It is encouraging that the legislature preliminarily passed a bill on Monday stipulating that listed firms should share their profits with employees and raise wages, clearing the way for the final passage early next month.
Making profit-sharing compulsory might not be the perfect way to boost salaries, but it is the government’s very first — albeit tiny — step toward tackling the burning issue of wage stagnation by using the law, rather than just moral suasion.
On Monday, legislators gave preliminary approval to a revision of the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) that would force companies to share profits and to work with their employees each year to produce a profit-sharing plan. Violators would be fined from NT$500,000 to NT$5 million (US$15,930 to US$159,300) based on another revision, which also passed a preliminary review.
However, legislators backed away from a proposal that set a specific figure for corporate profit-sharing, saying there is no one-size-fits-all model.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Lin Shu-fen (林淑芬) proposed that firms allocate at least 20 percent of their annual profit to profit-sharing.
In addition, legislators proposed revising the Company Act (公司法), Factory Act (工廠法) and the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (中小企業發展條例) to boost salaries by legally imposing profit-sharing on the nation’s listed firms.
Companies that allocate a certain amount of their profit to pay increases could receive a reduction in business tax, legislators proposed.
In the 14 years prior to last year, real wages fell by 0.1 percent, while in South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, they increased by 2 percent, 1.3 percent and 1.3 percent respectively, according to statistics released yesterday by the National Development Council.
The so-called “pay raise” amendments are considered the government’s first practical steps toward ending long-term wage stagnation.
The stimulus measures are seen by some economists and central bank Governor Perng Fai-nan (彭淮南) as tools to spur private consumption and revitalize the economy after tax cuts for corporations failed to result in more business activity.
Some doubt how big the effect of the “pay raise” amendments will be, since only listed firms would be obliged to conform to the new rules. About 3 million employees, or one-third of the nation’s 10 million salaried workers, would be subject to the extra benefits.
These rules may not have an extensive impact on the job market, but they should create an environment in which local employers start thinking about the feasibility of sharing more profits with employees, beyond meager — or nonexistent — annual pay raises and year-end bonuses.
A survey by local job agency 1111 Job Bank found that nearly 30 percent of local employers support the “pay raise” amendments, higher than the disapproval rate of 18 percent.
Half of 815 firms listed on the stock market plan to increase employees’ salaries this year, with pay raises likely to average 3.5 percent, according to Financial Supervisory Commission statistics.
It is undeniable that there are a number of miserly bosses who are reluctant to assign a portion of their profits to their employees, while no one is arguing that shareholders receive more profit when companies earn more.
The four “pay raise” amendments are certainly not a cure-all, just the beginning of efforts to raise wages.
The government must implement more measures to magnify the effect, while local enterprises more carefully calculate whether paying higher wages to maintain a well-trained and skillful workforce is a cost-effective way of remaining competitive.
The decision that Taiwan’s voters reach in the December referendum on whether to reverse President Tsai’s (蔡英文) decision to allow importation of US pork containing ractopamine could have significant strategic reverberations. The fate of this referendum could go a long way toward determining Taiwan’s trade competitiveness in the coming decade. It is an unfortunate reality that US trade policy is not well integrated into its foreign policy, and that Washington views Taipei’s approach to US pork as a proxy for Taiwan’s reliability on its trade commitments. However, if Taiwan voters reverse President Tsai’s pledge to open Taiwan’s market to the same pork
Since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been urged to follow the science. If you have been skeptical about new vaccine technologies or the need for lengthy lockdowns, you have likely had friends retort with advice from the WHO or the US Centers for Disease Control, or even quote an academic study or two. However, there is one area where governments and societies at large have not followed the science — wearing masks outdoors. For more than a year, scientists have continually found that SARS-CoV-2, including its Delta variant, is transmitted outdoors only in exceptionally rare circumstances. Where they
A key dividing line between Taiwanese and the more archaic members of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is found in how they answer two basic questions: “What do you consider to be your motherland?” and “Would you die to defend it?” The topic of Taiwan and one’s motherland is problematic. It even came up in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) address on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Xi declared that it was his “duty to restore Taiwan to the Chinese motherland.” Xi could not be farther from the truth in what is Chinese
As a political economist, I start every day with three things: drinking a cup of black coffee, reading the news and checking some statistics. A little over a year ago, I mostly read the news about how the world leaders were managing their national affairs, as well as how they are (not) getting along on this planet we call home. After reading the news on different national and international events, I check some figures that are critical for my studies. I mostly focus on the daily fluctuation of oil prices, my country’s exchange rate and global prices of precious metals. However, in
RSS