Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 78 Editor's Choice: 28
-
I think you are mixing apples and oranges
[Read the article: The Chinese sweatshop paradox]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look at it from the point of view of Chinese trade negotiators. … for China to agree to demands … in the context of a trade deal, would undoubtedly be seen as a concession that would have to be matched by an equal concession from the United States.
You are so right about this… but I think you …or your sources anyway, are wrong about this:
…The law is a carefully constructed attempt to redress the accelerating inequities caused by China opening up its labor force for the world's exploitation. …has come under sustained, vociferous criticism from U.S. employers operating in China who declare that it will raise their costs of doing business …
Granted, I did not read the article by Mr. Brown yet. Nevertheless, the first problem is that you are now putting two very separate issues together: compliance in outsourcing (the Newsweek article) , to compliance of multinational companies’ Chinese operations to Chinese labor laws. The first issue is really about how Chinese companies get around the law and fool foreign auditors. The second issue is about how the new regulations will affect MNCs’ own manufacturing and sales operations in China. The above quote is about this second issue.
Most WESTERN multinationals in China have excellent wage levels, working conditions, and environmental protection procedures. They have to because of two reasons: they come under much more scrutiny from Chinese regulatory agencies; and they need to try to instil their own corporate values into the Chinese management class in order to maintain international levels of productivity.
The laws now are unfair in there implementation…this therefore allows corruption and exploitation in Chinese companies. It’s a lot easier to audit a US-based company which employs 500 people in a highly-automated, lean factory, than say, a private Chinese company which employs 10000 people, and who’s GM is definitely connected into the local Party power structure (they are always connected because that is the only way they can get capital from the state-controlled banks)
I asked many expat business leaders, including the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing (Amcham), about the new proposed laws. They are against the proposed laws, but not because they want to continue to “exploit” workers. And they think that, generally, they think that Amcham and US businesses are getting a very bad rap in the press for their stance on this issue. They are against these proposed laws because:
- The laws strengthen the power of Chinese labour representatives…in other words, strengthen the power of the old CCP cadre who are assigned to larger factories by the CCP.
- The laws would give worker committees (lead by CCP labour representatives) the authority to edit and approve the employee handbook.
- The laws would make it much more difficult to fire people and stipulate much higher costs for severance packages. Note here that China job-security environment is not like the US. Companies today cannot easily fire or layoff people. Additionally, corruption is rampant in most companies here – foreign, state-owned, and private. And management quality is at a much lower level than in the West. So, with the introduction of the new laws, company managers fear they will lose the ability the change their managers. And if they do not have the ability to fire people for bad performance, they lose the ability to enforce quality standards.
- Lastly, everyone knows that the new laws will only be applied to foreign-owned companies.
-
Wow. Thanks.
[Read the article: The Chinese sweatshop paradox]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess I'm going to have to actually read professional periodicals and other blogs instead of just reporting what I hear :-o
About the problem you just mentioned...that happens to foreigners working in China too. Newly arrived-to-China English teachers are often cheated out of their wages by their “cram schools” employers. This happened to several friends of mine. They don't check...they assume there is a contract in place, and they get burned. Actually, many white-collar workers here are tricked in this way, as well as factory operators. There was an article in the Shanghai Daily several months ago about a Shanghai court that ordered an employer to pay back-wages to workers whom supposedly did not have an official contract. Of course, courts decisions in Shanghai have little practical affect on law-enforcement in other parts of the country.
-
Memories of what?
[Read the article: Barbarians in Beijing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“The memories of Chinese humiliation at the hands of the West are still very much alive, and anyone who wishes to twist the Middle Kingdom's arms should bear that in mind.”
5000 years of Chinese history, opium trade, foreigners bullying China yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah.
This is an old, tired cliché that is unfortunately still in use. A cliché used to gain cover for potentially un-popular policy changes. Only in this case, said changes will benefit Chinese upper-class people (ie. professional class, and political elites) who want to buy foreign status-goods, and hurt US consumers by making all imports more expensive.
Who is Wu Yi really addressing here? This BS is what the Chinese government puts out to rally Chinese people around “victim-hood” and I'm sick of it. The purpose is to get Chinese people to think of the many bad things evil foreigners did to them in the past, and by the way, lets overlook the harm we did to ourselves during The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution…”We are victims of foreign aggression and you are trying to victimize us again!”
These “memories” are alive because keeping them alive might keep some people from turning a critical eye toward the present situation.