་ ་ ་ ་་
41
Eut the F.T.U. itself will take no stand on the matter (I understand
that in the past three years it has taken no official position nor
made any public statement in an industrial dispute). Moreover, the
affiliated or 'friendly' union itself will quite commonly not appear
as the workers' representatives, but confine itself to background
guidance to the group involved.
632 $4
F.T.U. unions have apparently not been averse to taking a
more active part if a gain of membership might result from their
appearance; but they have certainly not been anxious to
role of militant leadership in such cases. Both employers and
Labour Department officials who have dealt with F.T.U. union officers
speak of them as "reasonable". And it was remarkable, for instance,
that in the 1974 recession (when in view of the obvious concern of
Hong Kong workers with security, and their evident willingness to
take spontaneous action in cases of dismissal or redundancy, an
active union campaign might have produced a considerable gain in
membership and influence) the F.T.U. undertook no such initiative.
On the contrary, F.T.U. unions are reported to have organised
"consolation meetings" for workers dismissed, and to have themselves
made compensation payments although unemployment benefits are not
generally provided
$5.63
their rules.
For has the F.T.U. been at all militant on the wider
field of legislative and social provision; I gather, for instance that,
although the F.T.U. refuses to entertain any official relations with
the Government, the Left press has not been critical, in the recent
public controversy over legislation to introduce paid cnnual holidays
and reduce juvenile overtime, of the new provisions as inadequate
/but.....
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.