Comments

Posts

Union, Union, Where Is The Union?

With all the attention Nova has been getting for itself over it’s various problems, one organization that should logically be basking under the limelight right now would be the Labor Unions. After all what better way to fill the ranks than to pick up the soon to be unemployed and unpaid teachers picketing on the streets, and being evicted from their company supplied housing. It would seem to be fertile ground for any organization that promotes itself as working for employee rights and better working conditions for non-Japanese toiling away in the Eikawa classrooms and cubicles across the country. Conspicuous by their absence though, or at least lack of initiative, are the Labor Unions in Japan.

Granted, the leadership of the General Union http://www.generalunion.org/ did state that they sent a letter to Nova management asking that pay for teachers not be delayed, along with holding an ‘informational meeting’ for anyone interested in attending in Osaka last week. But other than those limp wristed reactions to the present crisis for employees of Nova, the statements from the unions have been strangely muted. The lack of a strong voice for the thousands of disadvantaged and unpaid employees of Nova, has left many wondering what if anything the unions do indeed stand for.

While there are several organizations that focus on representing various sectors of the non-Japanese teaching population in Japan, most follow the lead or work under the umbrella of the General Union or GUhttp://www.generalunion.org/, but the leadership of the largest such organization surprisingly spent quite a bit of effort actually discouraging potential members from joining last week, claiming a lack of resources to be able to handle a large influx of new members with grievances. Was it a golden opportunity missed, or just lack of focus and misdirection from the leadership?

Accomplishments

If one listens to the claims made by the GU in improving the working conditions of non-native employees in Japan, the list would seem impressive indeed. Employment security, improved insurance coverage, increased benefits, more time off, improvement of working conditions, all seemingly very worthy accomplishments. On closer inspection however, did the Union actually help bring about these changes singlehandedly, or were they just changes that would have taken place regardless of Union involvement?

Take the claim that the General Union was able to bring about improvements in unemployment insurance coverage for teachers at Nova. Not so says a former Tokyo General Union volunteer and insider.

“This is simply not true. Nova teachers already had access to unemployment insurance without the union’s assistance. The first teacher to receive unemployment insurance was a non-union member, S. The union followed S’s example and decided to push Nova to make payments for all teachers. What was found out is that unemployment insurance was part of shakai hoken. The union and Nova made a deal to only make the unemployment part of the deductions for teachers, because they knew the teachers didn’t want it. While the union CANNOT be credited for “winning” unemployment insurance for teachers, they can be credited with pushing Nova to make the deductions for all teachers in order to make it easier to file timely claims.”

Deductions for entitlements that should have been provided teachers by law anyway? That is how it would appear. So the Union managed to get Nova to uphold the Labor laws of the land? Is that really much of an accomplishment? Is law enforcement an area a labor union should be involved in anyway? There are agencies and government bureaus that have that serve that function, or are supposed to. It would seem to be a case of just getting them to do their jobs.

Take the claim that the Union was able to get employment security for short term (one year) contract workers:

“There is job security provided by labor standards law for employees who have signed temporary contracts repeatedly. He (Union leadership) fails to mention the illegality on the part of the company to arbitrarily non-renew long-term workers and that there are other ways of dealing with this than just joining the union– especially for individuals.”

Another case of getting laws already in place to be obeyed?

Why don’t more teachers join a union?

If working conditions and benefits are so bad, it would be logical that any organization that was working to improve those conditions would never have any trouble getting dues paying membership. In fact the union formed for Nova teachers is strikingly small by comparison with the field of potential members. The union formed for Nova teachers only has a few members (exact numbers of union membership are not revealed) and has not been very active in the last couple years. Now would seem to be the time when any organization that could speak with one voice for Nova employees, and provide leadership, would find itself in prime position to do what they say they stand for, improving the working conditions for members. The opposite seems to be the case in fact, most teachers have no interest in joining a union. Why aren’t more teachers interested in organizing themselves?

