Contrasted labour regimes in the Asia-Pacific: Australia, Singapore and Vietnam industrial relations in comparison and its meaning for Europe Welcome and introduction: Bart Vanhercke, Director of the ETUI Research department Speaker: Stéphane Le Queux, Senior Lecturer in Employment Relations at the College of Business, Law and Governance, James Cook University, Australia Discussant: Claes-Mikael Stahl, Deputy General Secretary, ETUC Chair: Jane Parker, Senior researcher ETUI Briefing: A call for relativism is at the heart of this presentation. We are all aware of the contrasted nuances of the European kaleidoscope in which we live. As a researcher at the ETUI about 25 years ago, Stéphane has been told by the French trade unions that power was their ability to strike, while their German counterparts were arguing that their power lay instead in the fact that they did not have to. Considering that key dimensions – industrial democracy, social contract, pluralism, power, actors, individualism versus collectivism, etc. – with which we are familiar and are already manifest in many shades in Western contexts, there is a fair chance that our conceptual toolkit does not apply likewise and somehow ‘universally’ in Asia. We may be misled, although capitalism remains a constant. Distancing ourselves from ethno-(euro)centrism is not an easy task, but this is the task (and a challenge indeed) that Stéphane will seek to attend to in this ETUI lunchtime session. Bearing this in mind, the seminar will have two parts. The first will aim to contextualize labour relations and union function and capacity in the regulation of industrial conflict and the representation of workers’ rights and interests in Australia, Singapore, and Vietnam, leading to the identification of current research avenues. The second will venture into a tentative comparative analysis: the argument is that the degree of contrast between the three countries under examination compels a root-level analysis, that is, an ontological take on industrial relations. What does this mean? Stéphane is leaning towards a conceptualisation in the vein of Richard Hyman’s (2001) heuristic – Market, Class, and Society – a triangle which he used to examine evolving trade unionism in Europe (Hyman, 2001). Let’s say then, for instance, if we look at North America, what is it much about, at its core? His answer would be ‘interest’, hence the emphasis on the bargain. The UK? ‘Democracy’, hence voice and rights. Quid of Australia, Singapore, and Vietnam? Coming back to the opening remark, Stéphane thus proposes that thinking that way, from within, somewhat helps to overcome the challenge of superimposing our viewpoint and normativity from afar. This presentation inherently informs the European perspective in at least three ways: i) How do we engage better with Asia?, ii) What can we learn? and iii) What does this analysis tell us about us, about EU fundamentals?
Pin
Play