Since the amendment of the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法), which stipulates a five-day workweek with “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day,” many business owners have criticized the government for the policy’s impact on the nation’s industries.
However, despite the possibility of it sparking a chain reaction in industry which could carry increased social costs, the amendment could help drive Taiwan’s industrial transformation, provided that the government can hash out a more comprehensive plan with enough supporting policies. Unfortunately, the implementation of the policy has been rash, with a lack of strategic thinking and complementary economic and labor measures.
A positive change brought by the new scheme is the increase in overtime pay, which in theory should help eliminate problems of high workload and low pay by ensuring that employees either receive more pay for working overtime or work shorter hours due to increased personnel costs.
Nevertheless, the new regulations have several negative effects. For example, to avoid paying overtime, companies might hire more part-time employees, and companies might transfer the increased personnel costs onto consumers, while businesses lacking a good financial foundation might cut staff or even have to close down. In addition, those working in the knowledge economy are likely to receive more overtime pay than those working manual labor, which could emphasize the nation’s M-shaped society.
Unfortunately, none of these problems were addressed by President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration preceding the change, a sign that the government had not carefully considered the possible consequences before railroading the bill through the legislature. If the government had been more cautious, it could have reduced the impact of the new regulations on businesses and even taken the opportunity to introduce measures to promote an industrial upgrade. By improving workers’ rights, the government can help eliminate low-quality businesses and workers could then transfer into other industries.
Sweden, a country widely applauded for its exemplary labor policies, successfully upgraded its industry in the late 1940s by raising wages for manual workers, which forced ineffective businesses to close down. The policy helped promote an industrial upgrade and solved the problem of businesses that had no room for development and were struggling to survive. This shows that pay raises are about more than just improving workers’ rights and can boost industry.
The Swedish government also supported training programs, hired many workers itself and set down a comprehensive plan for industrial upgrades after reaching an agreement with industry. Considering both workers’ rights and economic productivity helped harmonize the nation’s social and economic goals.
Instead of drawing a comprehensive plan that considers the different aspects involved, as the Swedish government did, Tsai’s administration failed to take an overall strategic approach and did not initiate a cross-departmental discussion about economic and labor issues, with the result that wages, job training, consumer prices and economic policies became fragmented. The unfortunate outcome means that what should have been a progressive law to promote workers’ rights is incapable of having the desired effect.
Chen Chia-lin is the deputy director of the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s Publicity Department and has a doctorate in law.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS