[Marxism] China Drafts Law to Boost Unions and End Labor Abuse (NYT)

[Walter Lippmann <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This new New York Times article on Chinese labor law reform fits in with
the discussion here on these matters, so I'm reposting that NYT article
below the following comments in discussions with Marvin Gandall and
Rod Holt. They are all part of the same discussion, of course, though the
NYT article does bring additional facts to bear on the situation.

The government of China is led today by the Chinese Communist Party, or
CPC. By law, there is only one political party in China today, the CPC. So
to say, as I did, that the proposal to encourage more Chinese workers in
foreign enterprises to join unions was made by the Chinese Communists
was CORRECT. It was accurate. It was factually on the mark. It was true.

Are the Chinese Communists "real" Communists? What is meant by this
question? Back in the day, those of us who were in the Socialist Workers
Party of the United States often argued that groups such as the Spartacist
League weren't "really" Trotskyist. Of course, this was simply because the
SL didn't agree with what we in the Socialist Workers Party had to say on
a wide range of issues. We in the SWP tried to read the Spartacists out of
the Trotskyist movement because they didn't share our take, which we
considered to be the only genuine or "real" form of Trotskyism. 

When we argue that the Democrats and Republics in the United States are
in favor of one or another terrible thing, even though we know they aren't
either genuinely "Democratic", and though we know the GOP is working
hard (with the Democrats), to subvert the Republic, we don't expend any
effort to say they aren't "real" Democrats or Republicans, do we? What's
the point in arguing the Chinese Communists aren't "real" Communists?

This is another of those "faith-based" kinds of arguments which cannot go
anywhere and cannot be resolved because it's all very self-referential and
not based on anything in real life. My reference, re-stated below, meant to
be a bit ironic. Western capitalists these days don't usually encourage the
growth of unions anywhere, except as they did in Poland, or as they claim
they want to develope "indepenent" unions in places like Cuba, or also now
in China. 

Wal-Mart and other U.S. corporate businesses, which fight hard to prevent 
the unionization here in the heartland of capitalist freedom, have found that
they're making so much money in China, that they simply write off whatever
small increase in costs which results from the unionization of their employees
in China as nothing but the cost of doing business. 

Here in the United States of America, where capitalism is entrenched much
more deeply, in fact, where it is entrenched completely, the capitalists here
long ago stopped what modest encouragement Roosevelt and the New Deal
gave to trade unionism. That was the point I tried to suggest when I wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"More U.S. trade unionists should probably to to China and see it for 
themselves, too.
Wouldn't it be nice if the United States had a government which encouraged 
workers
to join trade unions? China's government is led by a bunch of COMMUNISTS...")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is essential to keep in mind that most of us living in the United States, in 
Canada,
in the UK, and in other so-called "advanced capitalist countries" live in a 
political and
cultural environment so thoroughly steeped in anti-Communism that it more or 
less
pervades everything. We've been told for going on a century how bad Communists
and Communism are that some of that inevitably seems to seep in and to rub off.

Anti-Communism is a virtually religious, faith-based practice to which the 
media and
most of the academic world is deeply committed. It's had its impact on the 
political
left to a degree as well. Most of the groups in the Trotskyist world, it seems 
to me,
have been affected by this environment to one extent or another. That's why most
Trotskyists are, and have long been, so hostile to the Cuban Revolution. I've 
tried
to track the views of the Trotskyists on Cuba so that the attentive student can 
see
for themselves and not have to take the word of someone such as myself who is
a former Trotskyist as to what the Trotskyists say about Cuba. Read that here:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/tacr.html 

If you study the literature of the various Trotskyist currents, and they all 
have one
or another special slant to justify their separate existences from one another, 
most
have one thing in common: fretting about the decision of the Cuban government to
accept foreign private capitalist investments on the island. While it is 
obvious to me
that the Chinese have gone much, much further than the Cubans have, there is no
difference in principle between the two. That is why, after all, the 
leaderships of the
two countries feel and practice such an active kinship with one another. 

