A Twisted Tale of Solidarity in Thailand Lost to Greed by Phairath Khampha 30 June 2000 Thai researcher Bundit Thanachaisethavut, 40, listed eight factors that had contributed to a weak labour movement in Thailand in his latest book, and he gave none a priority over another. Thai workers continue to be used by businesses as abused near-slaves with little recourse for rights and a deceent working environment and decent pay. "These factors are all interconnected," said Bundit, who works for the Arom Pongpangan Foundation's labour resource centre. Only 265,982 workers of 7,600,997 employees, or only 3.5 percent of Thailand's total formal workforce, are unionised. While there are 999 unions to date, within some of them quality and commitment to members is questionable. In his book Labour Structure and Tri-partite System in Thailand Bundit looks closely at the three major factors dominating Thailand's labour movement and its fate: the employers, the workers and the state, including its legislation relating to the workforce. These factors offer an insight into the state of contemporary workplace democracy. "Employers still harbour outdated views towards workers," said Bundit. The researcher attributed employers' attitudes to the existing patronage culture of business, as well as employers' totalitarian inclinations. Workers are seen as a mere cheap production factor, he said. And unionism is actively discouraged, even through violence and intimidation. Workers who have been active in the labour movement are often "blacklisted" and the list is in constant circulation among personnel managers of various industries. "This is a ruling ideology amongst personnel managers in Thailand," he said. "It is a reflection of Thai culture in general as well. Management people tend to think that they are rulers. Seldom are they aware that they are also employees." "And this serves the business owners just fine," said Bundit. He said personnel managers of many factories were taught to prevent any attempt to unionise the shop floor. Or, in the event of a strike, video footage was often shot and workers appearing on resulting video would likely be threatened. "There's a special course on the subject," he said. "And some personnel managers [have] even formed themselves into a group to provide special services to employers, such as how to legally get rid of workers." Another tactic introduced by employers that weakened the labour movement was the introduction of subcontracted work and temporary employment, said Bundit. "It's a challenge for labour unions to protect these [temporary] workers and subcontractors. They are being taken advantage of in every way - be it welfare payments, social security and so on," he said. "Yet some shameful unions tell the employers that if there are to be any lay-offs, subcontracting workers should be the first to leave." It behooves workers to shut up and bear it or not bring home any money at all. Workers, on the other hand, are at a disadvantage in many respects. First, they tend to be less educated than the middle class and have never enjoyed a say in national and economic development affairs. Bundit said the Joint Public-Private Committee consulted with just three employers' associations, namely: the Thai Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Thai Industries and the Thai Bankers' Association. "It's biased," he said. "Nowhere do we see workers being represented. In the state's view, workers have no role in solving economic woes. But in Thailandthe state only represents the concerns of big business and not the ordinary people." Bundit said that while ordinary workers unquestionably struggled hard to make ends meet, the unity among the nine existing labour congresses, and its integrity, could not be taken for granted. "At least three [labour congress] presidents are not really employees," he said, referring to the fact that they joined the movement for personal gain. He saidd some appropriated the government budget allocated to the May Day march, actively sought invitations to overseas international labour organisation meetings and other similar shady practices. Bundit said corruption, particularly concerning the May Day budget, took place with the consent, and indeed in the interests, of some labour officials who benefited from buying chairs and fax machines at artificially high prices. The company selling the equipment will then give the officials a kickback for their efforts. "It's a dilemma. But what should be asked is how this situation came about. In a way, the power structure of labour congress is centralised like that of a government's agencies," he said. And so we have a so-called aristocratic unionist." He said many union leaders sold their members out by negotiating under-the-table deals to support particular congresses in return for political or financial gain. But a counter, said Bundit, was the growing prominence of the so-called "union vicinity", where a number of unions from different industries in the same district grouped themselves together to help others, in the face of malfunctioning labour congresses. "There are nine of them now," said Bundit. Nevertheless, it's not just the various labour congresses that have proved to be dysfunctional; a number of labour