Working Conditions

Huizhou Cadmium struggle for redress shows there is no compensation for trade unions

Below is an IHLO translation of an open letter from Huizhou Gold Peak Battery workers undergoing treatment for cadmium poisoning at the Guangdong Hospital for Occupational Diseases. For over one year now, workers have been trying to claim compensation for their illnesses as well as proper medical investigation and care and improved working conditions for those still working at the two factories involved.

China’s pre-reform enterprise-based labour insurance system was distinguished by its capacity to provide adequate, if basic, compensation to state-owned enterprise workers injured on the job. The system was largely exclusive in that it only applied to workers in large SOEs and to a lesser extent collective-owned enterprises.

The economic reforms brought increasing numbers of young people into off farm work, mostly employed in private companies not covered by the original ‘enterprise insurance system’. The new workplaces continue to be the source of alarming annual accident statistics – 3,000 plus deaths in manufacturing, 10,000 plus in the mines, and many thousands more injuries including hand/arm/finger losses in the special economic zones.

The impact of two new laws related to safety at work: the Work Safety Law (2002) and the Law on the Prevention Industrial Diseases remains limited. While both these laws place responsibility for safe working conditions on the employer, they do very little to allow workers to enforce this responsibility.

Compensation for workplace injury or death is governed by a State Council decree entitled Regulations on Workers’ Compensation Insurance (RWCI) introduced in January 2004. It replaced provisional regulations dating from 1996. While this document does carry weight in a court of law, it does not possess the full authority of a national law as many workers chasing compensation are finding to their cost. Described by some as a “revolutionary breakthrough” the regulations are based on social insurance systems which are familiar to trade unions in developed countries. Based as they are on collective pooling of resources and premiums, implementation of these regulations has revealed some of the problems plaguing progress in China:

A system based on pooled risks i.e. where risks are spread across all workplaces, has two essential requirements: a high participation rate by employers and the resulting capacity of insurance companies to single out employers with a high risk. i.e. bad employers. Although a legal requirement, participation in China remains low. The problem is exacerbated by local governments’ reluctance to encourage full participation. The resulting figures would produce a more accurate overall picture of employment and this is in turn would prevent local governments from underpaying taxes to the central government based on deflated numbers of employed workers under their administration.

When compensation is paid, it is often inadequate and employers are able to take advantage of the complexities involved to indulge in delaying tactics that exhaust a workers economic capacity to see a case through. Workers frequently have to accept a small one-off payment just to put food on the table.

Manipulation of corporate form. This refers to companies frequently changing their names, or having many different names often rendering it impossible for an employee to prove the existence of a formal labour relationship. Furthermore, liberalisation has increased capital mobility which has exacerbated this problem as companies under pressure to pay compensation simply move away from the area where the workers were injured.

More specific to the Huizhou workers case has been the inappropriate relationship between investor, government and medical authorities in Guangdong province. Finding doctors prepared to support workers’ claims is very difficult anywhere. Employers continually contest medical opinions and findings that a worker has contracted an illness through contact with materials used during production. In Huizhou, the workers have had to fight tooth and nail just to get a diagnosis in the first place as hospital authorities have refused access to medical files or sent them direct to the employers.

Perhaps most important is the lack of an independent trade union. The silence of the official state-run All China Federation of Trade Unions over the Huizhou workers fight has been deafening. This is despite assistance and appeals from the international labour community, including national and local trade unions and labour NGOs via a Hong Kong-based campaign.

The lack of a genuine union may well have figured in GP’s recent decision to rearrange its production sites. In efforts to reduce cost, GP Batteries is closing its 9-volt Danish plant and consolidating production of 9-volt alkaline batteries in Malaysia. Manufacture of Nickel Metal Hydride rechargeable batteries (slightly less toxic than regular batteries) operations, currently in Malaysia, will shift to China during 2005/6.

When employers are attracted to investor-friendly environments, their decisions are not made solely on the grounds of economic efficiency or unit cost analysis. Although infrastructure, lack of government red tape, tax holidays, local competition and availability of workers are important, investor-friendly environments are also about non-existent or yellow trade unions, no-strike arrangements and the willingness of local government officials to provide support when needed. This can include arranging for a smooth supply of new workers to replace exhausted or more militant workers, turning a blind eye to wage arrears, safety regulations and compensation rules – often via a bribe – and of course the capacity of the police to both protect private property and ensure workers remain disciplined. There are branches of the state-controlled All China Federation of Trade Unions at both GP Chaoba and GP Xianjin, but they are staffed by management and, like most ACFTU branches are little more than ornamentation.

The Huizhou workers are continuing their fight and as many as 309 of them have pooled their own resources and hired lawyers in two separate cases pursuing adequate compensation. Fifteen of these workers have filed a third case over compensation for hospital accommodation costs. As can be seen from their recent open letter, these workers are not giving up and they deserve the support of the international trade union movement.

Open letter to the Hong Kong media and society at large [1] (July 2005)

The Guangdong Hospital for Occupational Diseases must urgently assist the sick Chaoba workers!

We are workers from the Huizhou Chaoba factory owned by Gold Peak Batteries International Ltd (GP). Chaoba is one of two GP-owned factories located in the city of Huizhou, Guangdong province. The other is the GP Xianjin Factory.

Along with workers from the Xianjin Factory, we have contracted a serious occupational illness caused by excessive levels of cadmium in our blood. Cadmium is used in the battery production process at the two factories. With the help of social organisations and media publicity, we have received treatment for our condition at the Guangdong Hospital for Occupational Diseases. Originally we were under the impression that our employers and hospital authorities would help us to get the cadmium out of our bodies.

We were wrong. Even though the levels of cadmium are still far from stable, we have been ordered to leave the hospital. The Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases (2002) states that the period of treatment may be up to two years; and it also states that if this period fails to result in a full return to health, an employee shall consequently be registered as having a reduced work capacity. We are still within the limits of the two-year treatment period. We are still ill. Why are we being told to leave the hospital?

We have already attempted to come to an arrangement with the hospital via which we might continue to receive treatment but they have refused point blank. Our demands are not extreme and we are simply struggling for the right to live a healthy life as possible given the circumstances. This appears too much for the Chaoba management and hospital authorities to allow.

Today, 22 July 2005, the hospital issued us with a final notice which said that should we wish to remain in the hospital and receive treatment we must do so at our own cost. We are very angry at this blatant attempt to force us to leave. Their behaviour is a sign of how serious the levels of inappropriate and underhand cooperation between the commercial interests and government officials has become.

The Guangdong Hospital for Occupational Diseases is an important hospital in China and took part in drafting the Law on the Prevention and Control of Occupational Diseases. Yet the behaviour of the hospital authorities has led us to have serious doubts about the aim of the new law itself. It seems that by colluding with the company bosses, the hospital has neglected its original duties. Perhaps it has led them to think that workers are weak and easy to deal with and that they can continue to do the dirty work of the bosses.

We therefore issue this appeal to all sections of society to continue with their solidarity efforts. We ask the media to report our plight so that more people of good conscience will assist us in our struggle to uphold our rights and reduce the chances of more workers being cheated by collusion between government officials and company bosses.

Below is a list of some of the regional civil society groups, unions and NGOs who have publicly given their support to the Huizhou workers.

• Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network
• Focus on the Global South (Thailand)
• Committee for Asian Women (Thailand)
• Public Services Labour Independent Confederation (Philippines)
• Globalization from Below (Korea)
• Altogether (Korea)
• Janaraja Joint Health Services Union (Sri Lanka)
• 職業性疾患疫 Research Centre (Japan)
• ATTAC (Association for the Taxation of financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens) (Japan)
• United Labour Federation (Bangladesh)
• Urban Community Mission (Jakarta Indonesia)

Footnote:

[1] The letter above is an IHLO translation.