The Prospects of Labour Organising 2015-Proceeding... · 2015-09-23 · Welcome remarks by Maragtas Amante (Vice President, University of the Philippines) Dr Amante thanked AMRC for

The Prospects of Labour Organisingin Asia: Understanding Capital Mobilityand Global Production Networks

A MEETING REPORT

A Meeting Report

Labour Academics and Activists Exchange

The Prospects of Labour Organising in Asia:

Understanding Capital Mobility and Global Production Networks

Organised by

Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong

The School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Univerity of the Philippines at Diliman, Philippines

University Hotel, University of the Philippines, Diliman

Quezon City, Philippines

5-6 May 2015

Understanding Capital Mobility and Global Production Networks 2

Contents DAY 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

SESSION I: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction by Fahmi Panimbang (AMRC) .......................................................................................... 3

Opening remarks by Dr Ronahlee Asuncion (UP SOLAIR) .................................................................. 3

Welcome remarks by Maragtas Amante (Vice President, University of the Philippines)...................... 3

Keynote speech by Dr Rene Ofreneo (UP SOLAIR) ............................................................................ 3

SESSION II: PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................................... 4

Presentation 1: Preparing labour to face the ASEAN Economic Community – by Dr Rajah Rasiah ... 4

Presentation 2: Early vision of Global Production Networks – by Dr Rene Ofreneo ............................ 5

Presentation 3: A critical look at capitalist globalisation – by Dr Martin Hart-Landsberg ..................... 7

Presentation 4: An age of turbulences: the new round of 'industrial restructuring' and Chinese

workers - by Dr Siqi Lou ...................................................................................................................... 15

Presentation 5: Monitoring report on Collective Labour Dispute of Hong Kong enterprises in China –

by Kiki Yeung ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Presentation 6: The dynamic of capital: Korean capital in Southeast Asia: the case of the Philippines

– by Juliette Schwak ........................................................................................................................... 18

Presentation 7: Technical perspective of Korean TNCs in South East Asia – by Pill-kyu Hwang ...... 19

DAY 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Presentation 8: Emerging flash points of labour movements in Asia – by Surendra Pratap .............. 22

Presentation 9: Challenge for trade unions in Bangladesh – by Tapan Saha .................................... 23

Presentation 10: Problems of workers’ organising and new ways of organising in Malaysia – by Siti

Aishah Binti Ramli ............................................................................................................................... 24

Presentation 11: The struggle of Suzuki Motor workers union in Thailand – by Bunyuen Sukmai .... 25

Presentation 12: Workers’ struggle in the Philippines: the case of NXP and BPO workers – by Emily

Barrey and Daisy Arago ...................................................................................................................... 26

Presentation 13: Lessons from Indonesia’s General Strikes (2012-2013) – by Ilhamsyah and Abu

Mufakhir ............................................................................................................................................... 28

Presentation 14: Minimum wage struggle in Cambodia – by Chea Vino ............................................ 29

SESSION III: GROUP DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 32

Group discussion facilitated by Martin Hart-Landsberg ...................................................................... 32

Report from the groups and plenary discussion ................................................................................. 32

SESSION IV: CLOSING .......................................................................................................................... 34

Evaluation and feedback ..................................................................................................................... 34

Concluding remarks by Dr Rene Ofreneo ........................................................................................... 35

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................................................... 36


DAY 1

SESSION I: INTRODUCTION

Introduction by Fahmi Panimbang (AMRC)

Fahmi of AMRC began with an introduction and explanation of the meeting background and

rationale: why it is important to have an exchange between labour academics and activists in

Asia. Although it has been happening in many AMRC activities, however, it was barely aimed at

such exchange. He explained the meeting objectives: First, to provide an exchange of knowledge

and experiences between labour scholars and activist in Asia on the issues of capital mobility,

global production networks, and the current status of transnational corporations and their role

in the region. Second, to identify the impact of the capital mobility and the global production

networks on the marginalisation of the workers in the region. Third, to define areas for the

labour movement in challenging the capital mobility and the global production networks, and to

draw the priorities and strategies of labour organising in the region.

Opening remarks by Dr Ronahlee Asuncion (UP SOLAIR)

Dr Asuncion opened the programme by noting its context in the era of globalisation and ASEAN

integration. How do we protect the workers, she asked and ensured justice and decent work for

workers in the increasing transnationalisation of capital and production. She also mentioned the

need to discuss the strategies and priorities that labour must take up to deal with the situation.

Welcome remarks by Maragtas Amante (Vice President, University of the Philippines)

Dr Amante thanked AMRC for the collaboration as the topic of the meeting is a lifelong question

for us. The labour question is something that has been asked throughout history but still being

asked. He looked forward to fruitful discussion and future collaboration.

Keynote speech by Dr Rene Ofreneo (UP SOLAIR)

Dr Ofreneo noted AMRC’s long track record since its foundation in 1976, as it watched over the

major industries in Asia, from electronics to garments. Hope this meeting would discuss key

issues on the global production network and capital mobility in Asia, and their implications to the

labour movement.


SESSION II: PRESENTATIONS

Presentation 1: Preparing labour to face the ASEAN Economic Community – by Dr Rajah

Rasiah

Dr Ofreneo transitioned to the presentation of Rajah Rasiah of the University of Malaya, who

could not come because of illness. The ASEAN Economic Community, according to him, which

will facilitate the “free flow of goods, services, capital and investments, and skilled labour,” is a

step toward the further liberalisation of capital movements. Trade liberalisation within the

region is already advanced following the implementation of ASEAN Free Trade Agreement

(AFTA). There are concerns now over shifting of high-wage jobs to Singapore, Malaysia, and

Thailand, and low-wage jobs to Indonesia, the Philippines, and the transition economies. Brunei

is an exception, which will not experience much change because of its small size and heavy

reliance on oil and gas.

Existing integration efforts, he said, have been heavily pro-capital. Capital movements across the

globe, including in the ASEAN countries, have continued to increase. The ASEAN Economic

Community promises to take the integration further with labour movements and invested

regulations further streamlined across countries. Dr Ofreneo noted Thailand’s peculiar case of

being under martial law but proposing labour standards for ASEAN.

Other trends he identified:

● Governments favouring capital over labour

● Taxing labour whenever possible while some capital gains are not taxed (as countries are

competing for investment)

● No efforts to establish minimum labour standards and practices or inter-union

coordination through government support

● Wage income in value added has faced continued fall in the ASEAN 5 and distribution of

wealth being created increasingly going to shareholders and less and less to workers

● Union densities decreasing in ASEAN 5, the consequence of rising capital-labour ratio in

Singapore and due to weakening unions and government pressure in the rest. Indonesia

is the exception, which is seeing resurgence in unionism.

● The consequences for labour include further fall in the share of wages in value added.

● This means a rise in social inequality and further financial shocks and retrenchments and

informalisation of labour. Other effects include fall in union densities and further labour

market segmentation.

What should labour organisers do? He suggests:

● continuing mobilising support from civil society members,


● pushing for alternative data reflective of conditions of labour work time,

● giving support to training,

● ensuring political support to vote for lawmakers who support the case of labour,

● activating pressure groups during polls so government recognises the power of labour,

● ensuring that the share of wages in value added is raised to a level in line with decent

benchmarks for respective industries,

● rewarding labour-friendly employers, and

● Ensuring that minimum wages are decent enough to support families.

Presentation 2: Early vision of Global Production Networks – by Dr Rene Ofreneo

Dr Ofreneo began his presentation with the Akamatsu’s “flying geese” paradigm, and the

transfer to East Asia of Japan’s famous multi-layered industrial structure. The key to the success

has been international subcontracting. Japan in the 1960s was an economic miracle, which saw

big corporations subcontracting to a layer of subcontractors, then another layer and another,

thus forming an industrial pyramid. Because of limited geography, the Japanese invented the

“just in time” system of production. The mother goose is Japan, then Hong Kong, Taiwan, then

Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. This didn’t work because of other mother

geese, namely, China and South Korea.

The network today is more complicated because of MNCs from North America, Europe, and East

Asia jostling for space in the machinery GPNs (auto, electronics, semi-conductors) and non-

machinery (garments, shoes, toys). The last two decades saw the rise of non-equity modes from

contract manufacturing to contract growing and farming to contract services to franchising and

licensing. The flexibility of foreign capital is in evidence.

