The law provides for freedom of speech and press, and the government generally respected these rights. Most newspapers, television, and radio stations were privately owned, and the government had minimal presence in the ownership of news media. Media monopolies, especially on a local level, constrained freedom of expression.

In a report released on April 16, the NGO Committee to Protect Journalists stated the government had not made significant progress to support press freedoms or to address unsolved cases related to journalists.

On March 21, NGO Journalists on Foot (Periodistas de a Pie) submitted its final report from its observation mission to Veracruz to investigate the disappearance and killing of local journalist Gregorio Jimenez de la Cruz in February. The report documented Jimenez’s disappearance and killing, the state’s response, and the challenges faced by journalists working in southern Veracruz. In its annual report, international NGO Article 19 recorded 38 attacks against journalists working in Veracruz in 2013.

Press Freedoms: The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. Journalists frequently practiced self-censorship, however, because of threats from criminal groups, as well as high influence of the government within the press. According to Freedom House, as much as 80 percent of the funding for advertising came from state and federal government. The law provides a legal framework for issuing permits to nongovernmental and noncommercial community radio stations.

Violence and Harassment: Journalists were sometimes subjected to physical attacks, harassment, and intimidation due to their reporting. According to local NGOs, government authorities sometimes participated in and condoned these acts.

Perpetrators of violence against journalists continued to act with impunity with few reports of successful investigation, arrest, or prosecution of suspects. The international NGO Freedom House’s 2013 Freedom of the Press Report characterized the country as a “dangerous place for journalists” and categorized it as “not free” for the press due to the threats and violence reporters faced and impunity for the perpetrators of crimes committed against the press. In its 2014 annual report, the Committee to Protect Journalists indicated the government did not make significant progress to support press freedoms or to address unsolved cases of violence against journalists.

For example, in June Article 19 reported 222 attacks or threats against members of the press from January to September. As of August 31, the CNDH reported eight journalists killed for reasons presumed to be related to their work. Article 19 noted 330 separate cases of violence against journalists recorded in the country in 2013, a sharp increase from 2012.

On April 16, a Colima journalist filed a harassment complaint with the state human rights commission against the PGR. PGR agents allegedly harassed the journalist, who had been reporting on the construction of a gold mine in an indigenous community.

On October 1, gunmen killed activist and community leader Atilano Roman Tirado during his weekly community radio broadcast.

Censorship or Content Restrictions: Human rights groups reported at times state and local government worked to directly censor the media and threaten journalists. A lack of adequate protection resulted in significant self-censorship. Journalists reported altering their coverage in response to a lack of protection from the government, attacks against media headquarters, false charges for publishing undesirable news, and threats or retributions against family, among other reasons. In the state of Quintana Roo, there were reports of “cloning,” the practice of duplicating a legitimate, licensed publication, with nearly identical layout, but changed content replaced criticism of the government with praise.

On July 30, the Sinaloa state legislature approved legislation prohibiting journalists from photographing, videotaping, or recording audio at crime scenes, prompting protests from journalists and activists across the state. The CNDH characterized the law as unconstitutional and contrary to international human rights. On August 21, the state legislature overwhelmingly repealed the law, which government representatives stated was not meant as an attack on press freedom.

Libel Laws/National Security: Twelve states have criminal libel laws making journalists vulnerable to imprisonment at the state level.

Nongovernmental Impact: Organized criminal groups exercised a grave and increasing influence over media outlets and reporters, frequently threatening individuals who published critical views of crime groups. A pervasive atmosphere of fear led even politically active citizens to censor their speech against organized crime.

The law provides for the right of workers to form and join unions, to bargain collectively, and to strike in both the public and private sectors. The law requires a minimum of 20 workers to form a union and requires official recognition from the government to register the union. A union established in accordance with its own bylaws may call for a strike or bargain collectively. Before a strike may be considered legal, a union must file a “notice to strike” with the appropriate labor authorities. The law prohibits employers from intervening in union affairs or interfering with union activities, including through implicit or explicit reprisals against workers. The law allows for reinstatement of workers if the labor board finds the worker was unfairly fired and the worker requests reinstatement.

Although the law authorizes the coexistence of several unions in one worksite, it sets rules on which union has priority and limits collective bargaining to the union that has “leadership” or “ownership” of a collective bargaining agreement. Generally, authorities grant “leadership” or “ownership” to the union with the largest number of workers. Authorities can call a vote to verify the number of union members. The fact that only one union legally is recognized to negotiate for all workers effectively shuts out all but one union and prevents meaningful negotiations when that one union is a company-controlled union. It is not mandatory for a union to consult with workers or have worker support in order to sign a first collective contract with an employer. The law establishes internal union leadership votes may be held via secret ballot, either directly or indirectly.

