China: Solidarity Under a Song What a Strike Tells Us*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright © 2013 by Feng Xiang 《团结在国歌之下》 China: Solidarity Under a Song What a Strike Tells Us* Feng Xiang** Abstract The right of solidarity has been in legal limbo in China for decades. But in recent years an increasing number of strikes ended in collective negotiation, mediated by government, congressional and trade union officials, instead of the familiar story of arrests and prosecution. This article argues that these changes cannot be adequately explained by the “unseen hand” of the market, the policy of urbanization or better networking technology. Rather, they are essentially due to a conscious effort on the part of strikers to re-politicize their walkout, whereby to overcome barriers of the “rule of law” and revert what the law defines as contractual employment disputes to their original status: the breaking, repair and reorganization of the Party-masses relationship. The solidarity thus regained is not a lawful right, but an avatar of justified power, authority and even people’s sovereignty, all captured by a single Chinese character, “quan”. Key words: solidarity; right to strike; trade union; “quan” as power/authority/sovereignty/right; the PRC constitutions. Let’s build a new Great Wall May 17, 2010, Monday. Early in the morning, Tan Guocheng came to his shift at the Honda factory of Nanhai District, Foshan City in Guangdong Province. Tan was a 24 year old “migrant worker” from Hunan, a neighboring province; and the factory, commonly known as Honda Nanhai, manufactured automobile parts. But that morning Tan did not turn on the machine. Instead he pushed a red emergency button nearby. At once a “humming” noise filled the air, and the entire production line automatically stopped. As planned, Tan and a group of workers walked out. Others stood there, hesitating, watching, but soon the ranks of the protestors grew as they assembled in the factory’s basketball court. Thus began the great strike of Honda Nanhai. Ordinarily, in the past, a “mass event” (qunti shijian) like this ended quickly, “mass event” being a euphemism for any forms of unapproved public gatherings, demonstrations, strikes or riots. This time, however, the Honda Nanhai “industrial action” did not submit to the usual measures of control by the management and the company’s trade union: threats of layoff and individual offers, beatings and calling in the police. Nothing worked. Even after Honda summarily fired Tan and another leader, and after the company asked all employees to sign a pledge not to join the walkout in exchange of a 55 yuan (6.9 euro) monthly bonus, the strike continued. The protestors rallied at the factory 1 gate, all in white uniform and surgical masks to avoid being identified by surveillance cameras and targeted for reprisal. In unison they sang the national anthem: “Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves! With our very blood and flesh, let’s build a new Great Wall....” The anthem is a historical battle song, entitled March of the Volunteers; it was born in 1935 during the war against Japanese aggression, which later evolved into World War II. The strikers also went on the web and formed QQ (a Chinese version of internet “chat room” service) communities, where they addressed each other as “comrades” or friends “of one will” (tong zhi). In other words, the migrant workers restored an old revolutionary personal appellation, “tong zhi”, from the days of Dr Sun Yat-sen, a century ago, to its beautiful original meaning -- a usage shared by China’s gay subculture for some time. For normally and officially, “tong zhi” is used within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at serious and ceremonious occasions, and in daily life people would feel embarrassed or even offended if addressed “tong zhi”. So the strikers persisted, for 19 days. Their demands were firm and clear: (1) reorganizing the company’s trade union, (2) a pay raise of 800 yuan (100 euro) per month, and (3) no reprisal. Perhaps due to their highly disciplined demonstration of solidarity as well as moral courage, which drew great sympathy among the public and netizens – or perhaps just by accident – on May 28 the CCP organ People’s Daily published a special report on the Honda Nanhai strike. According to observers, this is unprecedented. For the first time in over three decades the chief organ of the Party’s propaganda apparatus gave such lengthy coverage of what it described as a “cessation of work on account of a labor- capitalist dispute”. What is more, the report carefully maintained a neutral position and pointed no fingers at the migrant workers or sided with the management. Meanwhile many scholars and commentators called for a “rule of law” strategy in lieu of the usual harsh suppression under the prevailing policy of “keeping stability” (wei wen). The latter, in their