The challenge for research and organising in the labour movement then is to map this evolving

network of MNC firms and partners and do an analysis of value and profit maximisation efforts of

MNCs through a rigorous assessments of their global supply chain and supply chain

management, including the role of the logistics industry, which has become increasingly

important in the seamless operations from raw materials procurement to finished product and

delivery in stores. Such a map will show us how MNCs do global division of labour based on

technology, product specialisation, workforce management and market strategizing. An example

would be tracking footloose capital, especially in the non-machinery industries, to map the

“Factory Asia” from the ASEAN 4 to Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam.

An added complication is the tradability revolution in services. In 1995, WTO embraced GATS,

putting services under global trade rules via four modalities, namely consumption abroad, cross-


border, commercial presence, and movement of personnel of service provider. For its part, the

ASEAN has the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services, a clone essentially of GATS. This

includes service offshoring supposedly pioneered by GE, including customer service and back-

office operations to India and the Philippines. This is symptomatic of distortions in average

annual salaries between, say, the UK and Ireland, and India and the Philippines.

If the value of trade of Apple is broken down in terms of value added, Japan and South Korea are

the big winners, and the share of Chinese workers is very small.

The socio-economic consequences of globalisation are unlimited, he noted. Globalisation shapes

the increasing domination of MNCs of global, regional, national economies, and even taste. On

the other hand, indigenous production and marketing outside globalisation framework hardly

progress. The fragmented production and technology of poor developing countries have limited

chance to acquire and control whole product technology, only parts of it. Worse, they can be

“locked in” in low-level development.

Countries also compete for FDI via fiscal incentives and thus squeeze on labour, sacrificing

occupational safety hazard and environmental standards. This race to the bottom intensified by

work engineering, union avoidance, and threats of fly-away investments. Despite the global

financial crisis and ideological bankruptcy of neo-liberalism, neoliberal policy regimes remain in

place and unchallenged in many countries. Two big neoliberal offensives are the privatisation of

social services and infrastructure development via public-private partnerships and the

liberalisation of land markets, which has led to inequality and social exclusion everywhere.

Therefore, he said, for trade unions and civil society organisations, the exclusionary effects of

globalisation; GPN should be seen in a larger way. The jobs generated are not that many.

Because of the World Bank’s Structural Adjustment Programs, developing countries have to

rearrange their economies that discriminate against existing industries, especially those that

produce for their market. Jobs are also short-term, leading to casualisation and flexibilisation.

This “race to the bottom” is facilitated by footloose capital, bringing with it greater precarity in

the formal labour market, stagnation of wages, which in turn lead to global, regional, and

national inequality.

Most painful to trade unions is the informalisation and casualisation of work, which is sweeping

the narrow formal sector in both public and private enterprises. This facilitated the rise of the

staffing industry, with thousands of manpower, dispatching, temping, recruitment agencies

engaged in a variety of services that contribute to casualisation. In the Philippines, these workers


are called project workers, which in turn lead to relaxation of labour laws and rules and erosion

of unionism.

It is necessary then for trade unions and civil society organisations to have a sense of the

architecture of the global and Asian economy. Asia is supposed to be the beneficiary of

globalisation, but its workers are denouncing it in almost every form. The general battle cry has

been to roll back the race to the bottom and transform it into a race to the top. The question is

how.

Question (Q):

Regarding the rewards for labour-friendly employers, what would be an example?

Answer (A):

Once upon a time, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) awarded Asahi with a model employer award. The

basis is good observance of rights and smooth bargaining process. In Indonesia, the Hero chain

store union is the biggest and most difficult to organise as it is a chain store. In Hong Kong,

McDonald’s was awarded as model employer once. Sometimes it can be used by the state to

diffuse tension.

Presentation 3: A critical look at capitalist globalisation – by Dr Martin Hart-Landsberg

Dr Hart-Landsberg said he would try to do three things during his session:

1. Describe contemporary capitalist dynamics

2. Highlight instability and consequences for working people

3. Suggest a process and programme of transformation, including feasible alternatives and

capacities that we need to develop

He noted that MNCs pursue profits based on establishing cross-border production networks, and

dividing production to ever-finer segments. MNCs control these networks in a variety of ways.

This current dominance is demonstrated by the facts that TNCs accounted for more than 25

percent of global GDP in 2010 and their controlled value chains accounted for approximately 80

percent of global trade in 2012. This new TNC economic strategy changed the economic role of

the Third World and transformed it into a critical production space. Some 52 percent of global

FDI went to the Third World in 2012, the first time when more than half went to the non-

industrialised region. This development also created opportunities for corporations in the Third

World to become transnational corporations in their own right, as in the case of Taiwanese and

South Korean TNCs. The implication of this is that leading firms in all countries now have a stake

in promoting globalisation, away from the nationalist tendency. They now push for free trade

agreements and the like.


Developing Asia occupies a significant position in this new configuration. It now accounts for 76

percent of all Third World exports of manufactures; China alone is responsible for almost half the

third world total. The importance of parts and components in Asian trade is especially

noteworthy, demonstrating how much Asian economies are now shaped by TNC controlled

production networks. The share of parts and components in developing Asia’s total

manufacturing exports rose from 17 percent in the early 1990s to 35 percent by mid-2000s. The

share of parts and components in developing Asia’s total imports of manufactures rose from 29

percent to over 44 percent over the same period. Parts and components now comprise more

than 50 percent of all inter-regional exports and imports. By comparison the figure is only 36

percent for NAFTA countries and 22 percent for EU15 intraregional trade.

China is a key to transnational capital’s organization of Asian export activity. It serves as the

assembly hub for the region’s exports of final products. Under the direction of TNCs, parts and

components from throughout Asia end up in China where they are assembled and then exported

to the rest of the world. It should be noted that almost all of China’s so-called high technology

exports are produced by transnational corporations. Moreover, the share of these exports that

are produced by wholly owned transnational corporations is also on the rise, from 55 percent in

2007 to 68 percent in 2009.

Globalisation then has reshaped Developing Asia, knitting the region’s economies together and

making them all ever more dependent on exports for their growth. Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin

America have also been affected by the contemporary capitalist globalisation process. Although

these two regions have long specialised in the export of primary commodities, developing Asia

has now replaced core capitalist countries as their main export market. China has now

surpassed the United States as the world’s largest consumer of metals and agricultural products.

In fact, according to the UN, Latin America has reverted to an economic structure based on

primary materials similar to that of 20 years ago. Moreover, Chinese FDI and export activity is

reinforcing this backward movement. To large extent the same is happening in Sub-Saharan

Africa. This trend is greatly increasing income inequality and has significantly slowed job creation

in both regions.

Core countries TNCs have rearranged global patterns of production and trade to great benefit.

The US is a case in point: US corporate profits as a share of GDP hit a record high in 2014. Those

who celebrate capitalism celebrate this outcome and argue that these higher profits will

translate into greater investment, faster growth, more employment, and improved public

welfare. But none of this has happened. For example, these corporations do not invest in plant

and equipment in the US because they or other TNCs are organizing production in Asia. In the


US, the higher profits have been used primarily to buy financial assets, formalise mergers,

repurchase stock, and increase dividend payments, all of which disproportionately benefit top

managers and a small group of wealthy stockholders. The same is true in Japan and Germany.

These practices also intensify the financialisation of all three core economies with all its

associated economic distortions.

On the other hand, this TNC structured globalization process has had terrible consequences for

workers. For example: In the US in the 1980s the jobs with the highest skill component grew

fastest. In the 1990s, the higher skill jobs still increased, but the lower skilled jobs grew even

faster. Middle skilled jobs disappeared. In the 2000s, all the growth is all low-skilled jobs. The

precarious nature of work is also increasing, which is clearest in Japan, in which part-time

workers now account for over 40 percent of the workforce.

The negative consequences of capitalist globalization are not limited to core country workers.

One reason is that capitalist globalization suffers from a serious contradiction. In brief, TNCs

created an Asian-centered production system organized to export to core-countries, especially

the United States, while simultaneously undermining the purchasing power of core consumers,

especially those in the US. The significance of this contradiction was masked for a decade

because of the rise of speculative bubbles in the US. Those bubbles finally burst and the US

economy is now mired in stagnation with no end in sight. Moreover, no other core country can

replace the US in its role as key global consumer of final goods. For example, yearly household

consumption in the US is approximately $10 trillion. It is $2.5 trillion in Japan and $2 trillion in

Germany. The American consumer still accounts for almost 30 percent of world growth.

Given the export dependent nature of third world growth this means increasingly difficult times

ahead for most third world workers. Almost all East Asian countries have already experienced a

sharp fall in their export growth rates, including South Korea, Taiwan, and China. As a

consequence, their demand for commodities has also fallen, driving down growth in Latin

America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The decline in exports has not yet triggered a deep collapse in

third world growth largely because the Chinese state has sought to compensate for the country’s

declining rate of export growth by engaging in a massive investment program. So far that

program has helped to sustain regional economic activity as well as China’s, although at levels

that continues to decline.

