Authoritarianism in Asia and the effects on trade union rights

Abstract

10 | International Union Rights | 27/4 FOCUS | TRADE UNION RIGHTS IN ASIA Authoritarianism in Asia and the effects on trade union rights The COVID-19 pandemic has created greater inequality and divisions between the capitalist and working classes globally. In the context of Asia, workers have been devastated by job loss, order cuts, and rigid and punitive lockdown measures, catalysing workers’ struggles throughout the region. Trade unions have ramped up their efforts to organise battered workforces, respond to the surge of labour rights violations, hold overseas buyers accountable, and in many cases fill the role of the state (and employers) by providing relief to destitute workers. At the same time, trade unions are facing the expansion of state power that comes with repression of the labour movement, deregulation of labour laws, and undermining basic labour and human rights amid the pandemic. The struggle from above has taken the form of the consolidation of state central authority that began with measures such as lockdowns, border closures, curfews, and declared states of emergencies in the name of public health. In other words, militarisation in place of spending on actual public health measures such as free testing and sufficient relief that would make it possible for people to stay in their homes. At the same time, using economic downturn as an excuse, states have collaborated with industry and elites by imposing anti-worker austerity budgets and deregulation of labour laws. Recent attacks against worker and trade union rights are part and parcel of the minefield of anti-worker legislation that is sure to cause further job losses, increased informalisation, and worsening working conditions, setting the labour movement back decades. Major anti-worker and anti-union state interventions have triggered massive pushback from the labour movement and civil society. In the following, we will illustrate two notable examples: the Omnibus Law in Indonesia and the new Labour Codes in India, and their discontents. Indonesia’s Omnibus Law On 3 November 2020, Indonesian President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo signed a controversial bill, the ‘Omnibus Bill on Job Creation’ into law. It amends 81 existing laws related to research and innovation, supporting investment, mining regulation, environmental protection, economic zones, empowerment of small business, land procurement, and labour. Many labour unions, academics, and civil society groups have noted the many procedural flaws in the Bill1. It has been described as ‘the worst’ law to pass since the fall of the authoritarian regime in 19982. The deliberation process was marked by a lack of transparency and public participation. The draft Bill was not circulated to the public, nor made available from official sources. The Omnibus Law also gives more power to the central government, creating a roadblock to the country’s process of democratisation and decentralisation. According to one Indonesian journalist, ‘the 1945 constitution sets the parliament as the supreme authority, but the Bill would effectively give the executive near-absolute power. The president would have absolute executive and legislative power’3. Greater labour market flexibility on the horizon Jokowi and his ministers argued that the Bill was badly needed at a time of economic crisis, slumping growth, and increased unemployment, asserting that it would remove red tape, promote investment, and create more jobs. They also promised that it would protect workers, especially contract workers, by requiring outsourcing agencies to register in a centralised online system that would prevent illegal agencies from operating. However, the law also grants the central government the power to exempt business licenses. The Omnibus Law will promote investment and create jobs at the expense of labour and human rights. As explained in a recent report by Amnesty International, the Omnibus Law undoubtedly erodes basic human rights4. For example, it amends some important articles in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, allowing cuts to severance pay, and flexibility of working hours. This will surely result in longer working hours, requiring workers to perform multiple duties at work, and enable employers to use temporary workers for an indefinite time without proper contracts5. Such an environment will be rife for union busting. While temporary workers are still technically allowed to join unions, they are more easily intimidated by employers who could freely sack workers suspected...