Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:44:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: M-I: Re: Labor & socialism in China



Robert writes on China's 15th Communist Party congress:

>Despite the upbeat rhetoric, however, there is increasing worry among the
>Party leadership concerning the ideological and social costs of the
>continuing "reforms".  Particularly worrying is the rise of an independent
>labor movement, the aims of which I imagine are quite disparate, and which
>receives its impetus from who knows where?  

Much of it certainly comes from the development of new labor-management
relations at the grass roots, particularly in foreign companies.  The
question is on the minds of everyone: are these the beginnings of the
transformation of Chinese socialist labor relationships (i.e., those
encompassing workers and the State) into capitalist relations between
employers and employees?   

A study appearing in *Business China* (August 21, 1997) indicates that
laborers at foreign-owned firms were the most volatile, with those in the
employ of large State-owned enterprises a comfortable second.  Labor unrest
in the medium and smaller Town and Village Enterprises was negligible in
most cases.  This suggests not only a higher rate of alienation at the SOEs
and foreign-owned industries, but a weakening of "party unionism" at the
huge state firms, where the Party-labor relationship is strongest.

Interesting, too, is the study quoted in *Asian Markets* (October 3, 1997)
concerning the labor relations survey of Japanese firms doing business in
China.  Japanese executives, whose firms employ the largest bloc of Chinese
workers of any foreign owned enterprise, are quite ambivalent about the
workability of Chinese labor laws, and for very interesting reasons.  The
survey, conducted by Rikkyo University's Institute of Industrial Relations
in Tokyo during most of 1996 showed that a surprisingly large number of
Japanese firms doing business in China had experienced walkouts, which were
triggered mainly by disputes on wages.

But workers returned to their jobs quite promptly in most cases, within half
a day (48.4%) or after a one-day strike (29%).  Less than 3% stayed out over
a week.  Significantly, in most cases these actions were largely unorganized
and unplanned, outside the influence of the Party-dominated trade unions.
This probably accounts for the relatively high "satisfaction" rate (47.3%)
among executives with the "cooperative" attitude of the official unions.

At the same time, according to a more recent poll, more than 35% thought
that Chinese labor codes "encouraged" workers to try to gain a say in the
management and administration of their companies, while a substantial 45%
fretted about the new "framework on managerial activities" mentioned at the
15th Congress, apparently stuck in at the last minute as a sop to Party
hardliners (*Nikkei Weekly*, October 20, 1997).  

There is, according to some reports, a core of militant anti-reformists in
many of the Party-dominated "urban" unions who could cause considerable
trouble in the inevitable event of labor cutbacks when the economy takes a
downturn.  This has led some foreign businesses to press for a
Japanese-style approach to labor relations, emphasizing prior consultation,
job protection, and a "fair" distribution (by capitalist standards) of the
harvest.  

So little is known by outsiders (and even less is publicized even in the
most arcane business publications) concerning the development of Chinese
labor organizations, that analysis is difficult.  You are quite right in
suggesting that such a topic could be profitably pursued on
marxism-international, instead of umpteen posts on the transitional programme.

Louis Godena



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---