The share of state spending in Chinese GDP rose from 39 percent in 2007 to 50 percent today.

Even so, Chinese growth is steadily slowing. Moreover, this spending program is not sustainable.

Already, a lot of the infrastructure projects, like the construction of housing and shopping malls

and airports, have been abandoned. And, many industries are suffering from great excess


capacity. Theoretically, the Chinese state could shift direction again and support domestic

growth by boosting wages and by extension domestic consumption. But it is clear that the

Chinese elite has no interest in such a change both because it would require a massive change in

the nature of current patterns of investment and production, including those of foreign

corporations, and perhaps even more importantly because such a change would threaten their

own profits and power.

Of course, the problems facing Asian workers do not lie only in the future. They are already

suffering from intense exploitation and for reasons highlighted above their living and working

conditions are likely to further worsen. Thus, while TNCs have greatly benefited from their

establishment of Asian-centered cross-border production networks, most Asian workers have

not. China is a good example; its insertion into capitalist globalization dynamics has led to

massive environmental problems, little if any formal job creation, and explosive inequality. This

reality needs to be communicated to workers in Latin America and sub-Saharan African who are

being encouraged to accept policies designed to further enmesh their own economies into these

networks on the basis of false claims of an Asian success story.

Dr Hart-Landsberg then turned to the question of alternative policies. He noted that capitalist

states sometimes resort to interesting policies when under pressure and we can learn a lot about

possibilities from studying history. More generally, national economies have become so

embedded in the globalised system that there is a need to organize and struggle at a level

beyond the workplace if we are to defend our rights. Said differently we are unlikely to win

workplace struggles if we allow capitalist globalization to continue to shape national economic

processes and policies. That means we need to organize to resist contemporary capitalist

globalization and in ways that point to alternative forms of globalization.

First, we need to more effectively fight against future free trade agreements, like the Trans-

Pacific Partnership. Workers are often confused about the nature of these agreements. We need

to make clear to them that these agreements will not improve economic conditions but rather

are deliberately designed to boost corporate profits by intensifying the same pressures that are

leading to worsening living and working conditions for the great majority of workers. Beyond

fighting new agreements we also need to work to terminate existing ones. Most agreements

have termination dates. Because governments negotiate these agreements our critical

opposition to them can help expose the class nature of existing state policies. In other words

what is happening to workers is not the result of some uncontrollable market forces but rather a

deliberate class project. Most of the agreements are about freeing up investments, promoting

privatisation, and limiting the capability of the public sector to control capital. We must do a


better job with our ideological struggle because the notion of free trade benefiting all remains

powerful.

Next we must educate ourselves about the experiences of countries that have implemented

policies with the potential to regulate international economic activity and advocate for

strengthening the state capacities for implementing the ones that are most appropriate. For

example, many countries have used capital controls. Also countries have in the past used state

trading entities to regulate imports; this was common in Western Europe in the period after

World War II.

While the national level is important, we can’t ignore the cross-border relationships that have

been shaped by capitalism’s own motion. That means we also must think about regional

planning. Many cross border production networks will have to be restructured to meet regional

and not foreign needs. We should study the experience of British and US activists and unions

that tried to promote the public conversion of industrial and military facilities during the 1970s

and 1980s in ways designed to employ the relevant workers and plant and equipment in socially

useful production.

Perhaps the most important contemporary effort at regional planning is taking place in Latin

America with the ALBA countries. These countries are planning a regional cooperative system of

production and trade, anchored by state efforts to deliver health care, education, and other

social services using regional resources. Plans are being advanced for an ALBA agricultural policy

to ensure regional food security.

Finally, there is a need for alternative global institutions to replace the IMF-WB and the WTO.

We need to think about institutions that can strengthen national planning capacities and policy,

not undermine them. Again, history can offer some ideas; many good ones can be found in early

drafts by British and US planners for post-World War II development and financial stabilization

agencies. These ideas were rejected in large part because leaders thought they were too

threatening to capitalist freedom of movement.

In sum, the more we can weaken or limit capitalist mobility, the more space we create to

advance our own interests, and the greater the opportunity for us to collectively build a future

that all of us can enjoy.

Q: What is the share of Chinese- and foreign-owned enterprises in the country’s manufacturing

sector?


A: In general the Chinese state has largely abandoned manufacturing to private enterprises, and

increasingly TNCs. Foreign multinationals accounted for some 40 percent of Chinese domestic

sales in 2005. In high-technology exports, 85 percent is controlled by foreign multinationals.

The Chinese state is still strong, but its strength is in finance, resource-based industries like

energy, and telecommunications, not manufacturing.

Clarification: Between 2014 and 2018, about 300 free trade and bilateral agreements are set to

expire, including 100 in 2014. Many of them have a termination clause that allows unilateral

termination.

Q: Maybe globalisation is not all bad? China is an example of a country that benefited from and

optimised globalisation? China has protectionist regimes, too. What is the alternative? Is it North

Korea?

A:

● The tremendous growth has not benefited the people. We do not need to choose

between North Korea and South Korea. The trap is such that we are forced to choose

between the two, and when we choose South Korea, it is the workers who are called to

sacrifice for the sake of development.

● There is a difference between trade and the way that this trade is operationalised.

Historically, we have seen how it was bad for the vast majority of workers. The

alternative is not that there is no trade. ALBA is an example of cross-border trade that is

designed to promote stable and responsive economic development.

● Who needs economic growth when lives are not improving? How come the labourers are

exploited and the profit is going somewhere else? It is a system of exploitation.

Q: What do you think of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)?

A: It harks on Chinese superior mentality and is a copycat of ADB. Infrastructure is a lucrative

business, but we’re not sure if AIIB will benefit Chinese construction companies? In any case, it

will not bring any dramatic intervention. The purpose is to give countries an alternative source of

funds but not an alternative process of development.

Comments:

● There is a need to debunk the myth of globalisation, build an alliance with other

movements, and think of alternatives.


● What we can do at the national level include the reversal of existing policy system

regarding privatisation and globalisation. There are other ways of organising not just in

the form of trade unions.

Q: Talking about ALBA, do you see a potential model in ASEAN?

A: The ALBA model is complex. At this point, it is hard to see Asia adopting or pursuing a similar

model of regional development. With ALBA countries, there is a sense of common regional

experience and culture. They are bonded by the feeling that they are opposing the heavy hand of

the US that has restructured their economies in bad ways. It is also true that not every country

in Latin America shares that vision. For example, Brazil has a vision of regionalization that

resembles that of Europe, with Brazilian capital dominating. In Asia, nationalism remains strong

and it is difficult to see the same level of regional solidarity developing. Moreover, four

countries have anti-capitalist commitments in ALBA. There is no similar case in Asia.

Q: What do people think of free trade in your countries? How do workers view it?

A:

● In India, informalisation and retrenchment have had a considerable impact on workforce

awareness level so knowledge has stagnated at the trade union level. Sometimes it is

their experience that teaches them, as in the many large-scale strikes for rights for

collective bargaining and land rights.

● The same is true in the Philippines. In the international arena, the local labour

movements are against free trade. However, in the everyday struggle, there are nuances

and depends on the kind of political positioning.

● China joined the WTO in 2001 and it was regarded as a source of national pride,

especially in the university and mainstream economics

● In Indonesia, the dominance of foreign capital is also evident, not only in certain sectors

but strategic ones like mining and extractive industries. The negative impact is on the

lives of the people. State legalised the extraction of natural resources, instituted special

economic zones. The right to strike is barely implemented and the oppression of police is

getting harsher, like cases of land grabbing. It is, therefore, clear in the labour movement

that the state is serving capital. While organised labour is getting stronger with two

strikes, we remain unsuccessful in changing labour laws. The role of the labour

movement should not be limited to factory organising but social organising, to challenge

the policy, the oligarchy, and the elite.


More notes from Dr Rene Ofreneo

There is no such thing as free trade. Many of the free trade agreements are not negotiated and

are lopsided. The Philippines has a long history of how free trade negatively impacted across

sector, from labour to environment, how it was imposed in such a way that states can not even

intervene in corporations, thus weakening already weak states.

