Politicizing the Worker

James Rose

What is a labor union? Most of us think we could answer that pretty easily, but the reality presents a more complex landscape than we may like to admit.

As China's government raises the union flag to foreign investors, the debate is not just over whether new unionism in China is a good thing, but over exactly what the Communist Party is actually trying to do.

According to the state media, some 60 percent of the 150,000 or so foreign- invested firms in China are expected to have trade unions in their workforces by the end of the year, under new regulations being mooted in Beijing.

The successful campaign undertaken by the state union body, the All China Federation of Trade Unions, to oblige staunchly anti-union Wal-Mart to unionize its mainland sites is seen as something of an inspiration for a government seeking to put flesh on its "harmonious society" ideal and to salve growing social unrest across the country.

But what is the real story?

Let's take an historical moment. In Europe, industrialism tended to alter the relationships between economic actors to the extent that the pre-industrial artisan and craft guilds became weakened and eventually lost their authority. For a time industrial employees had little or no capacity to gather, discuss and see their interests formally given consideration by those who employed them.

And so, groups like the Corresponding Societies were born. These bodies sought to represent rights of the increasingly mobilized industrial under- classes, such as workers, in political spheres and became the precursors of the modern trade union.

As such, the union movement in the advanced industrial states in Europe tended to emerge somewhat spontaneously, against a backdrop of specific circumstances. The union movement was born of necessity and, as the historian EPThompson concluded in his watershed study on English industrial-era social movements, the British working class made itself.

And the trade union was its muscle.

The industrial and post-industrial trade union was never meant to be anything but an independent body going toe to toe with the political and economic powers of the day.

China's trade unions have clearly had a different upbringing. Since its establishment during Mao Zedong's ascendancy in the 1940s, the ACFTU has been nothing less than a faithful and willing lackey for the party leadership. Indeed, the union's own mission has been to merge managerial and political policies, in the interests not of the workers per se, but of China itself, or, more correctly, the party.

In 2001, that agenda was amended slightly to oblige the union to represent workers' interests, but it is unclear what that means exactly, especially if you take the not uncommon view in Beijing that what's good for the party is good for the population. So, if Beijing is really serious about pushing foreign companies, and eventually, presumably, local companies, to allow for proper freedom of association, organizational independence and real bargaining strength for China's millions of workers, then the ACFTU cannot be its banner holder. A union needs to be a legitimate, stand-alone political force, or it is nothing.

Let's take a closer look at what is really happening here. First, Beijing has taken the rare step of airing its intentions well in advance. Some 190,000 responses were received on the government's invitation to comment on the draft legislation on union reform earlier this year. Second, China already has some of the strictest labor laws in Asia, and, perhaps, the world.

China is clearly trying to let the world and the locals know that the party is serious about labor reform and is addressing one of the possible foundations of the growing social unrest. It is also keen to divert attention from the fact that it cannot monitor its own labor laws, by bringing in yet more. New laws always raise dust, and blur the vision.

And, don't forget what easy targets foreign corporations are, and how vulnerable most are as many have over- exposed themselves in the China feeding frenzy. Most need the party more than it needs them.

But the corporations are playing the game too. Groups like the American Chamber of Commerce will bleat and gnash their teeth. But that is just to give the appearance these new laws actually mean anything. The big players will acquiesce just as Wal-Mart did, but nothing much will change.

There may be those in Beijing who are clearly concerned about the direction China's capitalist experiment is going. But the push to unionize foreign workplaces in China should be seen for what it is: a political charade.

New laws or not, the sad reality is that China's more marginal workers will likely continue to be the political pawns of the party and economic fodder for foreign multinationals.

James Rose is editor of www.corporategovernance-asia.com

Monday, October 23, 2006.

Link