As of now, the Singapore Stock Exchange only suggests voluntary sustainability reporting from the issuers of securities and derivatives that sell on the exchange. Regardless of the considerate suggestion, this announcement is incredibly significant. SGX’s market capitalization, roughly $480 billion, is a large sum when considering the size of Singapore. About the size of Chicago, Singapore is home to five million people and has made some drastic changes within the last fifty years. The country has evolved from a diamond in the rough into a blossoming base for engineering, foreign exchange, and technology.

Singapore measures accountability, innovation, competition and transparency high on the ranks. The importance of Singapore’s push for sustainability reporting may be what Asia needs to encourage other companies to maintain some social responsibility. It is possible that through SGX’s example, other countries exchanges and regulatory agencies will follow suit. According to SGX’s “Proposed Policy Statement and Guide to Sustainability Reporting for Listed Companies,” it is the company’s Board of Directors responsibility to consider issues related to sustainability as it directs and leads a company’s operations and strategies.

As of now, the Singapore Stock Exchange does not endorse any specific standards; instead it merely suggests that the Global Reporting Initiatives ESG reporting guidelines is the way to progress. Since most of Singapore’s economy is reliant on exporting, the reporting guidelines will allow for cross-jurisdictional comparability, as well as a common, unifying goal in working towards the best practices relating to the ESG.

Many dislike the effects international trade and globalization has on our planet and how it creates many unsolvable issues. Singapore can help bridge the gap between these issues and be an example to other countries struggling to come to grips with the problems globalization presents.

Although, some sustainability reporting advocates may not be impressed with SGX’s call for voluntary reporting. They want the SGX to make sustainability disclosures a requirement. Chances are high that Singapore will make this change in no time. Only a few countries require any form of sustainability reporting, making Singapore an exception.

Countries, like Denmark requires their 1,100 largest firms to integrate sustainability reports, along with financial disclosures. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has also set guidelines regarding climate change-related disclosures while the United Kingdom’s recent coalition government has mandated the reporting of non-financial information. Singapore is not alone in the world in regards to sustainability reporting.

The SGX policy proposal will be under public review until October 29. Despite the global recession, sustainability and ESG reports will become apart of a company’s disclosure routine. It is important for business and CFO’s to plan ahead for this change, and to understand what this change entails. Singapore’s push for sustainability reporting will only be the precursor to making this kind of reporting a requirement for all companies in the exchange.

Shirley Simpson writes for www.allcases.com. The site specializes in custom carrying cases and a variety of others to suit your specific needs.

Minnesota-based retailers Target and Best Buy have both gotten themselves embroiled in this scandalous behavior, not necessarily through the act of campaign finance, but rather because of the politician they have chose to support.  Each corporation has contributed dollar amounts in the six figure range ($150,000 from Target and $100,000 from Best Buy) to MN Forward, an organization that is currently funding ads for the political campaign of Republican Tom Emmer, who is openly opposed to gay marriage.  While gay rights are certainly the hot-button issue of the moment, and the actions of these two companies have drawn criticism from human rights and gay advocacy groups, the controversy has served to highlight a larger topic of concern.  What role will this allow corporations to play in deciding public policy?

Our economy is already in the toilet because of questionable ethical business decisions made by elite corporate executives who clearly feel themselves to be above the scope of the law.  Do we really want these same types of people spending their mega-bucks to push a corporate agenda on the American public?  Consider for a moment the current case of Target and Best Buy.  What purpose do their actions serve?  There are always the rumors of shady back-room dealings in which CEOs back a political candidate financially in order to ensure that favorable legislation will come their way when said politician is in office.  But beyond that, consider the issue of publicity.  How much do you think these companies would have to pay for the kind of media attention they are getting from this move?  Probably a lot more than $100,000.  And yet, by spending what could be considered a drop in the bucket in the arena of advertising, and attaching themselves to a controversial topic, they have effectively put their names on everybody’s lips.  Does it even matter if what’s-his-name succeeds in his campaign?  Probably not.  They have already gotten way more than they paid for in terms of publicity.

But then there is a more sensitive issue to consider.  What if these companies do, in fact, harbor anti-homosexual attitudes at the highest echelons of their corporate management structure and they are using their financial standing to influence the way our government decides social matters, regardless of whether they are morally right or wrong?  Whether or not you agree with them in this instance is a moot point, since you are bound to fall on the opposite side of an issue sooner or later.  The question is: will this ruling allow corporations to push their policies into the scope of government so that big business is effectively dictating the terms by which we live our lives?  And if it comes to that point, will we be able to reverse the situation?

