Dan Harris the blogger does praise one union blogger saying;
"I did come across a single blog post, however, that actually engaged in some thought and analysis on these issues. In a post, entitled, "Unions in China," on the decidedly pro-union Peter Levine blog, Mr. Levine actually seeks to discern what is going on with China's labor laws and with the American Chamber's (AmCham) opposition to them.
Levine then goes on to say in an addendum that he is "beginning to think" that the New York Times article was misleading because the proposed law would not in "any way increase the independence of unions in the PRC. It would impose some new labor laws, but they might not be enforced fairly. Workers would have no voice in their enforcement. There would be no increase of pluralism or democracy."
Bravo, Mr. Levine for starting an important discussion that just about everyone else in the blogosphere seems to want to avoid.
Well gee Dan, I said that too. "The restructuring of China from a State Captitalist economy to a mixed economy forces it to liberalize its labour laws. This does not yet mean that there will be independent worker controled unions, but it is a step forward.What China needs, is a new workers movement and free unions not State unions."
Dan's concern and that of the American Chamber of Commerce is that China labour laws will not allow employers to fire shiftless, lazy workers. This is a surprising admission from a lawyer who should know better. The fact is that union grievance procedures also mean that employers cannot just fire workers without 'just cause". It's the trade off for management rights in a contract. And it is to the benefit of employers, because otherwise they would be sued under common law. Which is far more costly.
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
China, unions, labour, WalMart, Nike, corporations, labour-law, labor, labor=laws, unions, workers, worker-rights,