The Myth of Labour Relations in Overseas Chinese Enterprises
The scenario of idyllic labour relations in overseas Chinese-invested enterprises can be viewed as a myth. When overseas Chinese entrepreneurs claimed that they shared the same cultural values as the mainland Chinese, and could therefore take advantage of the cheap labour and favourable investment conditions in South China, none of them could have expected to encounter a 'cultural shock' in their hometown business operations. Although both overseas Chinese employers and migrant workers represent 'sojourner' populations with a similar purpose, namely to make money in South China, the conflicts between them reflect more than just labour-management disagreements; they also illuminate disparate cultural backgrounds and experiences. These factors have contributed to the complicated labour relations in the enterprises.
By CEN HUANG
This paper intends to explore the causes of the conflicts and problems between migrant workers and their 'foreign' employers in a broader social and cultural context. The objective of the paper is not to deny the existence of abusive, unfair, and inhuman treatment of migrant workers in some East Asian foreign-invested enterprises. Nor is its intention to defend the management of these enterprises. The author argues that the incidence of labour abuse, and subsequent unrest, is much more complicated than a simplistic, orthodox Marxist interpretation of the exploitation of migrant workers by foreign owners and managers.Researchers have hypothesized that different socio-economic and educational backgrounds result in different attitudes and expectations towards work. Their work brought to light that there were various contrasting characteristics between overseas Chinese employers and migrant workers, which may help understand why and how some problems and conflicts were created in these enterprises.
Mobility was a fundamental contrasting characteristic between the two groups involved. Most migrants we interviewed came to South China with an unambivalent purpose, namely to earn money and then go back home within a matter of a few years. They were extremely mobile. In contrast to their own flexibility, the employers wanted their workers to remain in long-term employment and worried about the high turnover of the labour force.
Loyalty versus trust the second contrasting feature. All employers demanded their workers be loyal. Some even claimed that they created a family-type atmosphere in the workplace in order to build up a base for workers' loyalty. Migrant workers saw matters otherwise, considering that trust comes before loyalty, an attitude which stemmed from the uncertainty of their lives. This conflict has played a thorny role in labour relations. Both the employers and employees interviewed complained about the other side for being either not loyal or distrustful.
Commitments versus alternatives have played another important role. All employers demanded their workers be totally committed to the factory, while most migrant workers we interviewed intended to make use of alternative choices for their employment. A common complaint expressed by employers about migrants was that 'very few of them have a sense of belonging to the workplace, therefore, they rarely made commitments to work and they don't take responsibility for what they are doing.' In contrast, the migrant workers said that 'how can we have a sense of belonging to the enterprise when we work on a non-contract basis. The employers are too demanding in the workplace and leave no space in our lives.'
Conflicts
The most common complaint made by entrepreneurs was that migrant workers had poor work habits and lacked a sense of responsibility. They often failed to follow instructions and were unwilling to co-operate. An entrepreneur told us his favourite story, beginning 'you expected them [the workers] to be very well informed about the correct procedures for putting things together after so many demonstrations and so much training. Yet, as soon as they were left unsupervised, they started putting things together in their own way.' Others complained about the poor hygiene habits of the rural migrants. A manager said, 'If you do not have heavy fines on spitting and littering, you will have a very dirty workplace.' The empirical data demonstrated that socio-economic status was an important determinant in the amount of human capital investment and subsequent economic success. Work attitudes were related to a person's personal habits and educational level. Many employers indicated that the best way to train the poorly educated rural youth in labour-intensive factories is by implementing highly restrictive rule and military exercises.
As was to be expected, the migrant workers told a different tale. Many were particularly angered by the excessive and extreme restrictions imposed on them. They accused the employers of never showing any respect and trust towards workers. One worker told us, 'What is really unfair is that the managers do not believe us when we are really sick. They treat us as though we are all liars even when some of us almost fainted at work.' Another worker said, 'The supervisors are always rude and bad tempered. Their only concern is about the productivity and they never care about what we want.' The workers made no bones about the fact that the most difficult thing about working in the enterprise was the detailed and unfair rules, regulations and fines, which were construed as being to make them feel inferior and subordinate.
