No legal recourse for poor Chinese workers

By MU CHUANHENG

January 31, 200

QINGDAO, China, Authorities have informed a group of 204 former employees of the Shixian Taibai Group in China's southwestern city of Chongqing that they will have to pay 350,000 yuan (US$48,500) for arbitration in a dispute over unpaid wages, the official Xinhua news agency reported last week.

This leaves the laborers with nowhere to turn; the price is unaffordable. This high price represents protection of labor rights with Chinese characteristics. Procedures for handling industrial disputes have been loudly criticized in society, described as "first, one mediation; second, one arbitration; third, two lawsuits."

The 204 workers were laid off after the Chongqing Light Textile Holding Company took over the Shixian Taibai Group in September last year. Those who were full-time employees were compensated 1,293 yuan (US$179) for each year they had worked for the company, while temporary, contract workers were simply dismissed.

This was not acceptable to the workers, however. The formal employees complained that they had had 7 percent of their salaries deducted each month, as a so-called "management fee," for more than 10 years, whereas the temporary workers had 4 yuan (US$0.60) deducted monthly for the same reason. Moreover, none had received promised overtime payments.

"The enterprises have completely ignored the laws and regulations all these years. As long as there is a need for production, the laborers have to work overtime unconditionally. And during the busy seasons, employees work from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. They are not allowed personal leave, have no days off and no overtime pay," stated the workers' representative. Thus, the 204 workers could not accept their termination and decided to seek legal redress.

Nevertheless, all industrial disputes must go through "arbitration" before a lawsuit will be accepted in court. This regulation lays out a single, compulsory path in labor disputes; it effectively digs a systematic trap for Chinese workers who seek to protect their rights.

The workers had no choice but to request arbitration from the local authority, the Industrial Dispute Committee. So they filed a claim against the company for unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions from their salaries, housing allowances and unemployment insurance benefits, totaling more than 30 million yuan (US$416,000).

The committee responded by issuing a fee note to the workers, charging 350,000 yuan (US$ 48,500) for accepting and working on this case.

The actual payment the laborers had been receiving was merely 500 to 600 yuan (US$70 to $84) per month. Now that they had lost their jobs, how could they possibly afford such an expensive fee? Chinese workers are no longer willing to simply accept their fate as a disadvantaged minority. They are increasingly taking action to defend their legal rights.

In this case, the 204 workers tried to apply to have the fee exempted, reduced or delayed, based on certain regulations; the Industrial Dispute Committee flatly refused. The head of the City Labor Bureau excused this by saying that the workers had failed to submit required documents issued by the local labor union in order to have the fee exempted, reduced or postponed. He said the fee would be refunded if it turned out it was in excess of what was required for the case.

"We did go to the labor union to request the required document, but the labor union turned us down since we could not submit proof of low insurance payments. How could we get such proof after losing our jobs?" the workers asked angrily.

In fact, if the labor union wished to act on behalf of the workers, it would have been easy to clarify the situation and issue the document based on the reality. However, the labor union pitilessly stood by with folded arms in front of the powerless workers.

This is to say that official labor unions only recognize official documents, rather than genuinely concerning themselves with workers' rights. This is an indirect way of allowing capitalists to illegally deprive workers of their rights. Further, it fully demonstrates that China's labor unions are bureaucratic organizations that cannot protect workers.

There have been growing numbers of industrial disputes since 1987, when China resumed its practice of arbitration. According to statistics from the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, cases increase by 27.3 percent each year. The number of such disputes in 2006 was 447,000. If cases that were rejected by the system are included, the actual number could be much higher.

One study showed that a Chinese worker from the countryside, seeking less than 1,000 yuan (US$139) in unpaid wages, will need to spend at least 920 yuan (US$128) to complete all the required procedures, which will take 11 to 21 days, a delay that costs the worker 550 to 1,050 yuan (US$77 to 146) in lost pay.

Many workers in China who face unpaid wages and unfair lay-offs are unable to afford the high costs of the legal system, and have no choice but to try the endless "letters and visits" system of appealing to higher authorities for help. Originally, the law is supposed to serve as the strongest safeguard of fairness and justice; under the social system with Chinese characteristics, however, the "letters and visits" system has becomes the usual practice.

Under an effective system, workers would organize their own labor unions, and could sit down at the table to negotiate with capitalists to resolve industrial disputes. But since labor unions in China do not fight for workers' rights, to whom can workers turn for help when their rights are violated?

