During the Lunar New Year holiday, the thing that everyone fears most happened. Prior to the holiday, members of the Taoyuan Union of Pilots working for China Airlines (CAL) was pushing for a strike, and at 1:15am on Friday last week, the union announced that starting at 6am that day, pilots at Taipei International Airport (Songshan airport), Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport and Kaohsiung International Airport were going on strike.
A strike involves several aspects that raise a series of questions.
First, should people in industries that involve national security or affect social order and public transport be allowed to go on strike?
Second, should the government intervene?
Third, should a union that initiates a strike bear responsibility for any potential effect on social order or public losses?
RIGHT TO STRIKE?
Major strikes at international airlines or at airports have occurred in many countries. As long as the striking workers follow the law, everything is fine, but air traffic strikes involve national security and affect social order and public transport rights, and should not be rashly initiated.
Surely the China Airlines pilot strike would make anyone whose flight was canceled or who missed an important event or who were unable to meet with family and friends ask what consideration the striking pilots gave to public interest and consumer rights.
Some academics think that social interest should be based on the highest permanent public interest — as opposed to individual interests or the interests of a single group.
Public interest centers around the nation’s citizenry. It also includes social order, peace and safety, sound economic order, reasonable preservation and use of social resources and opportunity, as well as the maintenance of public morality.
These are the components that make up public interest, and guarantee that every individual and organization enjoys the resources they need to survive and develop.
This is something that every member of society must understand.
Consumer rights are the rights and benefits that people should enjoy after purchasing something, and the seller has a direct obligation to guarantee these rights.
When rights that should be the responsibility of the operator are blocked and consumers are deprived of those rights through a strike, it seems the state should take on the burden.
The rights of other workers in the same business as those on strike, but who do not participate in the strike and thus must take over the responsibilities of the striking workers might also be overlooked.
A strike is most often the result of a breakdown of negotiations between management and employees, which makes the re-establishment of mutual trust an urgent task.
NOTICE
Union-led strikes involving public affairs should follow the regulations on giving advance notice in the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes (勞資爭議處理法), so that public transport businesses can respond to the changing situation and protect the public’s interests.
Public interest is affected by major public issues and the government should take part in negotiations, and urge employers and employees to quickly reach an agreement to minimize the social cost.
Tracy Chen is a labor law and human resources consultant, and chairwoman and president of Chuchu Labor Law Consultant Co.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath