In China，the ACFTU won a debate over how to define a labourer ，an issueof central importance because local governments and the Ministry of Agriculturewere attempting to deny the status of ？labourers ìto over a 100million formerpeasants who were employed in rural industries，thereby excluding them from theprotection of the Labour Law.[71]The ACFTU also won a compromise on the maximumnumber of regular working hours per week.The ACFTU advocated 40hours，while otherinterests within the People‘s Congress pressed for 48hours ；the compromise was44hours.A second dispute was over the maximum number of hours of overtime permonth ：the argument focused on 24hours versus 48hours ，and the compromisewas 36hours.In practice ，in the years since then the 44-hour work week and thelegal maximum of 36hours of overtime have been regularly violated in the foreign-fundedenterprises ，and increasingly so in state enterprises as well ，as they havebeen placed under more intense competition from the challenge of cheap migrant labouremployed in the non-state sector.But at least the law is in the books，and inthe large core state-run enterprises it is largely observed. One significant similarity between the two countries‘laws is the absence ofany reference to the Communist Party.Also，both governments ，having recognizedthe necessity that their trade unions should play a bigger role ，accept a tripartitestructure for industrial relations：of labour，employers and the state.[72]Thetrade unions‘role of protecting workers‘labour rights is affirmed.Both laws grantthe unions a right to collective bargaining on behalf of the workers，both lawsestablish the necessity for management to pay minimum wages and to sign labour contractswith workers，both laws recognize the emergence of labour disputes ，and bothdelineate the role of the unions in labour conciliation and arbitration committees. On close comparison ，the Vietnamese law‘s 198articles（China‘s has 107）are more detailed and ，if enforced，would more effectively protect labour rights.For example ，the Chinese section on collective agreements contains only threebrief articles.Collective agreements are mentioned as an option（the word usedis？may ì（keyi）；and any draft contract is to be？submitted to the congressof the staff and workers……for discussion and adoptionì（Article 33），leavingvague what happens when a firm has no such congress.The Vietnamese law‘s sectionon collective agreements，in contrast，consists of 11articles with numerous sub-clauses.For instance，the right of the union to negotiate collectively on behalf of theworkers is guaranteed in Article 46.1：？Each party shall have the right to requestthe signing of a collective agreement ì。？A collective agreement shall only besigned if the negotiated content……is approved by more than 50per cent of themembers of the labour collectiveì（Article 25.3）；and once signed it ？shallbe made known to all employees of the enterprise……ì（Article 49.1）；？each partyshall have the right to request amendments……ì（Article 50）；and representatives ？shall be entitled to payment of salary during the time of negotiation ……ì（Article43）。The Vietnamese law is precise in specifying that an employer‘s specific non-complianceis a breach of the law. In the Vietnamese labour law，numerous articles also specifically prohibitemployers from exploiting workers‘labour.For example，where disciplinary finesare taken from workers‘salaries，it is stipulated that？the aggregate amount deductedmust not exceed 30per cent of the monthly wage ì；with regard to workers on probation，the wage of the employee？must be at least 70per cent of the normal wage for thejob ìand the trial period should not exceed sixty days ……ì（Article 32）；[73]the workplace‘s internal labour regulations ？must not be contrary to labour legislation……ì（Article 82.1）；and prior to proclaiming any labour regulations，？theemployer must consult the executive committee of the trade union of the enterpriseì（Article 82.2）。None of the above specifics exist in the Chinese law.Yet inChina these are precisely the kinds of practices that managers have used to extractfrom their workforce harder work for less pay. But the biggest difference between the two laws is that after intense debate，[74]Vietnamese law-makers granted workers a right to strike（Article 7.4，173）。The Chinese labour law，by omission，法语论文范文，effectively places the issue of strikes ina state of limbo：neither legalizing nor criminalizing it. Diverging Labour Regimes The above comparison of the two countries‘laws and constitutions suggests thatthe Vietnamese Communist Party is more willing to relax its hold on the labour unionsthan is the Chinese Communist Party.But organizational inertia ，the ideologicallegacies of socialism and the two governments‘present eagerness to maintain labourpeace and to attract foreign capital make for a large gap between what is writtenon paper and the reality of what gets implemented.In this section we shall arguethat while the situation with regard to labour in both countries continues to share ？socialist ìcharacteristics ，there are definite signs of divergence as well. |
