For labor groups that have lobbied for years for substantial legislation protecting the right to strike, ostensible progress in the past weeks was little more than pretense. Two developments that had the potential to remedy glaring deficiencies in the law instead failed to address key concerns.
An amendment passed on Friday to the Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes Act (勞資爭議處理法) and a Cabinet proposal to amend the Labor Union Act (工會法) are both saddled with restrictions that render them farcical, leaving activists wondering if their concerns have been heard at all.
After eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rule marked by friction between the Cabinet and the legislature and the party’s disappointing performance on labor rights, examples of cooperation between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have been cause for hope.
If the Cabinet throws its weight behind progressive legislation, long-delayed changes could finally stand a chance. Rights groups applauded when the legislature in March ratified two UN covenants that, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, constitute the base for international human rights law. The covenants — along with Ma’s promise to make Taiwanese law compliant — will provide rights campaigners with a foothold for their demands.
But where labor law is concerned, the government has shown no indication that it will press for substantive changes.
Friday’s amendment to the labor disputes law may make it easier for unions to vote on declaring a strike, but it bars workers from using strikes to pressure employers over “rights items,” including the terms of their contracts. The change facilitates the strike process while simultaneously offering exploitative companies new weapons against their employees.
At the same time, the Cabinet’s proposed amendment to the union law is a paradox worthy of George Orwell. The proposal purports to give way to demands that teachers be allowed to form unions, but contains a surreal proviso preventing colleagues at the same school from doing so.
These developments are reminiscent of the backhanded “concessions” offered in the Cabinet’s proposed amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). Given this, the goal of strengthening practical human rights legislation may be as unrealistic now as it was under the DPP.
Like the proposed assembly law amendment, which has stalled in the legislature for weeks because of its contentiousness, rights groups are concerned that the revamped labor dispute law in fact constrains basic rights while professing to do the opposite.
The legislature and Cabinet fail to recognize that the demands of rights groups concerning the assembly law and union laws are crucial for deepening Taiwan’s democratic freedoms. After Friday’s washout revision, it seems rights advocates are in for a long fight.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS