United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 7, 2016
Executive Summary: Unrest has persisted for nine months. It is time the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" drama ended. But has the DPP learned prudence and humility? Has it learned to avoid making trouble for itself? Has it learned that double standards are chickens that will eventually come home to roost? Tsai Ing-wen's "hipster politics" is clearly incapable of dealing with social reality. When it is necessary to persuade the public, do not resort to shouting slogans.
Full Text Below:
The president handed down an edict. She declared that the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" rule must pass. Yesterday the Legislative Yuan mobilized. Heavy crowd control barriers were installed, and police stood guard, ready to block labor protestors. Inside the legislature, blue and green legislators fought over control of the podium. Despite nine months of political wrangling, the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" dispute still had to be settled in such a crude fashion. This reflects the government's failure to communicate with the public. It also shows that “hipster politics” is incapable of dealing with harsh reality.
The year is nearing its end. If the government fails to resolve these problems by then, the number of public protests will be too long to print out. Employees and employers will not know what to do. The government has rammed the amendment through. Observers know why. The amendment process was an embarrassment, mainly due to DPP manipulation. For one, because when it was in the opposition, it behaved like a thug. Now that it in office, it must make 180 degree reversals in its policy course. For another, the DPP loves to show off before workers, but it has no idea how to strike a proper balance. In the end, all it can do is make reckless decisions in the heat of the moment.
During March of this year, former Minister of Labor Chen Hsiung-wen reduced the number of working hours per week in exchange for the elimination of seven legal holidays. He wanted labor and public servants to share the same holidays. But this policy was blocked by the DPP in the Legislative Yuan, on the pretext that it harmed the rights and interests of eight million workers. The newly installed DPP gloated. It now had the “total government” it longed for. It assumed the move would please labor. Therefore it gave labor carte blanche. Who knew that nine months later, different holidays for labor, public servants, and teachers would lead to social unrest. In the end, the Tsai government was forced to eliminate the seven legal holidays. Nine months later, the DPP was forced to make a 180 degree about face. The DPP was now reaping what it sowed.
Even more noteworthy is the government's changing attitude towards labor. Yesterday's deference has become today's arrogance. When the DPP was out of power, labor stood by it, shoulder to shoulder. Therefore the Tsai government was presumed to be a friend to labor. As soon as it rose to power, it expressed solidarity with labor. For example, the president illegally met with the boss of Far Eastone, and demanded that he help the government resolve the toll collectors strike. This opened a Pandora's box, by encouraging labor protests. When China Airlines flight attendants went on strike, Tsai Ying-wen boarded a chartered plane and proclaimed "You are not alone!” As a result, Ho Nuan-hsuan gave the flight attendants everything they demanded. One month later however, the flight attendants on Tsai's chartered plane were fired from the union.
The government's support for labor is praiseworthy. But policy decisions are a complicated process. If they are badly handled, if they are tailor made for specific individuals, if they are biased or even hostile, they can wreak havoc. For example, the DPP vehemently opposed Chen's elimination of seven legal holidays. But later this became a bitter pill the party itself had to swallow. Before, it repeatedly offered concessions to specified groups. The “squeaky wheel gets the grease”, after all. But more importantly, when a government finds itself at rope's end, goodwill gestures are futile. All it can do is get tough and clean up the mess. This time labor waged a month long hunger strike, but the ruling DPP completely ignored it.
Over the past few months Tsai frequently addressed labor. She said "Labor is the DPP's partner" and that "Labor occupies the softest spot in our hearts". In her eagerness to chummy up to them, she was a fount of “hipster rhetoric”. In the end though, the legislature was forced to erect heavy metal barriers to keep labor protestors far from the premises. Labor demanded seven legal holidays. But the government foisted its “three special holidays for new labor" scheme on them. The entire process was a waste of time, and left labor permanently aggrieved. Tsai's “hipster politics” ran up against reality, and fell flat on its face. That much is crystal clear.
Even more noteworthy was the Labor Law incident. Attention was focused on the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" and "seven legal holidays” issues. Structural gains and losses in the amendment were ignored. For example, while horse trading over the work week, the ruling party increased the rates for overtime hours. But this is fruit that not every worker will see or eat. Many local governments do not carry out labor inspections at all. How can officials know that overtime benefits due laborers are accurately credited to their accounts?
Unrest has persisted for nine months. It is time the "one fixed day off and one flexible rest day" drama ended. But has the DPP learned prudence and humility? Has it learned to avoid making trouble for itself? Has it learned that double standards are chickens that will eventually come home to roost? Tsai Ing-wen's "hipster politics" is clearly incapable of dealing with social reality. When it is necessary to persuade the public, do not resort to shouting slogans.
「文青政治」終須面對的冷酷現實
2016-12-07 聯合報
在總統「一例一休非過不可」的命令下，立法院昨天重兵部署：院外是重重鐵柵及員警戒備，防堵示威勞工；院內則是藍綠立委衝突叫罵，爭奪主席台。歷經九個月拉鋸，一例一休之爭仍須以如此粗暴的方式完成立法，除反映政府的社會溝通失敗，也說明「文青政治」假裝溫暖的腔調應付不了冷酷的現實。
轉眼已至年底，國假問題若再不解決，不僅民間連行事曆都印不出來，廣大的勞工和企業雇主也將無所適從；因此，政府急著通過修法，外界不難理解。這次修法鬧得如此狼狽，主要是肇因於民進黨的討巧操弄：一方面是在野時一味蠻橫托大，到了執政後竟繞不過這個髮夾彎；二方面是喜歡向勞工賣弄交情，卻在必須決斷時不知如何求取平衡，最終只能訴諸蠻幹。
今年三月，勞動部前部長陳雄文以「降低每周工時」的方式換取刪除七天國假，希讓勞工和公教人員休假同步；然而，此政策卻在立院遭民進黨攔下，認為損及八百萬勞工權益。當時，剛剛取得完全執政的民進黨躊躇滿志，自以為可以加碼演出討好勞工，因而誇下繼續放假的海口。誰料，九個月來，勞、公、教國假不一的問題弄得社會紛擾不斷，蔡政府最後仍須食言砍掉這七天國假。這場九個月還繞不過的髮夾彎，正是民進黨自食其果的官場現形記。
更值得注意的是，政府對待勞工的態度，已陷入一種前恭後倨的窘境。民進黨在野的拚搏，一直有勞團相伴，也因此蔡政府將勞團視為友軍，一上台就向勞工示好。例如，總統以超乎法制的手法約見遠傳老闆，要求和政府共同出資解決國道收費員問題；這種法外施恩作法，打開了鼓勵勞工抗爭的潘朵拉之盒。再如，華航空服員罷工時，蔡英文在專機上喊話：「不會讓你們感到孤單」；結果，造成何煖軒在和空服員談判時照單全收，一個月後，專機空服員卻遭工會除名。
政府對勞工友善，原是值得肯定的事；但在複雜的決策過程中，如不妥善拿捏，或者流於針對性、偏向性的討好，甚至信口開河，都可能引發難以收拾的後遺症。例如，先前民進黨強硬反對陳雄文刪除七天假，到後來就變成自食其言的苦果；先前一再向特定團體示好讓步，就得到了「會吵才有糖吃」的效果。更有甚者，當政府疲於奔命、乃至釋放善意亦無補於事時，竟只能祭出冷酷手段以收拾殘局。就像這次，勞團絕食近月，而執政者幾乎不聞不問。
回顧過去數月，蔡英文頻頻對勞工喊話，稱「勞工是民進黨的夥伴」，「勞工是我們心中最軟的那塊」，充滿了「文青腔調」的拉攏意味。遺憾的是，到頭來，立法院仍必須以重重鐵柵拒勞工於千里之外；勞工要求七天國假，政府卻用「新勞工三天特休」搪塞，不僅雙方白忙一場，更留下難以消除的心結。從這點看，「文青政治」長於修辭卻拙於現實應對的窘境，已一目了然。
更值得注意的是，這次勞基法修法事件，因一直被聚焦在「一例一休」及「七天國假」的焦點上，至於整體修法的結構性得失，則似乎完全未受到應有的討論。例如，在一例一休討價還價的過程中，雖然執政黨提高了不同加班工時的累進加發乘數，然而，這是不是每個勞工「看得到、也吃得到」的果實，恐怕還有很大的疑問。原因是，許多地方政府根本不進行勞動檢查，官員如何知道勞工未依法休假應享有的加班待遇，能夠如實落入他們的口袋？
擾攘了九個月，一例一休事件也到了該落幕的時候。問題在，民進黨是否從中學到了審慎與謙卑，是否學到了避免「庸人自擾」及「兩套標準」的一課。蔡英文的「文青政治」，顯然已應付不了社會現實，在必須以理說服民眾的時候，請不要再用矯柔做作的喊話來敷衍。
No comments:
Post a Comment