Council of Labour Affairs wants direct control of unions - is this democratic?

Normally, I'm a big fan of unions in principle whilst keeping enough flexibility to recognise that an institution with such resources is often quite vulnerable to corruption or power hoarding by union representatives and officials.  This said, the general purpose of a union is to ensure that workers rights are respected and protected and to ensure that workers and management come to negotiations on a more equal footing.  In an ideal world, if management did not treat workers in such a dispensable and disrespectful manner then there might not be a need for unions altogether.  That's the theory.

In Taiwan, the practice is that unions are not exactly politically impartial nor solely focused on protecting workers rights.  An example here is how the Chinese Post Union protested against the name change of the Post Office in 2007.  That protest appeared contrived by a politicised union leadership probably with the agreement of much of the management, much in contrast to public opinion about the change (mostly neutral or indifferent).  The ROC loyal post office worker's union protested not because worker's rights were affected by the name change but rarher because they were, I suspect, ordered to.

Now let's cut to a recent development in union practice and law that in principle threatens the political 'independence' of all unions in Taiwan.  According to reports in the Taipei Times, the Council of Labour Affairs has been trying to push through "amendments to the Labor Union Act (工會法) that were scheduled for legislative review yesterday despite lawmakers’ promises last week to hold public hearings first."

What are the problems with the proposed revisions? 

Unions are opposed to the revision because it would grant the Council of Labor Affairs the power to suspend union activities and even fire union officials over union activities the council considered illegal. The amendment also proposes removing a clause in the Labor Union Act that makes union membership mandatory for industries and firms with unions.

Activists believe that removal of the mandatory membership clause would lead to destruction of unions and labor rights movements.

In other words, the Government is seeking the power to intervene in union affairs and is acting to undermine the bargaining power of unions by allowing for non-affiliated workers in the same work place.  I remember this trick from the days of Thatcher in mid-80's UK.  The result is likely to be that management will use non-affiliated workers as leverage against the collective representative power of unions.  Once the number of unaffiliated workers reaches a critical level, the ability of the union to resist harmful or illegal management policies will be severely undermined.   

One has to wonder why tinker with the unions now?  Is it because there is a recognition that a strict restructuring of the economy is required for Taiwan to adjust to new economic conditions as a post-ECFA satellite provincial economy of the PRC following the financial crisis.  It is likely that older larger state run, or majority owned, enterprises will have to be downsized or replaced leading to significant layoffs.  Perhaps then the amendments to the law are designed to give the Government a legal basis for ensuring that no elements can delay or prevent this restructuring.    The argument is something like as follows:

1) The need for restructuring is paramount and the process inevitable.

2) If normal democratic procedures are followed the restructuring may be incomplete.

3) The Government does not wish to negotiate with unions, who it thinks will not understand the sacrifices that need to be made and will obstruct the process, impacting the efficacy of the Government's policies and adversely affecting public support for the policy.

4) The process of handling the unions will be greatly facilitated if the Government is legally allowed to intervene and if union power is undermined.

5) The revisions to the Law should be carried out as quickly as possible so that significant opposition is not given the time to form and become effective:

[Union leaders] were upset not only because of the proposed amendments to the law, but also because they felt legislators had tricked them.

“When we came here last Friday to protest the Cabinet’s proposed amendments to the Labor Union Act, both the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] and Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] caucuses promised they would hold public hearings to listen to what we have to say,” National Federation of Independent Trade Unions official Liu Yung (劉庸) told the demonstrators.

“Despite their promises, the legislature again scheduled a review of the amendments without having held a single public hearing,” he said.

Liu said the unions were especially upset because they had only learned about yesterday’s scheduled review from KMT Legislator Ho Tsai-feng (侯彩鳳) during a private meeting a few days ago.

“If we hadn’t met with Ho, we probably wouldn’t have known until the revision was passed,” he said.

Confederation of Taipei Trade Unions (CTTU) chief executive director Chou Chia-chun (周佳君) agreed.

“We would have been on our way to Tainan right now to attend a public hearing organized by [DPP] Legislator William Lai [賴清德] if we hadn’t found out about today’s legislative agenda,” she said. “I think the public hearing was just a way to get us away from Taipei so we wouldn’t be able to protest while they pass the revision.”

Here we see a use of the promise of 'public hearings' to satisfy the public's wish to be consulted without the government ever having to genuinely seek the inclusion of potentially oppositional elements in the hearing process.  The rationale seems to be that you don't ask those bodies and individuals who are activists to a hearing since their definitive stance means that their position will be obvious, and they will therefore only get in the way of the government achieving its pre-determined outcome.  The 'public hearings' are not supposed to have uncertain results but rather give the sheen of democracy to what is in effect a barely democratic process. 

A clear example of this was the decision to rename Taiwan Democracry Memorial Hall which was supposed to preceded by three public hearings - hearings that were in fact closed door discussions by select academics.  Not exactly 'public' hearings then. The result? Oh, yes.  They agreed with the Government to change the name of the hall back to venerating a dictator, in the complete absence of any public desire to do so.  Some things are just too important to be left for the public to decide.  If you were to believe the Government ir most newspapers, the only 'real' public opinion is that which is indifferent, centrist, 'pragmatic' and inherently conservative.  Any other opinion is categorised as 'controversial' or 'extreme' or 'contrived', especially if it is delivered with passion and conviction.  Does the culture of harmony aid those Governments who do not seek to rule democratically but rule a notional democracy?