Triumph workers say BOI’s support loses them jobs
On July 13, workers rallied at the office of the Board of Investment, saying that the Board’s support for the investment of Body Fashion (
According to Bunrod Saiwong, leader of the Triumph Labour Union, Body Fashion Co has laid off 1,959 workers at its Bang Phli factory, in a bid to relocate its production base to another province where there is cheaper labour and no labour union.
The union demands that the BOI reveal the information and reasons for giving support to the company, and suspend its support until the company reinstates the laid off workers.
Affiliated to Triumph International Co, Body Fashion (
On June 29, the company announced that 1,959 workers or about 50% of its workforce at the Bang Phli factory in Samut Prakan were to be laid off on Aug 31. Most of them are members of the labour union and women, including those who are pregnant, old, sick or disabled. 13 out of 19 members of the union committee are also to be laid off, says the union in its letter to the BOI.
The company claims that it did so to restructure costs to improve overall efficiency, while it has built a new factory in Nakhon Sawan, which at full capacity can employ 2,000 workers, with a 75.5 million-baht investment supported by the BOI. Currently, the factory employs more than 1,000 workers, and there is no labour union.
The Triumph Labour Union believes that, besides relocating to where labour is cheaper, the layoff is meant to destroy the labour union.
In July 2008, former leader of Triumph Labour Union Jitra Kotchadet was sacked by the company who claimed that she had ruined its reputation by wearing a campaign t-shirt in support of Chotisak Onsoong’s defiance of the lèse majesté law while appearing on a national TV programme.
Afterwards the union members held a series of protests, claiming the company was trying to destroy the labour union. The showdown came to an end when the provincial Labour Court in Samut Prakan ruled in favour of the company in September 2008.
Related news:
Labour woman leader sacked for wearing T-shirt defiant of lèse majesté law
Triumph Labour Union downs tools, demands reinstatement of its leader
Triumph union workers protest at company headquarters
Triumph and LINDE Workers Declared Joint Struggle
Unfair Labour Practices at Triumph International
Press Statement of Body Fashion Thailand (BFT)
Dismissal of a union leader wearing a protest shirt
Triumph Trade Union Ends its 46-Day Work Stoppage
http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2009/07/25052
Print version
Send to friend
Comments
The company is digging its
The company is digging its own grave.
In league with their
In league with their exploiters the BOI is spending tax revenue to further the people's exploitation!
The Thai government, like all capitalist dominated governments, represents the people's worst enemies. Not only does it represent the exploitation and perversion of the hopes and aspirations of the people... it does so using people's taxes!
The BOI has once again dug graves for the Thai people.
Very difficult issue. This
Very difficult issue.
This sort of thing is happening everyday in the west, except instead of relocating to another cheaper province, the factories are locating to cheaper countries.
Its called globalisation.
Globalisation means each country now has to find fields/products where they have a natural advantage, instead of trying to artificially support those industries where other countries can do it better.
There's a trade off between having cheaper products available, and keeping local jobs - its now very difficult to achieve both.
I acknowledge its affects can be devastating to some workers, but also note that opportunities are provided elsewhere for people who might not have had a chance otherwise.
My biggest concern is that environmental & safety standards are upheld, and apart from that the labour cost will reach its natural level over time.
Of course progressive taxes are also needed to play a part in 'levelling' the outcomes, otherwise the only real winners will be the 'exploiters'
Sorry for such a simple analysis, but although I have an economics degree, I am certainly no economist:)
Globalisation means each
Globalisation means each country now has to find fields/products where they have a natural advantage, instead of trying to artificially support those industries where other countries can do it better.
Globalization has nothing to do with countries it has to do with corporations wrapping their tentacles around the world.
As far as countries and the people who live in them are concerned it's a race to the bottom. The only winners are corporate entities, and the few upper-echelon management humans at their helms.
In the US they used to bring out federal troops to break the unions and to enforce "corporate rights". The people stirred themselves and took back control of their government for a short while, now it's back to "normal".
The fight against institutions is perpetual. They take on a life of their own by co-opting the interests of those who work within and "manage" them and who depend on those institutions for their livelihood. Every generation must fight the same battles all over again... and it will always be this way, as far as I can see.
JFL: Agree its about
JFL: Agree its about corporations, but who am I (or you) to deny someone in another country a job just because they are prepared to work for less?
Thats why I emphasized environmental & safety standards, and taxes as the levellers - in addition to organized labour (which unfortunately will have to start again from the bottom, wherever that is).
Its a fact of life that not everyone on the planet can live like the western average - there are not enough resources, so IMO a 'race to bottom' is the inevitable consequence of globalisation, and about the best we can hope for is to regulate the exploitaion.
I think the union leader must
I think the union leader must not have appaered in the T shirt, if she had talked on the TV in the capacity of the union leader of the said company. I don't think she represented the collective decison of the members on this contraversial political issue. (They joined the portest when the union leader was sacked, but it did not mean they supported her political stance on the LM issue.) So strictly speaking, she used the union's name for her own political agenda without getting consent from its members. If she had a better understanding about the role of union leaders, she would have been more careful of her action. Her action caused an unecessary frictions (which had nothing to do with labor issues) between the employees and the workers, and became a reason that the management made the decision, I guess.