Earlier this week I posted about the NYT article about a “labor leader” at the Honda Strike. Today I read another article, this time from Wall Street Journal (h/t China Challenges). The article is about the issue of Honda using “trainees” in order to reduce labor costs. The WSJ also quotes the new hero Mr. Tan Guoqing, who’s claim-to-fame is that he pushed the STOP button on the Honda production line.
In Guangdong province, China’s main manufacturing hub where the Honda transmission factory is located, local law caps the use of student trainees at 30% of a factory’s overall labor force, according to Baker & McKenzie. Mr. Tan said the ratio of trainees at the transmission factory “definitely exceeds 30%.”
Trainees usually come to factories under an internship program, which Baker & McKenzie says isn’t covered by China’s employment law system but under separate, much vaguer sets of national and local regulations
I find it interesting that Baker & McKenzie would say this about rules governing internship programs. Because if one looks at Section 19 through 21 of the Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, one would see clear rules over the time limitations on the “internship” status. Once probation or internship period is over, the employee is considered a full employee and must be paid at-least minimum wage. During the probation period, employees must be paid no less than 80% of the full wage stipulated in the contract, and no less than the lowest amount paid to other employees in the same position.
(BTW, I’m not a lawyer… go ask the guys at China Law Blog or any half-descent lawyer to confirm this information. I happen to know a little about the laws governing interns because I like to abuse employ interns)
Furthermore, Section 22 of the law covers “training agreements” wherein a worker is held to a service-period length for the employer to recuperate training investment. The law does not say salary may be withheld to pay for training, although many companies do this. But even then, the salary is not lower because the employee is in “training status”.
So why would McKenzie and the WSJ report that there are no laws governing “internship” workers?
2 Responses to “More inaccuracies reported about China’s labor situation”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My guess is that the Baker & McKenzie lawyer got this right, but the WSJ fuzzed it all up. There are definitely rules regarding trainees.
Yeah… your probably right. I like to imagine that I know more than the high-income earning brand name international consultants. But more likely, this is another case of the media outlets getting it wrong. I should probably stop blogging about how they get it wrong…its just too common, too obvious, and too easy.