The Taoyuan Union of Pilots led a strike against China Airlines. Some commentators considered the strike controversial, because it was led by union chairwoman Lee Hsin-yen (李信燕), an EVA Airways pilot, and an external professional union, which is minor compared with the company’s own union. They think that it was essentially an employee of another airline who was determining the future of China Airlines — a point that deserves further examination.
China Airlines has answered the union: it pilots enjoy higher pay and better benefits than other airlines’ pilots, satisfying international standards and making their pilots no worse off than pilots in the US or Europe; the company complies with the Labor Standards Act (勞基法) and, in any case, there is no such issue as “fatigue flights”; employees are promoted from within, foreign pilots are not recruited; and Taiwanese copilots have the chance for captain training and promotion.
Business is business: There is no difference between local or foreign pilots when it comes to flight safety. The most important thing is to improve flight safety by training outstanding pilots, regardless of nationality. This is also the best way to remain competitive.
As for the “free-rider clause” — Article 13 of the Collective Agreement Act (團體協約法) — the company’s opinion is that different pay and benefits for the same position is unfair to employees.
The pilots’ strike seemed to be a consequence of the China Airlines flight attendants’ strike in 2016. At that time, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) set the tone, saying that no flight attendant would have gone on strike unless the situation was unbearable, after which the company’s management team was quickly replaced and all the flight attendants’ demands were met.
Some commentators have said that the pilots’ strike resulted from a misjudgement on the part of the government.
At the time, the Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ Union was so arrogant that it even expelled members who served on Tsai’s airplane, because they worked during the strike. This is a negative consequence of the Democratic Progressive Party’s indulgence of labor unions.
The scenario is similar to what happened in the UK when former British Labour Party leader James Callaghan served as British prime minister. Callaghan’s politics had a socialist orientation and he adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward trade unions, to the extent that a single union for the electricity industry could exert pressure on the government by threatening power cuts.
With frequent coal miner strikes, the British economy was on the verge of collapse and Callaghan was forced to call a general election. Callaghan had to step down and the Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher rose to power and successfully curbed the power of trade unions, causing the British economy to surge.
To develop the economy, the government should not allow labor unions to become domineering. A lesson can be drawn from Detroit, Michigan: Once a center for auto manufacturing, companies were forced to shut down due to powerful labor unions.
Taiwan is a democracy following the rule of law. The government should demonstrate perseverance and take a firm stance in the face of strikes, and not appease different sides or make compromises and concessions in response to unreasonable strikes and protests.
The public will be grateful to the government for making the right decision.
Tseng Chao-chang is a former chairman of the Taiwan Bar Association.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95