Shirley is a writer for PUA where you can find great tips and advice on dating.

Most companies offer several types of training.  Almost all large corporations (and many franchises) offer both on-the-job and sexual harassment training to all new employees.  The reason for these two types of training, respectively, is to teach employees the technical obligations of their job and to inform them of inappropriate behavior in terms of interacting with colleagues, teams, and management (basically anyone they come in contact with in the course of performing their job).  Many companies also provide some type of management training for those that are promoted to positions in which they will have to deal with others in an authoritative capacity, which can be stressful for everyone involved as it often includes changing relationships with co-workers who were previously at the same level.  However, this type of training is less common than the other two.

Some companies have even begun to offer training in workplace diversity to combat both blatant racism and questionable practices in a growing global marketplace.  But courses or seminars in ethics are rarely given by companies to their employees, despite the obvious benefits.  If you never train your dog to go to the bathroom outside, you can hardly get mad at him when he goes in the house.  The same can be said for employees when it comes to ethics in the workplace.  Not everyone shares the same ideals and moral compunctions.  And while certain issues are a matter of common sense (theft, for example, is illegal and therefore probably not a good idea regardless of whether or not the company explicitly forbids it) there are plenty of gray areas when it comes to what is considered right and wrong in the office.

Is it wrong to remove your group from the office for monthly scheduled team-building exercises if you’re the only group doing it?  How will it affect the way other teams feel about your employees (and about the company as a whole)?  And what about mandatory overtime?  It may be necessary, but is it legal or ethical?  What is more important: morale or money?  Are happy workers more productive, and if so, should you spend the time and effort to keep them happy?  These questions are ones that should cross the minds of executives who are implementing and executing company policy.  In the long run, ethical practices are something that every company should impart to employees, especially if they hope to run a business that lives up to their ethical standards.

Kylie Lawrence writes for Spirit Pins, a company that specializes in custom lapel pins and sports team trading pins.

If you have recently found yourself calling a customer service support line for any number of products or services, you may have noticed a distinct geographic shift amongst representatives working in call centers.  This of course refers to the current corporate trend of outsourcing to India.  And while most consumers only see it when they dial in with questions or concerns, it is a development that has invaded many levels of business in America, although the main focus seems to be on lower level positions like customer service and technology services (such as tech support, quality assurance, computer programming, and engineering).  The reason for this marked mass exodus to the east centers on money.  As always, corporations are looking for ways to pad the bottom line and the fact that they can hire five employees in India for the same cost as one in North America has no doubt heavily influenced the recent move to outsource American jobs.

The ethical issues involved in this move are multiple.  For starters, there’s the recession.  While the government claims to be doing everything in its power to help reclaim jobs lost to layoffs and combat the unemployment rates that have skyrocketed in the last couple of years, they have done nothing to stop companies from leveling their customer service departments stateside in order to operate at a fifth of the cost in India.  While this spells a higher profit margin for ailing industries (which one hopes will fuel the economy, and thereby the job market), it has currently done very little for professionals who find themselves out of work.  This has caused many Americans to question the commitment of our government to upholding their promises of job generation in order to pull us out of the recession.

And then there are the corporations themselves.  Certainly many businesses are struggling to simply stay afloat long enough to enact a turnaround.  But perhaps shipping American jobs overseas is the wrong solution.  While it may buy them some time in the short-term, consumers have a long memory and branding plays a significant role in purchasing choices.  Companies that can boast a “made in America” work ethic can leverage that fact to improve their image, retain loyal customers, and increase sales.  Of course, offering lower prices than the competition may play a role, but in the long run, many patriots are willing to pay a little more for locally made and supported products.  So companies that outsource American jobs may be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.

But there is always another side to the coin.  One must ponder the implications for Indian workers, as well.  It’s not as if these people are being exploited, despite the fact that Americans make five times as much money for the same job.  In fact, employees who work in call centers (who are considered to be the lowest on the totem pole in America) are highly respected and well-paid individuals in India, hardly the picture of third-world exploitation that we imagine.  The real concern is what might happen when our economy finally turns around.  Will U.S. companies attempt to garner goodwill amongst American consumers by returning those jobs to the states, leaving trained Indian workers with no jobs and no prospects?  Or will they continue to outsource to the point that they are paying just as much in India as they are at home?  Either way, it seems that by making the move overseas, many companies may simply be staving off an inevitable outcome while contributing to job loss in America and raising the ire of the consumer public.

