The two articles featured in this issue are edited translations of essays from two major academic researchers who were also active in China’s public debate on the 2008 Labor Contract Law and subsequent amendments and implementation. As such, they present two different interpretations about the law’s passage, its connection to China’s changing social and political landscape, and the future of labor rights in China. They also herald from different academic backgrounds and orientations: Professor Dong Baohua is a scholar of Chinese labor and employment law while Professor Chang Kai is a professor of industrial relations.
Professor Dong’s essay explores the legislative and political process that surrounded the controversial lcl from its early drafting, to its 2012 amendment, and to a final failed attempt at a second amendment in 2018. It is an insider’s account of the bureaucratic competition that shaped the law in important and consequential ways in terms of what kinds of rights would be expanded in the lcl and how this shaped the nature of labor disputes and labor conflict in the years that followed. A well-known critic of the lcl, Professor Dong blames the law for the ossification of China’s labor market and the rapid increase in new forms of “employment relations” that evade the law’s protections almost entirely. He predicts future contention over this new “dual-track” system of employment in China in which some workers receive protection from the lcl, but many workers in the digital and platform economies do not.
Professor Chang Kai’s more sociological view of the Labor Contract Law is that it evolved into being as a consequence of the increasing contention and mobilization of Chinese workers as the economic reforms of the last century decimated the “iron rice bowl” guarantees of China’s state sector workers while shifting millions of rural citizens into labor-intensive manufacturing and services. His essay, as such, is focused not on the law itself, but rather the changes in China’s nascent labor movement that pushed this law’s passage forward. However, his essay urges even further reform, away from the individual labor relations regulated by the lcl, toward more robust regulationof collective labor relations that empower workers and worker organizations as a collective whole vis-à-vis powerful employer.
The legislative debate over the lcl and its subsequent amendments was unusual in its openness and social engagement. Labor lawyers disagreed vehemently with each other, and engaged vociferously in essays, speeches, media interviews, and at conferences. Business associations and leading Chinese entrepreneurs were also drawn into the debate. Public comments submitted on the draft law exceeded any other recent legislation. While these two authors were on different sides of the debate over the lcl, their contributions were significant and important. The publication now of these essays commemorates a period of legislative openness and civil society engagement that is now long past.
