Wed, Mar 28, 2001 page8

• Fair strikes are a worker's right

  • By Huang Jui-ming 黃瑞明
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The right to strike is a basic human right and serves as a critical indicator of democratic development. Totalitarian rulers do not adhere to such concepts. They regard strikes as rebellions to be suppressed. Taiwan's former regime was no exception. Although those in power roared out the ideological slogan of "labor-capital harmony" (勞資和諧) for nearly half a century, they in fact ruthlessly suppressed any labor movement -- especially strikes -- capable of pricking this myth.

  The Labor Union Law (工會法) only allows workers to organize industrial labor unions within individual factories. Most of these unions have only a few hundred members and are controlled by the employers. Naturally they cannot become mechanisms for safeguarding labor rights and interests.

  Many employers, however, including some well-known corporations, cannot even tolerate the existence of these "capon labor unions" (閹雞工會), that is, unions with very limited functions. Since only a minority of workers join the unions, it is difficult for effective collective force to arise in them.

  The Labor Union Law not only restricts the organization of labor unions, but, in Article 26, sets a very high threshold for a legal strike, making one almost impossible. As a matter of fact, strikes were criminal acts in the martial law era, under the "National Mobilization Law" (國家總動員法) and the "Regulations for the Management of Agriculture, Mining, Industry and Trade in Extraordinary Periods" (非常時期農礦工商管理條例).

  Although it has been more than 10 years since martial law was lifted, the Labor Union Law, remains in effect. Ironically, although politics in Taiwan have taken the democratic path, labor rights are still suppressed. Recently, the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA, 勞委會) came up with the long-awaited and much-anticipated draft amendment to the Labor Union Law, but the draft is seriously flawed. Among its many problems, the most egregious is an obligation to give notice of a strike. In addition to carrying out a vast number of legally required procedures, labor unions also have to inform employers of the purpose of their strike, the identity of the organizers and the time, scope and form of the strike. They must also report these details to the government authorities.

  Strikes are invariably damaging to employers, as workers seek to pressure their employers into making concessions through collective bargaining. The more unexpected a strike is, the more damage and pressure the employers suffer, improving the workers' chances of success. If the draft revision becomes law, employers will be able to learn workers' strategies and thereby not only minimize the damage from strikes, but also destroy the hard-won solidarity of the workers before a strike even begins. It is not hard to foretell what degree of success a strike could possibly have under such circumstances.

  It was precisely because of the disadvantages to workers caused by notice obligations that Germany did not impose such an obligation. It is important to point out that labor movements are very active in Germany, where unions usually have millions of members, and strikes often cause tremendous damage to employ-ers, the economy and the people's livelihood.

  What is the CLA's purpose in making the legal requirements for strikes even more stringent than those in the martial law period?

  Since martial law was lifted in July 1987, legal strikes have been few and far between. One exceptions was the strike by the employees of the Keelung Bus Co (基隆客運). By the end of 1999, there had been more than 30,000 labor-capital disputes. Only 36 of them, however, resulted in strikes. In other words, only one in 1,000 disputes involved strikes. Only 11 of the 36 strikes were legal.

  There were fewer than 10 legal and illegal strikes combined each year, except for the peak period of 1988. There were, in fact, no strikes at all in 1993, 1994, 1996 and 1999. In 1999 the number of strikes was zero, even though labor-capital disputes surged by 41 percent in comparison with the previous year!

  Strikes have been rare because of the harshness of Article 26 of the Labor Union Law. Workers are also afraid that employers may settle the score with them later. Even when strikes are lawful, employers may retaliate afterwards by finding pretexts to fire those who took part in it. Workers know only too well that strikes will do them no good. When a minority of workers still decides to strike, it is usually because they have no other choice. This being so, why does the CLA have to make life difficult for these workers by raising the threshold for lawful strikes?

  During the KMT's rule, DPP members criticized the CLA for being a "Council of Employers' Affairs." Now the situation has changed. Last October labor activists, to protest the government's position on the workweek issue, hung a banner reading "Labor Management Bureau, Council for Economic Planning and Development, Executive Yuan" (行政院經建會勞工管理局) [implying the CLA was under the CEPD's thumb, when in fact they are both Cabinet-level institutions] outside the CLA building. Judging by the current situation, however, their action was not groundless.

  Huang Jui-ming is an assistant professor of labor relations at National Chung Cheng University.

  Translated by Jackie Lin and Francis Huang
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Airlines prohibit earbuds, chargers

  • 2

    Coast guard launches two patrol vessels

  • 3

    Foreigners on a layover to get NT$600 vouchers

  • 4

    China ignores new airport safety concerns, CAA says

  • 5

    Liverpool take win; Mbappe struggles