The DPP is a Political Party Hostile to Labor

The DPP is a Political Party Hostile to Labor
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
November 7, 2016

Executive Summary: During the 2000 change in ruling parties, the DPP fooled the workers once. Incredibly, it fooled them once again. But workers on Taiwan are smarter than they were 16 years ago. If the ruling DPP does not want to lose its labor base, it must completely reform itself. It must not forget its campaign promises, such as "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day". This is the antidote to labor's long term suffering.

Full Text Below:

Labor unions are unhappy with the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" bill that the Tsai Ing-wen government is ramming through the legislature. With students at their side, they have blasted the DPP for betraying labor as soon as they seized power. Seven labor union leaders have gone on hunger strikes. Contrast this with the Sunflower Student Movement 19 months ago. The opposition DPP was exploiting the “anti-China” political atmosphere to discredit the Service Trade Agreement (STA) draft bill, which would have increased employment opportunities for workers. The failure of the bill to pass reduced workers' chances for employment. Now the DPP is attempting to ram through the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" bill. It has revealed just how much it exploited students.

The Sunflower Student Movement's grievance was allegedly the government's failure to follow procedure. But as everyone knows, the DPP and other opposition forces were determined to kill the STA. The death of the STA blocked foreign investment in the service industries and reduced employment opportunities. Opening up foreign investment in the service sector may increase competition for Taiwan based companies, but it also increases demand for labor services.

Now that the DPP is the ruling party, it is promoting "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day". Over two years ago it goaded students into blocking passage of the STA. The DPP is effectively cozying up to capital. During the Sunflower Student Movement it cited procedural irregularities as pretext for its obstructionism. But the moment it seized power, it began advocating balance between the interests of labor and capital. It began spouting high-minded rhetoric about political stability and economic growth.

The "Cross-Strait Agreements Oversight Regulations" bill was the handiwork of the Sunflower Student Movement. But once the DPP became the ruling party, it lost interest in it. The ruling DPP thinks that the two sides do not need an STA to begin with. Therefore they have no need for financial cooperation. They even think that ECFA should be frozen.

The ruling DPP would like its New Southern Strategy to replace cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges. But from the perspective of Taiwan's domestic economic and employment opportunities, the New Southern Strategy and the Go West policy are the same. Both policies increase GDP, business revenue, and employer dividends. But neither benefits the domestic market. Neither increases consumption and employment opportunities. First, neither will help workers receive high salaries in Southeast Asia. Second, neither will encourage employers to invest in Taiwan. Both policies are detrimental to labor.

The STA will introduce new service industries that employ local Taiwan workers. Continued financial cooperation between the two sides will enable the Mainland to purchase shares in Taiwan businesses. Taiwan has higher corporate earnings, stricter corporate governance requirements, and better equity than the Mainland. With the injection of Mainland capital, the resulting stock market boom would increase consumer demand and labor wages.

The DPP opposes cross-Strait financial cooperation for emotional reasons. It insists that Mainland capital will swallow up Taiwan businesses. Therefore it must be blocked to protect Taiwan-funded businesses. If this does not constitute pandering to capital, what does? If Mainland capital or Mainland businesses are subject to Taiwan's laws and regulations, and to Taiwan's oversight, businesses may indeed face increase competitive pressure. But will labor be affected? It will not. Instead market forces will increase Taiwan's business innovation and global competitiveness.

The ruling DPP has forced workers to sacrifice their rights and interests. It has characterized Mainland capital as “poisonous snakes and wild beasts”. It has insulted people on both sides of the Strait, and undermined mutual trust. Official economic and trade exchanges between the two sides have been shut down almost completely.

Employers have deep pockets. They can wait until the big picture changes before investing. But labor lives hand to mouth. Their children must study. They must pay off their loans. They must maintain stable incomes. The ruling DPP is dragging its feet while hoping for change. It is flagrantly indifferent to whether labor lives or dies.

Cross-Strait relations under the DPP have now entered the "hot confrontation" stage. Labor has fallen into the cracks. The DPP opposed the STA. It brought disaster down upon the heads of workers. Had the STA been passed in a reasonable manner, how many Mainland companies would have come to Taiwan and hired highly-qualified Taiwan workers? Meanwhile the long awaited champions of labor, upon seizing power, care only for themselves and for capital. Once they are elected, labor becomes nothing more than a stumbling block.

“The working hours bill has forced labor to hunger strike”. This is the slogan adopted by the "2016 Labor Struggle". The new government is pandering to the cartels, while using police to suppress public protests. Contrast this behavior with its behavior as an opposition party, when it opposed the STA. This shows people that the DPP's "opposition to China [sic]" was a pretext. What is behind the DPP's “opposition to China [sic]”, other than “opposition to labor"? What is this opposition, other than pandering to the bosses?

The DPP knows full well that cross-Strait relations must not be frozen. Years of exchanges have merged the two sides' economies and societies. Economic integration once implemented, cannot be undone. Taiwan cannot divorce itself from the Mainland. Once cross-Strait cooperation is ended, Taiwan's economy will decline, and the ruling DPP's core support will evaporate.

More importantly, labor requires more stable cross-Strait relations than capital. Commodity trade cooperation can increase the output of agricultural products, high-quality consumer goods, tourism and medical services. It can increase employment opportunities for Taiwan workers. Trade in services and finance cooperation can directly and indirectly improve labor conditions for local workers.