unions themselves do not encourage active participation in decision making. "[The] patronage system works at union level as well," said Bundit. It's rooted in its members' psyche as well." "Union members choose the union committee and expect them to deliver better pay and welfare in return - just like parliamentary elections," he said, "It has also proven that union leaders and even union members may not be any more democratic than the employers they often criticise. "Most [union] members do not care what the committees do to make ends meet," Bundit said, referring to the fact that almost all union leaders had to fund themselves in their union activities. "In other countries, unions have adequate funds collected from members. In Thailand, however, union members only demand their [own] interest." "A new thinking and reorganisation is certainly needed," said Bundit. And this would not be possible, said Bundit, without a genuine willingness for union members and leaders to criticise both themselves and each other. Yet it is the law and legislation which has limited workers' ability to exercise their rights. Or rather the laws of the land have made it more difficult ... and risky. And that is why many labour activists and academics are pushing for reforms. In Thailand there currently are no laws to protect anyone who wants to form a union. Bundit said if an attempt was made to register a union and employers found out before it became official, they would simply sack them. Thus, today the process of making offices democratic is done in secrecy, in an atmosphere of fear. Another law prevents foreign workers from forming, or participating in, a union. "I don't know of any country that has such a prohibition," said Bundit. "But Burma may be an exception." Twenty-two labour laws are currently being reviewed, he said. And in the following months there would be a major push for significant reforms to protect democratic rights and freedom of speech. "The government has never intended to protect or support rights to organise and collectively bargain," said Bundit."We have been trying to change certain laws for a decade but the government always retorts that [such a task] is a time-consuming process," he said. Armed gang terrorises factory staff As an example of the terror tactics used by owners of busniesses in Thailand to keep their workers compliant, scores of women working at a textile factory needed hospital treatment after being sprayed with fire extinguishers by a gang of armed men on June 14. The 20 men stormed into the Thai Durable Textile factory and terrorised the workers, mainly women, who were in a dispute with the management over pay and welfare benefits, said Arunee Srito, adviser to the plant's labour union. The vapour from the extinguishers spread quickly around the factory and many women had breathing difficulties. They were sent to Bangkok Hospital in Phra Pradaeng district. Rerai Sarat, 46, one of the workers, said the men fired warning shots as people tried to stop them. However, in this case all attackers had been detained by police, she said. It remained to be seen if they would eventually be charged. Usually they are not after the factory owner goesto have a little chat with the police. Strikers hurt in attack In another example of who Thailand's economic and political elite trample on the rights of ordinary Thais, more than 1,000 men stormed into Thaikriang Textiles Plc in Samut Prakan province on the morning of June 22 and tried to forcibly evict the about 200 female workers occupying the factory. "They stomped in to tear down our tents put up in the factory. They even trampled on some women and kicked those who tried to stop them," said Pranee Srisai, a 43-year-old worker. The men wore blue cloth bands on their wrists, she said. They dispersed after police arrived, she said. Several women were injured and some had to be treated at a nearby hospital, said Labour Congress of Thailand president Pratuang Saengsang. The action was barbaric, Pratuang said. Agreements can be reached by other means, he said, adding that negotiations had been scheduled for the same day. The violence should be a lesson for the workers, said Labour Protection and Welfare Department director-general Sakchai Sakkullawong. They should learn to reason, he said. But this department is a government agency which, despite its name, actually looks out after the interests of Thailand's economic elite and the wealthy, not the rights of labourers. The Central Labour Court had ruled that the employer was allowed to open the factory and allow non-striking workers to start working, he said. "Strikers get the blame for blocking the factory's gate and their act can be considered a criminal offence," he said. "If they want to go on a strike they can, but they cannot disrupt the working process of their employer," he said. The department considered asking Deputy Labour Minister Prayut Siripanich to enforce Article 35 of the Labour Relations Act to order the employer to re-employ all workers, Sakchai said. Buppa Kancharoen, the leader of the company's union, said the workers would be at a disadvantage if a minister decided to end the strike with Article 35. Furthermore, it was against Thailand's constitution, but who cares? "Our