Introduction
Arguments over the effectiveness and role of the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) are increasingly finding copy in the mainland media. The following is a translation of an angry commentary published in the online edition of the Peoples Daily, a mouthpiece of the Chinese government. The article was published after a case of indentured labour was reported in Shanghai.
Peoples Commentary: Where is the Trade Union?
Jian Da
The existence of modern-day "indentured labour" in a Japanese-owned factory in Shanghai has shocked many people and provided considerable food for thought. Yet in all the reports concerning this incident, the words trade union were not mentioned even once. This may simply be a careless omission or maybe there was there no trade union at the plant. Either way, the situation remains hard to fathom.
This was an enterprise in which many young and even child workers were labouring long into the night for ruthlessly exploitative wages. Their living conditions were intolerable, leaving them helpless, isolated and nowhere to turn. So why was the union silent? Logically speaking, there can only be two possible explanations: there was no union in the factory or it existed in name only.
According to Chinas laws, when a factory akin to the Japanese-owned enterprise in Shanghai is established, a trade union must be set up at the same time. Through hard work and by using the law as a weapon, a trade union can speak on behalf of labourers a socially weak group in society and conscientiously uphold the legal rights of workers. If there is no trade union, workers are left to fight alone against atrocious violations of their rights and winning a court case is reduced to a pipe dream. There are localities where international conventions and national laws and regulations are ignored and workers rights are sacrificed as the price of so-called economic benefits. In order to accommodate business entrepreneurs and managers, enterprises are left without trade unions for long periods of time, with serious consequences. Why didnt the union intervene in a case such as this, where a Japanese-owned factory seriously violated national law, employed child labour on a large scale and ruthlessly exploited its workers? If there was no union, why wasnt one set up? Is this a result of deliberate collusion by government departments or a dereliction of duty by departments responsible for inspection and supervision? Even without ascertaining all the factors involved, this type of case will more than likely reoccur if the law is not used to penalise [those involved].
The principal function of a trade union is to uphold the legal rights of workers. In the past, some people regarded trade unions as chiefly responsible for handing out cinema tickets, delivering charity services and organising competitions. In fact, this was a very one-sided view. As a bridge and link between working people and both the party and the government, the work of upholding workers legal rights is critical. In some places, especially among foreign-owned and private enterprises, the trade union exists in name only, which is worse than having no union at all. There are even enterprises where leading trade union positions are grasped by the bosss relatives or trusted friends. How can this type of trade union speak for workers? If there was a trade union in the Japanese factory in Shanghai, it was a union in name only and of absolutely no use.
The truth is that active trade unions do no just protect the legal rights of workers. They also uphold the basic interests of enterprises. Any intelligent company executive or leader will be unwilling to see his or her own employees living in miserable conditions that cause widespread discontent. Appalling incidents such as the case of the Japanese-owned factory in Shanghai are the result of foolish and unscrupulous bosses, unconcerned with their personal moral conduct.
(China: Peoples Daily Online 08/29/01)
----------------------------
Online: 2001-09-12