 |
UTTERLY DEVOID OF CONSCIENCE
(China Labour Bulletin, n. 32-33 - December 1996)
THE SHENG LONG COMPANY EXPLOITS THE WORKERS: LET'S SEE HOW THE LABOR BUREAU HANDLES. THIS CASE
(Source: China: Labour Rights Activists on Trial in Shenzhen, a report by Human Rights Watch/Asia)
In order to cruelly exploit the workers for huge profits, the Sheng Long company did not inform the workers of their labour law rights and did not sign contracts with them according to regulations. On the pretext of arranging lodging for the workers, the company asked them to pay so-called deposits. Between 500 and 600 yuan (editors note: the minimum wage in Shenzhen is 320 yuan) were deducted from every worker's pay. In fact, the company never arranged lodging certificates for the workers. Instead, it used that as a means to coerce the workers. When some of the workers joined the company a year ago, the general manager at the time told them they could get their deposits back atter completing one year's work. However the present general manager, a younger brother of the former general manager, said that those were the former general manager's words, and he was not obliged to honour them.
Why did the workers want to leave the Sheng Long company?
The system of management practised by Sheng Long was entirely one of capitalist cannibalism. Workers worked more than fourteen hours a day and often worked overtime all night without overtime pay. They never enjoyed paid holidays and even had to work on Lunar New Year's Day non-stop throughout the night. As a result of extreme exhaustion, many workers s got otitis. Were they properly paid for their hard work? Not at all. Sheng Long resolted to all sorts of tricks to pocket portions of the workers' pay. According to its piece rate system, many workers should have been paid eight or nine hundred yuan a month, having fulfilled their quotas. But they were paid only five or six hundred yuan. Some workers wanted to check the company's books. They were chased from the owner's office. One elderly woman worker only received three yuan as the company imposed all kinds of fines and deductions.
Yet, not only did the owner fail to improve the workers' working and living conditions, he even shamelessly asked the workers to compensate him for the losses caused by their quitting, without considering the fact that profits created by the workers were many times the so-called losses. When two sisters received a telegram bringing the sad news that their mother was seriously ill and near death, they were denied their request to leave. Where is the owner's conscience?
When the workers tried to reason without success, they had no choice but to appeal to the various labour departments. How did the labour departments handle this case? First, the workers went to the Municipal Labour Bureau and were told the matter was under the jurisdiction of the Overseas Chinese Town Labour Bureau. The workers went to that bureau and were told the matter was to be handled hy the Labour Disputes Arbitration Committee . The committee claimed the matter of quitting was to be handled by the Overseas Chinese Town Labour Bureau. So the workers went back to that bureau. The answer they received was that the Sheng Long Company was not under their jurisdiction. The workers had no choice but to go back to the Municipal Labour Bureau for help.
Thus, they made no less than a dozen trips, spending much time and energy. They finally met with an official of the Municipal Labour Bureau. Without hesitation, the official accused them of wilfully making trouble. After the workers' repeated pleading, a document was drawn up, asking the company to settle the matter. But the company simply ignored it.
On the afternoon of September 27, the workers once again went to the Labour Bureau. This time, the bureau official first advised the workers to consider both sides of the matter, asserting that quitting caused losses to the company. "If everyone quaits at will, how can a company stay in business?" he said. But why did he not consider the reasons the workers wanted to leave. Could it be that the workers had not been exploited enough by the capitalists? Had it not been for the thousands of workers who were willing to give their youth, no company could have stayed in business. The official also tried to frighten the workers, branding them people of "the three withouts" (editor's note: san-wu renyuan refers to migrant workers who have no temporary residency permit, no work permit and no citizen's identification card) and subject to removal by the city of Shenzhen. He also said that even if the capitalist violated labour regulations, no worker could be allowed to violate labour discipline. They were only entitled to raise the issue. If workers were not allowed to resist exploitation by the capitalists, whose interests was the labour bureau protecting?
It was clear as day that the workers resigned a month ago. But the company simply denied it. If only the labour bureau official would go to the company and talk to the workers, the issue would have been easily resolved. But they just sat in their offices, asking the workers to produce evidence. So the issue remains unsolved. How is the case going to be settled? Let us wait and see.
|