The government did not consistently protect worker rights. Its general failure to enforce labor and other laws left workers with little recourse regarding violations of freedom of association, poor working conditions, or other problems. By law penalties for violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining laws range from 16,160 pesos ($1,205) to 161,604 pesos ($12,050). Such penalties were rarely enforced and were insufficient to deter violations of these laws. Administrative and/or judicial procedures were subject to lengthy delays and appeals. To reduce backlogs and time to issue a ruling, some states began implementing oral trials at their labor boards.

The process for official government recognition of unions was politicized, and the government occasionally used the process to reward political allies or punish political opponents. According to union organizers, government labor boards frequently rejected registration applications for new locals of independent unions and for new unions on technicalities. In addition independent union activists claimed the requirement that the government approve strikes in advance gave authorities the power to show favoritism by determining which companies would be protected from strikes. As a result, few formal strikes occurred, but protests and informal work freezes were common.

For instance, at one company in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, approximately 120 workers filed a notice to strike when they learned of the sale of their workplace to another company and feared they would lose seniority and accumulated rights. The local labor board refused their filing to strike and informed workers that - without their knowledge - they had a collective bargaining agreement already in place. In July, 400 workers at the factory went on an unapproved strike. The sale nevertheless proceeded, and the workers who struck were told they could come back to work with no loss in seniority or accept final payment and dismissal.

Protection (company-controlled) unions continued to be a problem in all sectors, and many observers noted working conditions of a majority of workers were under the control of those unrepresentative unions. Officially sanctioned “protection contracts” - formal agreements whereby the company creates an unrepresentative union in exchange for labor peace and other concessions - were common in all sectors and often prevented workers from fully exercising their labor rights as defined by law. These contracts often were developed before the company hired any workers and without direct input from workers. Collective bargaining agreements resulting from protection contracts usually failed to provide worker benefits beyond the legal minimum and impeded the rights of independent unions to effectively and legitimately bargain collectively on behalf of workers.

For example, workers at several plants in the state of Coahuila reportedly contacted the independent union Los Mineros and stated their desire to become members. In each of these cases, however, the companies had signed collective agreements with the Confederacion de Trabajadores de Mexico (CTM), the largest confederation of labor unions, without the knowledge or ratification of the workers. Although a majority of workers in each plant signed affiliation cards with Los Mineros, the Coahuila labor board refused to set a date for a bargaining rights election or provide copies of the existing collective bargaining agreements between the companies and the CTM.

According to several NGOs and unions, many workers continued to face intimidation during bargaining-rights elections from other workers, union leaders, violent individuals hired by a company, or employers favoring a particular union. Some employers attempted to influence bargaining-rights elections through the use of thugs to threaten employees or through pseudo-employees inserted by the employer to boost membership counts on the company-controlled union’s registry. In one example there was a strike at a factory in Monclova, Coahuila, that led to a call for a bargaining-rights election. The original strike, over the annual profit-sharing bonus and the firing of four workers who had claimed the bonus was below what it should legally have been, took place at the beginning of the year and involved approximately 800 workers. The workers agreed to go back to work on several conditions, including a bargaining rights election would be held. On April 21, approximately 100 individuals believed to be affiliated with the CTM attacked workers and union organizers. On April 25, the company signed an agreement with the workers to reinstate the four workers, pay them the agreed-upon amount of annual profit sharing, and respect the workers’ right to hold a bargaining-rights election. At year’s end the date for the election had not been set.

Other intimidating and manipulative practices such as providing very limited notice prior to an election and allowing management or nonemployees to vote were increasingly common. A local NGO reported in early September workers began an informal work stoppage at a factory in Torreon. On September16, while en route to the local labor board to file for the right to strike formally, another car hit the vehicle carrying the workers’ leaders in what appeared to be an intentional collision to intimidate the labor organizers and prevent them from filing for the right to strike. Following their informal work stoppage, however, workers received appropriate compensation for overtime work, and the food at the factory improved.

Despite a decision by the supreme court that voice votes are illegal, the practice was still used. It is not mandatory that the workers elect union leadership directly, and in most cases, according to experts in industrial relations and employees who had experienced the process, workers forming a union did not know whether there is already a union in place that has been registered with the government. Union organizers from several sectors complained about the overt and usually hostile involvement of the government when organizers attempted to create independent unions not controlled by the employer.

Workers were excluded from officially registered unions for trying to organize their colleagues into separate, independent unions. The “exclusion clause” gives officially registered unions the right to prevent the formation of a competing authentic union by demanding an employer hire only workers affiliated with that union, although employers no longer have authority to fire a worker because the worker has resigned or been expelled from the union. In spite of this, workers were fired for their union sympathies. For instance, in June at a factory in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, 300 workers stopped work to demand the company allow them to leave the employer-established union and join Los Mineros. The company responded by firing the entire workforce and filed criminal complaints against the union leaders.