--

(Mu Chuanheng is a freelance writer and former lawyer. He has published a number of books on trade negotiations and democratic politics. He is included in the book "World Celebrities [China Vol. 2], published in Hong Kong, for his new theory of culture. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Mu Chuanheng.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Society_Culture/2008/01/31/no_legal_recourse_for_poor_chinese_workers/3942/

Resenting the rich

WU GAOXING

LINHAI, Sep. 10

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/09/10/commentary_resenting_the_rich/

Chinese writers are engaged in a battle of the pens over the issue of widespread resentment toward China's newly rich. Mao Yushi, a well-known scholar and economist who is considered a man of conscience, sparked this debate with a widely read article titled, "Speak for the Rich and Do for the Poor."

Mao has earned high regard for his acts of political courage -- signing an appeal for the Tiananmen Mothers group, speaking out on behalf of a jailed writer and critic, and siding with a private entrepreneur who was being framed. He is also credited with providing financial support to prisoners of conscience. For awhile he was on a government black list banning his name and comments from the media.

But his recent comments are untimely and out of synch with the social reality.

Mao seeks to defend the wealthy from the people's resentment, but in present-day China there is no need to indiscriminately do so. The rich in China are privileged, the poor are underprivileged. Most social resources, as well as the power to legislate and even the right to speak out, are in the hands of the rich and powerful. The legislative bodies let wealthy special interest groups dictate their laws and policies. It is the poor who suffer from unjust treatment.

Scholar Mao has pointed out that under the current system, the benefits enjoyed by the rich are not guaranteed. He argues that their benefits should be protected, saying that only if property is protected can the poor become rich. Based on these comments, we do not wrong Mao if we view him as a spokesperson for the special interest groups. Whatever his original intention, he has drawn a great deal of criticism for his position on this issue.

Certainly there are cases where the rich are bullied by the powerful, but they are rare. It is important to stand up for a rich person who faces injustice, but this does not mean we should speak up for all the rich. If a corrupt official is treated unjustly we should speak up for this official. But if someone advocates standing up for all corrupt officials, it will definitely arouse antipathy from the people. Whether rich or poor, we should speak up for people whose human rights are violated or whose legitimate property rights are denied.

At present there is a serious gap between rich and poor in China. The reality is that most wealth comes from power and most poverty results from a lack of power.

U.S.-based Chinese scholar Xue Yong commented wisely when he said the Chinese people do not resent wealth gained through legitimate means; what they resent is wealth gained through unscrupulous means. For example, Yao Ming, the famous Chinese basketball player in the United States, is extremely rich, but the Chinese people do not resent him.

By contrast, many officials have become wealthy through the abuse of power -- as have the businessmen and others who ally with them. We must therefore consider the causes of polarization between the rich and the poor, rather than criticizing those who resent the current situation.

Apologists for Chinese entrepreneurs, including Mao, emphasize their contributions to China's economy and society as well as the difficulties they face. However, these comments are untimely and inaccurate.

Managers of enterprises are not all entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are those who discover new products, create new technologies, open new markets, discover new resources and establish new economic organizations. They do innovative work and they take risks. In democratic countries with equal opportunity, entrepreneurs can become heads of companies by establishing a business, bearing risks and becoming rich through their own efforts.

But the situation in China is rather complicated. Many "entrepreneurs" are the heads of state-owned enterprises, assigned because of their official standing and administrative rank; or managers in state-owned monopolies such as the electricity and water industries; or children of important leaders whose status gives them free reign in the business sector; or government officials who start their own businesses.

In the 1980s there was a saying, "no work, no wealth." Now it has become "no power, no wealth". Under this circumstance, those who work are not comfortable with Mao's assertion that "entrepreneurs" are the main producers of wealth.

Mao has indicated that the wealthy deserve sympathy because they have to pay various taxes and deal with arbitrary government officials -- flattering them, giving them valuable gifts, treating them to meals and providing them entertainment. However, business people are clever; they would not do any of these things at a loss to themselves.

Without such contacts with government officials, how could real estate developers get land? Without back-up from political figures, how could tycoons get billions in bank loans? Without giving presents to the officials in the tax office, how could entrepreneurs avoid paying taxes?

The rich are not bullied by the government. That was once the case, but it is long past. Ever since General Secretary Jiang Zemin introduced his theory of "three represents," money and power have been joined together. The company heads have all joined the Communist Party and become the "new social class" that supports one-party dictatorship.

It seems that Mao, a man of conscience, originally intended to deflect people's resentment away from the wealthy class, but has ended up defending a system that polarizes rich and poor. This is really unexpected from a scholar of his standing.

--

(Wu Gaoxing is a freelance writer on Chinese economics and politics in Linhai, Zhejiang province. He is a former middle school teacher, lecturer and director of the Political Research Department at Taizhou's Supply and Sale School. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at http://www.chinaweekly.com. ©Copyright Wu Gaoxing.)