The government on Thursday announced a draft amendment to the Labor Standards Act (勞動基準法) aimed at addressing criticism of the “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” rule.
The policy has been criticized since its introduction in January, mostly due to complaints from businesses about the difficulty of implementing it, as well as complaints from labor unions that salaries have been affected.
Premier William Lai (賴清德) said the draft would be submitted after a question-and-answer session next week to get feedback from various groups, while a proposal from Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators suggests that one aim of the amendment is to make overtime scheduling more flexible.
However, resistance from employers and the workers are the main obstacles in the path of the “one fixed day off and one flexible rest day” rule, resistance that will not be resolved through legislative changes. Employers are reticent to pay overtime, and employees are reluctant to pursue the wages they are due for fear of being reprimanded.
This workweek policy is not a radical idea — in March 2003, a cap on overtime hours was legislated through Article 32, Paragraph 2 of the act, as well as a flexible work-hours regime through Article 30, Paragraphs 1 to 3 — and these laws have been violated by employers and the workforce alike.
Therefore, the new policy has only renewed criticism of government policy — particularly by opposition party members.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Nantou County Commissioner Lin Ming-chen (林明溱) in April criticized the policy and instructed county officials to look into the possibility of not enforcing it.
The DPP will only worsen the situation if it continually revises the policy and allows exceptions.
Calls for such exceptions drew criticism in July from National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of National Development professor Hsin Ping-lung (辛炳隆), who said that leaving too much open to negotiation could disadvantage workers, given the nation’s low unionization rate.
“The Labor Standards Act protects workers’ rights to a certain degree, but the portion governing work time is difficult to apply universally” because of different industry needs, he said.
The only way to ensure workers’ rights is to be vigilant in enforcing regulations and to resist calls from employers for exceptions.
That does not mean that no flexibility should be allowed, as calculating wages for companies with large numbers of employees could be daunting. Overtime pay on rest days should be 1.33 times the hourly wage for the first two hours of work and 1.67 times from the third to eighth hours, an average of 1.57 times the daily wage, and if employers want to trade overtime for compensatory leave, they should grant workers 1.57 days — but this can be addressed through software solutions or training assistance for HR departments. Under no circumstances should difficulty or cost of implementation be an acceptable excuse for a company to violate labor laws.
The Ministry of Labor should conduct random investigations and audits. Workers should be well-informed of their rights and should feel safe in exercising them, including having the option of anonymously reporting violations. Companies found violating labor laws must be held accountable.
In January, Taoyuan Confederation of Trade Unions chairman Chuang Fu-kai (莊福凱) found that one Taoyuan-based cellphone manufacturer forced its employees to sign a letter of consent that allowed it to move their days off from the weekend to weekdays to make up for lost productivity.
“The company allegedly told its employees that if they refused to sign the letter, their right to work and benefits and their chances of getting a raise might be affected,” Chuang said.
Well-rested employees are proven to be more productive. While protecting workers’ incomes, the government must ensure proper enforcement of legislation that guarantees proper rest.
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