The former insider has the following to say:

“The overwhelming reasons for the lack of interest in the Nova union are: 1) Nobody knows exactly what the union has done; 2) The union has pushed for things teachers in general were not interested in and 3) Teachers have seen no real improvement in their working conditions either with or without the union’s help (and I speak in terms of benefits, not rights they could exercise, anyway), so they don’t feel it’s necessary to pay dues to an organization that won’t get them, for example, National Holidays off.”

At the present time Nova teachers are crying out for leadership and have given the GU, or anyone out there, an ear that will hear, but many seem disappointed and unsatisfied with what they are being told. That leaves many with an every-man-for-himself attitude. Too bad the crew wasn’t able to point out the existence of the lifeboats before the Nova ship hit the iceberg. This missed opportunity to make a significant difference may not come around again any time soon.

13 comments - What do you think? Posted by David Markle - October 5, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Categories: Teaching English Tags: eikaiwa, English, japan, nova, union

Pingback: Global Voices Online » Japan: Nova and Teacher Union
monica

Interesting article Mark, but I think you’re missing some details. Specifically, information regarding why Nova wasn’t signing up teachers for unemployment insurance to begin with. Japanese staff were signed up but the teachers weren’t, so it wasn’t merely a case of unintentional oversight. Getting schools to comply with local legal standards is an uphill battle, every time they do it has an effect on their bottom line, so they strongly resist. You may want to check the facts you obtained from you former inside source with others as they seem oddly incomplete.

Quite often, the union finds itself in a catch 22. If they hold an open meeting and try to generate new membership they get accused of running a fund raiser. If they don’t make a plea for new membership then they are somehow missing the boat or dropping the proverbial ball.

The best part of your article was when you questioned “Why aren’t more teachers interested in organizing themselves?”. They could join a union or even more significant, they could easily form a union of their own. Why they don’t organize themselves is probably due to having very little personally vested in the school they are working for. The schools too have very little vested in the teachers. The union, stuck in the middle, can’t do right either.

Belinda

I think “why” Nova wasn’t signing up teachers to begin with is a bit on the irrelevant side–simply because the union claims repeatedly that they “won” this right for all teachers, which simply isn’t true. What is relevant is that teachers had access to unemployment insurance already, as proved in 1996 by a teacher who, I believe, was from Osaka. A union is not necessary to get schools to comply with legal standards because those standards are already set for ALL workers. Even if the insider’s information is “incomplete”, it seems as though what the union has been telling us is also “incomplete.” What is accurate is that the union pushed for the right to be recognized, they did not win the right because you can’t win something you already have.

The bottom line is that it is not the union’s job to police companies for compliance issues. Their job is to help gain benefits–anything that is not already guaranteed in the law.

You act like the union is in a catch 22 situation through no fault of their own. Do you or have you ever belonged to the union? If so, you will understand that the situation they are in is also due to their own mistakes. They come in on issues too late-they should have been there for the teachers when they first started getting paid late (or even sooner than that). They should have taken a poll among non-unionized members to see if things like shakai hoken would be something the rest of the teachers were interested in before pushing for it. They should have had something on their website in 1999 as to how teachers could go about collecting unemployment insurance. Everytime something didn’t go quite right, they should have accepted at least partial responsibility instead of passing off their mistakes as something Nova had done.

Teachers are not interested in joining an organization they find is probably going to treat them just like Nova has. “Why aren’t more teachers more interested in organizing themselves?” is a question that has already been answered and forming their own union is not a solution, that has, as history has shown us, been effective in gaining benefits for teachers.

monica

Why Nova, or other schools weren’t signing up teachers for unemployment but *were* signing up Japanese staff does have significance. The Japanese employees didn’t need a union to pressure compliance.

What is demonstrated in how Japanese vs. foreign staff were treated is that the school was differentiating knowingly and purposefully. The school was making a conscious decision to enroll *some* of it’s employees in unemployment insurance but not others.

A teacher from Osaka who became aware of how teachers could sign up for unemployment in 1996 is extremely commendable. If, at Belinda says ‘a union is not necessary to get schools to comply with legal standards’ why then, over 3 years until 1999, did Nova not sign up teachers for unemployment as a matter of course?