Leon Harris writes for a Canadian personal finance blog with an emphasis on careers, real estate, politics, and banking.

The Back-story

A month ago, you never heard of any such person as Shirley Sherrod.  And indeed, at that time she was only one of the many people who work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, people whose names are known only to their family, friends, and the public they assist on a daily basis.  Certainly most of them will never have their name splashed across the internet and the nightly news.  But that’s exactly what happened to Sherrod.  It all began with a speech she made for the NAACP.  Sometime during the 43 minutes that she spoke, she told a story about how she once had to help a farmer keep his property despite the fact that he treated her as though she were inferior (because she is black and the man was white).  She spoke about how she struggled with the knowledge that she could punish him for his attitude by offering him less help than she could actually give.  Ultimately, it was a parable about how she had to rise above racism and help others regardless of her personal feelings.  Sounds pretty heartwarming, doesn’t it?  Unfortunately, a small excerpt from her speech was taken out of context and posted online, portraying her as using her position to treat white farmers unfairly (by right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart).  The video made the rounds with the media at which point Sherrod was publicly lambasted by the NAACP and asked by the USDA to resign her position.  That was where the trouble began.

Sherrod’s Happy Ending

Luckily, this tale had a happy ending for Sherrod, who was not only offered a better position (which she is considering), but also received a personal phone call from Barack Obama, who expressed regret about the events.  Things didn’t go so well for everyone else.  USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, in particular, ended up with a lot of egg on his face due to the fact that he released a statement subsequent to Sherrod’s forced resignation in which he declared, “…we have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices.”  Little did he know that he was involved in this sort of injustice himself.  He eventually released a statement apologizing to Sherrod, as did several news pundits (including Bill O’Reilly) who had aired the clip and called for her resignation.  The only one to not apologize was Breitbart, the man who started it all and felt that he had no fault in the events that transpired, stating that he had been looking to attack the NAACP, not her.

What Businesses can Take Away From This Debacle

There are several ways in which this debacle can serve as an example of what not to do for businesses.  For starters, a business faced with such a serious claim as racism pertaining to one of their employees should make every effort to verify the claim before they take any drastic actions like forcing them to resign.  The USDA was clearly in the wrong in this situation and she could easily sue them for wrongful termination (an action which she does not seem to have any intention of pursuing).  And while she probably won’t take legal action against any media outlets that spun the story (although their coverage was libelous and they clearly didn’t confirm before airing, they did not do so with malice), she is considering a suit against Breitbart and would like to see his website, Big Government, shut down.  So this should also serve as a warning to those who publish information on the internet.  Many bloggers are lax about fact-checking, but it is clear that people in the media are paying attention and picking up news items that appear online.  While this video could just as easily have gone unnoticed, leaving Breitbart to continue his unethical journalistic practices, it instead made front-page level news, highlighting a very serious issue occurring in modern media: that of libel and dishonest journalism.  It is cases like this that lead people to question the validity of “factual” information garnered from the internet, as well as call for governing bodies to police this sort of activity.  Sadly, it only takes a few idiots to ruin it for everyone.

Shirley Simpson is a writer for Yard Sale Search where you can find garage sales in your area.

work today by TheTruthAbout

When placing an advertisement for an open position in your organization, take care – using the wrong words could mean legal problems for discrimination, even if it is unintentional.

It is important to ensure that you are not accidentally choosing the wrong words to describe the opportunity or interview the applicants…and can actually become a legal concern if the ad you release or interview you conduct is considered discriminatory.

There are some words that feel natural, but send the wrong message. For example, instead of “Salesman” you’d want to use a more gender neutral “salesperson” as the description. Even a “waiter” is better stated as a member of the “wait staff.”

There are federal and state laws in the US that prevent you from discriminating against an employee or applicant based on race, gender, religion, color, national origin, physical disability, marital status or sexual orientation. As an advertiser or employer, it is your responsibility to ensure that the ads and policies in your organization follow the rules.

The key is to keep the focus on the job opportunity. Attract and evaluate the applicants using the elements of job performance that remain consistent. In addition to protecting your application process, by sticking to the job and its details rather than the details of the individual you are more likely to get a qualified respondent.

How and where you advertise for any employment opportunities in your organization is something that requires ongoing care and diligence. Choose the text of your ad to be concise and accurate. Avoid terms that indicate an applicant’s sex, race, country of origin, or religious preference. Use fair interviewing procedures that evaluate applicants on a universal scale.

