It is encouraging that the legislature preliminarily passed a bill on Monday stipulating that listed firms should share their profits with employees and raise wages, clearing the way for the final passage early next month.
Making profit-sharing compulsory might not be the perfect way to boost salaries, but it is the government’s very first — albeit tiny — step toward tackling the burning issue of wage stagnation by using the law, rather than just moral suasion.
On Monday, legislators gave preliminary approval to a revision of the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) that would force companies to share profits and to work with their employees each year to produce a profit-sharing plan. Violators would be fined from NT$500,000 to NT$5 million (US$15,930 to US$159,300) based on another revision, which also passed a preliminary review.
However, legislators backed away from a proposal that set a specific figure for corporate profit-sharing, saying there is no one-size-fits-all model.
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Lin Shu-fen (林淑芬) proposed that firms allocate at least 20 percent of their annual profit to profit-sharing.
In addition, legislators proposed revising the Company Act (公司法), Factory Act (工廠法) and the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (中小企業發展條例) to boost salaries by legally imposing profit-sharing on the nation’s listed firms.
Companies that allocate a certain amount of their profit to pay increases could receive a reduction in business tax, legislators proposed.
In the 14 years prior to last year, real wages fell by 0.1 percent, while in South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, they increased by 2 percent, 1.3 percent and 1.3 percent respectively, according to statistics released yesterday by the National Development Council.
The so-called “pay raise” amendments are considered the government’s first practical steps toward ending long-term wage stagnation.
The stimulus measures are seen by some economists and central bank Governor Perng Fai-nan (彭淮南) as tools to spur private consumption and revitalize the economy after tax cuts for corporations failed to result in more business activity.
Some doubt how big the effect of the “pay raise” amendments will be, since only listed firms would be obliged to conform to the new rules. About 3 million employees, or one-third of the nation’s 10 million salaried workers, would be subject to the extra benefits.
These rules may not have an extensive impact on the job market, but they should create an environment in which local employers start thinking about the feasibility of sharing more profits with employees, beyond meager — or nonexistent — annual pay raises and year-end bonuses.
A survey by local job agency 1111 Job Bank found that nearly 30 percent of local employers support the “pay raise” amendments, higher than the disapproval rate of 18 percent.
Half of 815 firms listed on the stock market plan to increase employees’ salaries this year, with pay raises likely to average 3.5 percent, according to Financial Supervisory Commission statistics.
It is undeniable that there are a number of miserly bosses who are reluctant to assign a portion of their profits to their employees, while no one is arguing that shareholders receive more profit when companies earn more.
The four “pay raise” amendments are certainly not a cure-all, just the beginning of efforts to raise wages.
The government must implement more measures to magnify the effect, while local enterprises more carefully calculate whether paying higher wages to maintain a well-trained and skillful workforce is a cost-effective way of remaining competitive.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS