Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
Report on July 10 Delegation in SF to Free the Liaoyang 5
A Few Words of Introduction
On July 10, as part of an International Day of Action to Free the
Liaoyang 5 in China, a three-person delegation led by Walter Johnson,
Secretary-Treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO), met for
90 minutes at the Consulate of China in San Francisco with Mr. Hong Lei,
Consul for Public Affairs.
Following the delegation meeting, a press conference/ public rally was
held at 12 noon on the opposite side of the street from the Consulate,
with the participation of more than 50 unionists and activists. Six media
outlets -- including three TV stations -- covered the event, which
featured a report-back from the delegation and presentations from five
other prominent unionists and labor rights activists. [We will send you a
separate email posting with a report on the press conference and rally,
including major excerpts from the presentations by the eight people who
spoke.]
Similar delegations and protest actions were held in 27 countries around
the world on July 10. A full account of these other events will be posted
on our OWC website as soon as the reports are centralized. The initial
call for the July 10 International Day of Action to Free the Liaoyang 5
was issued at the International Liaison Committee Conference in Geneva on
June 16, held in defense of ILO Conventions and Independent Trade Unions.
For more background on the Liaoyang 5, please visit our website at
owcinfo.org or send away for our six-part dossier.
Background on Delegation Request To Be Received
Until the afternoon of July 9, it was still uncertain as to whether
the Chinese Consulate would receive our labor delegation. For two weeks,
we had kept pressing the Consulate to receive us. First we were told by
Mr. Hong Lei, Consul for Public Affairs, that such a meeting was
impossible as "the Liaoyang 5 had committed crimes against the
Chinese state" and therefore "there [is] nothing to
discuss." Then, after we made it clear that both leading labor
officials and elected public officials had supported our request to be
received, we were told that the Chinese Consulate was now "seriously
considering our request."
Finally, late in the evening of July 8, we received a call from Mr. Hong
Lei telling us that we could be received -- but on two conditions. The
first was that our delegation could include no more than three people. The
second was that our press conference and rally, scheduled for 12 noon in
front of the Chinese Consulate, would have to be cancelled or else moved
to another distant site.
After consultation among all the 10 people who had agreed to be part of
the delegation, we agreed that we could reduce the delegation size to
three people. The three people selected were:
1) Walter Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer, San Francisco Labor Council
(AFL-CIO) -- representing the 85,000 organized union members in San
Francisco;
2) Alan Benjamin, Member of OPEIU Local 3, Delegate to the San Francisco
Labor Council, and co-coordinator of the OWC Continuations Committee; and
3) Pattie Tamura, Chapter Chair, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA/AFL-CIO)
But we refused to cancel or move our press conference and rally. At midday
on July 9, we sent a letter to Mr. Hong Lei with our reply. [See copy of
our letter below.] We realized that the Consulate might refuse to meet
with us, but we were wiling to take the risk -- as we had convened and
widely publicized the rally and press conference, and we were not about to
cancel this event.
Later that afternoon, Mr. Hong Lei got back to us and said the Consulate
had received our letter and was willing to receive our three-person
delegation at 9:30 a.m. on July 10.
Delegation Report
The three-person labor delegation was received by Mr. Hong Lei at 9:30
a.m. sharp.
Alan Benjamin and Walter Johnson opened by explaining the purpose of the
delegation -- reviewing the particulars of the case and imploring the
Consulate to relay to the Chinese government our demand for the release of
the Liaoyang 5 and our insistence on ratification by China of universally
recognized labor rights; namely, ILO Conventions 87 and 98 on the right to
collective bargaining and freedom of association.
Walter Johnson developed this further, stating:
The matter of the jailed labor activists in Liaoyang and labor rights in
China has worldwide consequences. What bothers me is that the WTO is now
telling China what to do. It is an insult to the Chinese government and
people for the WTO to now come in and say that these industries are not
profitable and need to be shut down, even though it means 540,000 workers
laid off in the Liaoyang region.