By carefully measuring and evaluating each effort, you will reduce the likelihood that your own organization is called to court for defending charges of discrimination.

Written by Articulayers. For freelance SEO copywriting, visit the experts at Articulayers.com – serving the world since 2001.

Greenlyness by Bert Heymans

Whilst we’re more inclined to eco-police ourselves at home by recycling household waste, switching off lights, turning down the thermostat, and replacing leaky washers (utility bills are high enough without making a bad situation worse) , it seems too many of us willingly check our green credentials at the door once we reach the office. Maybe we think it’s not our responsibility – hey, we’re here to work – that’s enough – or perhaps we believe the powers that be will have already done the eco groundwork by sourcing the most economical, environmentally friendly energy suppliers and products to minimise the corporate carbon footprint. Think again.

In these straitened times, most CEOs are too busy trying to keep their core business afloat to take environmental matters on board. And while they may pay it lip service, very often the only time they give it serious thought is when they see the bottom line: “How much on stationery?? In a month??? Well, Sales can kiss goodbye to that bonus!” However, taking a few steps to conserve precious resources not only makes sense from an ethical standpoint, it can also impact favourably on a company’s profit margins and in turn, the bank balances of its employees. Whether at work or at home, the environment is everyone’s responsibility so maybe the green shoots of economic recovery should start with a greener office.

Here are 12 environmentally friendly tips for you to try today:

Air conditioning by Yoni Lerner

1. Switch off the auto pilot

If you usually clock in before your colleagues, don’t switch on the photocopier the moment you arrive in the belief that it needs time to warm up. If the Art department don’t rock up until 10am, there’s little point having a thirsty colour copier drinking up the juice needlessly. Similarly, don’t make an 8-cup pot of coffee if you’re only going to have a cup or two. Your tardy workmates won’t thank you when they find the rest stewing on the hotplate.

Conversely, if you find yourself working late and pass empty offices and corridors ablaze with lighting, air-conditioning units going and stereos blaring – take the initiative and switch them off as you leave.

2. Light fantastic

Large or small, most open plan offices have static overhead lighting running on multiple circuits that can be turned off in isolation. If part of the office is unoccupied, switch off the lighting in that area. You’ll be amazed how much difference it can make to the temperature, especially in summer. Installing motion sensitive lighting along corridors is another great way to make savings.

3. Keep Your Cool

It stands to reason that with fewer appliances whirring away, your office will be cooler. Rather than reach for the AC as a matter of course, bear in mind that switching off an idle monitor or opening a window will go a long way to creating a more pleasant and in turn a more productive working environment. Strategically placed fans can also help create a breeze.

If you have the boardroom booked, consider putting on the AC for 10 minutes prior to the start of the meeting rather than having it run continuously throughout. Sitting for 45 minutes with an AC gale blowing can be just as uncomfortable and distracting as a room that’s stifling hot.

4. If You Can’t Stand The Heat

Granted your office might be chilly first thing, but get ten or twenty people working away at their computers, with two fax machines, four printers and a coffee machine going and things soon start to warm up. If your office is centrally heated and you can adjust the thermostat, try turning it down a couple of notches and consider whether the heating even needs to run all day.

5. Push The Envelope

Instead of grabbing a new Jiffy bag from the stationery cupboard, recycle those which you receive. Not every one will pass muster but by the time you slap the company label on the front, the next recipient will never know the envelope was less than pristine; some may even give you Brownie points for your green smarts.

6. Box clever

Keep a good-sized box under your desk to store packaging materials that might otherwise be consigned to landfill. Perhaps one of your colleagues is moving house; they might be glad of the acre of bubble wrap that swathed your new scanner, not forgetting those polystyrene chips and that corrugated cardboard.

7. Stop Print!

Before you hit the button consider whether you really need a hard copy of that email and ten of that 20-page marketing report. We’ve all come out of meetings where the boardroom table is left littered with discarded and doodled-on printouts of PowerPoint slides, so circulate the document via email first giving others the option to print if they wish.

8. Paper Chase

Even in the era of the so-called paperless office, it’s all too easy to accumulate sheaves of minutes and umpteen just-in-case file copies you know will never be filed. Providing the documents aren’t of a sensitive nature, keep a pile by the printer and use them for rough drafts or to print emails on the reverse. Shredded documents can be recycled.

