being chronic victims of labor precariousness and the business practices of foundations, entities that have faced scrutiny multiple times in recent years, especially following the foundation scandal that emerged in 2025.

«Labor Precarization is Bid Out» The neoliberal state is stretched thin. Its reduction leads to the outsourcing of most services that the state apparatus should directly provide, with the state as the employer. Nonetheless, although social programs are carried out with state funds, in practice, employers are Foundations and NGOs that execute contracts specifying how the funds transferred from the state to the executing entity should be spent.

Most of these programs are tendered approximately every two years, leading to a series of consequences that directly or indirectly affect the children and adolescents benefiting from these programs. One consequence is the high turnover of professional teams, adversely affecting the children and adolescents who participate in them. According to professional workers at Fundación Tierra de Esperanza, establishing connections with children and adolescents is not an easy task, especially as they often come from backgrounds of severe vulnerability where the system has entirely failed them.

Changing the assigned professional due to the precarious work conditions the professional faces is yet another failure they endure. Workers report that poor working conditions are “burning out” employees, impacting even the care provided to children, adolescents. “Often, these programs are designed to fail because they do not take an integrated approach to the child.

In the end, it is as if the child and adolescent belong to a business that our employer is protecting, which is the business of Mejor Niñez. The programs are created under a logic that delivers certain services that are not fulfilled in practice,” emphasizes Claudia Bustamante, a member of the union board. It is notable that most professionals are women, often heads of households, so the fear of job loss compels them to reluctantly accept poor working conditions.

Regarding the demands of the aforementioned programs, workers are required to conduct four monthly interventions per child and adolescent, with each psych social duo responsible for 25 beneficiaries. Sources indicate that achieving these interventions in full is nearly impossible, as they are subjected to precarious working conditions: 100 interventions per professional within 20 working days each month. Moreover, due to the two-year program tendering, workers cannot accumulate seniority since they are re-contracted each time the foundation is awarded a program.

“Here we have colleagues who have worked at the foundation for 20 years, but appear as being contracted for only two years, because all the programs they have worked in have that duration, and once they finish, the cycle starts over,” states the union board. Negotiation of Miseries Collective negotiations have demonstrated, comparatively, their importance for both workers and beneficiaries of the services being provided. In this case, the programs executed by Fundación Tierra de Esperanza.

“Obviously, good working conditions allow workers to do their jobs better,” states lawyer Downey, adding that “this is also a form of democratization within the workplace, preventing employers from making arbitrary decisions or seeking efficiency through mere precarization. ” The collective bargaining process at Fundación Tierra de Esperanza—which implements 88 programs receiving state funding—is nearing its final stages. However, workers have not reached an agreement with the organization.

The initial disagreement is that Tierra de Esperanza asserts, at first, that they are not obligated to negotiate despite being legally mandated under the law enacted by the 2016 labor reform. Due to this, the union is taking the matter to court, and although the ruling stipulated that the foundation must negotiate better working conditions, the organization has not met the minimum demands, states Claudia Bustamante. “There is a constant refusal regarding anything related to money, whether it be salary increases, annual adjustments concerning the CPI, or meal and transportation bonuses, to which the foundation always places a limit,” remarks Bustamante, an active member of the union.

“The Labor Inspection intervenes in the collective bargaining process,” explains Downey. “Currently, since the union and the foundation did not reach an agreement and the union members approved the strike, there would be an instance of mandatory mediation where both parties must attend. A mediator from the Labor Inspection facilitates dialogue between the parties to encourage an agreement.

While it’s a more passive role focused on mediation, it’s the workers’ ability to go on strike that truly encourages a smoother dialogue between both sides,” explains the Popular Defense lawyer. Workers indicate that ultimately, negotiating with the organization that implements the programs means “discussing the bare minimum of what is being requested, such as improvements for caregivers, better meal bonuses, or transportation allowances for interregional travel necessary for interventions,” states Bustamante. The foundation justifies this by claiming they cannot justify such expenses to the state’s financial oversight; however, the union argues that the foundation has petty cash for that purpose.

In summary, they assert that “the execution of the program takes precedence over ensuring the minimum working conditions for those who implement it and are in direct contact with the children and adolescents. ” This Wednesday, April 22, the final mandatory mediation meeting will take place, after which workers will have to decide whether to accept what the foundation offers or proceed with the strike.