If China's leaders were really as capitalistic as most Trotskyists argue that 
they are,
why would they, leading the most populous country on Earth, with the world's 
most
rapidly-increasing economic growth figures, see anything in common with a place
like Cuba, where private business is carefully monitored and has little 
influence on
national policy? There are many reasons, more than it's possible to take up in 
one
single discussion contribution. But it's widely pointed out that there's simply 
no
justification for Washington to refuse to allow the people of the United States 
and
the business community of the United States the right to travel and to do 
business
with Cuba since it does all of that with China and with Vietnam today.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
http://www.walterlippmann.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
====================================================

MARVIN GANDALL WROTE:
You may have misunderstood. I wasn't being critical of the unions being
forced on the multinationals - even the tame official ones. When class
struggles erupt, militant unions often emerge from or transform the existing
docile and dependent organizations, so having a union in place is better for
workers than not having one. If it makes Walmart's US workers and the
Chinese working class more conscious of the need for real unions, so much
the better.

I was commenting on your suggestion that the reforms were attributable to
the the regime's "Communist" political character.The party's residual
ideology and its trade union arm have provided a framework, but the moves
appear to have been mainly prompted by growing social unrest and the need
for more balanced economic development based on strong domestic demand. 
The same motives can cause capitalists to strengthen union rights in some
periods and then roll them back in others - when the system is stable and
so-called underconsumption isn't perceived as a problem affecting growth.

Otherwise, I thought the rest of your post was very good and I agreed with it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE NEW YORK TIMES
China Drafts Law to Boost Unions and End Labor Abuse
By DAVID BARBOZA
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13sweat.html
October 13, 2006

SHANGHAI, Oct. 12 -- China is planning to adopt a new law that seeks
to crack down on sweatshops and protect workers' rights by giving
labor unions real power for the first time since it introduced market
forces in the 1980's.

The move, which underscores the government's growing concern about
the widening income gap and threats of social unrest, is setting off
a battle with American and other foreign corporations that have
lobbied against it by hinting that they may build fewer factories
here.

The proposed rules are being considered after the Chinese Communist
Party endorsed a new doctrine that will put greater emphasis on
tackling the severe side effects of the country's remarkable growth.

Whether the foreign corporations will follow through on their
warnings is unclear because of the many advantages of being in China
-- even with restrictions and higher costs that may stem from the new
law. It could go into effect as early as next May.

It would apply to all companies in China, but its emphasis is on
foreign-owned companies and the suppliers to those companies.

The conflict with the foreign corporations is significant partly
because it comes at a time when labor, energy and land costs are
rising in this country, all indications that doing business in China
is likely to get much more expensive in the coming years.

But it is not clear how effectively such a new labor law would be
carried out through this vast land because local officials have
tended to ignore directives from the central government or seek ways
around them.

China's economy has become one of the most robust in the world since
the emphasis on free markets in the 80's encouraged millions of young
workers to labor for low wages at companies that made cheap exports.
As a result, foreign investment has poured into China.

Some of the world's big companies have expressed concern that the new
rules would revive some aspects of socialism and borrow too heavily
from labor laws in union-friendly countries like France and Germany.

The Chinese government proposal, for example, would make it more
difficult to lay off workers, a condition that some companies contend
would be so onerous that they might slow their investments in China.

"This is really two steps backward after three steps forward," said
Kenneth Tung, Asia-Pacific director of legal affairs at the Goodyear
Tire and Rubber Company in Hong Kong and a legal adviser to the
American Chamber of Commerce here.

The proposed law is being debated after Wal-Mart Stores, the world's
biggest retailer, was forced to accept unions in its Chinese outlets.

State-controlled unions here have not wielded much power in the past,
but after years of reports of worker abuse, the government seems
determined to give its union new powers to negotiate worker
contracts, safety protection and workplace ground rules.

Hoping to head off some of the rules, representatives of some
American companies are waging an intense lobbying campaign to
persuade the Chinese government to revise or abandon the proposed
law.

The skirmish has pitted the American Chamber of Commerce -- which
represents corporations including Dell, Ford, General Electric,
Microsoft and Nike -- against labor activists and the All-China
Federation of Trade Unions, the Communist Party's official union
organization.

The workers' advocates say that the proposed labor rules -- and more
important, enforcement powers -- are long overdue, and they accuse
the American businesses of favoring a system that has led to
widespread labor abuse.

On Friday, Global Labor Strategies, a group that supports labor
rights policies, is expected to release a report in New York and
Boston denouncing American corporations for opposing legislation that
would give Chinese workers stronger rights.