Neoliberal policy, in general, is introduced not only through free trade agreement but also

through a mechanism in World Bank lending through the Structural Adjustment Program. In the

case of Indonesia, they embraced neoliberal policy wholesale during the collapse of Suharto,

which was confusing because this embracing of neoliberalism coincided with political

democratisation. The Philippines was similar with Marcos. So when WTO came in 1994, the

Philippines had no problem committing.

In times of crisis, the solution is more liberalisation. South Korea and Thailand embraced

liberalisation after the 1997 Asian financial crisis. After the rounds in Doha and Cancun, in the

meantime they realised that there is a need to push for neo-liberalisation, where ASEAN comes

in. Thus, we cannot say that the liberalisation that developed was due to the free trade

agreement but it came earlier, due to the pre-eminence of neoliberal ideology. So it is not free

trade per se but embracing neoliberalism as a state policy

Neoliberalism is the current expression of capitalism. In a sense, free trade is extending and

institutionalising capitalism. People are confused about the “market” part of free trade

agreements, but if you take apart the components of agreements, it is conscious policy, not a

free-willing force. Its class nature and class content are evident, which means the fight against

globalisation is a class project. However, because the government writes it, it is not only foreign

capital imposing but domestic capital agreeing. In effect, it is the agreement of elites. We thus

need to strengthen the understanding of people to deepen their political understanding.

After the global financial crisis in 2008, most of the neoliberals would not admit that they are

neoliberal. It became a dirty word. PPPs, which involve trillions of dollars in infrastructure

projects, made it possible for the determination of priorities to belong to the elite. These are

projects that are prioritised because they are the requirements of the elite. This means the

needs of small farmers are not considered. Because of decades of neoliberalism, old industrial

elites were subverted by new local elites composed of traders, contractors, who are more at

home with multinationals.


PPP must be studied because it is more than just neglecting rights of people. PPPs by design are

meant to socialise risk as the market can no longer accommodate the risk. Public funds are now

used to finance infrastructure versus the private funding model. PPPs also create room for

financialisation of capital, as instruments for banks to invest in projects.

As it is, government procurement all over the world accounts for 10 percent of the global GDP.

We can foresee conflicts in some countries because of nationalism, as in South Asia. PPP is an

arena for the struggle.

Presentation 4: An age of turbulences: the new round of 'industrial restructuring' and

Chinese workers - by Dr Siqi Lou

Dr Siqi began her presentation by quoting the Chinese finance minister who described the fast

growth in wages as a problem. The GDP per capita in China is now at about $7,000, equivalent to

Malaysia and Thailand though the wages in Shanghai is much higher. To deal with the “problem,”

reducing labour costs and stopping bargaining have been identified.

China’s GDP growth reached a historic low in 2014 at 7.4 percent. While still high, this was

unacceptable for many Chinese government officials. There was a wave of closures and

bankruptcy after 2008, this time with companies leaving the country for good. The government

denies this spate of closure. It points out that while 400 large firms closed in 2014, a lot more

opened. Analysed carefully, however, the figures reveal that while the industry is doing fine, the

employment aspect has been below par since 2012. For three years, employment has been

shrinking even as output expands.

Companies that are closing include steel, metal, textile, paper and packaging, electronics, real

estate, and furniture. What is common to them is their harm to the environment. The lack of

cash flow and small returns force enterprise owners to retreat from manufacturing and shift to

finance.

The culprit, according to a business paper, has been raising labour costs, changes in tax policies,

a new generation of migrant workers, and strikes. The same paper found out that around 35

percent of companies thought of relocation on land, 28 percent moving to lower-cost regions

within China, and 13 percent to Cambodia, Vietnam, and India.

For instance, Foxconn, a Taiwanese electronics contract manufacturing company with 12

factories in China, has been moving to the country in trying to find the cheapest location.


The Chinese government is also experimenting with industrial upgrading, trying to move labour-

intensive industries outside of the core cities and to the remote areas. In May 2011, some 4,000

enterprises relocated mostly low-technology and labour-intensive ones.

For example, Dongguan City saw 70 percent of its factories, whether electronic equipment,

textile and apparels, plastics and metals, close.

An aggressive government initiative is Made-in-China 2025, a high-profile industrial policy meant

to upgrade Chinese technologies over 30 years. Aiming to transition from using “Made in China”

to “Created in China,” the programme is similar to Germany's Industry 4.0 in 2014. The vision is

to pattern a factory after the human body with machines replacing labourers. It is already

happening. Foxconn has successfully reduced employment by half while doubling its output. One

machine can supposedly replace six people.

There is also persistent talk of migrant workers, which in 2014 number 274 million, mostly in

manufacturing. Some 66 percent of these did not reach high school.

There are noticeable changing features in strikes. New demands include social protection and

compensation for dismissal. In 2014, there were nearly 4,000 strikes. In 2015, more than 200

strikes took place every month. Workers successfully identified common claims as workers know

their rights. These movements saw senior workers organising and broad social support.

Presentation 5: Monitoring report on Collective Labour Dispute of Hong Kong enterprises

in China – by Kiki Yeung

Kiki began her presentation by pointing out why there is a need to monitor Hong Kong capital in

China. There are, she said, a large number of Hong Kong-invested enterprises in China, making

up a big portion of the FDI. There had been 15 labour dispute cases affecting some 100,000

workers. Of these, 90 percent were due to a violation of the Labour Contract Act, which includes

non-payment of severance in cases of plant closure and non-payment of social security.

Some major listed enterprise such as Hutchison and others are using CSR as pretence. To cite,

there has been no pay rise for dock workers for 20 years. Around 80 percent of the strikes were

contained or repressed by the police. In one case about the non-payment of severance because

of relocation, the company sent a group of men to suppress the strike.

At the level of policy, the Hong Kong government would only consult the commercial sector

regarding the mainland labour law legislation. It has always been pro-business and never did it


gather input from trade unions and labour organisations. HK businesses have repeatedly

exploited their privileges to obstruct the introduction of workers’ rights legislation.

HKCTU’s role in monitoring Hong Kong capital in China is meant to raise the voice of the Chinese

workers to the international world and to mobilise Hong Kong affiliates as well as international

unions’ support.

Q & A of presentations 4 and 5

Q: Is China still seeking to be domestic consumption driven? Or export-oriented?

A: Yes on both. The reason they are looking to automate is because they cannot compete with

Germany. They want more precision with their processes and products. We need to be careful

about the official rhetoric, but should only see what actually happens. In fact, the current

"industrial restructuring" shows inconsistent or even incompatible policies on the top levels of

the government. Mr. Lou's warning of the high labor costs as well as the automation trend have

sent clear signals that export-oriented growth keeps to be the national strategy, rather than

domestic consumption driven path (which would necessarily mean rising wages for the majority

of workers).

Q: If China is pursuing export still and not turning inward to domestic consumption, which market

are they looking at when the markets are stagnant?

A: The Prime Minister is a technology guy. He thinks that by combining internet technology and

manufacturing, China can become a strong country in technology to compete against Japan and

the US. Industries that are over capacity are still expanding, like automotive. They are looking at

a broader market elsewhere, like India.

Q: After the global financial crisis, are capitalists investing again on financial markets?

A: A special feature of the Chinese stock market is that it is government dominated so it is not as

risky? In the US and Europe, there are talks of re-industrialisation as margins are getting so low

for SMEs.

Q: There seems to be a similarity between the development of capitalism in the US and how it is

developing in China now. There appear to be two competing ideologies: neoliberalism and

sovereignty-ism as in China, India, and Russia), under which the sovereignty of other capitalist

states are respected. Will this create its market or create some turbulence not only in China but


pretty soon in these other countries that they have neo-colonised? What is the Chinese labour

movement’s status at present?

A: China is even more neoliberal, with privatisation since 1990s of health service. It is not an

alternative to neoliberalism. The biggest debate in 2010 was when workers demanded that they

elect their trade unions. After that, there was progress in Guangdong province, where workers

were able to elect their own union chairs and representatives.

Q: Regarding the spread of Chinese capital across the globe, how do the Chinese people see this?

A: Chinese companies are not paying less or treating workers differently. The difference is how

the Chinese owners are treated compared to European and American employers.

Q: What does “cheap” mean for Chinese workers? There are competing reports on wages of

Chinese workers.

A: Foxconn had vowed to double wages but still no increase in take-home pay, so there must

have deducted subsidies somewhere.

Q: Does this kind of restructuring have something to do with how China is expanding its capital all

over the world? Is there a direct relationship between this and investments that China is making

elsewhere? Companies must have had a reason to threaten to move out. Isn’t it wage?

A: Some increase in costs are attributed to legal requirements or housing or retirement fund and

not purely wages or take home pay.