9. Shake, Baby, Shake

When the printer starts blinking “out of ink” it might not be quite as hungry as it would have you believe. Remove the cartridge and shake it gently; more often than not there’s enough juice left to see you through another day or two. And if it really is dead, don’t forget to recycle the cartridge.

10. Get hip to the heptapleurum

Not only do plants absorb the carbon dioxide emitted by electronic equipment and release it back into the atmosphere it as oxygen, they also improve office aesthetics by softening hard edges and are a must for any green makeover. They’ve even been shown to reduce employee stress levels simply by virtue of being attractive to look at.

11. Counsel authority

With the environment high on the government’s agenda, most local councils will happily provide commercial businesses with recycling bags or crates specifically for paper, card and empty printer cartridges. Most will collect them along with your regular office waste and many can offer valuable energy-saving advice and other money-saving green tips.

12. Rise To The Top…

… By taking the stairs instead of the lift. Not only does it save electricity, it will help keep you fit, burn off that not-so skinny latte, and you might even bump into the handsome copywriter who just started, giving him the chance to ask you out to lunch at the organic cafe with the really delish flourless chocolate cake. And when you go to lunch, remember to set your PC to sleep mode.

Taking a few small steps to be leaner, meaner and greener can result in big savings and big improvements that benefit not just the health of the planet, but you and your company, too.

Colombia’s recent history is a bloody and violent one. Since the 1960’s, multiple factions including government forces, left-wing insurgents and right-wing paramilitaries have been fighting for supremacy. Members of unions have particularly suffered from the free-for-all killing sprees. Union members and their families have been targeted ever since the beginning of Colombia’s civil war, with over 2,500 union members killed since 1985. There has been no justice for these victims – as of 2008, less than 100 cases resulted in convictions. In recent years, the number of killings has begun to drop. However, the numbers are still unreasonably high – between 2002 and 2008, 400 union members were killed.

Colombia 2008-02-04 16 by thivierr

Why Are Union Members Being Targeted?

Union members are drawn into the civil war when right-wing paramilitaries accuse them of harboring left-wing sympathizers. Union members are also attacked if they voice opposition to the paramilitaries’ methods of brutally controlling areas of Colombia. In 2008, 17 union members were killed. This was an increase from the previous year when only 10 members were killed. This increase was due to the fact that union members were supporting a proposed trade deal between Colombia and the United States – a deal that many insurgents were against.

Protecting Union Members

In an effort to protect union members and officials, the Colombian Ministry of the Interior has been attempting to provide people with transportation, secure housing, paid leave, security training, life insurance and paid leave. In 2008, the government authorized the use of $45.7 million dollars to protect people who were in danger of being killed. Around a third of that money was used to protect union members. This money paid for the more than 200 union members that received armored cars and bodyguards. In addition, union members used this money to help bulletproof 170 union buildings and homes. The Ministry’s efforts have been subsidized by the US government and unions in the US and Europe that want to help their fellow unions.

The US-Colombia Connection

Unions and human rights activists have begun to suspect that US companies that have factories in Colombia have a connection to paramilitaries. For example, the Sinaltrainal Union claims that in during a murder that took place in a Coca-Cola bottling factory, the manager of the plant brought the paramilitaries into the company in order to break up the union there. Two months before this murder occurred, the plant manager announced his intentions to have the paramilitaries break up the union. Plant workers had begged Coca-Cola to intervene, but the company did nothing.

Colombian labor activists have taken a stand against these killings by asking US citizens to help them in their plight. Groups sympathetic to these activists have gone to US court and filed federal lawsuits against companies accused of having paramilitary connections. These lawsuits were filed under the Alien Torts Act, which allows people from other countries to sue US citizens and companies for crimes committed abroad. Hopefully these lawsuits will hold companies accountable and reduce the killings.

You may or may not be aware that workplace diversity is on the rise.  If you’re one of the many people who have contacted a company’s customer service in the last few years, you’ve no doubt realized that many businesses are outsourcing that particular aspect of operation overseas to India, but that’s not really the same thing.  Diversity within a work environment is an entirely different beast, and it can not only be difficult to implement, but also very hard to handle.  Whether we realize it or not, most of us have some tendency to consider our own group superior to others (whether that classification includes age, gender, race, ancestry, alma mater, or any number of other factors).  This is a fairly typical attitude, but it can lead to problems in a setting that demands respect, understanding, and compromise.  And diversity amongst employees is the direction that most companies are heading, for a number of reasons.