We have learned from our close collaboration with unionists in other
countries that when the WTO moves in, it aims to take advantage of these
countries, preventing them from determining their own policies and future.
It will be no different in China.
Our delegation is not in opposition to the Chinese government or people.
We are here in solidarity with the Chinese workers who are fighting for
their rights. We believe firmly that workers, wherever they may be, should
have the right to express their point of view and to form a union of their
choice without having to go to jail. In 27 countries today, we are sending
this same message to the Chinese authorities. We very much hope the
message is heard and acted on.
If this had happened in our own country, we'd be taking the same position.
Our voice in support of working people is the same, whatever the country.
Pattie Tamura continued:
I am the president of the local chapter of the Asian Pacific American
Labor Alliance (APALA) and I also sit on APALA's national executive board.
We are an organization of the AFL-CIO.
I appreciate your agreement to receive us and to open this dialogue. It is
a very necessary dialogue. But I have to tell you that having five labor
activists in jail under circumstances which we all know is a barrier to
the kind of exchange we need. We realize the situation in China is not
easy, with all the changes and transformations that are going on.
Resolution of the current problems will not come easy. But it will
require, among other things, freeing these jailed labor activists and
respecting fundamental labor rights.
Mr. Hong Lei replied in great length to the three statements from
the delegation:
This communication is helpful to answer your concerns. We appreciate your
concerns about the WTO and about the situation of workers in China now
that China has entered the WTO.
You must understand that we have taken a new step now in the adjustment
process of state-owned companies -- what we call the reform of the
state-owned industries.
There are 1.3 billion people in China, about 750,000 of whom are currently
employed. Our unemployment rate is only 3.6%. Our goal for the next 50
years is to keep unemployment under 5%. This is a big challenge.
The reforms in China began in 1978. With our entry into the WTO we have
entered a new stage in this reform process. The state-owned industries and
the labor relations tied to them are backward and outdated. Structural
adjustment is needed.
The result is that a large amount of workers are being laid off. The
Chinese government is aware of the large amount of layoffs, and they
realize that if these adjustments are not handled correctly, there will be
social instability.
But the government has taken and is taking measures to address these
problems. In 1999, it provided re-employment for 6.5 million workers who
had been laid off. And we are now attaching great importance to the market
to distribute work to the laid-off workers.
Since the foundation of the New China, we have had a very concentrated
system of labor unemployment. Now we are giving more attention to the role
of the market. So while unemployment has increased, the workers are
finding new jobs through the market. In the last 20 years, real wages have
increased in China by 9% -- which is a high percent in relation to other
countries.
We know we have a long ways to go to ensure full employment, but we are
committed to this goal. And we are also committed to providing social
security insurance and unemployment insurance to all who are laid off.
Obviously the payments are low, and at this point we are still not able to
provide coverage for everyone, but we are committed to this objective.
And for us, the key to winning this future is to create labor relations
based on consensus between the government, the trade unions and the
employers federation. We call this our Tripartite Consensus.
The All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is part of this Trinity
mechanism. Its role is to solve labor disputes at every level -- from the
local level to the provincial level to the national level. The consensus
is aimed at protecting the legal rights of the employers and the
employees.
For example, if a big layoff scheme is planned by the employers or the
government, it has to be presented to the trade unions for the debate and
approval by the trade unions. This is a necessary safeguard.
At this point Alan Benjamin interjected:
Our conception of trade unions is different. We believe that employers and
workers have interests that are distinct, and that unions are necessary to
safeguard the interests of workers against the employers and government --
based on a system of collective-bargaining and a relationship of forces.
Companies that fled the United States to the Mexican maquiladora
sweatshops and are now relocating to China are looking for cheaper wages
and compliant unions. They are not about promoting labor rights or
improving working conditions.
I have a hard time believing the WTO will comply with a 50-year plan of
full employment or that it will respect genuine labor rights. It hasn't
happened anywhere else. On the contrary. Everywhere it goes, the WTO
imposes the destruction of jobs, labor rights and decent working
conditions.
Having said that, it is clear from the reports we have received from China
that the workers in Liaoyang were frustrated in their attempts to work
through the official consensual channels of the government-backed ACFTU.
As the Open Letter from the Hong Kong-based unions and labor rights groups
points out, the protests in Liayong, as they put it, "came after
their numerous petitions were coldly ignored." In fact, the letter
notes, Yao Fuxin and the other jailed workers had even "held back
some of the workers from blocking the railroad. However, even these
rational voices of the workers were muffled."
So the crucial question is the following: What happens if, even allowing
for the government's best intentions, the workers do not feel that the
existing unions structures are responsive to their needs -- and therefore
feel compelled to organize independently, as they did in Liaoyang?
Shouldn't they have the right to seek redress of grievance by forming
their own independent structures or unions? These workers had not been
paid in months, despite all the promises. They had not received but a
pittance in insurance and compensation. Is it a surprise they were angry
and took matters into their own hands? How can the government jail workers
for organizing a delegation that addresses the government with just and
legitimate demands?
Mr. Hong Lei replied:
We do not agree with your assessment of the ACFTU. You say the ACFTU is
not responsive to the workers' needs. That is simply not true. They play
an extremely important role in safeguarding the legal rights of the
workers.
At times, the government may be short on payments, or on financial
insurance. But the ACFTU are doing their best. Their role is crucial for
workers in China.
As for Liaoyang, actually there are four people in jail -- not five. They
are being held responsible for the social instability in that region.
Alan Benjamin interjected, briefly:
We realize that only four labor activists are still in jail, but the
fifth, Mr. Gu Baoshu, though he has been released from jail, still has the
same charges pending against him as the others.
Mr. Hong Lei continued:
You must understand that public transportation facilities were destroyed
in Liaoyang. These workers are responsible for this. Public Security
talked with these workers patiently, but they refused to accept
responsibility for their actions. They violated the law.
Alan Benjamin replied:
In every country when workers are jailed it is because "they broke
the law." The jailed workers are not responsible for whatever
property may have been damaged. The tens of thousands of workers in
Liaoyang who took to the streets in marches, protests, and sitins were
reacting out of anger and frustration, as they are doing across China.
They are trying to defend their jobs, their working conditions, their
families. What is provoking instability is the so-called
"reform" process and the fact the workers have no vehicle to
express their legitimate interests.
Mr. Hong Lei replied:
It is not necessary for workers to set up their own unions or committees.
We believe the ACFTU represents the workers. But they do even more than
this: In addition to protecting the workers, the ACFTU protects social
stability. These irrational and radical activities must be stopped.
What you say about different unions does not apply to China. We have a
different system.
We realize we have a big challenge ahead with the WTO. The WTO is not just
a gift, it is a big challenge. The government is fully aware of the
challenge and is in the process of addressing all the issues.
Walter Johnson stepped into the discussion:
I've been listening to all this discussion for some time now and still do
not understand how you can justify having these five, or four, people in
jail. There is no justification possible for this.
Pattie Timura joined in:
We fully understand the difficulties confronting China today and we
appreciate what you say about the intentions of the government and the
unions. But our immediate concern is what will happen to these jailed
unionists.
Mr. Hong Lei replied:
We will give serious consideration to your concerns, but you should
understand that these workers will be given their due legal treatment?
Alan Benjamin added:
As you know, an international labor delegation traveled to China at the
end of May to attempt to meet with the jailed labor activists in Liaoyang.
The international labor delegates were concerned about the treatment being
received by the Liaoyang workers. They also went to meet with the
authorities to convey the concern of millions of working people around the
world over their imprisonment. But the delegation was not allowed to enter
the city of Liaoyang. They were put on a bus and sent away.
You now say that you will give serious consideration to our concerns. Does
this mean, for example, that you would support a second international
labor delegation to Liaoyang so that they could verify that these workers
are, in fact, being given due process and justice?