Comments: Hong Kong labour groups including the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Union

have been playing a vital role in monitoring the TNCs in China. It is important to connect them

with other labour groups in solidarity building.

Q: Are there more violations from Hong Kong TNCs or foreign TNCs?

A: Yes there are. There are labour laws that are not followed.

Presentation 6: The dynamic of capital: Korean capital in Southeast Asia: the case of the

Philippines – by Juliette Schwak


Juliette began her presentation by noting that South Korean capital used to be heavy controlled

by the state, something that was reversed in the 1990s. Because wages in South Korea

increased, enterprise owners have looked elsewhere, and South Korean capital has heavily

outsourced its activities in Southeast Asia.

In parallel, South Korea became an aid donor in 1995. From 2000s, it has also increased its

development commitment to ASEAN, especially Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand.

She posed two questions, (1) the consequences of investment of Korean capital in South East

Asia and (2) whether the Korean model of development is bringing anything new.

In 2014, there was a case of violations of human rights in Cambodia by a Korean-owned

enterprise. This situation in Korean-owned companies in Southeast Asia mirrors that within

Korea, where the labour movement is also harshly repressed.

Despite being seen as a model of a capitalist success story, reality is very different. If Korea is

being used as a model, that is a bad sign for the developing world. This success-story perception

omits the labour impact of exploitative capitalist expansion in Korea, which has since the late

1980s expanded to outside markets. The HanJin shipyard issue in the Philippines testifies of the

harsh labour repression that characterizes Korean capitalism.

The Korean development commitment has increased over the past two decades but how it is

different from conventional aid regimes, Juliette asked. Korean development cooperation works

by way of aid, grants, and technology /knowledge transfer. Described as a promising model, it is

nonetheless criticised in the field of development in Korea for providing a one-size-fits-all

solution to developing countries.But it is also mostly rethorical, and just shows how well South

Korea has learnt the lessons of capitalism. In concrete terms, South Korea advocates a model of

development that is very close to the dominant neoliberal paradigm, with a focus on PPPs, SME

development, and financial deregulation.

The Korean model just reiterates the imperatives of capitalism under another discourse in order

to differentiate itself from traditional donors. It favours Korean capital global expansion and also

shows how South Korea has become a late comer in the neoliberal trajectory.

Presentation 7: Technical perspective of Korean TNCs in South East Asia – by Pill-kyu

Hwang


Unlike in the US, Europe, and others, Asian CSOs are not active in monitoring their TNCs, maybe

because of their rapid growth or that they mostly supply chain based and export oriented. KTNC

Watch began monitoring Korean capital in the mid-1990s, attempting to get all the actors

involved, including human rights groups, environmental groups, and labour unions.

Methods include a standardised process in which a letter is sent to the mother company in

Korea. This is to be followed by a meeting, and then a field visit to the country of operation.

Relevant NGOs will then raise the issue or campaign in Korea. The problem is resources, so it can

be only done once a year. At this point they are trying to do an overall research or evaluation of

Korean companies.

An example would be the 2006 crackdown of trade unions of garment workers in Cavite, the

Philippines. The employer refused collective bargaining. KTNC Watch visited the Commission of

Human Rights, met with prosecutors and relevant actors. The action was not successful. While

the NGOs and labour workers are active, government itself seems to be against workers. The

case in Korea was dismissed.

Another example is a steel plant proposed in India by POSCO, which was set to be the biggest

single FDI in the country. There was resistance in the villages for eight years. There were reports

of human rights violations and violent crackdowns on protesters. Some UN rapporteurs came by

to demand the company to stop the project and assure that human rights are respected. The

Dutch and Norwegian governments are more sensitive to the complaint and more serious. The

case is still pending in those countries.

Throughout these, it was very difficult to get more resources both financial and human. Time is

needed, and the best way to get some power in the future is through broadening of the

network.

Q & A of presentations 6 and 7

Q: Korea is party to OECD, with existing guidelines regarding MNCs. How are they effective?

A: The OECD Guidelines are not binding so there is no way to force the company to reply. The

levels of seriousness with which each government think of OECD guidelines differ from country

to country, and South Korea is not serious.

Q: Can you provide us a timeline when Korean capital became global? What are the priority

countries?


A: The spread of Korean capital started sporadically in the 1980s but accelerated in the 1990s.

The turning point was the end of the military regime. As for prioritisation, there may be historical

reasons. The Philippines sent troops to the Korean War. For the rest, the considerations were

geographical and cultural proximity and human capital.

Q: Do Korean companies abroad work together in terms of coordination and to what extent do

they use their influence to change laws? How do you characterise these companies? Shame?

Pride? Solidarity between Korean trade unions?

A: The Korean chamber of commerce is active in the Philippines. There is coordinating with other

chambers. Increasing the number of Korean chambers is part of a branding effort by the

government. There seems to be a commonality in spirit. In Cavite, a Korean manager says if he

allows labour unions, the Korean companies will blame him.

Q: What is the dynamic between the Korean government and the monitoring effort? With recent

strikes in Korea, it seems that there is some political development in working class.

A: We get government money to monitor companies. Regarding the problem of

underemployment, the resort of the government is to make everyone contractual.

Q: Samsung, wherever it invests, brings its suppliers in the economic zone. Is this a Korean model?

A: Even Han Jin brings in all Korean suppliers, so maybe it is a Korean model.

Q: Do you have a national guideline regulating TNCs like Samsung who have an internal code of

conduct?

A: Companies themselves are not familiar with their codes of conduct. In Cavite, their only

principle is to be against labour unions.

Q: How does one account for the bad reputation of Korean capitalists everywhere?

A:

● Maybe the management style is because of a long-term military dictatorship. For the

longest time, there was no human relations department, no bargaining, so the style of

management is militarised, short on institutional structures and procedures.


● It’s very aggressive capitalism. Every framework is management prerogative. They always

hire lawyers who have no scruples about asserting what the management wants. They

are very legalistic, too. Are they cruel? They show displeasure openly. Their goal, it

seems, is to surpass every Japanese capitalist.

Q: What about the global framework agreement? Is it another UN toy to pacify CSOs?

A:

● It was hotly debated because of the human rights violations of TNCs. Moreover, since the

UN guiding principles on TNC did not work, there is a UN resolution proposed by Ecuador

to establish an internationally binding treaty regarding TNCs. South Korea voted no, as

did Japan. China voted yes. The bottom line is; TNCs cannot self-regulate.

● The latest development is when the UN Human Rights Council on Business and Human

Rights adopted the RPR framework, which stipulates that “it is the duty of companies to

respect human rights.” How this will be operationalised is another matter.

DAY 2

Presentation 8: Emerging flash points of labour movements in Asia – by Surendra Pratap

Surendra emphasised that Asia is not the same anywhere in terms of labour movements. There

are commonalities and differences. For instance, there seems to be a correlation between

agriculture proportion and trade union density in South Asia. The movements are different from

Southeast Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Developed Asia. South Asia was integrated to the

global value chain later compared to South East Asia. In particular the following are trends that

characterise each region.

South East Asia

● Working class movements were almost entirely crushed during authoritarian regime

while anti-people economic measures were put in place

● Single political party system and single trade union system controlled by the state

● New movements emerged as part of democratic movements with fresh blood and

weaker chains of traditionalism

● Rights restored with downfall of authoritarian regimes

● Industrial relations based on enterprise collective bargaining and trade unions weakened

at enterprise level


South Asia

● Labour movements at their peak

● Rise of new movements-independent trade unions after 2000 but the old, which is pro-

liberalisation and who accept the lack of alternative, was not phased out

Erstwhile socialist economies

● Dismantling of communes-privatisation of state units

● End of lifelong social security

● Exploitation of rural migrants

● Special economic zones as development

● Wave of strikes gradually created some space for collective bargaining

● A major issue is single party-single trade union and near absence of rights to trade union

and collective bargaining

Advanced Asian economies

● High proportion of formal economy

● Capital moving to low-wage economies

There are also country-specific differences. In Korea, the April 2015 general strike was organised

to scrap pension reform plan and raise the minimum wage to 10,000 won. In Bangladesh, there

is no political consolidation, no industry-wide union, with about 20 percent union density in the

garments industry, contrasted with more than 40 percent in Cambodia. In India, movements are

fighting for regularisation of workers. There are also industry-wide strikes in the agriculture

sector, against large-scale land acquisitions. However, these have zero impact because of

monopolised media.