The company was aware of it legal obligation before 1996, an Osaka teacher proved foreign staff were legally entitled to it from 1996 onwards. Why then, was enrollment not provided to teachers until the union became involved with the issue?

I would be interested to hear if Belinda or anyone else knows of a instance where a school that had previously been ignoring a law suddenly changed course and adhered to providing all of it’s teachers with what the law was affording them without some kind of union involvement.

I’m sure Belinda isn’t proposing that all teachers secure their legal right separately and individually through the courts. Maybe, that is what she is saying, though I strongly hope she has an viable alternative course of action.

I haven’t seen the answer to the question regarding “Why aren’t more teachers more interested in organizing themselves?”, not in the article at least. I also don’t see where the article addressed why teachers forming their own is not a solution.

David

The statement that Union’s are caught in the middle and can’t do good by either side is a little misleading. Is it the Union’s job to mediate between the employer and employee? I thought the union was there to REPRESENT the employee’s position in grievances with the employer.

Could this be another reason why teachers are reluctant to join a union?

I will grant that most of the people that work for the McEikaiwas in Japan are in it for the short term and plan to leave Japan in a year or two to better pastures or whatever, but this is not true of all. Take part-time lecturers at Universities and colleges in Japan. Some of them have been there all their lives and because of decreased enrollment are finding themselves with decreasing salaries and terminated at the end of contracts they have had for years. There is a union representing them. I believe it is called the Tokyo Union of Part Time Instructors or something like that. But the criticism of this union is similar, they don’t do much and even the cases they take are the ‘easy wins’ that don’t take much effort or involve much risk to the union. This vein I hear over and over again with regard to unions in Japan.

monica

The last sentance of my original post should be “The union, stuck in the middle, can’t do right by either.”

-apologies
jeff

I’m a former Nova teacher. I haven’t heard anyone mention something key to this issue. Most teachers come to Japan for just a short time, not as a long term career move.

I think this is the reason most teachers have no interest in the union.

Nova likes, and encourages this short term employment strategy for a few reasons:
1. less salary raises
2. less teacher stagnation (more fresh meat for the students)
3. teachers don’t join unions or organize
Jon

Let’s get something clear for the rest of those interested:

Unemployment insurance is not a labour matter. It is a welfare matter. It is handled by Hello Work, not the Labour Standards Laws.

It is a law that the companies must provide at least an ability for the eventually-to-be-retired worker access to unemployment insurance. Even if the company has not followed the law properly, the worker will still be entitled to unemployment insurance in a timely manner, provided the enterprise publishes the necessary documents. The former employee usually understands they Were eligible for unemployment insurance, even in the case of quitting, after the statute of limitations on their eligibility has passed with the delay having direct relationship to the company for not producing the necessary documents.

If the company is following the law, these documents are a natural process of the cease of employment with the company and Hello Work can fill in the gaps for the benefit of the retired employee whether or not the company was complying with the law during the active employment of the worker.

The union cannot make a claim that they won something along the lines regarding unemployment insurance because it is not a labour item. It is a welfare item.

But here is something that could easily clear up these problems before they appear: an article of law, the Labour Standards Laws, demands that a company shall state to the employee the gist of the Labour Standards Laws. And to ease this requirement on the company, the government will financially subsidize the company to assist meeting this demand.

So, if the employee actually understood the labour laws, as the Labour Standards Laws demands of the company, the employee would know it was entitled to a reason for the retirement immediately upon request as well as many other labour laws that have a major effect on how the retiring employee is treated.

If the employee understood these laws, as the Labour Standards Laws demands of the company, the employee would understand not only what they are already entitled to without the need of a union, but also the employee could understand how a union might help them with other matters involving contracts and welfare.

But this is one article of law that the union never mentions that is an absolutely important employment right in Japan.

Does the union not mention it because it exposes their weakness? Does the union not mention it because it exposes what has been traded away in the name of negotiations?

Again, for the union to mention that this law exists, it would certainly help their cause in gaining numbers in membership. But the claims the union has made regarding success with what were already laws are even more bogus sounding when it is noted they ignore this one simple article of law as much as the companies ignore it.