Mr. Hong Lei replied:
The issues in Liaoyang have been settled. There is no need for such kind
of a visit by foreigners to those people. We will give them just
treatment, taking into consideration all the rules and all the laws. We
appreciate your concern about the situation of labor rights in China, but
we can handle this by ourselves.
Pattie Tamura chimed in:
In Charleston, South Carolina, workers protested a scab ship and our
government arrested them. If people had asked representatives of our
government why these workers were arrested, they would have received a
similar response to the one you just gave us: They violated the law, but
don't worry, we have a judicial system to ensure just treatment.
It took a lot of protests from working people across this country, and
internationally, for the Charleston Five to be freed. We are happy these
workers were released. But it didn't happen because of the goodness of the
judge or the legal proceedings. It happened because workers organized and
protested.
Mr. Hong Lei continued:
What you say does not apply to China. You talk about independent unions.
In China during the period of the Cultural Revolution we had a multiparty
system. We had multiple associations. And all of this created chaos,
terrible chaos. That is why we cannot go down that road again.
Meeting concludes:
After this last exchange, the meeting concluded.
The delegation thanked Mr. Hong Lei for his time and asked that the
documents it had brought be forwarded to the authorities. Mr. Hong Lei
said he could not accept any documents from the delegation. He said he had
agreed to meet with the delegation, but was not authorized to accept any
statements or letters. [See the text of the support statements from top
AFL-CIO officials in separate email posting.]
The delegation noted that this was not usual procedure; that on countless
delegations to consulates from other countries, these type of letters and
petitions were always accepted and then relayed to the authorities in
their respective countries. Mr. Hong Lei insisted he could not accept
these documents and said the delegation would have to find other avenues
to get this information to the authorities in China.
On that note, the meeting ended.
[Note: This report was written by Alan Benjamin, based on notes taken at
the meeting. Mr. Hong Lei said he did not want or need to review this
report before it was distributed publicly. Alan Benjamin said he was
willing to submit it to him for review to ensure that his statements were
reported accurately. Mr. Hong Lei said he would write his own report and
the delegation would write its own report. There was no need for review.]
********************
APPENDIX 1: July 9 Letter from Alan Benjamin to Mr. Hong Lei
OWC - Open World Conference in Defense of Trade Union
Independence & Democratic Rights, c/o S.F. Labor Council,
1188 Franklin St., #203, San Francisco, CA 94109.
Phone: (415) 641-8616 Fax: (415) 440-9297.
-------------------
Tuesday, July 9, 2002
Mr. Hong Lei
Public Information Office
Consulate of China
San Francisco
Dear Mr. Hong Lei:
This letter is to follow up our discussion earlier this morning concerning
our labor delegation to the Chinese Consulate tomorrow, Wednesday, July
10th.
As I mentioned to you over the phone, after broad consultation with the
leadership of our SF Labor Council and our full delegation, we agree with
the proposal you made to us late last night that we should limit the size
of our delegation to just three people.
Obviously, we would have preferred to learn about this condition earlier,
as it has created a considerable inconvenience with leading unionists and
elected officials who had agreed to be part of the delegation. But in the
interest of pursuing a discussion with you about our delegation's
concerns, we will limit our delegation to three people. They are:
1) Walter Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer, San Francisco Labor Council
(AFL-CIO) -- representing the 85,000 organized union members in San
Francisco
2) Alan Benjamin, Member of OPEIU Local 3, Delegate to the San Francisco
Labor Council, and co-coordinator of the OWC Continuations Committee; and
3) Pattie Tamura, Chapter Chair, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA/AFL-CIO)
Our delegation will provide you with letters on the Liaoyang 5 from John
Sweeney, President of the national AFL-CIO; Art Pulaski,
Secretary-Treasurer, California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO); Chuck Mack,
International Vice President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
among many others.
