EDIT: Apparently Yogthos posted this in a couple places but Sino only has 8k subs whereas this has 23k so I’ll leave it here.
I posted this in the news mega the other day but it deserves its own post. This law was signed in December but was apparently missed by most socialists. It goes into effect on July 1st.
Some snippets and explanations:
Article 17(2) of the Revised Company Law now stipulates that the assembly of employee representatives shall be the basic form of the democratic corporate governance system and that this shall apply to all companies. That means, regardless of whether a company is private or state-owned, whether it is a limited liability or a stock corporation. This is a notable development, as democratic corporate governance as a requirement for all companies is set out in national law for the first time.
A new organ is required in all companies called the Employee Assembly. It is democratic in nature.
An enterprise shall decide whether to convene an assembly of employee representatives or an assembly of all employees according to the Provisions on Democratic Governance of Enterprises, relevant local regulations, and subject to the number of its employees. In general, an enterprise with 100 or more employees shall convene an assembly of employee representatives; an enterprise with fewer than 100 employees should convene an assembly of all employees. An assembly of employee representatives (or an assembly of all employees, the “Employee Assembly”) is an organ for employees to exercise their power of democratic governance of the enterprise.
It is made up of all employees in companies below 100 members, or representatives are elected in companies above 100 members.
The trade union of an enterprise is the executive organ of its Employee Assembly and is responsible for the daily work of the Employee Assembly.
Cool
An Employee Assembly shall be convened at least once a year, and more than two-thirds of the employee representatives must be present at the plenary session of an Employee Assembly. Elections and votes on relevant matters at an Employee Assembly require a majority of all employee representatives.
Very cool
an Employee Assembly shall usually exercise the following powers and functions:
(I) Listening to the reports from the main persons responsible for the enterprise on the enterprise’s development planning, annual production and operation management, enterprise reform and formulation of major rules and regulations, employment issues, conclusion and implementation of labor contracts and collective contracts, production safety, and payment of social insurance premiums and housing provident funds; and making comments and suggestions thereon;
(II) Deliberating the rules and regulations or major proposals formulated, amended or adopted by the enterprise which may directly affect the immediate interests of its employees, such as remuneration, working hours, rest and vacation, occupational safety and health, insurance and welfare, employee training, labor discipline, and the management of labor quotas; and making comments and suggestions thereon;
(III) Deliberating and adopting the draft collective contracts, the plan for the use of the employees’ welfare fund drawn down in accordance with the relevant national regulations, the plan for adjusting the rate and timing of the payment of housing provident funds and social insurance premiums, the recommendation of candidates for model employees and other important matters;
(IV) Electing or dismissing employee directors and employee supervisors, electing employee representatives to meetings of creditors and creditors’ committees of the enterprise subject to bankruptcy proceedings in accordance with the law, and recommending or electing management personnel of the enterprise as authorized;
(V) Reviewing and monitoring the implementation of labor laws and regulations and labor rules by the enterprise, democratically evaluating the leaders of the enterprise, and making recommendations on rewards and punishments; and
(VI) Such other powers and functions as may be provided by laws or regulations.
Powers = Having access to all information of the company at every level, which is very important to worker benefits and ensuring labour law is being followed. Also the dismissing of directors, supervisors, managers, and electing representatives to meetings of creditors. In companies over 300 employees elected-members of the employee assembly must be elected to the board of directors.
China has made all companies worker-controlled. I would show this article to anyone that claims otherwise. This is worker democracy.
China is still a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Ahhhhh this is so cool. Libs will of course say that this is fake for the same reason they believe all unions in China to be fake, because they’re part of the CPC, but China continues to implement Full-Process Democracy and continues to be the gold standard for representation in a modern government.
Guess I’ll be the Lib.
How is this any different than the German codetermination system? Honestly it seems like they’re just copying it, though it does apply to small businesses too. Which is cool but I wouldn’t call it workplace democracy.
German codetermination only elects less than half of people to the supervisory board of directors, and then those people hire managers and make major business decisions. The Employee Assembly, on the other hand, is electing their own managers and directors directly. This means that shareholders do not get a say in the hiring and firing of management, it’s just worker controlled. Since codetermination still allows for more than half of the supervisory board to be chosen by shareholders it’s class collaborationist at its core.
I am not sure what % of the board must be elected actually, worth verifying that.
Compared to codetermination though one important difference is that it applies to all companies over 300, not just companies over 500 employees.
This all comes with the caveat of it being a translation but I really don’t think it says what you think it does.
Section I just say the employees are informed of and get a performative say in what the company was already planning on doing, not that they get an actual say in that plan. Section II is only about working conditions and not about the nature of the work itself, if it should be done, how best to do it, etc. Section III also is only about contract points which deal with remuneration and not with the actual business of the company. This part of Section IV;
Is suspiciously worded and makes me think that it really only means their direct managers and department heads, which of course is an improvement but they aren’t voting on whether major shareholders get a seat on the board of directors or not. Even if it did include the regular C suite, it absolutely does not include members of the company appointed by the party/state.
Some of the better seeming parts have no teeth.
Just says they get to show up to the meeting, not that they actually have any say in that meeting. Especially the last part of section IV.
Is super weasel wordy. This could be satisfied just by acknowledging the recommendation of the assembly, it doesn’t actually require the company to follow that recommendation.
Section V also has no teeth. There is no mention whatsoever of the makeup of the board of directors or what say shareholders have. Which leads me to believe that this is whole thing is just designed to appease workers and not actually provide workplace democracy. To be clear, it is a potentially a step in the right direction if it is given teeth but as it stands it is absolutely just as ‘class collaborationist’ as Germany’s.
Of course all of this ignores the corrupting and profit maximizing nature of modern corporations which is not changed one iota just by changing who can vote for who is in charge (as evidenced by large co-ops like Mondragon) especially since they still have to compete against corporations who absolutely will cut every corner and cheat to get ahead.
Edit: I forgot how to format
I’ll get a friend to translate it if you want, what specific part is the issue
The bigger problem is what it doesn’t say, like about anything about the board of directors or shareholders. I don’t think it would help much unless they’re also familiar with Chinese labor law.
On paper, the elected member in board meetings wouldn’t have much individual power but they would be able to report back to the greater labor audience on potentially negative workplace changes. I interpreted the law as making it easier for workers to organize and be aware of up top decisions, even without direct say. It doesn’t give direct rights but the potential to struggle for them.
I thought of that parallel too, my comment was more that this is one aspect of many in the Chinese system which seeks to extend democratic processes beyond just electing your representative. This particular system is cribbed from Germany’s notes, but the context it exists in has more democratic structures than the context that the German one exists in.