The government’s controversial amendments to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) yesterday passed their third reading. It is a victory of sorts for the government, but the process has left many casualties, not least the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) credibility, employer-employee relations and workers’ rights.
After employers complained about a lack of flexibility in arranging work schedules, Premier William Lai (賴清德) decided to revisit changes made to the law only one year ago under his predecessor, then-premier Lin Chuan (林全). There are legitimate questions about whether employers’ issues with working hours impacting on costs were justified and whether the new amendments shifted the rules too much in their favor, at the expense of workers.
Regardless, this has left the DPP open to accusations that it has let its legislative majority and control of the presidency go to its head. It should not have rushed through legislation as important as this, in December 2016 or a second time. It should have taken the time to get it right the first time.
The process has caused a considerable loss of trust between employers and employees. Workers and legislators opposed to the latest changes have voiced concerns that there could be more deaths from overwork. Even though the record shows that such a risk does exist, the long work hours that many Taiwanese are expected to work, across the board, are sufficient to warrant concern simply in terms of how they impact workers’ rights and lives.
Taiwan accounts for the fourth-most work hours in the world, Ministry of Labor data showed. Why do employers need their workers to do even more? Are there not other ways in which they can improve efficiency?
Salaries consistent with responsibilities, improved work conditions, greater levels of encouragement, respect and mutual trust in the workplace to increase morale levels would be a start.
However, the new amendments will do little to fix these problems.
Another risk is that employers will seek to normalize the increased flexibility allowed by the law after these changes have been implemented. This is especially problematic if workers are made to believe that they are taking advantage of the system by extending their work hours through overtime and the increased number of consecutive days worked without a break, converting them into increased pay and complementary days off to take as they choose.
This leaves them open to being willing accomplices, indeed agents, of their own exploitation. This is not good for their health or their productivity.
The increased overtime, additional consecutive days without a break and shrinking times between shifts are particularly problematic for those working in the healthcare, construction and transport industries, where the ability to concentrate and make important decisions is crucial. The government has said special provisions would be made for such industries. It remains to be seen how that will work out.
Hopefully, employers will take the regulations in this revision of the act in the spirit in which they were meant: as the maximum amount a company can expect its employees to work, for a limited amount of time, should circumstances demand it.
Unfortunately, the likelihood is that they will see it as a standard that they can legitimately get away with.
Now that the government has given in to employers’ demands, and as it seems to have put the issue of just how much flexibility is appropriate into the hands of businesses and workers, it is time to prioritize the workers’ ability to negotiate terms beneficial to them and guarantee the rights the law professes to protect are carried through.
Only 7 percent of Taiwanese workers belong to a union, and there are no fines for companies that refuse to convene talks between workers and management. It is time to change that.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS