Collective bargaining complexity in Vietnam

Abstract

8 | International Union Rights | 27/4 FOCUS | TRADE UNION RIGHTS IN ASIA In 2018, Vietnam ratified the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP) trade agreement1. It is said this marks a paradigm shift for Industrial relations development in the country. Trade unionism will be competitive as a result of provisions that require State Parties to permit independent workers’ representatives. In Vietnam this means, for the first time, the prospect of unions operating outside of the VGCL umbrella. How will this affect the landscape of trade unionism? Will strengthening collective bargaining agreements lessen wildcat collective actions? Will the model prove to be adversarial, or anarchical, or highly interventionist, while the overarching governing principle of social and political stability is the focus of the nation? Will the model of Work Councils support stable, sound industrial relations? It is undeniable that the CPTPP brings pros and cons for Vietnam’s industrial relations system. On one hand, a more competitive trade unionism brings more information flow, and thus real possibilities of for challenging what the philosopher Habermas called the ‘colonised life world’. This comes from the legitimacy pertaining to independent workers’ representatives who are acknowledged by law. On the other hand, with competitiveness set up, it is a challenge for seeking agreement from what is likely to be a prolonged decision-making process. Especially where unions are not on the same frontier, this could make up the risks of fallacious arguments against the worker’s representatives and jeopardise a sound industrial relations environment, creating additional costs for running the system and chaotic challenges for business. The challenge is the need to set up a viable social dialogue platform that facilitates negotiations, which could be expressive and factual while heading to substantive outcomes, maintaining a certain unity and enforcement of agreements, while reducing unnecessary costs to the social partners. Vietnamese Culture of dialogue The legislation provides mechanisms for participation in social dialogue and negotiations, but it is worth noticing certain cultural distinctions of the Vietnamese that determine certain social interactions in practice. It is commonly known that in direct dialogue, any disagreement shall not be shown on the face – at least not in a direct way – but will rather be disguised by silence and or a diluted smile; this is misunderstood as ‘agreement’ by opponents2. In such a context, procedural talks or negotiation is a burden if workers have to take follow up dialogue or actions to get what they want. However, one should not infer from this that people are mostly not in favour of disputes. Another matter is that the Vietnamese have a pragmatic and purposeful mindset, and tend to want to achieve and solve things quickly. This leads to what is at face value a seemingly contradictory fact; that collective actions - like wildcat strikes - are quickly launched and solved, whereas cooperative joint problem solving is beset by impatience and hesitancy over face-to-face dialogue that can easily fall into ad-hominem arguments, which destroy collaborations and relationship in the long run. This challenge for a trade union officer is to develop a sensitive capacity to guess people’s ideas, summarise them, and take important practical tactics to get things done in favour of workers without involving too many stakeholders on joint-decision making. Versatile Trade Union Officers In Vietnam, it is by law the responsibility of business owners and the upper level trade union to encourage workers to establish a trade union in any new business entity with more than five workers. The interim trade union was commonly formed based on the lists of personnel selected and proposed by management and approved by the upper-level trade union for a maximum of 12 months. Following this, every five years the trade union must approve a grass-roots officer nominated and selected in a workplace, with three conditions: credits from stakeholders; votes by workers; and authorisation by the upper-level trade union. The workplace trade union chairman thus plays a ‘3 in 1’ role of company mediator officer, state policy executor, and representative of workers. It is assumed that in this particular design, the grassroots unions are given the responsibilities of harmonising relationships and have access to knowledge that...