In general, the following were observed:

● Protest against anti-labour policies of state and enterprise

● Reclaiming the rights and space for collective bargaining

● Retrenchments, closures and mergers of companies and violation of labour rights

Presentation 9: Challenge for trade unions in Bangladesh – by Tapan Saha

The Bangladesh garments industry is the second largest in the world but, at $69 a month, has

some of the lowest wages. The labour law mandates that to organise a trade union, 30 percent

of the total number of workers have to meet in the factory, which is practically impossible to do.

If you have 30,000 workers in a factory and have no office or venue to meet, how is the 30

percent achieved? If management is informed that someone is trying to form a union, that


person will be fired. The workers are afraid. If the attempt to organise continues, management

will attempt to convince the workers to stop. Registering the union is another matter. There are

also many cases of harassment of labour leaders and delay of up to five years in labour cases.

On the other hand, owners’ associations are very strong because the government is always

siding with them. When workers try to form unions, they are told that the factory will close and

go to China, Cambodia, Vietnam, or Myanmar and they will lose their jobs.

There are also internal differences within trade unions. There are 70 federations in Bangladesh,

some supported by political parties, some by owners’ associations, and others workers-based.

Federations cannot agree on the minimum wage issue. When workers try to register a factory-

level union, the owner will register his union, therefore nullifying both. The law allows three

unions on the ground but regulators only allow one.

There are two labour laws in place, one for EPZ and one outside. Inside EPZs, workers cannot

form trade unions and file a case in the labour court, only a complaint against the EPZ director. It

is important to note that of the 4.4 workers in the garments sector, 80 percent are women, most

of whom don’t know how to read and write.

Presentation 10: Problems of workers’ organising and new ways of organising in Malaysia –

by Siti Aishah Binti Ramli

The influx of investments in the 1980s, when Malaysia shifted its economy from agriculture to

industry, did little to benefit workers or trade union movements. The law does not allow any

national-level unions. In 2009, the government allowed a union of electronics workers, around

350,000. To ensure that they will stay small, the process of registration is long, especially if

management is unwilling to cooperate. The 50 percent plus one requirement’s hard to achieve.

There is no action taken against a company despite violations. All trade unions facing challenges

as always prioritised is the financial implications of unionism, with the national interest taken

into account.

The fact that trade unions depend only on membership dues is something that companies take

advantage of. On the other hand, migrants do not want to join unions because of the thinking

that they are only temporarily in the country and are afraid to lose their jobs. Some steps to

overcome this challenge include cooperation among activists from the migrants’ home countries,

as well as ILO-sponsored migrants center, campaign brochures in several languages in factories,

and forging relationships with trade unions in the migrants’ home countries (with a memoranda

of understanding signed with Nepal and Vietnam). There is some dialogue between labour


leaders and members of parliament on how to overcome or change laws that are favourable to

employers.

Presentation 11: The struggle of Suzuki Motor workers union in Thailand – by Bunyuen

Sukmai

Suzuki Thailand was established in August 2011, 99 percent owned by the parent company in

Japan. Net profit in 2013 was 7 billion baht and the production volume has steadily increased.

Basic salary of workers is 10,000 baht. On December 16, 2013, disgruntled employees declared

bonus and annual wage adjustment and staff came out to rally to seek clarification from the

company. The following day, 800 have filed claims and papers to organise. The company directed

employees to sign a document waiving their claims. If anyone refused to sign, the company

would not pay bonuses. The rest of the timeline are as follows:

● December 18 – filed for registration

● December 20 – Claims negotiation but the company refused to negotiate by agreeing to

pay the bonuses declared by the absence of the additional benefits; the employees are

notified to the conciliation board

● December 25 – three parties to negotiate a settlement, waive all claims except for the

bonus to be based at the company’s offer of six months plus 9,000 baht

● December 26 – the union was registered and the company sent a letter of dismissal to 10

union leaders

● January 6, 2014 – the union sent a letter objecting to the dismissal and the company

replied that the company did not accept the union in Suzuki

● January 16 – the workers filed a petition asking for fairness at the Department of Labour

Protection and Welfare and the Ministry of Labour and Labour Relations Committee

● February 20 – submitted a letter to the Prime Minister

● April 9 – the Labour Relations Board ordered the company to rehire the union leaders,

pay them the damages from the date of termination until the time of return to work with

interest, that they be rehired in the same position and they be paid the bonus as agreed

upon

● June 12 – the company filed a petition to the court to revoke the order and the union

filed a complaint with the National Council

The labour court hearing is scheduled on May 25. However, as a result, two of the leaders face

criminal proceedings. The ten leaders cannot work elsewhere. One of the leaders who lost his

job committed suicide.


Q & A of presentations 8-11

Q: Who are the international players working in Asia on top of the four regions? What roles do

they play in the labour movement? Are there regional forums across borders?

A: That is one of the purposes of this forum, to link labour unions across countries.

Q: In Thailand, what are the responses of German and Japanese labour groups, if any? Have you

tried using OECD guidelines or the Suzuki Code of Conduct? How is the protest?

A:

- The Suzuki workers are waiting for the labour court hearing on May 25. Everything is OK

now. However, there was no response from Suzuki Japan and Volkswagen German.

- There is trading of information in Malaysia. One of the companies wrote a letter to

Geneva. Trade union tries to initiate with unions in Indonesia, too.

- In Bangladesh, the government says labour leaders visit other countries and provide

misinformation to workers.

Surendra:

The Maruti-Suzuki case in India was discussed all over the world. In 2001, at the original Suzuki

plant, the permanent workers were replaced by contractual workers. Management collaborated

with government and the labour union was de-registered. Management formed its union. This

impacted the labour movement in the region. In 2011, Maruti-Suzuki started other plants and

they told workers to join the company union and the workers said no, they want to form their

union. Issues were linked with regularisation. Waves of strike led to a culmination, with calls not

only for equal wages but the end of contractualisation. This happened from 2005. The new

aspect of this phenomenon, a social alliance was formed, with the majority of the workers from

nearby villages. There was a disruption when the plant manager died and public opinion was

against unions. However, they went around villages and the movement started again. It

transformed the labour union.

Presentation 12: Workers’ struggle in the Philippines: the case of NXP and BPO workers –

by Emily Barrey and Daisy Arago

NXP is the leading semiconductor manufacturer in the Philippines with a long 33-year history of

unionism since 1983. Semiconductors account for 28 percent of the Philippine GDP. The struggle

of the union was a combination of adaptation to corporate policies and CBA in terms of wages.


From 2000 onwards, a new stage of militancy was seen against more comprehensive issues like

labour flexibilisation and attacks against CBA. Last year saw attempts to bust the union.

It was so hard for us, but through the help of different affiliates and sectors in the Philippines,

both local and international, the NXP struggle easily gained ground. The fight for CBA went on

from 2014 to 2016. Because of the fight, nearby companies within the EPZ started to organise

their union to demand good wages, good health and safety among workers, and good relations

between members of the union. It is so hard to have unions within the EPZ because of a no

strike, no union regulation, but it is difficult to get good wages if there is no CBA and union. NXP

was transplanted from Manila to inside a private economic zone in Laguna.

Even so, the union was able to negotiate for its continued existence despite the virtual ban and

the zone police and regular police harassment, the attempt to bust unions by terminating

leaders on allegations of an illegal strike. Creative strategies were employed from the shop floor

to the international arena, like alliances with the metal workers alliance of the Philippines. We

are also active in international linkages, such as with workers in Thailand and Holland. We used

body placards, noise barrage, caravans to protest.

We organised the first militant protest in special economic zones and used brand engagement

with major brands, like Apple, to exert pressure on the corporate mother company and not the

local company. Since 2008, representatives of the global company, not local management, are

negotiating with the union regarding CBA. We broke the record of non-militant action within the

economic zone and proved that a multi-sectoral mass movement can break that ban. The

combination of actions elevated the issue at different levels unparalleled in the last years. Social

media was also useful because workers have access to the internet. The struggle of NXP

reinstated labour leaders and opened opportunities. Workers from other companies have sought

union for advice. We found that you can exert pressure without formally declaring a strike,

skirting the ban on strikes.

Daisy Arago shared the experiences In the BPO industry in the Philippines. In the industry, the

challenge is how to reach out to workers. Outsourcing contributes 4 percent of the GDP and

employs more than a million workers, with some also in special economic zones. Creative

initiatives through human resource management (TUCP), BPO workers who are victimised by

sudden closures to establish organisations (PM). The largest union right now is BIEN, or the BPO

Industry Employees Network, with 1,500 members from Manila, Baguio, and Cebu. Campaigns

include demanding toilet time, lighting in places where they wait for transportation and the

Magna Carta for BPO workers, which is gaining support.


