Note: This editorial expresses the opinions of the writer, not necessarily those of China Labor Watch as an organization.

----------

In a May 13 article that appears to be aimed at satisfying both the international workers' rights movement and foreign investors, the official English-language China Daily disputes the idea that the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is only “a charade” but emphasizes that the ACFTU is more cooperative and less “radical” than other countries' unions.

China Daily interviews a South Korean, Cho Jai-il, who manages the Beijing Hyundai Motor plant. Mr. Cho says that when he first arrived in China , he imagined that the ACFTU was “something equivalent to the workers' organization in his country.” Happily for him, the ACFTU turns out to be nothing of the sort.

Instead of the “strikes, conflict and irrationality” (irrationality!) that Mr. Cho once associated with unions from his experience in Korea, he discovers that the ACFTU, in the words of his factory's union chief, Li Zhili, promotes “common development.”

Chief Li further notes—unashamedly—that it was a “too-powerful union” in South Korea that drove Mr. Cho's company to China in the first place.

Lest trade union members in other countries become critical, the article hastens to point out that the Hyundai union sticks up for workers' rights in various ways. For example, under Mr. Li's leadership, the union has pushed for pay concessions from management and is in the process of signing a collective contract.

Yet note the order in which things happen: “Currently, the union is planning to sign a collective agreement on behalf of its 4,000 members with the company and then sort out complaints filed by some [workers] about their salaries” (italics added). In other words, the agreement does not cover salaries; those must wait until later.

In a paper published in 2004, Simon Clarke, Chang-Hee Lee and Qi Li find that it is common for collective contracts in China to leave out wages and other concrete items on which management prefers flexibility. Instead, the agreements simply restate the legal obligations of workers and management under China 's Labor Law, Trade Union Law, etc.. (1)

As a whole, the ACFTU seems immobilized by the competing demands of workers, management and the government. The union has expanded its legal advocacy for workers and it publishes detailed surveys on labor conditions and workers' attitudes. (2) It has ambitious plans for unionizing migrant workers, a first. The ACFTU maintains a near-corporatist relationship with central authorities, enjoying a limited role in national policymaking and representation in the Politburo. (3)

But the ACFTU “mediates” or “pre-empts” strikes (tellingly, in the China Daily article, the vice-chairman of the Hyundai union describes strikes abroad as “extreme”). (4)

Despite clear laws banning the practice, many union officials hold concurrent positions in management or are relatives of managers. Factories often establish a union branch and forget about it or make it a glorified recreation center.

While some ACFTU officials have stood with workers at critical points in China's early history, notably during the Hundred Flowers Movement (5), they have more often taken whatever path they believe will yield short-term “stability.”

Where will the ACFTU go from here? Will the union take a more aggressive stance toward private companies, such as it has with Wal-Mart? Will it try to gain acceptance from entrepreneurs by modeling itself as a new, kinder sort of labor organization, as the China Daily article suggests? Will it continue to try to muddle its way through, appeasing everyone?

Many workers are unsure of the exact purpose of their local union branch. The ACFTU also seems unsure.

(1) Simon Clarke, Chang-Hee Lee and Qi Li, “Collective Consultation and Industrial Relations in China ”, British Journal of Industrial Relations , 42:2 (June 2004).

(2) “ACFTU Works to Improve Legal Aid System”, China CSR , May 12, 2006 , http://www.chinacsr.com/2006/05/12/acftu-works-to-improve-legal-aid-system , accessed on May 16, 2006 .

(3) Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan, “ China , Corporatism and the East Asian Model”, The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs , No.33 (Jan., 1995).

(4) Feng Chen, “Between the State and Labour: The Conflict of Chinese Trade Unions' Double Identity in Market Reform”, The China Quarterly , Vol. 176 (2003).

(5) Elizabeth J. Perry, "Shanghai's Strike Wave of 1957", China Quarterly , No. 137 (Mar., 1994).