I tend to think the unions also preferred it to be left unknown because they fear it makes them seem less powerful. In fact, if the union forced the companies to make the gist of the labour laws known to All workers, simply as an act of good will for all employees, union members or not, not only would they be noted for it, the union would be left to handle the only things it needs to handle: acquiring contracts that benefit the employee rather than the company without a single trade-off whatsoever to the company.

But then how useful would the union be to people who are already happy with their jobs knowing they are completely protected by the Labour Standards Laws?

Not very useful at all.

So the union has been busy making claims that aren’t quite true, and the union has been busy publicizing how it is fighting for “rights” that already exist.

Monica says, “If, at Belinda says ‘a union is not necessary to get schools to comply with legal standards’ why then, over 3 years until 1999, did Nova not sign up teachers for unemployment as a matter of course?”

Because they thought they could get away with it. It doesn’t have anything to do with a union at all.

Monica says “I would be interested to hear if Belinda or anyone else knows of a instance where a school that had previously been ignoring a law suddenly changed course and adhered to providing all of it’s teachers with what the law was affording them without some kind of union involvement.”

I did it last week. It took the Labour Inspections Office and only two weeks using the Whistle Blower law as a means to get Labour to take the complaint seriously.

The school has been operating for 23 years. During that time, they have never allowed annual paid days of leave, claiming that they have the right to choose when the holidays happen. As well, the company declared that they have never paid unemployment insurance nor filed a Clear Statement of Working Conditions. The company insisted on a contract they wrote to be agreed to.

I cancelled the contract due to non-compliance with the contract on the company’s part. The Labour Standards Law gives me that ability. And no, it does not mean my employment ceases. Labour demanded the company allow me ten annual days of leave according to my schedule in addition to the holidays the company had already scheduled, and on the first day after six months of employment, I took a day off, paid, and spent it at the Labour Inspections Office going over other matters.

One month into my contract, my wife took some free time and went to Hello Work to ask about my unemployment insurance rights although the company was refusing to pay unemployment insurance fees. Hello Work stated that having salary receipts would ensure my unemployment insurance rights no matter what the company failed to do.

What was the payoff for doing this on my own rather than with a union?!?

I now am employed without a contract. That means the threat of being dismissed simply because a contract is completed is gone. Now, it will take another, Very Good, reason to get rid of me after one year of employment is completed.

My unemployment insurance is guaranteed.

And I am already enjoying my paid days of leave, At My Discretion, In Addition to the already scheduled company holidays.

And the school has two weeks left to comply with submitting a Clear Statement of Working Conditions. This means one single start time and one single end time for an entire day of employment. And Labour has made it clear to the school that anything over eight hours Is Overtime To Be Paid.

And it only took two weeks. And a healthy complaint to the Labour Inspections Office.

There is nothing to say the union would have helped with this problem. It’s just a mom and pop school. One manager, one owner, one foreign employee.

Now what can a union help me with? A payraise? A bonus? I ask because there is nothing else that I can think of that I haven’t been able to handle myself.

And to top it off, it looks like my boss and I are going to get through this mess and survive together.

Don’t get me wrong. Labour has not acted this quick in the past. I have only had quick success with them in the last 18 months. But I have learned from my mistakes and have learned how to interpret the laws correctly.

I didn’t waste talking about what was idealistically fair and get into items like profit sharing. It was nothing but issues centered on job security and the ability to continue on with proper access via Hello Work should my employment cease.

I haven’t seen the union really talk about the existing laws as if it knows them. I have seen the union blame companies and non-union employees equally using attitude as an excuse.

Some advice for the union: get the public informed that it is a legal requirement of the company to inform the employee the gist of the Labour Standards Laws.

If you, the union, did so, you just might find some new leadership that actually knows what it is talking about, in addition to How to talk about labour issues adequately.
Belinda

Monica says “I would be interested to hear if Belinda or anyone else knows of a instance where a school that had previously been ignoring a law suddenly changed course and adhered to providing all of it’s teachers with what the law was affording them without some kind of union involvement.”

—–
I would say that this is a leading question, where Monica basically wants people to say, “Had it not been for the union, nobody would have gotten unemployment insurance.” Which, again, is not the case. Those who were aware of the laws regarding unemployment insurance were able to collect.

Additionally, I would wonder that if the union was so ready to take credit for “winning” this basic right, why didn’t they do anything to see that Nova was complying with the agreement? They wanted to take credit, but not the responsibility that came after that. Where, on their website, were the instructions on how to collect unemployment insurance? How many union members were taking it upon themselves to ensure that their fellow employees were getting unemployment insurance at their individual schools?

I think this is important to point out because it shows the union’s track record when dealing with employee problems and why, time and time again, we wonder when they are going to do what they say they will do.
monica

Jon – You’re clearly very experienced and knowledgeable about the labor and welfare issues in Japan. which is why I found it strange that one of the answers you provided had very little to do with the question I asked.

I asked “If, at Belinda says ‘a union is not necessary to get schools to comply with legal standards’ why then, over 3 years until 1999, did Nova not sign up teachers for unemployment as a matter of course?”

Jon answered “Because they thought they could get away with it. It doesn’t have anything to do with a union at all.”

In a void where there was no union pressure for the company to comply on the issue there was no change. The company, knowing full well that they were in violation, still had a choice. In the case of Nova, it chose to ignore it.

Perhaps the Whistle Blower laws could used prior to the 1999 involvement by the union, but it wasn’t. I don’t see the union involvement to get Nova to comply with the law problematic, does it honestly matter?

Jon, you gave a very detailed explanation of how you were able to use Labor Standards Law to successfully challenge your employer and change your working conditions. But I’m still unclear about how your successes have impacted other employees at the same company or at other companies.

Your advice to the unions was very good, and bears repeating: “get the public informed that it is a legal requirement of the company to inform the employee the gist of the Labour Standards Laws.”

The unions need to become experts themselves in the interpretation and application of the existing laws so they can assist both individual and collective foreign workers.

Jon

Monica says “I found it strange that one of the answers you provided had very little to do with the question I asked.”

Monica, in all fairness to you and with all respect I can muster, I didn’t get any connection between the “if” in your question and the “why.”

I tried hard to understand it, the set up, the concept because I, too, like to use a lot of “buts” and “ifs” with my own arguments.

But it was difficult for me on that item.

So I went with the “why.”

It is clear that Nova thought they could continue to get away with it, most likely because of the large numbers when it comes to employees, and would attempt to do so as long as possible.

Monica, you state, “In a void where there was no union pressure for the company to comply on the issue there was no change. The company, knowing full well that they were in violation, still had a choice. In the case of Nova, it chose to ignore it.”

Completely correct. I don’t understand a union connection to the matter at all. And you don’t really need to explain it to me. It is okay if you do, but I will just counter with the following:

Kara Harris, a union employee at Nova, had had her rights denied her repeatedly year after year. Although Kara was a union member, although the union apparently knew the laws, and although the union had no doubt forced Nova to respect not only the labour standards laws as well as the union agreement, Nova continued to attempt to deny Kara Harris her employment rights and the union was not exactly helpful to Kara Harris, their own member, for defending those rights.

Kara Harris won her battle when it came to not having to sign so-called renewable contracts in order to keep her job. And Nova paid her off rather handsomely not to return to work so the other employees would not learn she had won her battle against Nova.

Yet, this very item seems to remain a concern the union wants to fight for Although it has already fought and won and the precedence should be used as an example rather than ignored as having never happened.

Of course, the companies are in violation and in some cases know it, and in some cases, don’t know it, and nonetheless continue to ignore the violations because as you state it: they have a choice of whether to comply or not to comply.

To comply means to not make as much money, to not comply means make more money of which a percentage can be used in court against the small percentage that are aware they can fight such non-compliance.

The deal is that it is the same thing with the union. The union is supposed to protect All members. But it picks and chooses which members to support although the union is clearly aware that many of the members already have their employment conditions disrespected through actions of the company violating labour standards laws.

Here is your statement being employed by me as twisting your words artfully:

The union, knowing full well that they were not supporting their membership, still had a choice. In the case of Kara Harris, it chose to ignore it.

