A majority of comments showed objection to the government’s proposal of classifying future trade unions into three types, the Labour Affairs Bureau (DSAL) disclosed recently.
The disclosure was made in the conclusive report on public consultation for the legislation concerning trade unions. Pursuant to the Basic Law of Macau, the rights to forming and participating in trade unions are protected.
Conducted between October 31 and December 14 last year, the public consultation attracted 24,537 opinions in 2,653 submissions of comments. Among them, over 5,500 opinions were related to the type of trade unions.
In the government proposal, if the legislation makes it through the parliament, trade unions will be segregated into three types following their nature: namely industry, profession and enterprise.
Nearly 98% of the comments opposed the proposal to classify trade unions.
The scope of opposing comments was wide. Some respondents feared that the operations of trade unions would become even more complex and the government would eventually need more resources to conduct its administration.
Meanwhile, some people pointed out that certain workers may be members in all three types of trade unions. For example, a lawyer may be in all three types because they are in the practice of law by industry, a lawyer by profession and a partner in a law firm by enterprise.
Some other comments also suggested that enterprise trade unions may set several trade unions in front of an employer.
A majority of comments agreed that tighter supervisions must be imposed upon local trade unions entering international entities.
On the trade union rights concerning civil servants, 75% of the comments received from the public consultation were not for the proposal of “appropriate” restrictions on certain civil servants, such as medical, transport and public utility staffs.
The proposal on restricting the rights to trade unions for public utility staff received only 5% support in the public consultation.
Despite the fact, respondents had a different view on non-local workers, as most of them agreed that non-local workers should see tighter restrictions while making the most of their rights to trade unions.
On the matter of collective negotiation, quite a number of comments were against setting a par to trigger collective negotiations. The par, which was proposed by the government, would jeopardize the “harmonious development” of employer-employee relations, as some comments suggested.
The DSAL has pledged to consider the opinions thoroughly before compiling a draft law that will eventually be sent to the parliament.