Presentation 13: Lessons from Indonesia’s General Strikes (2012-2013) – by Ilhamsyah and

Abu Mufakhir

In 1998 when Suharto was ousted, the single union system was dissolved and replaced with a

freedom to organise, from coercive to political accommodation. The wave of protests started in

2000, in which workers rejected the government plan to revise labour laws related to

outsourcing, restricting of strike right and formation of union at plant-level. The left wing union

consolidated with ABM (Aliansi Buruh Menggugat), and it was interesting that despite the

freedom of association, the law still limits unions’ right to strike and the severance pay was

scrapped. The alliance is not only centered in Jakarta but present in other provinces, and

managed to halt revisions in labour laws.

There was no response from big unions in the national level but since ABM is organised in the

grassroots, workers were radicalised to pressure big unions and leaders. Even the KSPI, which

inherited the yellow union ideology, adopted a mass mobilising strategy, united with the left on

one issue: social protection and insurance.

In 2009, there was a wave of protest related to the social security act. It was a vibrant and

dynamic struggle. In 2012, workers in Bekasi demanded minimum wage. There was a backlash

from employers association that tried to negotiate or scrap the success of the movement. The

rejection of the employers association triggered a huge wave of protests, road blockages. Tens of

thousands of workers were mobilised, disrupting the industrial zones. The radicalisation of

workers in Bekasi began then. The factory raids in 2011 demanded regularisation of workers. The

environment at that time was like a revolution.

In 2012, several union leaders declared a first general strike. Even the yellow unions joined us.

The alliance was from conservative to the left. In 2013, another general strike, with two to three

million people rejecting the presidential decree to limit the minimum wage increase to 10

percent. The 2014 general elections created fragmentation in the labour movement, and in

2015, we reflected that although we have been united in the general strike, we need a political

vehicle to push the workers’ aspirations since we’re barely able to change policy. We initiated a

political party, not a labour party, but also led by workers, trying to mobilise other groups, like

women and peasants.


Presentation 14: Minimum wage struggle in Cambodia – by Chea Vino

Cambodia’s campaign is called the US$177 campaign. Chea is the chair of the Coalition of

Cambodian Apparel Workers Democratic Union at a factory employing 3,000 workers since 2004.

At that time, the workers earn US$40 to US$45 with no wage increase. Government regulation

says workers can only ask for an increase every four years. Many workers were fed up but we

could not do anything because most of the unions are pro-government.

C.CAWDU organised a factory union to launch a strike. In 2011, the government announced a

wage increase to US$80 per month. Around 40 factories dismissed union activities, affecting 300

workers. In 2013, workers were getting more agitated and some 300,000 workers participated in

a strike. In response, the government sent in army and police to silence the workers. Workers

became so afraid that the government will retaliate. In 2014 the US$177 campaign was born,

comprising 40 factories and more than 100,000 workers.

Demands were coursed through multinational as principal employers to negotiate a legal binding

CBA with Cambodian unions:

1. Guarantee a minimum wage of at least $177 in their supplier factories

2. Agree to increase the price they pay the factories to reflect this increase

3. Make a long-term commitment to sourcing from factories in Cambodia where workers

rights are respected.

Brands do not sign a long-term commitment with factories, so workers demanded otherwise so

the brands can do something more for workers’ rights.

Some 2,000 workers launched a lunchtime protest to demand $177 minimum wage. Workers

want something more. From 2004 to 2008, their wages increased by $5. Over the years, the

balance was tilted. We will no longer be looked upon as machines. We should act together to

make a common demand. The most important part of the campaign is organising the grassroots,

but we were also trained to launch an international campaign. We were worried about workers

getting killed by the government so trainings were conducted in 20 regions and trained 1,500

activists. We trained people to go to each small factory, train 100,000 workers from 140

factories, including places where unions were non-existent. We went there and invited them to

join the labour movement.

Seven Cambodian Garment Union Federations joined the actions. There were internal problems

within the federation, with some of them pro-government and some opposition party-led.

However, all joined in a common platform. There was much support from NGOs. The


international campaign garnered solidarity from unions and activists all over the world in 37

cities in 15 countries targeting the brands at retail stores, from USA to Europe, Hong Kong, and

India. H&M workers put in our stickers to show support. Factory workers in Bangladesh,

Cambodia, and India should also join us in an international campaign. We cannot work alone.

The money we earn go straight to the pockets of multinationals and government.

Q & A of presentations 12 - 14

Q: What is the situation of the families of those killed?

A: Workers were killed instantly by AK47. However, after the killing, there was an increase in the

minimum wage. The communities contributed to the families of the dead.

Q: How was $177 arrived at and how is it about the wages in other industries? How did you get

other unions to agree on $177?

A: The $177 is eight hours of work, not including overtime. It was arrived at based on a survey of

expenses of workers for food, daily commodities, and the $177 is the reasonable demand. About

30 percent of independent unions agree to push for $177. The government unions are useless.

They mobilise to confront their fellow workers. The labour department works with management.

Q: In the case of the NXP workers, do you have special strategies in organising skilled workers?

A: The technicians, who are skilled workers were the first to be organised, and then downward

to operators and the rank-and-file. For 33 years, the same method was applied. At that time, the

company was still hiring high school graduates, and only recently did they require technical

courses. The skill level of these workers is now almost the same.

Q: In a factory, the owner will say, how can we maintain 300 strong workforces if order

fluctuates? This forces factories to exploit workers, to violate labour laws, and employ unreported

workers. The campaign is to share the cost of wages. This dynamics also present in call centres.

Q: How did Indonesia reach out to people and deepen their involvement and understanding? In

the lull, how did they sustain the campaign? During the seven-month factory raid, how did the

workers support each other? After the general strike, how did the unions continue the

movement? What are people and government’s reactions to raids?


A: Strategies include linking workers issues to broader issues, like social protection, and building

alliances with other groups, like women’s, peasants, students, and others. Sustaining is not easy

but we try to have a unified strategy and common goal, which is changing the political situation,

how to stop land-grabbing, how to stop extraction of natural resources, how to improve

people's’ lives. The seven months of factory raids in for the entire Bekasi, with each factory only

raided for one to two days. The raids are meant to pressure employers to regularise workers.

The response from government is first intimidation, using local gangsters, then harmonisation,

and more intimidation when not successful. During the first general strike, 46 workers were

hospitalised. There were also red-tagging, labelling people as communists.

Also, factory raids are a response to negotiation steps that have taken place before. For instance,

it is illegal to hire contractual workers beyond two years and if an owner promised many times,

we resort to raiding the factory. Often the backlash from the government is worse. They hire

thugs. At a policy level, government protects employers. There is a certificate that can protect a

so-called strategic industry from strokes, but it is prone to abuse.

Q: Is the $177 campaign accompanied by the legislative measure campaign?

Q: Aside from trade union repression, was there any other neoliberal response in other countries?

In the Philippines, former President Corazon Aquino set a wage setting mechanism that

decentralised the process.

Q: What about the prospects of an Asian floor wage?

A: Every year from November to December, a tripartite committee composed of employers,

employees, and government sit down to decide the minimum wage. Last year’s increase was

pegged at $15 per month. The Prime Minister promises $28 but whether he is lying or not

remains to be seen. 90 percent of us voted against him but he won. Every three months, the

labour department sends in inspectors in factories, but corruption is prevalent. The inspector

does not act on complaints but uses it to squeeze money from the owner. The ILO will send in

inspectors every six months to audit problems. If they find any problems, they will pressure

employers to comply more fully than the government. There’s also enterprise-level bargaining.


SESSION III: GROUP DISCUSSION

Group discussion facilitated by Martin Hart-Landsberg

The participants are divided into three groups to discuss the following questions:

1. What are the biggest economic / social problems / challenges facing the people in your

country?

2. What strategies in organising do you think are most effective in tackling those problems?

3. What research / information do you think will be helpful in strengthening your efforts?

Proposed additional question: (4). what kind of collaborative activities or joint action in the

future? What are at the Asian-level movement? How do we support organising across borders?

