In Taiwan, major changes to labour laws have been passed in the Legislative Yuan and amendments to the Labor Standards Law are being discussed as well.

In Taiwan, major changes to labour laws have been passed in the Legislative Yuan and amendments to the Labor Standards Law are being discussed as well. The final effective date of the approved changes to the Labor Union Law, the Settlement of Labor Disputes Law, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement Act (the so-called ‘Three Labor Laws’) will be announced by the President, but is expected to be on 1 May 2011. 

The laws contain some progressive aspects in it yet also bear other new elements of control over union activity. The major amendments to the Three Labor Laws are: 

1. The law now will allow more types of labour unions and alliances and simplify the organizational processes of labour unions. (See Box on p. 7, ‘Union Categories Under the New Three Labor Laws) for main union types that will be allowed.) However, there is also a penalty for workers and unions if they resort to a strike while a conciliation or arbitration is still ongoing; and there are still a large number of industries in which the union can strike only if they first sign a ‘terms and conditions for the services needed’ with the employers (Article 54 of the Settlement of Labor Disputes Law). 

2. The law will bear stronger penalties against unfair labour practices by employers which hinder union organization and operation and against adverse treatment to the union cadres. Complaints of unfair labour practices are to be reviewed by a specially established Decision Commission for Unfair Labor Practices, which is to be composed of seven to fifteen commissioners with a term of two years, who are professionals familiar with labour laws and regulations and labour relations matters, and to be appointed by the Council on Labor Affairs (CLA, the labour administration at the national level).

3. Paid leave provisions for union officers will become more restrictive, limited to only enterprise unions; this means that union officers in the federations or industry unions won’t have the same protections and rights to have paid union leave. 

4. The government is authorized to replace the union officers if the union violates the law and does not correct it after the deadline given by the government to remedy the situation. Many unions and labour organizations strongly criticize this article as ‘the union martial law’ (Article 43, Labor Union Law).

5. The monthly membership dues requirement for unions is raised to at least 0.5% of the staff’s salary, which is much higher than many unions have implemented until now. Since no penalty has been given, it is doubtful how effective this will be. 

6. The negotiation for the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) will be mandatory. Neither the employer nor the union can reject the negotiation for a CBA without just reasons; violation of this would lead to penalties (Article 6 and 32, Collective Bargaining Agreement Act).

Meanwhile, CLA is proposing an amendment to the Labor Standards Law to deal with dispatch work. Labour groups strongly fear that it will have the effect of legitimizing and embedding the practices of dispatch hiring even more deeply. Until now, the legality of dispatching practices have not been clear, and companies have made wide use of the practice in recent years.

According to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, in May 2009 there were over 687,000 atypical employees (any workers not in regular full-time employment), including 517,000 temporary and dispatched workers. This represents 5% of the country’s workforce, and is a five-fold jump from 114,000 in 2006. 

The CLA proposed prohibiting agencies from signing short-term contracts with employees, a widespread practice among companies bidding for government-outsourced jobs. The amendment proposal includes capping the number of dispatched workers in one company at 3% of its total workforce, with the possibility of increasing the limit to 20% under certain conditions. The level of maximum is still a hot point of contention between the government and employers, and workers.

The amendment would also prohibit the hiring of dispatched workers in six major fields: health care, security, aviation, maritime transportation, public transportation and mining. However, different departments, from the central to the local governments and even CLA itself, have outsourced jobs to the dispatching agencies for years; actually the government is one of the biggest outsourcing employers. It is highly doubtful how well the new regulation will be enforced.

In a statement on 14 July, the nongovernmental Labor Rights Association demanded that dispatched labour be totally banned from the public sector, and a clause be included to end the dispatching system altogether within two years. 

While labour law changes are ongoing, the union members of the electronics company Young Fast Optoelectronics (YFO) have still been experiencing corporate impunity in violating workers’ rights. The company makes touch-panel screens, mainly for mobile phones. Due to various labour violations in the company, the workers had formed a union (YFOTU) in December 2009, but in March 2010, the company dismissed at least five union officers and 10 active union members.

Violations at the company included illegal union-busting dismissals on trumped-up premises; excessive overtime child labour (in the name of internships, which it also excessively uses); non-payment of overtime wages, and poor health and safety conditions.

Because of the strong protests by the union as well as solidarity organizations including trade unions, Serve the People Association, environmental organizations and student groups, the struggle of YFOTU got much media attention both locally and overseas.

Finally, the company reinstated only one worker; yet the company still has been pressuring that worker and another union officer to accept a lump-sum payment (nearly US$10,000) and leave the company. 

YFOTU and the solidarity labour groups could not completely succeed in stopping the company’s anti-labour practices, but did manage to restrict the company’s use of student interns. The CLA still has not enforced the law to freeze the company’s use of migrant labour – something which is in CLA’s power. On the other hand, due to the outstanding labour disputes and to protect the employees’ rights, the CLA did oppose Young Fast’s proposed capital investment in China, when the Investment Commission, which approves Taiwanese outward investments, consulted it on the matter.

The anti-union attitude of YFO and impunity with which the company uses intern and migrant labour is characteristic of electronics-producing factories in most of the countries of Asia; and the brands such as HTC have also characteristically denied responsibility for the production site working conditions. 

Another typical union-busting case in Taiwan in recent months was the mass dismissal in Japan Airlines (JAL), where 70 out of 140 local crew members were dismissed. Even though the government stated that the dismissal was illegal, JAL has never offered any compromise. Unions and federations support the JAL union while the dispute still continues. 

Sources: Lennon Wong, Young Fast Optoelectronics Trade Union; June Tsai, ‘Labor dispatch system a hidden worry for society’, Taiwan Today, 30 July 2010; Shelly Huang, ‘CLA opposes Young Fast’s China plan’, Taipei Times, 26 July 2010.