Now concerning your request that we either cancel our public press
conference or move it to another site as a condition for receiving our
delegation, we say the following:
We are not in a position to call off the public press conference or move
it elsewhere as we have contacted all the media, which will be there in
front of the Consulate at 12 noon, and as we have issued an invitation to
unionists and labor rights activists to join us to hear our delegation
report-back and to learn of our deep concerns about the Liaoyang 5.
Had you responded earlier to our request, we could have considered your
proposal regarding a different venue for our public press conference. I
should point out that we first contacted your office with this delegation
request on June 24; that is, more than two weeks ago. But we feel it is
not altogether realistic or appropriate to expect us to change the
character and venue of our public press conference at the last minute --
especially since we never even had an assurance from you that our
delegation would be received in the first place.
As I mentioned to you over the phone, we suggest that at the conclusion of
our delegation visit -- which we propose be held at 10:30 or 11 a.m.
tomorrow morning -- all those present in the room review the text of our
delegation report, which would register both the statements from our
delegation as well the responses and comments from the Chinese Consulate
representatives. This report would then be made public to the press and to
all those gathered to hear the report-back from the delegation. Such a
document, duly corrected and approved by all the participants in the
discussion, would ensure that the full positions of the Chinese Consulate
could be made known both to the press and to the assembled unionists and
activists.
I would like to make an additional point about the goals and objectives of
our delegation -- which, actually, I made to you in my earlier letter. Our
delegation is not anti-China in any way, shape or form. We are not against
the Chinese people. On the contrary, we stand in solidarity with the
Chinese workers who are fighting for their rights -- for universally
recognized labor rights. We believe, in fact, this is the best way to
defend China against the encroachment of the WTO and the multinational
corporations, many of which have moved out of the United States to Mexico
in search of cheaper wages and the lack of labor rights -- and are now
moving to China, where labor is even cheaper and where the rights
enshrined in ILO Conventions 87 and 98 have yet to be ratified and
implemented.
As unionists and activists long immersed in the struggle against the
global "free trade" agenda, we have witnessed first hand the
devastating consequences of these policies of globalization -- policies
which are now being foisted upon China through the aegis of the WTO. We
would like to share our experiences with you and sound the alarm -- an
alarm that you, in your capacity as representatives of the Chinese people,
could greatly benefit from heeding, in our view.
Finally, I would like to make a comment to you in my personal capacity.
Our Labor Council office received a text earlier this morning from Hong
Kong, which we will include in the materials submitted by our delegation
tomorrow morning. It is an Open Letter to the Chinese government from four
leading union federations and labor rights organizations based in Hong
Kong. They write, in part:
"These kind of arrests [of the Liaoyang 5] ... can only ... intensify
social conflicts. The reason is simple -- it is a reality that no one
fails to miss, a reality of poverty, of workers who cannot survive and
take up action when their petitions are ignored. No one will believe in
propaganda like 'instigated by a handful of individuals'.
"Arresting workers in the name of 'inciting troubles' and 'disrupting
social order' will only upset the workers, intensify the conflicts, and
disrupt social stability at its roots. Moreover, it will create additional
support and sympathy for the arrested workers, and further alienate
workers from the party and the government. Actions like these are contrary
to the constitutions of the party and the state, and will cause workers at
home and abroad to lose faith in the party and the government.
"Release the arrested Liaoyang workers and uphold the basic workers'
rights enshrined in ILO Conventions No. 87 (Freedom of Association) and 98
(Right to Collective Bargaining). This will be good for the Liaoyang
workers, good for the Chinese workers, good for the international worker'
movement in this period of globalisation, and good for the CPC and the
Chinese government."
This statement was issued by the Asia Monitor Resource Center, the China
Labour Bulletin, the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and the Hong
Kong Christian Industrial Committee. I share the concerns expressed by
these Chinese sisters and brothers.
I trust you will find our proposal to be acceptable and that you will
receive our three-person delegation tomorrow morning. We hope to hear from
you before then. Otherwise, please expect us at 11 a.m.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter,
In solidarity,
Alan Benjamin,
Co-Coordinator, OWC
Delegation Coordinator for the
San Francisco Labor Council