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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then