When confronted by the criticisms about their despotic management approaches, most employers felt that they had been misunderstood. One of them stated, 'It was not fair that the press also attacked us for exploiting workers in China. We are not exploiters, but producers. We are exploited by the international markets, these are the real exploiters.' Many employers interviewed shared this view. They tended to defend themselves by pointing out that disciplinary measures were always counterbalanced by an appropriate use of incentive programmes to induce workers to be compliant towards rules and increased productivity. They argued that contrary to the bad press they frequently received, they had implemented 'good, sensible systems of rewards and fringe benefits' that included insurance, subsidized accommodation and meals, organized recreation and social activities, and medical benefits. Some felt that authoritarianism often went hand in hand with paternalism and could not see anything wrong with it, particularly when dealing with workers in a Chinese cultural milieu in which such practices should be regarded as goodwill. Despite what the scholarly literature says about 'trust' as a factor in the management of Chinese enterprises, it is clear from this study that many employers need to work more on this dimension by providing more benefits, and by displaying more respect and creating a more friendly work environment. They also need to acknowledge the rural, 'cultural', background of their workers.
The employers complained about the above difficulties, but they nevertheless admitted that most of the migrants were bright, kind-hearted, and not always malicious. They also appreciated the way workers really put their backs to the wheel. The problems were blamed on two points. One was to the failure of education in rural China, which completely ignores moral education (such as the inculcation of honesty, respect, and hard work) and the lack of basic vocational skill training in the curriculum. The narrowly defined national curriculum which is designed only to qualify pupils for university entrance examinations had left the majority of rural youth with little preparation to be able to adjust to working and living independently. The second culprit was a misunderstanding about the issue of cultural affinity current among the employers. What surprised the overseas Chinese employers most was that such an assumption of cultural affinity in many cases was no longer valid in their South China operations. Many also admitted they were surprised by the numerous problems that had emerged in industrial relations.
Despite their dislike of the authoritarian and regimented nature of their enterprises, the migrant workers we interviewed admitted the merits of the strict workplace discipline. One of them said that she felt she had learned more, while another suggested she came to appreciate good work practices only when she found herself working in a less ordered environment. Yet another decided that discipline had helped her to develop better skills and her colleague noted that discipline actually provided her with a better work routine.
Conclusions
In many ways massive rural labour migration in China since the 1980s has become part and parcel of an ancient saga. The departure of millions and 'becoming 'Other' is an experience known to tens of millions of overseas Chinese around the globe and over the centuries' who have stepped across the borders that defined their identities to brave a life in an unknown realm. Back in the late 19th century when many young peasant boys migrated to Southeast Asia from their home villages in Guangdong and Fujian, they probably had the habits and the mentality of peasants, very similar to the migrant workers today. And yet a century later, the descendants of the early immigrants have become capitalist entrepreneurs coming back to South China to operate export-oriented factories. The phenomenon of massive migrant rural youth in overseas Chinese enterprises has made this ancient saga more mythical, not only because the two groups are identified as emigrants in an unknown land, but also because they both claim to share a similar culture and linguistic background, which were assumed to be an advantage to them both in realizing their dreams of economic profit in South China. The conflicts and misunderstandings created on this basis of their 'shared' cultural affinity and different expectations have contributed to many management-labour problems in the enterprises. This paper has explored some of the basic fabric of the complicated relationships between migrant workers and overseas Chinese employers. The study was unable to verify systematically whether or not these were common occurrences, but at least it has managed to represent the stories from the sides of both employers and workers. It is hoped that through the balanced analysis of the perception and experiences of the both parties involved, labour relations in overseas Chinese enterprises will be able to be better understood. *
Dr Cen Huang was a research fellow at the IIAS between November 1997 and January 2000. She is currently the Director of the International Programs and Partnerships, International Center at the University of Calgary.
E-mail: cenhuang@hotmail.com