unions in Japan

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Mon Apr 10 11:39:06 PDT 2000


[bounced bec of an attachment]

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)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list