During the 2000 change in ruling parties, the DPP fooled the workers once. Incredibly, it fooled them once again. But workers on Taiwan are smarter than they were 16 years ago. If the ruling DPP does not want to lose its labor base, it must completely reform itself. It must not forget its campaign promises, such as "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day". This is the antidote to labor's long term suffering.

社論》民進黨其實是一個反勞工政黨
2016/11/7 下午 08:13:33  主筆室

勞工團體不滿蔡英文政府「一例一休」法案強行闖關，多日來在一些學生聲援下，強烈批判民進黨取得政權後就背叛勞工，7名產業工會幹部進而絕食。對照19個月前的「太陽花學運」，在野黨為操作「反中」社會氛圍，抹黑可以增加勞工就業機會的「服貿協議」草案，實質傷害了勞工就業權，現在又意圖強行通過「一例一休」，利用學生的真面目赤裸裸攤在國人面前。

「太陽花學運」聲稱是因議事程序正當性問題而起，但路人皆知，當時民進黨及其他在野勢力的目的是封殺「服貿協議」，其結果是斷送了外人投資我服務業的管道，進而阻擋了勞工就業機會的增加。開放境外資金投入服務業，可能對台灣企業造成競爭，卻會增加對服務業勞工的需求。

今日執政黨護航「一例一休」，和2年多前鼓動學生阻擋「服貿協議」，實質上都是不折不扣向資方利益靠攏。「太陽花學運」時，尚且用程序正義予以掩蓋，掌握政權以後，卻祭出勞資利益平衡、穩定經濟發展這些冠冕堂皇的理由。

「兩岸協議監督條例」的立法是「太陽花學運」轟轟烈烈造成的成果，但是執政黨就位之後，對此法案顯然興趣缺缺。因為執政黨認為，兩岸之間根本不需要「服貿協議」，也不需要金融合作，或許連當初簽署的ECFA最好都冰凍起來。

執政黨想以「新南向」政策取代兩岸之間的經貿往來與合作，但是從台灣內需經濟及就業機會角度而言，「新南向」與「西進」本質無異，都是有利於GDP、企業營收與老闆們股利股息的政策，卻無益於內需市場、消費與就業機會提高，一來政府不可能仲介勞工去東南亞坐領高薪，二來不會讓老闆們有投資台灣的意願，這些政策對勞工有害無利。

不但「兩岸服貿協議」可能引進新的服務業僱用台灣勞工，兩岸持續的金融合作也可讓大陸人民購買台灣股票，因為台灣對企業財報和公司治理要求高，股票體質當然比大陸好很多。有了大陸資金的挹注，股市榮景可以推動各類消費需求，勞工薪資當然可望增加。

民進黨從心態上就反對兩岸金融合作，認為陸資會吃掉台灣企業，因此必須將陸資阻絕於境外，才能保護台資企業。那麼，我們要問，這種論調不是在為老闆護航，什麼才叫倒向資方？假如在國家法令監督之下，台灣多些陸資老闆或是企業，依據台灣法令運作、接受監管，企業固然會增加競爭壓力，但勞工會受到影響嗎？不但不會，市場力量反而會增加台灣企業的創新能力與世界競爭力。

執政黨強迫勞工犧牲權益，把陸資說成毒蛇猛獸，傷害了兩岸民間感情與政治互信，兩岸官方經貿交流幾乎全面停擺，民間合作也受到衝擊。

老闆們口袋有錢，可以慢慢等大局變化後再投資，但勞工要過日子、子女要升學、貸款不能拖欠，必須維持穩定的收入。執政黨「以拖待變」，顯然是置勞工死活於不顧！

兩岸關係在民進黨執政後進入「熱對抗」，勞工在夾縫中間，難道不會感嘆當初發動反對「服貿協議」的政黨真是害慘勞工了！如果「服貿協議」經由合理程序通過，有多少陸資會來台灣僱用高品質的台灣勞工？終日期待的勞工護衛者，在取得政權之後，在乎的只是酬庸自己和資本主們，在不選舉的時候，勞工不過是一群絆腳石罷了！

「硬幹砍假，工人絕食。」是「2016工鬥」的口號，新政府企圖為財團護航的同時，也動用維安警力圍堵民意。這些現象，對照當初反對「服貿協議」時在野黨的主張，更使人體會到「反中」根本是假議題。「反中」的背後，其實不就是「反勞工」嗎？不就是「護老闆」嗎？

民進黨很清楚，兩岸關係不能冷，兩岸經過多年交流，經濟與社會已開始融合，尤其經濟整合覆水難收，台灣無法脫離大陸的影響。一旦斬斷兩岸的合作，台灣經濟必將受到重挫，執政黨的統治基礎當然也就會跟著消失。

更重要的是，勞工比老闆更需要穩定的兩岸關係，商品貿易合作可以增加農產品、高品質消費財以及旅遊、醫療等服務業的輸出，增加在地台灣勞工的工作機會；服務貿易合作和金融合作，都可以直接或間接促進本地勞工的勞動條件。

民進黨在2000年政黨輪替時，已經唬弄過勞工一次，這次竟然故技重施。今日台灣的勞工，畢竟比起16年前聰明多了，執政黨如果不想喪失勞工基本盤，就要徹底自我改造，不但要在「一例一休」上誠實面對選舉承諾，也不要忘了兩岸合作才是解救勞工長久痛苦的解藥！