words, is likely to aggravate the conflit and “drive the masses of workers to become opponents to the Party rather than what the Party should rely upon”. Eventually, with the battle song reverberating on the factory premises, the workers elected “spontaneously” 30 delegates and engaged legal counsel, who helped draft their 6-point negotiation plan; and they decided to accept the mediation by a CEO of a state car maker in his capacity as a member of the National People’s Congress. On 4 June, a day after the strikers published on the web their “Open Letter to Workers and All Walks of the Society”, the management agreed to sit down for collective bargaining. Rounds of intense negotiation followed. With the help of the mediator and legal counsel, the two sides reached an agreement on a monthly pay raise of 500 yuan (62.5 euro). The agreement took effect by a vote, with 25 of the 30 delegates endorsing it. And the protestors returned to work on 5 June. What happened next was a landmark achievement or progress in the labor history of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), for the company’s trade union was reorganized pursuant to the strikers’ demand. The pressure was said to come from the provincial Party authorities, who apparently took note of the 2 workers’ angry denunciation of the union, calling the unionist thugs “yellow” saboteurs – not simply because they wore yellow caps. In theory, the Party consists of what is called the “pioneers of the proletarian class”, and the trade union functions as an organized representative of the workers’ best interest. Now the workers at Honda Nanhai not only had no trust in the union, but loathed it. Indeed throughout their negotiation with the management, the union was totally ignored, as if it had been non-existent. Such open hostility reportedly was a great embarrassment to the officials of the provincial trade union. Consequently a team of union cadres was sent in to implement a 6-month program of “norm building” and to offer “guidance”. The old rule of appointment was dropped. The new union officials were not chosen from the management or “landed from the sky”, as people say, meaning appointed by the government. This time they were elected by workers from among themselves, all union cadres in the factory, from team leaders, workshop representatives to the chairman and his deputies. Six months later, in December 2010, the democratically elected new union led the collective bargaining on the year-end bonus, resulting in an increase from the equivalent of two months’ salary to that of three and half months’. Then in February, for the negotiation on the 2011 salary scheme, the new union conducted detailed consultation among workers and with their full support made a counteroffer to the management. In the ensuing bargaining, the union delegates seemed to have the backing of the provincial trade union as well as competent legal counsel. Again, the negotiation was intense and almost collapsed – on the verge of calling for arbitration, and there were procedural hurdles for the labor arbitration committee to take on a dispute of collective bargaining under the relevant regulations – but both sides made concessions and agreed on a 27% pay raise. The new union’s success was hailed by observers, labor experts and union officials alike as an exemplar for the handling of labor disputes. Commentators and pundits also suggested that the Honda Nanhai case may mark a new chapter in the trade union’s democratization. Indeed, the reorganization of the Honda Nanhai union took place at a critical moment. For 2010 saw a sharp increase of labor disputes nationwide, especially in privately owned and foreign-invested enterprises. With this new development, it is hoped that labor unrests and strikes will be fewer, or at least be stabilized, as the democratically elected unions play an more active role in collective bargaining; and it is further hoped that, more often than not, such bargaining will happen ex ante rather than ex post facto. To put the Honda Nanhai case in the larger social and economic context, several questions are in order here: First, what are the main factors that contribute to the “eruption” of labor unrests and collective actions in recent years, in particular strikes? And in the case of Honda Nanhai, are these factors relevant? Secondly, do workers have a right (quan) to strike under Chinese law or not, on the books or in reality? Thirdly, whatever legal status the strikers and their demands may be, what can we expect the future of China’s labor movement to be? Let us consider these questions one by one. 3 Who are the strikers? One obvious factor to consider is: who are the strikers? A common characterization has to do with what is called in western media “migrant workers”. The stereotypical description is like this: a young man or woman from a remote, poverty-stricken village in one of the inland provinces.