"You have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms," said
Tim Costello, an official of the group and a longtime labor union
advocate. "This flies in the face of the idea that globalization and
corporations will raise standards around the world."

China's Labor Ministry declined to comment Thursday, saying the law
is still in the drafting stages. Several American corporations also
declined to comment on the case, saying it was a delicate matter and
referring calls to the American Chamber of Commerce.

But Andreas Lauffs, a Hong Kong-based lawyer who runs the China
employment-law practice at the international law firm of Baker &
McKenzie, said some American companies considered the proposed rules
too costly and restrictive.

Mr. Lauffs said the new rules would give unions collective-bargaining
power and control over certain factory rules, and they would also
make it difficult to fire employees for poor performance.

"You could hire a sales manager, give him a quota and he doesn't sell
anything, and you couldn't get rid of him," Mr. Lauffs said. "It's
not easy to get rid of someone now, but under these rules it would be
impossible."

It is not clear what the final law will look like, and only an updated draft 
is expected soon. But specialists say the trend suggests that there may 
be new challenges ahead for foreign companies doing business in this 
country.

Under China's "iron rice bowl" system of the 1950's and 60's, all
workers were protected by the government or by state-owned 
companies, which often supplied housing and local health coverage.

But by the 1980's, when the old Maoist model had given way to
economic restructuring and the beginning of an emphasis on market
forces, China began eliminating many of those protections -- giving
rise to mass layoffs, unemployment, huge gaps in income and pervasive
labor abuse.

The worst off have been migrant workers, most of them exiles from the
poorest provinces who travel far from home to live in cramped company
dormitories while working long hours under poor conditions.

Migrant workers in virtually every city complain about abuses like
having their pay withheld or being forced to work without a contract.

"I don't know about the labor law," said Zhang Yin, an 18-year-old
migrant who washes dishes in Shanghai. "During the three months I've
been here, my boss has delayed the salary payment twice. I want to
quit."

Having grown increasingly concerned about the nation's widening
income gap and fearing social unrest, officials in Beijing now seem
determined to improve worker protection. In recent years, more and
more factory workers have gone to court or taken to the streets to
protest poor working conditions and overdue pay.

"The government is concerned because social turmoil can happen at any
moment," says Liu Cheng, a professor of law at Shanghai Normal
University and an adviser to the authorities on drafting the proposed
law. "The government stresses social stability, so it needs to solve
existing problems in the society."

In a surprisingly democratic move, China asked for public comment on
the draft law last spring and received more than 190,000 responses,
mostly from labor activists. The American Chamber of Commerce sent in
a lengthy response with objections to the proposals. The European
Chamber of Commerce also responded.

The law would impose heavy fines on companies that do not comply. And
the state-controlled union -- the only legal union in China -- would
gain greater power through new collective-bargaining rights or
pursuing worker grievances and establishing work rules. One provision
in the proposed law reads, "Labor unions or employee representatives
have the right, following bargaining conducted on an equal basis, to
execute with employers collective contracts on such matters as labor
compensation, working hours, rest, leave, work safety and hygiene,
insurance, benefits, etc."

If approved and strictly enforced, specialists say the new laws would
strikingly alter the country's vast labor market and significantly
push up the wages of everyday workers.

"If you really abide by the Chinese labor laws," said Anita Chan, an
expert on labor issues in this country and a visiting fellow at the
Australian National University, "migrant-worker wages would go up by
50 percent or more."

Until now, though, existing Chinese labor laws have gone largely
unenforced, which has further complicated the debate here. Opponents
of the proposed law argue that enforcing existing labor laws would be
enough to solve the country's nagging problems. Advocates respond
that adopting new laws would set the stage for stricter enforcement.

Even lawyers working for multinational corporations seem to agree
that there is an epidemic of cheating.

Mr. Liu, the Shanghai lawyer who advised the government on the draft
proposal, says many companies avoid existing laws by using employment
agencies to hire workers. He says the new law will do more to protect
workers from such abuse by holding companies accountable.

"The principle is not to raise the labor standard dramatically," he
said, "but to raise the cost of violating the law. The current labor
law is a paper tiger and is a disadvantage to those who obey it. 
If you don't obey the law, you won't be punished."
 



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism