Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:16:26 +0900 From: JC Helary <helary at eskimo.com>
And why they are close to useless...
(not all though, still...)
JC Helary
LDP's push to ban checkoff system wrongheaded thinking
The dispute over the checkoff issue raises a fundamental question: To
what extent can politics involve itself in labor-management relations?
Unprincipled intervention violates the principle of labor-management
autonomy and endangers democracy.
April 10, 2000
Workers at most Japanese companies currently pay union dues indirectly
under the checkoff system whereby such charges are withheld from
wages, as are income taxes and other levies.
This system is highly convenient to unions because it saves them the
trouble of collecting membership dues directly and makes sure that
every member pays his or her dues regularly. It also helps management
keep good relations with unions.
Now, however, members of the Liberal Democratic Party are moving
toward placing a total ban on the checkoff system through revision of
the Labor Standard Law. Other charges, such as taxes and social
security fees, will continue to be withheld from pay.
With an election coming near, the move is clearly intended to shake up
unions financially, which form a major supporting bloc for Minshuto
(the Democratic Party of Japan) and other opposition parties.
If the checkoff arrangement is legally banned, unions will have to
collect dues directly from individual members. And if many members
fail or refuse to pay their dues, unions will find themselves in dire
financial straits. As a result, their entire activities will be
adversely affected.
No wonder Rengo, the Japanese Private Sector Trade Union
Confederation, has lashed out at the LDP move, saying it ``disregards
a labor-management practice that has continued for many years'' and
would ``deal a heavy blow to union finances.'' Rengo is set to stop
the LDP bid with the help of Minshuto and other pro-labor parties.
It is unclear, however, whether the LDP proposal will become law even
if it is introduced in the Diet. Part of the reason is that New
Komeito and the Liberal Party are taking a cautious stand on the LDP
overture.
The dispute over the checkoff issue raises a fundamental question: To
what extent can politics involve itself in labor-management relations?
Unprincipled intervention violates the principle of labor-management
autonomy and endangers democracy.
The Labor Standard Law requires employers to pay all wages due to
workers. However, in cases stipulated by law or where labor-management
agreements exist, employers are allowed to withhold part of the wages.
Income taxes, for instance, are withheld at the source because that is
allowed by law, while union dues and company welfare and recreation
fees, for example, are withheld under union-management contracts.
In Japan where unions are mostly organized on a company-by-company
basis, the checkoff system applies to more than 94 percent of the
unions.
The Labor Standard Law permits checkoff, perhaps because unions are
believed to have a social role to play in improving the living
standard of workers in general through talks with the government, for
example.
In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that unions can conduct such
political activities and use part of their funds for this purpose.
However, the ruling also said that unions must not use the checkoff
system as a means of collecting extra obligatory dues to support
selected candidates at election time, since individual members should
be allowed to decide for themselves which candidate they will vote
for.
As long as unions act in accordance with the tenet of this ruling,
political parties have no business poking their nose into union
activities. The proposed ban on checkoff makes light of unions' social
role.
On that basis, we would like to offer a warning to Rengo and other
union leaders. If checkoff is taken for granted, the necessary degree
of tension in labor-management relations may be lost and, as a result,
members' confidence in the unions may suffer. Also, high membership
dues or lack of transparency in their disbursements may increase
members' discontent with their unions. It is essential, of course, to
secure transparency in union activities. The bottom line is whether
unions are really worth the dues they collect from their members.
(Asahi Shimbun, April 3)