The government is plowing ahead with amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法), but making the same mistakes the last round of amendments sought to address. It needs to step back from the fray and rethink its approach, and ask how it can really achieve the goal of improving workers’ conditions while also satisfying employers’ genuine need for flexibility according to their specific needs.
The key phrase here is “according to their specific needs.”
The government and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are tying themselves in knots trying to find a precise formulation for work hours and consecutive work days within a defined period, shift length and rest time between shifts. They are moving the goalposts to satisfy labor groups and workers’ interests, on the one hand, and employers and corporate interests, on the other.
In last year’s amended act, the government introduced a flexible five-day workweek, with “one mandatory day off and one rest day” system, which has proven unpopular with employers.
Now it has found itself having to tweak these changes, but judging from the way it handled the legislative review of proposed amendments this week, the DPP has apparently not learned that rushing through amendments can be dangerous.
The problem lies less with the speed at which the DPP is trying to push the changes through, and more with the underlying assumption that rules can be applied globally, or even broadly, across the sectors.
The current approach assumes that regulations can be universally applied to the duties and job responsibilities of every single worker in every single department in every single office of every company in a given sector.
Take catering, for example. Are the same rules to be applied to chefs as to wait staff? That does not even begin to make sense.
Generalizing about rules defining the rights of employers and employees alike pits the two against each other. Each is fighting for their respective interests, without being able to tailor the discussion to the precise nature of the job. It is no wonder the two sides are suspicious one another, with no satisfactory conclusion in sight.
Perhaps a better approach would be to facilitate negotiation mechanisms between employer and employees, on a company or sector level, within wide parameters devised by the government.
This, of course, would mean that employees would need organized representation. This would be in the form of an effective union.
It is one thing for the government to tell employers what they should be doing; it is another to enforce it. Too many workers are under pressure from their employers to work overtime or on their days off to complete tasks they were expected to have completed within legally defined work hours. These workers need stronger representation. Unions would be the answer.
A ridiculously small percentage of workers in Taiwan — just 7 percent — are represented by a union. If workers are to have more leverage in negotiating with employers, this will need to change.
In addition, it is worrying that the underlying principle informing the government’s stance is that more overtime is the key to improving workers’ conditions.
How about higher salaries and better benefits, so that workers do not feel the need for more overtime just to make ends meet? Employers might complain, but it seems a more equitable solution.
Instead of trying to tweak broad brushstroke regulations, the government should strengthen the negotiating position of workers by encouraging stronger unions and greater union membership.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and