Report from the groups and plenary discussion

Group 1

1. Anti-labour laws, social insecurity, union victimisation, union fragmentation,

contractualisation, migrant workers, anti-union practices, job creation, enforcement

problems of laws (police and labour inspectors)

2. More linear organising, in the district or industrial zone instead of individual plants,

targeting supply chain organising, international solidarity as in the Cambodian case,

political education that should be part of union education /

3. Suzuki (Thailand) / focus on logistic, distribution, seaport workers, confronted by working

condition problems, garments sector, no conclusion on Asian floor wage

Group 2

1. Government is going autocratic again, more repressive, manifestations in-laws as being

pro-investment / in China and Malaysia, problem of migrant workers / increasing number

of unemployed among low-skilled workers / coup in Thailand, decreasing production

leading to increasing unemployment / falling wages, flexible employment, anti-union laws

2. In organising migrant workers in China (internal) and Malaysia (foreign), proposal to have

a physical center where migrant workers can congregate, discuss and have organisers

working with them to sustain discussion / for the strike in Hong Kong, important in terms

of education, one-to-one discussion emphasising that workers should act on themselves

and for themselves

3. Supply chain organising / how to understand supply chain at the grassroots level, both

vertical and horizontal / which among the brands have strong unions in parent

headquarters / how young workers think about unions, how the unions have changed the

lives of workers, to more attractive brand unions /


4. Collaboration, along TNC and organising migrant workers

Group 3

1. Lack of interest from employees in joining unions for different reasons / regulatory

obstacles are strong in several cases and in countries where the law is favourable to

labour, trend to tilt the law in favour of capital / global trend of contractualisation / rise

of flexible and informal labour / ideologically normalised and institutionalised

2. Companies can relocate easily to economic zones so difficult in finding strategy / need for

network of labour group in Asia and more global cooperation / setting up a data bank

among trade unions in the regions to try and gather information, especially for those with

different branches in the region / training and education of workers about the need and

importance to have trade unions, legal rights that they can claim / domestic issues should

be contextualised in a global framework / networking should be systematised, specialised

/ collective consultation groups

3. More in-depth research about informalisation of work across Asia, can incorporate on

some models and examples of cases in which flexibilisation was successfully overcome

4. Map of where to find the resources we need, e.g., where to look for experts on standards

and labour regulations and to gather experiences and strategies and solutions /

knowledge gathering and create body of information that is readily accessible for

different groups and different countries / online publication? That is not purely academic,

to bridge the gap between the two worlds so they can reinforce one another

Possible research projects:

1. A study of workers resistance. Can tackle how globalisation has affected the garments

industry in Cambodia. We can pick four or five examples of the successful organisation of

resistance, situated in how globalisation has shaped the struggles. Can also include best

practices response to globalisation.

2. Labour education. Can talk to trade unions in different countries about their education.

How do they communicate? Do they have manuals? Do they go to schools? Does the

education happen at union meetings?

3. The truth about Asian Economic Experience. Can demystify Asian experience for people in

the region and outside the region to counter the perception that globalisation model

benefits everybody and foremost Asia. How has globalisation created a common model

and what it has meant to the community, workers, and the environment?

4. Various investments and trade agreements in the region. Can map the effects of

agreements to labour laws, how they promote privatisation and affect the protection of

the environment? How are these agreements putting limits on what people in Asia could

do?


5. Distribution sector. Can explore what shipping, trucking, and other logistics industries

mean to the labour movement vis-à-vis globalisation.

6. Labour law. Can discuss the nature of labour laws, how have they changed, a difference

of theory and practice.

7. Job creation. Can try to find out why job creation has been so weak.

8. Services (communication, finance) that facilitate capital mobility

The possible research projects then discussed to get comments and feedback. There are four

researches that most participants consider as high priority: (1) a study of workers’ resistance; (2)

labour education; (3) various investments and trade agreements in the region; and (4) labour

law.

Other comments:

● Talking about capital mobility, we must not only consider the physical distribution of

productive capital but also financial capital, like the communications infrastructure that

facilitates financial capital mobility. In Japan, telecom companies are important in

facilitating financial capital.

● Instead of choosing, we can do everything depending on expertise.

● Regarding question 4, we can map regional campaign on wages, to form an expert

database, and mapping of resources, including TNCs and affiliates.

● Framework and processes are more important than topic. We must not focus on

successes but dilemmas and problems. The idea of “success” must be problematised in

the short term and the long run.

SESSION IV: CLOSING

Evaluation and feedback

● More time devoted to the synthesis of struggles and stories. Now that we’re aware of

struggles in each country, we are looking for a chance to make sense of these, identify

commonalities on top of the sharing, as framed in the larger purview of capital mobility.

More effort to bridge concepts.

● More time for small group discussions

● More time in discussing strategies, to bring understanding of concepts back to the

ground and help find ways of being more creative and how to respond.

● Learned a lot about China.

● Would appeal to friends from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka to demand the branch to

throw profits and distribute to workers


● Learned about capital flow in Asia. Case studies should be longer strategies.

● Being together gives us power, the feeling that we are not alone.

● We must remember that we have a common enemy and mutual interest.

● Nice facilities, great ease, and wonderful people. It is inspiring to hear struggles. The

small groups, especially, to integrate things and draw lessons.

Concluding remarks by Dr Rene Ofreneo

All over the world, industrial relations departments are attached to colleges of business. We

must take a fresh look at labour law. An interesting contemporary case is Thailand, which is

under martial law but has a standing proposal to have one labour standard for ASEAN. The

problem is not merely in the recognition of labour rights, but the big gap between recognition

and implementation. In 2013, ASEAN came up with a declaration on social protection and

recognition of all fundamental freedoms. It is radical on the surface, but the implementation is

by each country’s legal system.

It is important to go beyond slogans and rhetoric. Ask to ourselves, where are the enabling laws,

regulations? There are issues of interpretation, inspectors. I did not know for instance that

labour laws in Thailand are submitted to criminal courts. In South Asia, the problem is most laws

are antiquated legacies of colonialism. The Chinese labour code is so thin. Who interprets this, I

asked. Apparently, it depends on the mayor and the governor.

There are interesting developments in Indonesia. It shows what Unity can do. They can pass a

law on social security and come up with strict rules on outsourcing and adjust the minimum

wage. In the Philippines, the closest to unity we achieved was in 1986 to 1987, when everyone

united with a labour legislative agenda. Maybe unions need not unite formally but on shared

issues. This unity must then find expression regionally or globally.


LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

1. Abu Mufakhir, Sedane Labor Resource Centre, Indonesia

2. Adel Rafanan, NXP Workers Union, National Federation of Labor Unions

3. Annaleah Escressa, Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research, Philippines

4. Apo Leong - Hong Kong Social Security Society, Hong Kong

5. Arleen Tooley, Thirld World Study Center, University of the Philippines

6. Bunyuen Sukmai, Thailand Confederation of Trade Union, Thailand

7. Carlos Maningat, Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research, Philippines

8. Chea Vino, Coalition of Cambodian Apparel Workers Democratic Union, Cambodia

9. CJ Castillo, Labor Education and Research Network, Philippines

10. Daisy Arago, Center for Trade Union and Human Rights, Philippines

11. Edda Manzo, National Federation of Labor Unions

12. Emily Barrem, NXP Workers Union, Kilusang Mayo Uno

13. Emily Cabegin, University of the Philippines

14. Fahmi Panimbang, Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong

15. Fidel De Vera, National Federation of Labor, Philippines

16. Glenn Diaz (documentation)

17. Ilhamsyah, Federation of Indonesian Transport and Port Workers’ Union, Indonesia

18. Jane Siwa, Center for Trade Union and Human Rights, Philippines

19. Jennifer Albano, Labor Education and Research Network, Philippines

20. Joy Hernandez - Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong

21. Juliette Schwak, City University of Hong Kong

22. Kiki Yeung, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Union, Hong Kong

23. Louangreung Pornpanass (interpreter, Thai)

24. Martin Hart-Landsberg - Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, USA

25. Mohd Salleh Ahmad, Electronics Industry Employees Union, Southern Region Peninsular,

Malaysia

26. Nelson Lozano, Punto Publiko, Philippines

27. Noel Colina, Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong

28. Pill-Kyu Hwang, Korean Transnational Corporations Watch, South Korea

29. Ramon Certeza, SOLAIR - University of the Philippines

30. Randy Miranda, Partido Manggagawa, Philippines

31. Rene Ofreneo - University of the Philippines

32. Ronahlee Asuncion, University of the Philippines

33. Siqi Luo - Sun Yat-Sen University, China

34. Siti Aishah Binti Romli, Electronics Industry Employees Union, Southern Region Peninsular,

Malaysia

35. Surendra Pratap - Centre for Workers Education, India

36. Tapan Saha, Textile Garments Workers Federation, Bangladesh

Documents

The Prospects of Labour Organising 2015-Proceeding... · 2015-09-23 · Welcome remarks by Maragtas Amante (Vice President, University of the Philippines) Dr Amante thanked AMRC for