For labor groups that have lobbied for years for substantial legislation protecting the right to strike, ostensible progress in the past weeks was little more than pretense. Two developments that had the potential to remedy glaring deficiencies in the law instead failed to address key concerns.
An amendment passed on Friday to the Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes Act (勞資爭議處理法) and a Cabinet proposal to amend the Labor Union Act (工會法) are both saddled with restrictions that render them farcical, leaving activists wondering if their concerns have been heard at all.
After eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rule marked by friction between the Cabinet and the legislature and the party’s disappointing performance on labor rights, examples of cooperation between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have been cause for hope.
If the Cabinet throws its weight behind progressive legislation, long-delayed changes could finally stand a chance. Rights groups applauded when the legislature in March ratified two UN covenants that, together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, constitute the base for international human rights law. The covenants — along with Ma’s promise to make Taiwanese law compliant — will provide rights campaigners with a foothold for their demands.
But where labor law is concerned, the government has shown no indication that it will press for substantive changes.
Friday’s amendment to the labor disputes law may make it easier for unions to vote on declaring a strike, but it bars workers from using strikes to pressure employers over “rights items,” including the terms of their contracts. The change facilitates the strike process while simultaneously offering exploitative companies new weapons against their employees.
At the same time, the Cabinet’s proposed amendment to the union law is a paradox worthy of George Orwell. The proposal purports to give way to demands that teachers be allowed to form unions, but contains a surreal proviso preventing colleagues at the same school from doing so.
These developments are reminiscent of the backhanded “concessions” offered in the Cabinet’s proposed amendment to the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法). Given this, the goal of strengthening practical human rights legislation may be as unrealistic now as it was under the DPP.
Like the proposed assembly law amendment, which has stalled in the legislature for weeks because of its contentiousness, rights groups are concerned that the revamped labor dispute law in fact constrains basic rights while professing to do the opposite.
The legislature and Cabinet fail to recognize that the demands of rights groups concerning the assembly law and union laws are crucial for deepening Taiwan’s democratic freedoms. After Friday’s washout revision, it seems rights advocates are in for a long fight.
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
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
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
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