To start with, diversity is an essential ingredient for success in a rapidly expanding global marketplace.  Companies that are not able to predict and deliver the demands of their customers are almost certainly destined for failure.  However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that hiring a single person from each ethnic category is going to fit the bill.  Diversity in the workplace encompasses a much broader category than simply race or religious creed.  It is about taking the time to understand different cultures and find the value of each person in terms of what they can offer the company on a larger scale, then utilizing their talents, knowledge, and unique perspective to the utmost.  Simply hiring someone on to meet a quota and then relegating them to a cubicle where they can process reports or answer phones in relative anonymity does nothing for a company with a homogenous brand image and a poor reputation, because it does not adequately address the problem at hand.

Further, companies who are willing to see the inherent value in a complex and diverse workforce (and engender an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding) are bound to realize a much more creative work environment, higher employee morale, and a boost in success.  This stems from a number of individuals and groups sharing ideas and information, and generally working together and contributing in a variety of ways in order to reach a common goal.  It is this coming together of seemingly random and unrelated energies that spurs innovation, relieves stagnancy, and pushes even successful corporations to the next level.

Although some companies fail to see it, it only makes sense that someone from a particular group is going to have a greater understanding of the wants and needs of that group than an outsider.  So hiring from within the group will give the company an edge.  But even beyond that, said employee can share their experiences and ideas with others so that everyone develops a new and expanded perspective from which to work, improving overall functioning in the company and promoting further diversity.  It’s a self-perpetuating cycle and it starts with the desire to see a business grow and the decision to encourage every avenue of expansion.

Lisa Gables works for Discount Vouchers where you can find Comet discount vouchers.

rows and rows by jurvetson

One of the most heated topics of debate today in regards to China has to do with workers’ rights. There are millions of workers in China who are affected by this, due to the numerous domestic and foreign companies who have factories in China. There are many different kinds of companies operating out of China, including computer and keyboard manufacturers, textile companies, and garment/apparel industries. The products coming out of China today run the full spectrum of quality, ranging from generic household items to more sophisticated products such as wireless and ergonomic keyboards for high end markets.

“Asian Values”

The Chinese government rejects these accusations, stating that Asian values dictate that the collective welfare of the country is more important than individual citizen rights. If there is a clash between the collective and the individual, then the government feels it is entitled to persuade or coerce individuals to make sacrifices in order to accommodate the needs of the country. The Chinese government feels that it is important to maintain a strong authority over the people in order to regulate potentially conflicting interests between the country and its citizens.

Failure to Enforce

Despite the stated views of the Chinese government, they have been making efforts to improve workers’ rights by implementing new legislation, but the problem lies more with enforcement of said laws rather than problems with the actual law itself. Take the capital city of southern Guangdong province. This city is home to numerous Chinese factories. In the first two months of 2008, 5,385 labor dispute cases were filed here. According to local media, this number equals the number of cases filed in this area for all of 2001. On average, labor dispute cases are increasing by 30% a year. China is ill equipped to deal with these rising numbers due to a lack of resources to enforce these workers’ rights. They do not have enough money to adequately fund and staff arbitration committees and institutions, resulting in overworked and understaffed committees that cannot keep up with the amount of cases. Aware of these problems, the government created the Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law, which went into effect in 2008. Despite good intentions, this law may not really change anything.

New Legislation, Old Problems

Human Rights Abuse Cannot Co-exist with Beijing Olympics by longtrekhome

This new labor law makes it easier for workers to seek arbitration and cuts down on time-consuming procedures that make cases drag one. It also makes arbitration rulings legally binding, extends the time limit for filing a case and eliminates the application fee. This all sounds great – but this law can only have an actual effect if arbitrators are fair and impartial. This is a problem since the people in charge of arbitration often have an interest in the success of the employers involved in arbitration cases because local governments often rely on companies for tax revenue and employment.

In order to actually enforce these labor laws, China needs to provide more financial resources and staff. It needs to invest in independent monitoring agencies with no financial interest that can ensure that cases are being dealt with correctly. China also needs to allow local media to report on labor disputes in order to bring public attention to unfair treatment. Until China changes more than just the law, the chance that workers will receive more rights is questionable.

Michael Simms is a tech writer for the computer hardware industry, focusing on the evolution of hardware manufacturing in East Asian countries. He has covered the transition from low value-add production to today’s one-stop-shop approach where the entire product lifecycle (e.g. wireless keyboards) is outsourced.