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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past