demands will be left unheard and our efforts will mean nothing because all the workers will have no other choice but to return to their jobs at the factory," she said. The factory has about 1,800 workers, of which 1,200 are unionised. The unionised workers went on strike on May 30 demanding higher pay and annual bonuses, said Pranee, who has worked at the factory for 26 years. The conflict escalated after the strike. The employer shut the factory. Several rounds of negotiations had since failed. Police officers were ready to contain any further violence and arrest workers who demonstrated against these harsher developments, said Samut Prakan provincial commander Pol Maj Gen Surasak Chaikomin. Govt flayed over attacks on workers Academics and labour leaders on June 26 strongly condemned the brutal June 22 management crackdown on workers of Thai Durable Textiles (TDT) Co Ltd. As workers made plans to petition the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai for justice the following day, labour experts were blasting the government for failing to uphold the workers' rights. "The action was unconstitutional. It was also against labour law and yet no action has been taken," said senior labour expert Nikom Chandravithun, referring to the invasion by a mob of more than 100 men sent by TDT's management to try to break up the strike on June 22. After cutting down the factory gate, the men went on a rampage, kicking and stomping on nearly 200 female workers who had been picketing the factory from behind the gate. Nikom, a former director-general of the labour department before it was upgraded to a ministry, said the beating, in which dozens of workers were injured, was a violation of Article 45 of the constitution, which guarantees the right to assembly. It also violated ILO convention number 87, which guarantees the right to unionisation, and ILO convention 98, which guarantees the right to collective bargaining, to which Thailand is a signatory. The incident was a setback for Thailand's labour movement, Nikom said. "TDT has been extracting a lot of wealth over the past 30 years. It is also a joint venture with a foreign firm, yet they were still able to violate the constitution which suggests the foreign firm also cares not in the slightest about workers' conditions. "I want to ask: how much does the prime minister know about this? How does he feel and what has he done about it? Not even a dictatorial country would dare do such a thing. We don't mind if the government spends billions [of baht] to support investors but to infringe on workers' basic rights is unacceptable." Footage of the rampage was videotaped by workers and showed scores of short-haired men kicking and stomping on helpless female workers aged mostly in their 40s and 50s. The rampage went on for nearly 20 minutes before police officers decided to restore order. But none of the more than 100 men was arrested. In the other incident a week earlier, when 14 workers were hospitalised after an assault outside the factory with fire extinguisher chemicals, the film of the incident which had been sent to a nearby photo lab for processing went missing. "It's brutal and cruel. Some old female workers simply fainted," said Jadet Phuengkoksueng, head of the Women's Lives Protection Centre at the Friends of Women Foundation. The [labour] court may have ordered the gate to be opened but it didn't order anyone to beat the workers up." "It's a grave violation," said Assoc Prof Voravidh Charoenloet, of Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Economics. "This is like the May 1992 incident." Forty-eight-year-old Somboon Ditnil, one of the injured workers, had working at TDT for 30 years. She suffered a torn forearm muscle after being kicked by unidentified men who arrived with the company's management. "I begged them not to hurt us because we are old enough to be their mothers. But they didn't listen. I was dragged and thrown out of the factory onto the road. Perhaps the men hoped that some car would just run over me so they could blame the driver instead. Two police officers were just staring and didn't do anything." Voravidh warned that a familiar pattern was developing in the region where worker's rights were being curtailed as governments offered more concessions to attract investors in the form of multinational corporations. "Business owners are taking this opportunity to crack down on labour unions. It's a shame that these governments talk of greater democracy while the economic sector is becoming just the opposite. The TDT beatings prove that business owners do not recognise the importance of collective bargaining." Voravidh said many of the workers at TDT had been employed for two to three decades and were targeted by owners who were seeking to unjustly lay them off. "What is most important here is not the pay raise [demand] but the right to negotiate. But the owners insist that they alone have the say over such decisions. What's more, the TDT union has a long history and they are not just fighting for money but the right to have a union. That's why thousands of union members from other factories came to support them. The plight of the TDT union has been ignored [by the government] to the point that it is now spinning out of control."