And the recent article in Metropolis with Tench and Carlet giving quotes here and there clearly shows the union Still has a problem just stating that it won’t give the membership, the paying membership, the coverage the membership pays for.

It doesn’t matter why the union chooses to ignore it. Just as it doesn’t matter why Nova chooses to ignore the laws. What matters is that the ignorance is not innocent at all. The ignorance is being excused through arrogance of knowledge on what is worth the time and what isn’t.

And that is the same thinking that encouraged Nova to ignore the laws.

If accepting a bribe for one million dollars only carries a ten thousand dollar penalty, is it Not better to accept the bribe?!?

If the penalty is only ten thousand dollars, is it better not to spend twenty thousand dollars to prosecute the illegality of the bribe?!?

This is the thinking of Nova, the union, the bar association and the court system in Japan.

Yet, there are those members of the government who have taken this into account and have structured the Labour Standards Laws to be able to withstand such thinking by placing requirements here and there. And this type of thinking Can be successfully fought by everyone.

Additional pressures have been put into place such as the Whistle Blower Act (which was only implemented in the last two years) and the new Labour three strike act. These pressures make it much more difficult for the companies, the union, the bar association and the court system to justify non-compliance with the law as well as procedures.

But the same pressures are changing the game on how the companies prefer to work, how the unions prefer to work, how the bar associations prefer to work and how the court system prefers to work.

The above are concerned only with money.

Take money out of the picture and let continued lifestyle of the worker be the point, and it is easy to see not only how one can fight for the rights of all employees in Japan quite easily, using the existing laws, but how unnecessary and time consuming these other suggested avenues of solution can be.

Monica, you state “I don’t see the union involvement to get Nova to comply with the law problematic, does it honestly matter?”

It does matter and it is problematic.

It’s like the exclusive membership of a country club claiming they want lower green fees that match society’s ability to pay.

It’s a bad argument to demand what is fair while trying to keep things exclusive. It confuses the hell out of everyone involved.

Had the unions backed off their fight last year to keep contracts in Japan legal across the board, the abolishment of contracts would have placed the union two decades ahead of their current position in terms of gaining what is correct for all workers in Japan.

But the unions insisted that contracts not been abolished, against government opinion, and are left to face fights with companies on individual matters because the companies just don’t know how to write contracts properly.

Yet, the union doesn’t like to deal with individual matters.

Nova could continue to ignore obvious violations because it knows the union doesn’t like to get involved in individual matters, and it also understood that the Labour Inspections Office has no oversight to see individual rights being violated.

Labour acts when the individual acts.

The union does not.

Hmmm. Union. Individual. What is the relationship of the two words?

Could it be opposite poles?

In this case, the government needs to be thanked for domestic, not global, warming.

David

Minonica wrote: “Jon, you gave a very detailed explanation of how you were able to use Labor Standards Law to successfully challenge your employer and change your working conditions. But I’m still unclear about how your successes have impacted other employees at the same company or at other companies.”

We are working on that.
See “Taking Your Employer To Court; Jon Neukam Interview” under Foreigners in Japan.
Pingback: Insurance » Union, Union, Where Is The Union?

Union, Union, Where Is The Union?

Recent Comments

Further Reading

South Korean Government Demands That International Hydrographic Organization Use “East Sea”

Japanese Documentary About Sea Shepherd’s Protest Activities in Taiji (English Subtitles)

Babies Born on March 11th Receive Special Present

Washington Times Freelancer Slams Former Employer, Fails to Ethically Disclose Relationship?

Christopher Johnson Attempts to Silence Criticism of His “Gaijin Gulag” Article (Legal Threats!!!)

Tabloid Reports About Yu Darvish’s Love Life: Kirara Asuka & Miho Koga?

Does K-Pop Group KARA Have Ties to North Korea?

Tokyo Gate Bridge

Sara Errani Admits She Avoided Tennis Tournament in Tokyo: Feared Radiation

Chinese Workers Who Survived March 11th Tsunami Return to Tohoku

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs